Wednesday, December 05, 2012

Here's a Good Idea

A Troofer decides to send certified mail letters to the heads of all the insurance companies involved in the WTC claims:

9/11 Truth activist Mark Graham sent a letter to the 12 insurance companies for the airline defendants sued by Larry Silverstein informing them about evidence of controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7 and offering to put them in touch with building experts who could provide expert testimony.

Why do I approve? Because at least somebody is putting his money where his mouth is. Certified mail letters cost a couple of bucks apiece (at least, the last I priced them). What's more, I can't imagine anything more amusing than Richard Gage trying to pass himself off as an expert witness in high-rise office buildings before a court of law. Not that I think it will ever come to that.

But I do think Graham will get some sort of response to his letters. When I worked for a big insurance company, they had a policy of answering every letter, so it will be interesting to see if there is any followup about the responses.

106 Comments:

At 06 December, 2012 07:39, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Wake up the Internet! Pat debunked something! Oh wait... never mind.

Just his usual impotence again.

 
At 06 December, 2012 09:18, Blogger Oystein said...

Yeah, I hope Graham posts all responses he gets, fully :)

But I don't have high hopes - Truthers like to bury stuff that doesn't go right - like, most of everything. Like:
* Steven Jones announced that Crockett Grabbe would have a publication at the Journal of Engineering Mechanics. Everybody was happy - before ot was publushed. Then it came out - and proved to be a major embarrassment. Has any Troofer talked about it since? Well, Talboo has, but even he saw that a central claim by Grabbe was bizarrele wrong

* AE911Truth promised us a critique of the Millette study in their March newsletter. Haven't seen one in April, or May, or June, or...

* Graham statrted a Petition at Avaaz in May, and kawika hoped it would go "viral" and attract "millions" of signatures. What happened to that petition? Have any goals been reached? Has ot been submitted to any political body? Oh and what happened to the petitions started this year by Chris Sarns, Jim Hufferd, Jon Gold? Anyone getting close to that million? Ten thousand at least? No? Oh...

 
At 06 December, 2012 10:08, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

...and Oystein said the chips were Laclede, but offered no experimental proof, test, or evidence of any kind, just speculation. Millette said they weren't primer, but failed to do a DSC test. Oystein and his friends haven't published a single paper about their "findings" in any scientific journal, but for some reason they call themselves "debunkers", just like Pat.

How embarrassing!

 
At 06 December, 2012 10:20, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Not the worst idea a Troofer has ever had. Unfortunately, SDNY is bound by Second Circuit precedent, and the Second Circuit has already dismissed 9/11 Truth as delusional (in April Gallop's lawsuit).

Even if that weren't the case, this retard should be offering up his
expertise to the defendants' attorneys, not the defendants themselves. The attorneys decide what to present.

Cute how Troofers fixate on iron microspheres and building damage, and only mention the victims when they're begging for donations.

 
At 06 December, 2012 10:54, Blogger Len said...

A few years back some truthers got a non-committal reply letter from the FBI telling them they had done 'excellent research' or something along those lines. To any unbiased reader they were being dismissive but polite but the troofers started crowing about how the FBI agreed with them. I imagine a similar scenario will play out especially since the insurance companies won't want to offend any potential customers.

 
At 06 December, 2012 11:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

I'd sure be curious to know what was behind Industrial Risk Insurers's urgent rush to pay $861 million on WTC7 in February 2002 before the FEMA report had even been issued.

I would expect that in an effort to put the liability on some other insurer they would thoroughly investigate the building's engineering, its construction, the design and installation of the diesel tanks, and the notion that debris from WTC1 caused its destruction. Nope. It looks like they just paid off with no questions asked. I sure would have liked to have been a fly on the wall when those decisions were made.

 
At 06 December, 2012 13:49, Blogger bpete1969 said...

I'm sure it was easier to settle than trying to serve Marvin the Martian with papers when you consider Buggs stole his Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator.

Judy Wood could not be reached for comment.

 
At 06 December, 2012 14:21, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

I certainly hope the next investigation tests for the presence of bacon, since we now know that bacon can be used to cut steel.

 
At 06 December, 2012 16:44, Blogger Ian said...

I would expect that in an effort to put the liability on some other insurer they would thoroughly investigate the building's engineering, its construction, the design and installation of the diesel tanks, and the notion that debris from WTC1 caused its destruction.

Because we all know how eager insurance companies are to pay out for fraudulent claims.

It looks like they just paid off with no questions asked.

Yup, it "looks like" that to a mentally ill unemployed janitor who believes in magic thermite elves.

I sure would have liked to have been a fly on the wall when those decisions were made.

Unfortunately, you can't even hold down a job mopping floors and emptying the trash, so you couldn't have stopped in on the meeting to clean out the recycling bin while it was happening. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!

 
At 06 December, 2012 20:16, Blogger SJCP said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 06 December, 2012 22:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, it's not the bacon--it's the oxygen. In the presence of oxygen (in the form of iron oxide) even burning aluminum will melt steel.

Ian, you've got it exactly backward. My point was that Industrial Risk was very quick to pay off, no questions asked, when there was a whole ring of suspects to whom blame could be plausibly assigned.

I'm sorry these issues are too confusing for you--perhaps if you had worked a little harder in school your business knowledge would not be so limited.

SJCP, yes, your observations are largely correct. Most of these guys seem driven by a powerful need to feel superior, and it seems it take a mutual-aid society for them to actually achieve what they're looking for.

 
At 07 December, 2012 00:23, Blogger Oystein said...

@ Cowardly:
"...and Oystein said the chips were Laclede, but offered no experimental proof, test, or evidence of any kind"
Gladly, Harrit, Jones, Farrer and Basile did that for us.
And Millette did, too. And yours truly had a hand in making that possible :)

"Millette said they weren't primer"
Oh, did he? Let's see what Millette REALLY said:
"Conclusions
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."

He concluded the chips we asked him to study - those that match chips a-d in the Harrit study, are not Tnemec primer, a specific brand - but we knew that already before he did the study! Millette didn't know about the reality of LaClede shop primer on the WTC floor trusses when he wrote that. Eventually there will be a final report. He now knows about LaClede. Just wait and see ;)

 
At 07 December, 2012 01:56, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"SJCP said..."

LOL!

Aw look! Brian Good made a new sock puppet.

**********

Brian Good's Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 07 December, 2012 04:45, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, you've got it exactly backward. My point was that Industrial Risk was very quick to pay off, no questions asked, when there was a whole ring of suspects to whom blame could be plausibly assigned.

Right, and your "point" is based on....nothing but your own delusions. Given that you're a delusional liar who squeals hysterically every time someone points out that you are "petgoat", nobody cares what you think.

I'm sorry these issues are too confusing for you--perhaps if you had worked a little harder in school your business knowledge would not be so limited.

Squeal squeal squeal!

Poor Brian. I've humiliated him again.

SJCP, yes, your observations are largely correct. Most of these guys seem driven by a powerful need to feel superior, and it seems it take a mutual-aid society for them to actually achieve what they're looking for.

Brian, we are superior to you, given that none of us are unemployed janitors who live with their parents at age 60, and none of us have been banned from a cult for being a pervert and sex stalker.

Once again, I'll remind you that I come here for the entertainment. Your hysterical spam amuses me, and since the truth movement is dead and there's no point going over the same debunked nonsense for the billionth time, I'd much rather mock you for other things, like your hideous haircut.

http://911scholars.ning.com/profile/BrianGood

I don't know what's funnier: Brian having been banned from Scholars for 9/11 Truth, or his ridiculous homeless mullet.

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

 
At 07 December, 2012 05:57, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

I'm still neutral on this, and just trying to figure everything out.

That's probably not true.

 
At 07 December, 2012 08:49, Blogger SJCP said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 07 December, 2012 08:52, Blogger SJCP said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 07 December, 2012 09:03, Blogger SJCP said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 07 December, 2012 09:04, Blogger Pat said...

"I'm still neutral on this, and just trying to figure everything out. It's fascinating, but I agree that you guys at these "debunking" sites come off REALLY bad. You're probably pushing some people to the other side of the fence. lol"

Yeah, we've had plenty of experience with you "neutral" folks; in a week or two you'll be spouting the whole "freefall speed", "1600 architects and engineers" "hole at the Pentagon's too small" routine.

 
At 07 December, 2012 09:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oystein, who exactly has replicated
Dr. Millette's work? His unwillingness to run a simple DSC to confirm his findings is quite baffling to me. He gives the impression that after he got the results he wanted, he was unwilling to risk making further inquiries. That is an attitude far more forensic than scientific. Where exactly was his work going to be published, again?

SJPC, some of the guys here like RGT seem pretty honest. There were others in the past who were pretty honest but they all left long ago, abandoning the field to the likes of Lyin' Ian and GutterBall. The tolerance that RGT shows to those guys' lies is pretty discrediting.

Pat, your apparent belief that there is something less than objective about an interest in freefall acceleration and the fact that 1700 architects and engineers have put their professional reputations on the line in demanding new investigations reveals you to be somewhat less than objective yourself.

As to the "hole is too small" issue, serious people know that nonsense was debunked years ago.




 
At 07 December, 2012 09:59, Blogger Sherson said...

Click here for examples of SJCP's "neutral" views. :)

 
At 07 December, 2012 18:50, Blogger SJCP said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 07 December, 2012 18:57, Blogger SJCP said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 07 December, 2012 19:32, Blogger SJCP said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 07 December, 2012 21:21, Blogger Billman said...

So, whatever, I'm done here. Clearly this is an extremist group and no unbiased intelligent people would think anything of it. Why waste my time on zealot weirdos? :)

Do another "debunking" article. Great way to spend a Friday night, right? LOL. At least the CTers have a reason to be obsessed! You guys need a bit more excitement in your lives.


So... you come in here claiming everyone acts superior... only to act superior yourself to everyone here.

Look, we all get it that this site isn't for anything other than being dicks to troofers (and vice versa) anymore.

You're about 5 years late to the party to get in on all the good people bashing, that you're apparently trying to revive singlehandedly. No need to be butthurt about it.

This used to be a place where people could go to get away from the 9/11 conspiracy crap that was flooding Google, etc... to get some decent fact checking. But then other and more well organized sites came into existance, and then the truth movement (as far as the "crazies" go) pretty much died. Pat isn't "king debunker" anymore, either. He's just a dude who runs a blog about pointing and laughing at troofers at this point.

Sorry that makes you so butthurt.

Just wanted to inform you that I showed this site to someone who was talking to me about this shit. It wasn't to "debunk", but simply to show the different ends of the spectrum on this issue

OH NO! Some random guy nobody knows that will never prove his identity says that some guy he knows found this place undesirable! I NOW TOTALLY FEEL GUILT FOR EVER COMING HERE, AND/OR HAVING SIMILAR FEELIGNS ABOUT CONTENT/OPINIONS EXPRESSED BY OTHERS HERE!

Seriously, what the hell do you expect? You can pepper your comments with as many huffy "figures you guys would call me a troll" comments as you want, but you're trying awfully hard to be one. Attempting to pre-call yourself out as not being one doesn't disguise the whole "debunker" in qoutes thing. Who does that? WHO CARES?

Only trolls even give a shit about ANYTHING debunking related on this site anymore...

Everyone else has pretty much moved on with thier damn lives, and only casually comes by.

Maybe you should start doing that now.

 
At 07 December, 2012 22:41, Blogger Pat said...

"Most "normal" people don't spend any significant amount of their time dedicated to "debunking" something. They might look into something, but going into everything for the purpose of "debunking" is indicative of some kind of mental illness (a desire to validate oneself) or "

Try to guess how much time I have spend debunking the truthers in the last year. Okay, forget about the "debunking" part, how much time have I spent on this blog this year?

 
At 08 December, 2012 02:43, Blogger Oystein said...

@ snug.bug:
"Oystein, who exactly has replicated Dr. Millette's work?"
What a strange thing to ask! Millette is the follow-up to Harrit e.al.
If and when someone, let's call him Al Alpha, replicates Millette, will you ask "who exactly has replicated Dr. Alpha's work?"?
And then, when Alpha's work is replicated by, say, Bert Beta, will you ask "who exactly has replicated Dr. Beta's work?" - ad infinitum, perhaps?
To repeat, for your benefit:
1. Harrit e.al. published data that shows chips are probably several kinds of paints, and not thermitic. Draw invalid conclusions from data
2. Days after, paper is debunked on the power of its own data. 1st debunking. Story could end here.
3. Henry-Couannier replicates some tests, can't find the iron-rich microspheres in residue after burning -> Harrit e.al. debunked 2nd time
4. Mark Basile replicates some tests, finds there is less than 5% thermite, possibly 0%, much too little to even react, yet chip's organic matrix burns vigorously, and he finds iron-rich drops later. Thus disproves that chips are thermitic, and that energy release and sphere-formation can be explained as result of organic combustion -> Harrit e.al. debunked a 3rd time
5. Millette analyses chips thoroughly, finds 0% elemental Al, 100% paint ingredients -> Harrit e.al. debunked a 4th time, and this time for good
How many more new studies do you need?


"His unwillingness to run a simple DSC to confirm his findings is quite baffling to me."
No doubt that's baffling to YOU - you don't understand what DCS test proves, and what it doesn't prove.

"He gives the impression that after he got the results he wanted, he was unwilling to risk making further inquiries."
No, after he already knew with 100% certainty that the chips are not thermitic at all, because he used the competent methods, was unwilling to waste time and money on doing a test that is not abkle to test for or against thermite.

"That is an attitude far more forensic than scientific."
"Forensics" IS a science.

"Where exactly was his work going to be published, again?"
Don't know where, but will be.

 
At 08 December, 2012 05:08, Blogger Saltwater said...

I came here looking for a site which understood that debunking911.com was full of lies and

misinformation, and found that, but then discovered that I was on screwloosechange reading

about debunking that movie.

Here's the thing I want to say: Give it up. give up covering for the criminals, and give up trying to

explain away explosives with lame theories that do not ever work in real science.

Don't argue. I am right, and you are wrong, so read this. It is very important that people quit

supporting the 9/11 official lies. The buildings were blown up. Don't say anything. If you say they

were not blown up, you are lying, or you are ignorant. They were blown up, and I would stake my

life on it. I would stake my child's life on it, without a qualm. But you are staking your life and

your children's lives on a lie, if you deny the reality of the explosive demolition.

The time for stupidity and nonsense is past. Anyone who is intelligent enough to put up this

classy website is smart enough to figure out that the Towers were blown up.

Or are you all blind? Seriously. Are you people just blind? Have you looked at the towers being

blown up? Have you looked at it? Or are you blind?

Even blind men, if they are honest, can easily understand by now that the towers were exploded.

But you are not blind. You can SEE the buildings turn to dust in seconds. It's an EXPLOSION!

Many explosions, actually. Wake up and see. Are you blind? No. You just refuse to see, and lie to

cover your inability to explain the impossible things you have been led to believe by

propagandists.

It is absolutely clear and undeniable that the Twin Towers were exploded by extremely energetic

material. That is the starting point. My own opinion after a lifetime in construction and several

years of studying 9/11 is that it is not necessary to go too far afield to find the basis of a real

explanation about what was probably used. I suggest that standard demolition materials were

much used. Nothing exotic. The same stuff used in commercial demolitions. But other substances

do seem to have been present to account for some of the facts. That can all be figured out in a

genuine investigation, when there is the national will to have one at last, if that ever happens.

I agree with Gage et al. that an aluminothermitic material was used to cut some of the heavy

steel very quickly. It might have been good old Thermite, just like the kind that was carried on

American carrier planes in the Pacific to drop on Japanese cities in 1945, or it could be a newer

version, up to and possibly including superthermite or sol-gel matrices and other such exotica.
The floor structures were so finely divided, along with people and all the contents of the offices,

that it is very tempting to investigate possibilities such as sheet explosives or explosive coatings.

However, my feeling is that the towers' destruction can probably be accounted for by standard

explosives of the RDX family, and something from the thermite family.

But A LOT of high explosive was used; far more than was necessary to bring the buildings down.
The plan was probably to pulverize the contents in mid-air to protect nearby strucures, since the

Twin Towers were so tall. Most of the sounds of the explosions, after the process of mushrooming

began, were concealed behind the thick soundproof wall of pulverized material that became the

"cloud".

 
At 08 December, 2012 05:09, Blogger Saltwater said...


So I am convinced that most of the demomlition was done with

standard demolition explosives.

The squibs, and one very telling clip showing a wrap typically used on

demolition charges set to

but structural steel, are both, when analyzed, unmistakably the same

phenomenon that is seen

with acknowledged commercial controlled demolitions.

The minor differences are insignificant, in comparing the squibs of the

Twin Towers with the ones

seen for example in the excellent CDI, Inc. high definition videos of

their jobs.

For example, one of their films shows the same squibs behavior, and the

black wrap, and

everything is identical except that the color and density of the squib

ejection is variable.

Well, that is because in one case the squib is ejecting material from a

reinforced, or pehaps an

unreinforced masonry or concrete building, and in the case of the

Towers, the ejected smke, ash,

dust, etc. is gray and not quite as opaque, because the Twin Towers had

a steel structural frame

and not a reinforced concrete and rebar post and beam frame, ala the

Las Gladiolas Housing

complex video made by CDI.

The videos made by Richard Gage, and the videos made by David

Chandler, have, to my

knowledge, not been proven to be incorrect. Amateurs and charlatans,

and websites such as this

one, may have blown enough smoke of their own to divert all but the

serious reader from

realizing that what they say is both logically and scientifically not just

questionable, but

nonsensical.

Americans have had very poor science education these past few

decades, and do not understand

that a building falling down looks very different from a building

blowing up, and they have

difficulty grasping the unassailable facts about reinforced concrete's

behavior under stress and

impact.

How anyone can possibly believe that ninety thousand tons of concrete

floors, with all their

supporting steel pans and trusses, and all the people, computers, desks,

doors, walls, rugs, toilets,

and everything else could be turned from solid, coherent, identifiable,

units into a semi-

homogenized mass of microscopic and small macroscopic particles, is

beyond me.

Mind you, the concrete in the floors alone was nearly one hundred

thousand tons, and then there

was everything else, including the more than one thousand human

bodies that disappeared into

the whorling, frothing, violent mass of trillions of particles which but a

quarter of a minute

before had been whole items, and steel, and cement, and living people.

It is insane, or treasonous, for anyone to continue to deny the explosive

demolition of the World

Trade Center. The evidence is plan, and it is irrefutable, that the

buildings were exploded.

All the whining in the world about "why would they?" or "how could

they?" or "they wouldn't

have!" or "they couldn't have!" is 100% a waste of time, and worse than a

waste of time. It is

nothing but ignorance- or purposeful diversion, that is to say deceit,

to deflect away from the

reality of the explosions.

So, either the people who write this website are not yet well-informed

enough to know that the

buildings were blown up by what had to have been pre-planted

explosive charges, or they DO

know the truth but have an interest in continuing the government

deception which has caused so

much horror in the world and so much misery here in the U.S.

Anyone who buys the official lies, the laughable, absurd, impossible,

ridiculous, official lies about

the World Trade Center's destruction, is on the side of terrorists and on

the side of deceit and on

the side of treason, because, you see, the issue is quite clear now,

despite the smoke-blowers who

attempt to explain away the unexplainable.

 
At 08 December, 2012 07:57, Blogger Ian said...

Thanks for your input, saltwater.

Now, onto more important things.

SJPC, some of the guys here like RGT seem pretty honest. There were others in the past who were pretty honest but they all left long ago, abandoning the field to the likes of Lyin' Ian and GutterBall. The tolerance that RGT shows to those guys' lies is pretty discrediting.

Yes, a lot of people left because the truth movement is dead and there's nothing left to debunk. As Pat said, it's all about mocking losers like you who still cling to this nonsense, so that's what I do. The fact that you still come back here to be humiliated day after day mystifies me, but as long as you're here, I'm going to keep reminding you that you're a mentally ill unemployed janitor who was banned from the truth movement for being a liar and a sex stalker.

Pat, your apparent belief that there is something less than objective about an interest in freefall acceleration and the fact that 1700 architects and engineers have put their professional reputations on the line in demanding new investigations reveals you to be somewhat less than objective yourself.

Also, nobody cares about your tiny crackpot group of engineers and architects.

As to the "hole is too small" issue, serious people know that nonsense was debunked years ago.

So was free-fall acceleration.

 
At 08 December, 2012 13:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

Yes, SJCP, the lying ad hominem is about the only argument these clowns can muster, and the general tolerance for Ian's blatant lies and GutterBall's fecalsplooge rhetoric are discrediting to everyone. The notion that an alternative thesis must be proven before a new investigation can be justified is transparent censorship, and these nimrods somehow miss the fact that NIST has not proven its own case.

Billman, any normal person would feel superior to Lyin' Ian and ButtGale--that's the point.

Oystein, so is it your position that if Dr. Millette's work is a "followup" to Harrit's, then Millette's need not be replicated? So we should just accept that Millette's work overturns Harrit's--even though Millette's results have not been confirmed and he didn't even do a simple DSC?

When did Dr. Harrit publish data that shows chips are probably several kinds of paints, and not thermitic? Who did this alleged debunking days later?

I understand a DSC just fine. It shows when a sample is energetic. That's what makes it essential for distinguishing thermitic from non-thermitic chips. Dr. Millette's refusal to do the DSC means leaves several possibilities unexamined:

1. that Dr. Millette's chips are different from Dr. Harrit's chips

2. that Dr. Millette's chips are the same as Dr. Harrit's, and something was wrong with the DSC tests the Harrit team did

3. that Dr. Millette's chips are thermitic and his analysis of the aluminum component was flawed

4. that Dr. Millette's chips do not contain elemental aluminum but are still energetic

Until he distinguishes among these four scenarios his work brings more questions than answers, and his (and your) lack of curiosity in the matter is damning.









 
At 08 December, 2012 13:36, Blogger Ian said...

Yes, SJCP, the lying ad hominem is about the only argument these clowns can muster, and the general tolerance for Ian's blatant lies and GutterBall's fecalsplooge rhetoric are discrediting to everyone.

My, such squealing!

The notion that an alternative thesis must be proven before a new investigation can be justified is transparent censorship, and these nimrods somehow miss the fact that NIST has not proven its own case.

The NIST has proven its own case and none of your "alternative theses" (death ray beams from space, magic spray-on thermite, invisible silent explosives, micro-nukes planted by modified attack baboons) have a shred of evidence behind them, no matter how much you squeal hysterically about "censorship".

Billman, any normal person would feel superior to Lyin' Ian and ButtGale--that's the point.

False. But normal people do feel superior to a mentally ill unemployed janitor like you.

I understand a DSC just fine

False.

 
At 08 December, 2012 14:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

Saltwater, you bring up some good points. I especially like your "why would they?" or "how could they?" or "they wouldn'thave!" or "they couldn't have!" formulation.

I believe there were 90,000 tons of concrete floors in each tower.

My approach to the issue is different from yours, which you present as a matter of your own heartfelt opinion. And of course your opinion can simply be responded to with another opinion: "You're nuts, and NIST's report got it right!"

I prefer to stick to the realm of facts, and so I approach it like this:

1. NIST has done a lousy job of proving its claims that the buildings came down from fire.

2. Various critics of the NIST report have done a good job of casting doubts on NIST's assumptions, methodology, and conclusions.

3. Those who believe the buildings were demolished with incendiaries and/or explosives have assembled compelling evidence that deserves further investigation

4. Since NIST has not responded to this evidence in any meaningful way, it would be premature to conclude that the buildings were demolished with explosives. That would be like declaring a defendant guilty on the basis of hearing the prosecutor's case and before any defense had been mounted.


 
At 08 December, 2012 14:32, Blogger CachorroQuente said...


Yeah, we've had plenty of experience with you "neutral" folks; in a week or two you'll be spouting the whole "freefall speed", "1600 architects and engineers" "hole at the Pentagon's too small" routine.


You forgot about the dancing Jews.

 
At 08 December, 2012 15:32, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

This thread is hilarious.

 
At 08 December, 2012 18:47, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"I prefer to stick to the realm of" - cherry-picked - "... facts, and so I approach it like this:

1. NIST has done a lousy job of proving its claims that the buildings came down from fire."

The buildings came down as a result of impact and fire. You keep leaving out the planes, and the debris impact from WTC1 into WTC7.

You ignore many basic, and important facts.

"2. Various critics of the NIST report have done a good job of casting doubts on NIST's assumptions, methodology, and conclusions."

Pool contractors, a Theologian, and a few other losers have only raised doubts among idiots, and the mentally ill (such as yourself).

"3. Those who believe the buildings were demolished with incendiaries and/or explosives have assembled compelling evidence that deserves further investigation"

Not really. Nothing that stands out as obvious use, nothing that isn't found in other common compounds, and nothing in the actual physical remains to suggest their use (the fact that nobody in their right-mind would use incendiaries to bring down a building).

"4. Since NIST has not responded to this evidence in any meaningful way,"

Because there is no concrete reason to.


"it would be premature to conclude that the buildings were demolished with explosives. That would be like declaring a defendant guilty on the basis of hearing the prosecutor's case and before any defense had been mounted."

And yet that's how the Troofer mind operates.

We don't debunk a lot here these days because there's nothing to debunk. The same tired fantasies are tarted up and rehashed as new evidence. Then it quickly falls apart.

Troofers have yet to establish a motive that can be proven.

Troofers have not proven when and how demolition charges of any kind were introduced into WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7.

Troofers have zero credible evidence of the use of demolition charges at the WTC on 9/11/2001. Nor can they explain why no evidence was found by any of the thousands of men who worked on the pile in the months after the attacks.

The score - Troffers ZERO.

 
At 08 December, 2012 19:35, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

This thread is hilarious.

I know, right? They're still out there.

 
At 09 December, 2012 00:19, Blogger Falcon Apoda said...

SJCP: "So I guess that's the reason for all the hate - there's a political agenda here..."

SJCP, you simply don't know what you're talking about. If your looking for sites which have an "agenda", you might want to check out some "patriot" boards out there. Like this one:

http://theinfounderground.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=6

You claim to be "neutral", yet you imply that an investigation into 9/11 has not been done - the standard position for a typical 9/11 truther.

Then you act like you're so above it all, yet leave several rambling posts here. You know... about how you're so "neutral". Right. By the way, I'd be interested to hear what you found to be so "interesting" about the truth sites you've encountered.

Meh...

 
At 09 December, 2012 07:07, Blogger Ian said...

Ah, I see M. Gregory Ferris has completely destroyed your babbling points, Brian, so I'll just add on that you STILL haven't gotten a single question from the widows answered. NOT ONE.

 
At 09 December, 2012 08:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

Mary, Mary, ignorantly contrary destroys nothing, and only reveals her own lack of an argument.

 
At 09 December, 2012 11:03, Blogger Ian said...

Mary, Mary, ignorantly contrary destroys nothing, and only reveals her own lack of an argument.

Poor Brian. He's hysterical because the truth movement is a total failure, and he's a failed janitor who lives with his parents who can't accept that there will never be a new investigation, the "widows" will never have their "questions" answered, and "meatball on a fork" will never be published in a journal.

 
At 09 December, 2012 12:55, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 09 December, 2012 13:03, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Lying Brian Good squeals, "...1. that Dr. Millette's chips are different from Dr. Harrit's chips"

False.

Dr. Harrit's "chips" have a broken chain of custody, and therefore, are inadmissible in a court of law. I proved last week that you're a liar who has no evidence, and here you are back this week telling the same lies as though they were never debunked. Should we expect less from a proven compulsive liar? Probably not.

As usual, the deranged college dropout and charlatan who knows absolutely nothing about the physical sciences or law, Brian Good, tries to pass off bogus "chips" that won't make it past the discovery phase of a new investigation and tries to call it "evidence." Face it, goat fucker, the 9/11 "truth" movement doesn't have any "evidence" to support their idiotic ideas. All the "truth" movement has are lies and logical fallacies--you lying cretin.

Should we expect less from a proven compulsive liar who couldn't pass an elementary examination in physics, chemistry, mathematics or logic? Probably not.

Once again, you FAIL, felcher.

**********

Brian Good's Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 09 December, 2012 16:23, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Since it's the holidays, and I'm in the giving mood here's one for the Truthers...

Since 9/11 there have been many adjustments in building codes, some requiring upgrades to the cores of existing structures. They all seem to be derived from the same, or similar sources. Sources that are not NIST or FEMA.

So this suggests (using Truther logic) that there are other reports based on independent investigations out there somewhere.

So go find them. There has to be a least one good one somewhere.

 
At 09 December, 2012 16:29, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Is Brian still whining about replication? I bet he's still peddling that Jones's work was by Basile, even though Basile never published his work, and instead chose to be interviewed for youtube, as well as his methods being nothing close to Jones.

So far Jones hasn'tt been replicated, nor has he even undergone anything like a real peer review in a real journal. It always seems truthers don;t have to worry about things like academic scrutiny, or honesty.

 
At 09 December, 2012 16:36, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

I prefer to stick to the realm of facts, and so I approach it like this:

BWHAAHAHAHAHAHHAHHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!!

Facts like Basile replicating Jones?

1. NIST has done a lousy job of proving its claims that the buildings came down from fire.

Cool Brian when will you or the clown car of truth be publishing a study in a real journal with critiques?

2. Various critics of the NIST report have done a good job of casting doubts on NIST's assumptions, methodology, and conclusions.

Carious critics who run away from academic scrutiny, and instead hide in fake journals and on youtube.

3. Those who believe the buildings were demolished with incendiaries and/or explosives have assembled compelling evidence that deserves further investigation

Evidence they have failed to publish in a real journal anywhere on the planet.

4. Since NIST has not responded to this evidence in any meaningful way...

Like you know what a meaningful response would look like. Again, let use know when the frauds stop hiding. Or do you need me to show you Jones retiring from BYU before his academic review could be conducted, again?

Don;t worry Brian, I am sure Cosmo will be around to mentally drool all over the place in your defense.

 
At 09 December, 2012 23:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, the truth movement is hardly a failure when the only counterarguments the liars can muster is "nobody cares". New investigations are inevitable. Within ten years every engineering school in the world will have computer power sufficient to test NIST's hypotheses.

ButtGale, your attempts to throw out evidence on grounds of legal technicality are noted. Knock yourself out, make like the sleaziest of defense
attorneys.

MGF, thanks, but I can't accept any presents from you. Nor will I be drinking your eggnog.

GMS, Mr. Basile gave the impression that he believed he had replicated some aspects of Dr. Jones's work. Do you have information to the contrary?

A child can point out when the emperor has no clothes. Whether a well-connected journal would publish that fact is open to question.

The truth movement is hardly a failure when the only counterarguments the liars can muster is "you can't get published".

Why do you insist on making Dr. Jones the champion to stand for the entire truth movement?





 
At 10 December, 2012 13:55, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"Is Brian still whining about replication?"

..."don;t have to worry about things like academic scrutiny, or honesty. "
-Master of Dreck

Pretendebunkers like you always flee from applying the same standards to NIST's WTC7 model inputs. Only idiots and JREF "skeptics" would take their word for its validity and accuracy. You're as sad and predictable as Pat and James.

 
At 10 December, 2012 15:12, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Shit for brains squeals, "...your attempts to throw out evidence on grounds of legal technicality are noted. Knock yourself out, make like the sleaziest of defense attorneys."

You don't have any "evidence," shit for brains. Why? Because you CAN'T PROVE THAT JONES' SAMPLES HAVEN'T BEEN ALTERED OR CONTAMINATED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO FRAUDULENTLY MAKE SOMEONE APPEAR GUILTY.

Read it again, shit for brains:

"...When evidence can be used in court to convict persons of crimes, it must be handled in a scrupulously careful manner to avoid later allegations of tampering or misconduct which can compromise the case of the prosecution toward acquittal or to overturning a guilty verdict upon appeal. The idea behind recording the chain of custody is to establish that the alleged evidence is in fact related to the alleged crime, rather than having, for example, been planted fraudulently to make someone appear guilty" -- Wikipedia

In fact, the REAL SLEAZE BEGINS AND ENDS WITH THE BOGUS 9/'11 "TRUTH" MOVEMENT. After all, they're trying to pass off IMPROPERLY GATHERED "dust samples" that are INADMISSIBLE IN A COURT OF LAW as "evidence." Thus, the 9/11 "truth" movement--all of it, lock, stock and barrel--is a crock-of-shit.

The only person you manage to fool is yourself, charlatan.

Once again, you FAIL, felcher.

**********

Brian Good's Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 10 December, 2012 16:51, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Pretendebunkers like you always flee from applying the same standards to NIST's WTC7 model inputs. Only idiots and JREF "skeptics" would take their word for its validity and accuracy."

The "truth" is the NIST WTC7 is irrelevant. The report was unnecessary. The cause of the collapse was known by 5PM on 9/11/2001. More importantly is the fact we know what the cause was not - Controlled Demolition.

You, well not you (you're a lazy troll) have given us nothing to debunk. You wave around the RJLee report like you know what is in it, but nobody at RJLee saw anything unusual enough to make the claims the troofers have.

You have NO evidence.
You have NO motive.
You have NO credible counter suspects.

You guys don't even have a quality conspiracy theory to debunk.


 
At 10 December, 2012 19:34, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Offtopic: So, is this the kind of association Richard Gage was hoping for? I doubt it.

 
At 10 December, 2012 21:56, Blogger snug.bug said...

ButtGale, nobody can prove a negative, and your demands that somebody do so only show how desperately you must stoop. Did NIST establish a chain of custody for their steel samples? I seem to have missed that part of the report.

Your pseudolawyering is a real hoot.

MGF, if the cause of the collapse of WTC7 was known on 9/11, how come in 2002 FEMA said they couldn't explain it? How come Sunder said years later that they were having a hard time getting a handle on it? How come it took NIST 7 years to come up with a report?

RJLee believed the microspheres were created during the 9/11 event. I believe that microspheres are not normal products of fires, and if so, they would have represented something unusual.

No conspiracy theories are necessary--the incomplete nature and dishonesty of the NIST reports are sufficient to support calls for new investigations.

 
At 10 December, 2012 22:26, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"MGF, if the cause of the collapse of WTC7 was known on 9/11, how come in 2002 FEMA said they couldn't explain it? How come Sunder said years later that they were having a hard time getting a handle on it? How come it took NIST 7 years to come up with a report?"

They were talking about specifics. The fact that WTC7 collapsed after critical damage from WTC1 debris, and the raging multi-floor fires which burned for 8 hours was never in question. The rescue force on the ground that day expected it to collapse, and it did.

"RJLee believed the microspheres were created during the 9/11 event."

Not surprising. An unprecedented amount of steel burned in a concentrated area.


"I believe that microspheres are not normal products of fires, and if so, they would have represented something unusual."

We have already established your inability to grasp basic science, which is why you don't work for RJ Lee. Their actual scientists did not think the microspheres out of place considering the event.

"No conspiracy theories are necessary--the incomplete nature and dishonesty of the NIST reports are sufficient to support calls for new investigations."

And yet you apply conspiracy theory tactics to them.

 
At 10 December, 2012 23:59, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Shit for brains lies, "...nobody can prove a negative, and your demands that somebody do so only show how desperately you must stoop."

Logical Fallacy: Red Herring

I didn't ask you to "prove a negative" -- you cretin. Jones' samples have a broken chain of custody; thus, they're INADMISSIBLE IN A COURT OF LAW, jackass. I didn't ask you to prove anything, bullshitter, THE COURTS WILL DEMAND THAT THE 9/11 "truth" MOVEMENTS' ALLEGED "EVIDENCE" MEET A CERTAIN STANDARD -- CHAIN OF CUSTODY BEING CRITICAL.

FAIL.

Shit for brains squeals, "... Did NIST establish a chain of custody for their steel samples?"

Yes, they did establish chain of custody for their samples. The samples were collected by government agencies in conformance to strict standards. They are stored in New York -- contrary to the troofer myth that falsely claims the samples were "destroyed" -- under controlled conditions.

FAIL.

Face it, bullshitter, YOU HAVE NO "EVIDENCE." YOUR ENTIRE ARGUMENT IS BUILT ON A MONUMENTAL FRAUD.

You're a joke.

FAIL.

Shit for brains whines, "...Your pseudolawyering [SIC] is a real hoot."

Not half as hilarious as your sub-literate whining and constant reliance on pseudo-science, lies and bullshit.

Once again, shit for brains, you FAIL.

**********

Brian Good's Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 11 December, 2012 00:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

Where do you get the idea that there were "raging" fires in WTC7? How do you know there was critical damage? NIST says that structural damage from debris impacts played no part in collapse initiation. Aren't you just working backwards from the fact that the building collapsed and assuming raging fires and critical damage without evidence of same?

Steel burned? How did the steel burn? How do you know what the RJLee scientists thought about the microspheres? Did they say micropsheres are normally present after office fires? What is a conspiracy theory tactic?

 
At 11 December, 2012 00:24, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's right, liar, repeat the same crap we've debunked over-and-over again.

That's the 9/11 "truth" movement for you. They practice Hilter's Big Lie.

Lying Brian Good follows the [cough] "principle" that when one lies, one should tell a lie big, and stick to it. He continues to lie, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.

Is Brian Good depraved and morally corrupt? You can bet the farm on that one.

**********

Brian Good's Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 11 December, 2012 00:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

What did I lie about, ButtGale? All I did was ask MGF to back up and clarify his claims.

 
At 11 December, 2012 00:57, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 11 December, 2012 01:01, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Another lie, scum bag?

His claims have been "clarified" on numerous occasions -- you lying Hitler worshiper. Not only have they been "clarified," they've been PROVEN. Thus, you're repeating the same lies we've debunked over-and-over again -- your constant stream of filthy, monotonous lies notwithstanding.

See? You're depraved -- a moral degenerate.

You don't have a shred of "evidence" to support your insanity. You're as annoying as you are delusional, dishonest and thoroughly depraved.

FAIL.

**********

Brian Good's Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 11 December, 2012 07:13, Blogger Sherson said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 11 December, 2012 09:14, Blogger Sherson said...

SJCP wrote
HA HA HA HA!

Uh, did you forget that you admitted being a no-planer two years ago on this very blog?

At 02 November, 2010 19:11, SJCP said...
I believe that proper use of one's reasoning/intelligence abilities will lead them to the conclusion that the "airplane" videos are laughable fakes.

HA HA HA HA! indeed. You don't have a neutral bone in your body. Or an honest one, for that matter.

SJCP wrote
My name isn't even Simon. Did you break out your secret cryptography ring to try to bust me?

Well, SimonJCP (Simon J. Copping-Patton) and SJCP are both no-planers from Canada with the same four initials in the same order. You can hardly blame me for making the connection. I still suspect I could be right. If you so easily lie about being neutral, you can just as easily lie about being Simon.

 
At 11 December, 2012 09:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail,

When did MGF show that there were "raging" fires in WTC7? When did he show there was critical damage? NIST says that structural damage from debris impacts played no part in collapse initiation.

Isn't he just working backwards from the fact that the building collapsed and assuming raging fires and critical damage without evidence of same?

When did he show that steel burned? How did the steel burn?

When did he show what the RJLee scientists thought about the microspheres? Did they say micropsheres are normally present after office fires?

When did he explain what is a conspiracy theory tactic?

All you guys can do is posture to try to confuse newbies.

 
At 11 December, 2012 10:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

Confuse them with blatant lies.

 
At 11 December, 2012 13:07, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"When did MGF show that there were "raging" fires in WTC7? When did he show there was critical damage? NIST says that structural damage from debris impacts played no part in collapse initiation. "

Either the NIST report is accurate or it's not. YOU say it's full of lies, so why do you turn around and site it? Either NIST got it right or they didn't. If they didn't then you need another source to challenge me on. There are two photos (from screen grabs) that show a gaping, multi-floor hole on the side of WTC7 that faced WTC1. NIST didn't think this played into the collapse, yet it's right where the collapse finally began.


"Isn't he just working backwards from the fact that the building collapsed and assuming raging fires and critical damage without evidence of same?"

Yes. That's how the process is and was done too.

"When did he show that steel burned? How did the steel burn?"

About 1 second after impact into WTC1, and continued for weeks. (Hint, smoke = fire).

"When did he show what the RJLee scientists thought about the microspheres?"

This has already been covered. Your mental illness precludes you from reading about it any way.

"Did they say micropsheres are normally present after office fires?"

9/11 was not an office fire. 9/11 was 2 plane crashes, and multi-building failure. Since the destruction of the entire WTC remains unprecedented (that means nothing like it on that scale has ever happened before) there is no data to suggest those microspheres are out of place.

"When did he explain what is a conspiracy theory tactic?"

You use them all the time, they are junior college debate techniques. You use phrases like "the well connected NIST" in an attempt to undermine their credibility (which is hilarious because you lack any yourself).

"All you guys can do is posture to try to confuse newbies."

With facts, and the lack of facts of 9/11 troofers.

 
At 11 December, 2012 13:54, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"The "truth" is the NIST WTC7 is irrelevant. The report was unnecessary." -M. Peckerly Careless

Behold the quality of "debunking" at SLC.

The sad part is that Fat Pat and Lames Bennett agree with you, or they would correct your sourceless, idiotic assertions.

 
At 11 December, 2012 14:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

They won't even correct Ian's claims that there are no widows.

 
At 11 December, 2012 16:22, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Shit for brains whines, "...NIST says that structural damage from debris impacts played no part in collapse initiation."

Cherry picking the NIST Report again, ass?

"...Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias." -- Wikipedia

When the NIST Report can be used to support your argument it's true. When the NIST Report contradicts your argument, on the other hand, the NIST Report is "incomplete, unscientific and unbelievable."

You can't have it both ways, asshole. So which is it, jackass, do you agree with the NIST Report or not?

Thus, you're a duplicitous liar who relies on logical fallacies and repetitive lies (ie., Hitler's Big Lie), which are designed to annoy your opponent to such a degree that he or she is no longer willing to "debate" you on any subject. This insane strategy, in your twisted world, constitutes "victory" for the cult of 9/11 conspiracy. If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit and annoy them to no end. Right, goat fucker?

Once again, you FAIL -- you neo-fascist liar.

**********

Brian Good's Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 11 December, 2012 16:30, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Shit for brains whines, "...When did he show what the RJLee scientists thought about the microspheres? Did they say micropsheres are normally present after office fires?"

What's this, ass?

"...The formation of iron and other type spheres at temperatures obtainable by the combustion of petroleum and coal based fuels is not a new or unique process. These spheres are the same as iron and alumino-silicate spheres in the well-studied fly ash formed from contaminants in coal as it is burned in furnaces." -- Rich Lee, author of the RJ Lee Report.

How many times have I posted that quote and link to SLC? Two dozen times, at least? Yet, you ignore Rich Lee's testimony and continue to tell the same lies as though they were never debunked.

See? You rely on Hitler's Big Lie technique. You follow the [cough] "principle" that says when one lies, one should tell a lie big, and stick to it. You continue to lie, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.

Once again, you FAIL -- you neo-fascist liar

**********

Brian Good's Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 11 December, 2012 16:39, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Iron Microspheres in the Context of the World Trade Center Dust

"Well, let's start with the basics. The World Trade Center was a building with many iron-based components. There were structural components such as beams and electrical conduit. There were building contents such as desks and file cabinets.

"Now, the building is hit by two jet airplanes resulting in a fire fed by jet fuel. The electrical system is compromised resulting in high voltage, high amperage electrical arcing between the wires and the conduit. The fire is in a building with a central core of elevator shafts that act like a chimney efficiently providing the oxygen needed for combustion. The air and other gases are flowing with hurricane force speeds. The fire is sufficiently hot to exceed the plastic strength of the structural steel and the building collapses.

"What about the iron microspheres? The iron has a thin layer of rust flakes that can be easily removed with sticky tape. The iron is heated red hot or hotter and subjected to hurricane force blast furnace-like wind. The iron flakes are liberated as small particles and some iron is vaporized. Like drops of water, the iron flakes form molten spheres that solidify and fume also condenses into spheres, the most efficient geometrical form. Incidentally, iron is not the only material that formed spheres during the event. Some building material is made of minerals containing aluminum and silicon and alumino-silicate spheres were also observed in the dust.

"The formation of iron and other types of spheres at temperature obtainable by the combustion of petroleum or coal-based fuels is not a new or unique process. These spheres are the same as iron and alumino-silicate sphere in the well-studied fly ash formed contaminants as it is burned in furnaces."


-- Rich Lee

See? You're a liar who can't trusted to tell the truth.

Once again you FAIL -- you neo-fascist liar.

**********

Brian Good's Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 11 December, 2012 18:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

Does Mr. Lee explain how fireproofed steel would rust? What about all that LaClede primer paint. Suddenly that doesn't exist? Does he explain how it is that with this elevator blast furnace in these hurricane winds that not one of NIST's core steel samples shows heating above 480 F? Does he explain what there is to burn in an elevator shaft?

Don't you think smart people can invent ingenious and plausible-sounding explanations for just about anything if they want to?

Don't you think dumb people will fail to notice essential points--like the fact that he had to invoke coal furnaces to describe an environment where microspheres are commonly produced?

Did you notice that he didn't say microspheres are normally produced in office fires, and thus his statement has nothing to do with the point?

I didn't think so. UtterFail by any name (GutterBall, ButtGoo) is just as foul.

 
At 11 December, 2012 18:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

Maybe you missed the part about the coal furnace because you don't know that coal burns at 3200 F. So RJ Lee is telling us that we need 3200 F to make microspheres.

 
At 11 December, 2012 18:25, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's right, goat fucker, ignore Dr. Lee's testimony and, ABOVE ALL, move the goal post.

Questions, moreover, are NOT evidence. If you disagree with Dr. Lee, it's incumbent ON YOU to provide the evidence to prove that Dr. Lee's EXPERT TESTIMONY is wrong. The ball is in your court, asshole, and trying to pass off questions as evidence doesn't cut it, liar. Either provide fully-sourced scientific evidence to prove Dr. Lee wrong, or Shut The Fuck Up, charlatan.

Thus, we can see, once again, that you're intellectually dishonest to the core.

FAIL.

So let's rehash today's events, shall we?

[1] You tried to pass off "dust samples" that are INADMISSIBLE IN A COURT OF LAW as "evidence."

FAIL.

[2] You repeat the same nonsense we've debunked in the past and tried to pass it off as "evidence."

FAIL.

[3] You cherry pick the NIST Report and tried to pass off your fallacious argument as "evidence."

FAIL.

[4] Now you're ignoring Dr. Lee's testimony and trying to pass off your idiotic questions as "evidence."

FAIL.

Face it, goat fucker, you don't have a shred of evidence to support your idiotic argument. All you have are lies and logical fallacies.

The goat fucker by any other name is still a compulsive liar who can't pass a formal examination in elementary physics, chemistry, mathematics or logic.

Once again, you FAIL -- you neo-fascist liar.

**********

Brian Good's Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 11 December, 2012 18:30, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Does Mr. Lee explain how fireproofed steel would rust?"

I dunno, was the WTC complex near a substantial water source of some kind?...Isn't Manhattan an Island?...The Golden Gate Bridge is always being painted why?...

 
At 11 December, 2012 18:32, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker lies, "...Maybe you missed the part about the coal furnace because you don't know that coal burns at 3200 F. So RJ Lee is telling us that we need 3200 F to make microspheres."

False.

Read it again, charlatan:

"..."What about the iron microspheres? The iron has a thin layer of rust flakes that can be easily removed with sticky tape. The iron is heated red hot or hotter and subjected to hurricane force blast furnace-like wind. The iron flakes are liberated as small particles and some iron is vaporized. Like drops of water, the iron flakes form molten spheres that solidify and fume also condenses into spheres, the most efficient geometrical form. Incidentally, iron is not the only material that formed spheres during the event. Some building material is made of minerals containing aluminum and silicon and alumino-silicate spheres were also observed in the dust." -- Rich Lee

Coal furnace temperatures are NOT required to form microspheres -- you sub-literate cretin. All that's required are temperatures sufficient to make the steel "red hot or hotter."

See? You're an illiterate. Is it any wonder that you don't understand the NIST Report or the RJ Lee Report? Probably not.

Cretin.

Once again, you FAIL -- you neo-fascist liar.

**********

Brian Good's Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 11 December, 2012 19:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh look, it's Spammy McSpammer. I didn't ignore RJ Lee's statement--unlike you, I analyzed it.

How do you know that the steel under fireproof coatings is rusty?

 
At 11 December, 2012 19:54, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 11 December, 2012 19:56, Blogger GuitarBill said...

You're not qualified to perform an "analysis," jackass. After all, you're a college dropout who couldn't pass a formal examination in elementary physics, chemistry, mathematics or logic.

As MGF pointed out, all structural steel rusts. This is why the Golden Gate bridge is constantly being refinished by the bridge's maintenance crew.

Shit for brains whines, "...How do you know that the steel under fireproof coatings is rusty?"

Again, your questions aren't evidence, jackass. Pay attention, stupid.

Now either provide sourced scientific evidence to prove Dr. Lee wrong or Shut The Fuck Up.

Once again, you FAIL -- you neo-fascist liar.

**********

Brian Good's Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 11 December, 2012 20:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

Where do you get your information that I'm a college dropout? If you can't back that up then why should anyone believe anything you say?

When did MGF get to be an expert on structural steel that is painted with LaClede and coated with fireproofing? Last time I looked, I must have missed the spray-on fireproofing on the the GG Bridge. You guys are a bad joke.

Your primitive demand for proof is silly. Why do I need to prove Dr. Lee wrong? He didn't prove he was right. And note that he didn't say that office fires cause microspheres. He said coal furnaces and hurricane winds cause microspheres. Did you see any hurricanes blowing out of the WTC?

You demand that Dr. Jones's samples meet legal standards but you don't impose the same demand on NIST.

 
At 11 December, 2012 20:08, Blogger GuitarBill said...

You're a college dropout because you're a proven idiot. Tell us more ΔT and Boyle's law, jackass. Furthermore, it's not incumbent on me to prove or disprove your lies. The burden of proof rests on your shoulders and your shoulders alone.

Again, questions posed by an science illiterate college dropout aren't evidence.

Dr. Lee's is an authoritative source. Thus, his testimony is EXPERT TESTIMONY.

Now either provide sourced scientific evidence to prove Dr. Lee wrong or Shut The Fuck Up.

Once again, you FAIL -- you neo-fascist liar.

**********

Brian Good's Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 11 December, 2012 20:12, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 11 December, 2012 20:14, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The illiterate asshole lies, "...He said coal furnaces and hurricane winds cause microspheres."

False.

Read it again, idiot:

"...What about the iron microspheres? The iron has a thin layer of rust flakes that can be easily removed with sticky tape. The iron is heated red hot or hotter and subjected to hurricane force blast furnace-like wind. The iron flakes are liberated as small particles and some iron is vaporized. Like drops of water, the iron flakes form molten spheres that solidify and fume also condenses into spheres, the most efficient geometrical form. Incidentally, iron is not the only material that formed spheres during the event. Some building material is made of minerals containing aluminum and silicon and alumino-silicate spheres were also observed in the dust." -- Dr. Rich Lee

See? You're an illiterate who reads at a third grade-level.

Now either provide sourced scientific evidence to prove Dr. Lee wrong or Shut The Fuck Up.

Once again, you FAIL -- you neo-fascist liar.

**********

Brian Good's Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 11 December, 2012 20:21, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The illiterate asshole lies, "...He said coal furnaces and hurricane winds cause microspheres."

False.

Read it again, idiot:

"The formation of iron and other types of spheres at temperature obtainable by the combustion of petroleum or coal-based fuels is not a new or unique process. These spheres are the same as iron and alumino-silicate sphere in the well-studied fly ash formed contaminants as it is burned in furnaces."

Dr. Lee isn't trying to claim "coal furnaces and hurricane winds cause microspheres" -- you illiterate 'tard.

He's making an ANALOGY. He's saying that the microspheres formed in the WTC fires are formed by the same processes that form microspheres in a coal burning furnace.

See? You can't read at a third grade-level.

Once again, you FAIL, jackass.

**********

Brian Good's Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 11 December, 2012 21:30, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"When did MGF get to be an expert on structural steel that is painted with LaClede and coated with fireproofing?

Funny, every picture of Ground Zero shows a mountain of steel beams all coated with a fine layer of rust (it's the brown stuff). You know what I don't see a lot of? Fireproofing. In fact one of the serious criticisms of the WTC is the questionable quality of the spray-on fire-proofing. It is a main factor in the collapse, although FEMA gave them a way out by suggesting the foam was knocked off by the impacts of the planes, but the way the NYC building codes have been changed I suspect city officials didn't like what they found in the wreckage.


"Last time I looked, I must have missed the spray-on fireproofing on the the GG Bridge. You guys are a bad joke."

Even if there was fire-proofing the bridge would still require constant repainting, and frequent reapplication of the fire retardant because salt air, and evaporation of sea water makes steel rust.

All steel.

"Your primitive demand for proof is silly."

Spoken like a Troofer. The foundation of your flawed logic,

"Why do I need to prove Dr. Lee wrong? He didn't prove he was right."

Your right, why should you - a non-scientist,non-physicist,college drop out - have to challenge an educated disaster analysis expert's evaluation.

"And note that he didn't say that office fires cause microspheres."

It wasn't just an office fire, it was 2 767 crash & fires, an industrial fire, an electrical fire, and all the other things in the towers. The site burned for many days, long after the offices were gone.


" He said coal furnaces and hurricane winds cause microspheres."

No he did not say that.


"You demand that Dr. Jones's samples meet legal standards but you don't impose the same demand on NIST."

NIST met accepted standards. Jones has not.

 
At 11 December, 2012 21:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

Utterfail, your irrationality is showing. You have no evidence that I dropped out of college. Lots of idiots finish college. You, for instance.

Dr. Lee's statement is sheer speculation, and it's contradicted by the lack of core steel samples showing high temperature heating, the lack of evidence of hurricane winds, and the lack of coal furnaces in the WTC. Since he did not prove his case, your demands that I prove he's wrong are just plain stooopid.

I'm sorry you don't know how to read. He said hurricane winds and coal furnaces cause microspheres. Coal furnaces are not an analogy.
He said coal furnaces make microspheres. He did not say office fires make microspheres.

MGF, do you see any paint or any fireproofing on the steel wreckage at Ground Zero? No. It was stripped off during the collapse. So for you to conclude that naked steel rusted after the collapse was unpainted and rusted before the collapse is illogical.

The flawed logic is the ridiculous belief that evidence should be thrown out without investigation on specious grounds that it hasn't yet been proven. If you had the science training you claim you would know that science does not prove, but only disprove.




has been stripped of its fireproofing and its paint during the collapses





 
At 12 December, 2012 09:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, you're long on gaudy claims, and short on backing them up.

Please tell us what is flawed about the logic in "Your primitive demand for proof is silly."

Please explain where you get your information that I am a non-scientist,non-physicist, college drop out. You might recall that I had to educate you about the energy of fusion from Chem 101. I guess you had a pressing assignment driving a forklift when they did that class. I hope it gave you a good demonstration of kinetics, but I doubt it.

Please detail where I challenged Dr. Lee's educated evaluation. I didn't challenge it. I questioned the viability of some of his assuptions--such as that there was exposed rusted steel in a fireproofed building, and pointed out that there was no evidence in the videos of hurricane winds. This was an attempt to elucidate Dr. Lee's statement, not challenge it. I pointed out that non-scientists such as you and ButtGoo were misinterpreting it, mischaracterizing it, and leaping to unjustified conclusions about it. Note that he didn't say that office fires cause microspheres.

After all these years you still haven't figured out that the jet fuel burned off after ten minutes (some FEMA experts said four minutes). The WTC was an industrial fire? What, there were sweatshops on the 99th floor? The site didn't burn for days--it burned for MONTHS. It was the longest burning office fire in history.

Dr. Lee said coal furnaces cause
microspheres. He did not say that office fires do. He had to invoke hurricane winds and naked rusted steel to explain the microspheres in an office fire. Have you considered the possibility that imposing impossible conditions on his hypothesis was a tricky way of saying the microspheres could not have been generated by a normal fire?

Please back up your claim that NIST's steel samples involve a chain of custody sufficient to satisfy the legal standard ButtGoo demands of Dr. Jones's samples.

You guys will debunk a lot more effectively when you start sticking to facts and stop assuming everything you want to prove.

 
At 12 December, 2012 10:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

Note also that Dr. Lee apparently gave no thought to the notion that the microspheres came from fly ash in the lightweight concrete. Maybe if GutterBall enlightened him about that he'd give up his notions about hurricanes and rusted steel.

 
At 12 December, 2012 12:59, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The neo-fascist liar whines, "...Dr. Lee said coal furnaces cause microspheres. He did not say that office fires do."

False.

Now either support your bald-faced lies with a direct quote or STFU, short bus rider.

Iron Microspheres in the Context of the World Trade Center Dust

"Well, let's start with the basics. The World Trade Center was a building with many iron-based components. There were structural components such as beams and electrical conduit. There were building contents such as desks and file cabinets.

"Now, the building is hit by two jet airplanes resulting in a fire fed by jet fuel. The electrical system is compromised resulting in high voltage, high amperage electrical arcing between the wires and the conduit. The fire is in a building with a central core of elevator shafts that act like a chimney efficiently providing the oxygen needed for combustion. The air and other gases are flowing with hurricane force speeds. The fire is sufficiently hot to exceed the plastic strength of the structural steel and the building collapses.

"What about the iron microspheres? The iron has a thin layer of rust flakes that can be easily removed with sticky tape. The iron is heated red hot or hotter and subjected to hurricane force blast furnace-like wind. The iron flakes are liberated as small particles and some iron is vaporized. Like drops of water, the iron flakes form molten spheres that solidify and fume also condenses into spheres, the most efficient geometrical form. Incidentally, iron is not the only material that formed spheres during the event. Some building material is made of minerals containing aluminum and silicon and alumino-silicate spheres were also observed in the dust.

"The formation of iron and other types of spheres at temperature obtainable by the combustion of petroleum or coal-based fuels is not a new or unique process. These spheres are the same as iron and alumino-silicate sphere in the well-studied fly ash formed contaminants as it is burned in furnaces."


Rich Lee

Source: NMSR.org

So asshole, since you obviously can't read, I must ask: What kind of car do you drive, a short bus?

Yes, I'm condescending to you, but do you even know what condescending means?

Now either support your lies with a direct quote, or STFU. And don't you dare quote mine the letter, queer bait, or I'll crush your lying ass like a grape.

Cretin.

**********

Brian Good's Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 12 December, 2012 13:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

Poor ButtGoo thinks that chronic spambulation and exhibiting his reading miscomprehension constitutes an argument if he simply drips enough bile on it.

It must really be sucky to be him.

 
At 12 December, 2012 13:24, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Oh, I see, liar.

So you can't support your lies with direct quotes from Dr. Lee's letter.

See? You're a compulsive liar.

Once again, you FAIL -- you neo-fascist liar.

I can almost hear the gears grinding inside your microcephalic noggin.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

**********

Brian Good's Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 12 December, 2012 14:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

Yes I can. There's no need. Anyone can scan the letter and see that what I say is true.

 
At 12 December, 2012 14:04, Blogger GuitarBill said...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

So, I see you still can't support your bald-faced lies with direct quotes from Dr. Lee's letter. Why is that, liar?

Your lies are as transparent as the air between your ears.

So goat fucker, why do you insist on proving that the smartest thing ever to come out of your mouth was a penis?

Once again, you FAIL -- you neo-fascist liar.

**********

Brian Good's Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 12 December, 2012 14:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

That's irrational of you to claim that I can't simply because I don't. But for you, any excuse for spambulous fatuosity will do.

 
At 12 December, 2012 14:53, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I see you still can't support your lies with direct quotes from Dr. Lee's letter to the 9/11 troof movement. Why is that, liar?

Iron Microspheres in the Context of the World Trade Center Dust

"Well, let's start with the basics. The World Trade Center was a building with many iron-based components. There were structural components such as beams and electrical conduit. There were building contents such as desks and file cabinets.

"Now, the building is hit by two jet airplanes resulting in a fire fed by jet fuel. The electrical system is compromised resulting in high voltage, high amperage electrical arcing between the wires and the conduit. The fire is in a building with a central core of elevator shafts that act like a chimney efficiently providing the oxygen needed for combustion. The air and other gases are flowing with hurricane force speeds. The fire is sufficiently hot to exceed the plastic strength of the structural steel and the building collapses.

"What about the iron microspheres? The iron has a thin layer of rust flakes that can be easily removed with sticky tape. The iron is heated red hot or hotter and subjected to hurricane force blast furnace-like wind. The iron flakes are liberated as small particles and some iron is vaporized. Like drops of water, the iron flakes form molten spheres that solidify and fume also condenses into spheres, the most efficient geometrical form. Incidentally, iron is not the only material that formed spheres during the event. Some building material is made of minerals containing aluminum and silicon and alumino-silicate spheres were also observed in the dust.

"The formation of iron and other types of spheres at temperature obtainable by the combustion of petroleum or coal-based fuels is not a new or unique process. These spheres are the same as iron and alumino-silicate sphere in the well-studied fly ash formed contaminants as it is burned in furnaces."


Rich Lee

Source: NMSR.org

So where are your direct quotes, liar?

I guess that's the way it goes when you're a neo-fascist liar with the morals of street-walking whore.

Or are you so computer illiterate that you can't do a simple cut-and-paste?

Cretin.

Once again, you FAIL, gay boi.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

**********

Brian Good's Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 12 December, 2012 15:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

See what I mean? Where ButtGale went to school they graded his papers by the pound. They didn't even bother to read them.

 
At 12 December, 2012 15:08, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's not an direct quote from Dr. Lee's letter to the 9/11 troof movement, gay boi.

As always, when you're caught lying through your terracotta teeth, YOU STONEWALL. Just like when I asked you to give me the definition of ΔT, you didn't know the answer, SO YOU STONEWALLED AND STEADFASTLY REFUSED TO ANSWER THE QUESTION.

You're nothing but an arrogant, insane, lying homosexual charlatan.

Must suck to be you, gay boi.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Cretin.

**********

Brian Good's Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 12 December, 2012 15:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

Here's the direct quote. It says what I say it says, and it doesn't say what I say it doesn't say, and you are as usual just way out of your intellectual depth and making a fool of yourself.

I get my boot stuck so far up your butt, NOP Wonder, that I can't get it out.

Iron Microspheres in the Context of the World Trade Center Dust

"Well, let's start with the basics. The World Trade Center was a building with many iron-based components. There were structural components such as beams and electrical conduit. There were building contents such as desks and file cabinets.

"Now, the building is hit by two jet airplanes resulting in a fire fed by jet fuel. The electrical system is compromised resulting in high voltage, high amperage electrical arcing between the wires and the conduit. The fire is in a building with a central core of elevator shafts that act like a chimney efficiently providing the oxygen needed for combustion. The air and other gases are flowing with hurricane force speeds. The fire is sufficiently hot to exceed the plastic strength of the structural steel and the building collapses.

"What about the iron microspheres? The iron has a thin layer of rust flakes that can be easily removed with sticky tape. The iron is heated red hot or hotter and subjected to hurricane force blast furnace-like wind. The iron flakes are liberated as small particles and some iron is vaporized. Like drops of water, the iron flakes form molten spheres that solidify and fume also condenses into spheres, the most efficient geometrical form. Incidentally, iron is not the only material that formed spheres during the event. Some building material is made of minerals containing aluminum and silicon and alumino-silicate spheres were also observed in the dust.

"The formation of iron and other types of spheres at temperature obtainable by the combustion of petroleum or coal-based fuels is not a new or unique process. These spheres are the same as iron and alumino-silicate sphere in the well-studied fly ash formed contaminants as it is burned in furnaces."

 
At 12 December, 2012 15:42, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Sorry, Rick Lee's letter doesn't support your argument.

"...Dr. Lee said coal furnaces cause microspheres. He did not say that office fires do." -- Lying Brian Good lying through his rotten teeth.

Where's the direct quote?

As always, YOU TAKE THE QUOTE OUT OF CONTEXT and then YOU ATTACK YOUR MISINTERPRETATION OF YOUR OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT.

THE CONTEXT OF LEE'S LETTER IS CENTERED AROUND THE WTC FIRE AND THE MICROSPHERES THAT WERE PRODUCED BY THE FIRE -- YOU GODDAMNED CRETIN.

THAT'S WHY THE LETTER IS TITLED "Iron Microspheres in the Context of the World Trade Center Dust"

So what part of "Iron Microspheres in the Context of the World Trade Center Dust" do you fail to understand, cretin?
Once again, you FAIL, shit for brains.

**********

Brian Good's Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 12 December, 2012 15:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

It's right there, UtterFail. Don't you know how to read? CHalk up another one for the NOP Wonder of Silicon Gutter!

 
At 12 December, 2012 15:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

Jeez, GutterBall, when you see me coming you just come and fling your fat ass at my foot!

 
At 12 December, 2012 16:04, Blogger Oystein said...

@ snug bug,

"Oystein, so is it your position that if Dr. Millette's work is a "followup" to Harrit's, then Millette's need not be replicated?"
Well can you define the point when replications won't have to be replicated, or will you call for a replication of the replication of the replication of the replication of the replication of the replication of the replication of the replication of the replication of the replication of the replication of the replication of the replication of the replication of the replication of the replication of the replication of the replication of the replication of the replication of the replication of the replication of the replication of the replication of the replication of the replication of the replication of the replication of the replication of the replication?


"So we should just accept that Millette's work overturns Harrit's"
No, we should accept that Millette's work nicely confirms Harrits, Henry-Couannier's and Basile's work. They all show that the chips aren't thermite.

"When did Dr. Harrit publish data that shows chips are probably several kinds of paints, and not thermitic?"
In April (Bentham paper) and May (an open letter) 2009.

"Who did this alleged debunking days later?"
Sunstealer at JREF.

"I understand a DSC just fine."
No, as you go right ahead demonstrating.

"It shows when a sample is energetic. That's what makes it essential for distinguishing thermitic from non-thermitic chips."
When you pull some snot out of your nose, or ejaculate into your hand, let the sticky stuff dry, and then test in the DSC, you will find it's energetic. Is it thermite then?

"Dr. Millette's refusal to do the DSC means leaves several possibilities unexamined:
1. that Dr. Millette's chips are different from Dr. Harrit's chips"
That there are different kinds of chips is an important result from the Harrit paper - and one that Harrit e.al. themselves failed to notice and appreciate! The MEK chip is different from chips a-d, they are all different from the multi-layered chip and there are at least three more different kinds studied for the Harrit paper. Do you understand that, snug.bug?
Which kind did they test in the DSC?

"2. that Dr. Millette's chips are the same as Dr. Harrit's, and something was wrong with the DSC tests the Harrit team did"
Everything was fine with the DSC test. It alone sufficed to prove that no thermite reaction took place. It's just a useless, incompetent test when you want to find out what your material IS.

"3. that Dr. Millette's chips are thermitic and his analysis of the aluminum component was flawed"
No, that is not a possibility. He used the competent tests. His result are not incompatible with Farrer's DSC results: Epoxy has sufficient energy density and auto-ignites around that temperature of 420°C.

"4. that Dr. Millette's chips do not contain elemental aluminum but are still energetic"
Yes of course, this is not only possible, this is certain! Millette's, and Harrit's, and Basile's, and Henry-Couannier's, chips are ALL both energetic and void of elemental Al. We KNOW for a definite, undisputable fact that Millette's chips must be energetic because they consist mainly of epoxy - an organic material that is, as most organics, energetic.

"Until he distinguishes among these four scenarios his work brings more questions than answers, and his (and your) lack of curiosity in the matter is damning."
#4. is the correct answer. No DSC needed. It is also really uninteresting. We know the red layers are common pigments (and some not so common anymore, such as the strontium chromate that Farrer recently confirmed and that's used in the LaClede primer on the WTC floor trusses) in common organoc paint vehicle, namely epoxy. We know they contain zero elemental Al. That's paint, it's not thermite.

Period.

 
At 12 December, 2012 16:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 12 December, 2012 16:47, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I still don't see any direct quote to support your lies, asshole?

Why is that, liar?

I guess that's the way it goes when you have the reading comprehension skills of a third grader.

So what part of "Iron Microspheres in the Context of the World Trade Center Dust" do you fail to understand, cretin?

Once again, you FAIL, asshole.

**********

Brian Good's Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 12 December, 2012 16:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oystein, your claim that Dr. Millette "replicated" Dr. Jones's work is absurd. How can it be replication without the DSC?

How did Millette distinguish between solid platelets of Aluminum Silicate and platelets of elemental aluminum with a silicate crust, perhaps embedded in a sol-gel matrix? He didn't.

How do you know everything was fine with Jones's DSC test? It hasn't been replicated! It's fine with you because you like its results. In this particular case, the possibility that the machine had been tampered with should be ruled out.

To wallow in willful (and lazy) ignorance because your results confirm your biases is bad science whether its done by conspiracists or by debunkers.

It's too early to draw any conclusions. Jones's team needs to do a rigorous set of SEMs to determine what mineral hematite and kaolin aluminum look like in ordinary paint. Millette needs to demonstrate similarity between his chips and ordinary paint, and also needs to demonstrate similarity between his chips and Jones's. This half-assed science is frustrating.

 
At 12 December, 2012 16:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 12 December, 2012 16:51, Blogger snug.bug said...



I gave you the direct quote, UtterFool.

Iron Microspheres in the Context of the World Trade Center Dust

"Well, let's start with the basics. The World Trade Center was a building with many iron-based components. There were structural components such as beams and electrical conduit. There were building contents such as desks and file cabinets.

"Now, the building is hit by two jet airplanes resulting in a fire fed by jet fuel. The electrical system is compromised resulting in high voltage, high amperage electrical arcing between the wires and the conduit. The fire is in a building with a central core of elevator shafts that act like a chimney efficiently providing the oxygen needed for combustion. The air and other gases are flowing with hurricane force speeds. The fire is sufficiently hot to exceed the plastic strength of the structural steel and the building collapses.

"What about the iron microspheres? The iron has a thin layer of rust flakes that can be easily removed with sticky tape. The iron is heated red hot or hotter and subjected to hurricane force blast furnace-like wind. The iron flakes are liberated as small particles and some iron is vaporized. Like drops of water, the iron flakes form molten spheres that solidify and fume also condenses into spheres, the most efficient geometrical form. Incidentally, iron is not the only material that formed spheres during the event. Some building material is made of minerals containing aluminum and silicon and alumino-silicate spheres were also observed in the dust.

"The formation of iron and other types of spheres at temperature obtainable by the combustion of petroleum or coal-based fuels is not a new or unique process. These spheres are the same as iron and alumino-silicate sphere in the well-studied fly ash formed contaminants as it is burned in furnaces."

 
At 12 December, 2012 17:03, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I still don't see any direct quotes to support your lies and innuendo, faggot.

Why is that, cock smoker?

The answer is simple, you're a liar and con artist who STONEWALLS WHEN ASKED TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT. As always, when you're caught lying through your terracotta teeth, YOU STONEWALL. Just like when I asked you to give me the definition of ΔT, you didn't know the answer, SO YOU STONEWALLED AND STEADFASTLY REFUSED TO ANSWER THE QUESTION.

So what part of "Iron Microspheres in the Context of the World Trade Center Dust" do you fail to understand, charlatan?

Once again, you FAIL, felcher.

**********

Brian Good's Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home