When Will They Make Up Their Alleged Minds?
Box Boy Gage publishes another article supposedly debunking the latest version of the Popular Mechanics book. Get this part:
PM refers to Barry Jennings as the sole witness to explosions in connection with the destruction of Building 7, when in fact that is completely untrue. There are several other individuals who claimed to have heard explosions right before and during the time Building 7 collapsed, including first responders Kevin McPadden7 and Craig Bartmer8.So now we're back to explosions? Remember two years ago, Gage debated Chris Mohr at the University of Colorado (Boulder) where there was this exchange:
Further along in the debate, after Gage showed the WTC 7 collapse video adjacent to a known controlled demolition Chris Mohr, ignored the visual similarity and noted that “they sound completely different”.
Gage: Well, of course they do. One is using high-energy explosives, and the other thermate, an incendiary. This is, after all, a deceptive, controlled demolition.
posted by Pat @ 11:49 PM
81 comments
81 Comments:
Pat, why should anyone make up his or her alleged mind before there's even been a proper investigation? That wouldn't be scientific!
AE pointed out an error in PM's claims. Pointing out that error is not an assertion that the buildings were exploded. It's merely a clarification of the the facts.
Hey Brian, maybe next time you're going to to send a chunk of your disability check to a liar and con artist like Gage, you should spend it instead on something more valuable, like a decent haircut.
Even if he got an investigation from some communist held country, namely North Korea, they'd still think that the investigation was part of the "cover-up" for the Official "Story".
Gage will lose before he gets to court.
Oh good, Gage got more unpaid out of Adam Taylor. Taylor's an obnoxious little pseudoskeptical anarchist wannabe, judging from his videos.
And as usual he misses the point. The absence of physical evidence of explosions outweighs reports of "explosions" in any number.
Why would you expect physical evidence of explosions when nobody went looking for it?
But actually there is physical evidence of explosions. There are pictures of columns that seem to have their walls bulged out, and Dr. Astaneh has a video in which he discusses a perimeter column that he believes was damaged by an explosion.
The reason you believe there's no evidence is because you never looked.
Why would you expect physical evidence of explosions when nobody went looking for it?
Hey, a mentally ill unemployed janitor says there was no search for evidence of explosives. I'm convinced! We need a new investigation!
But actually there is physical evidence of explosions.
False.
There are pictures of columns that seem to have their walls bulged out, and Dr. Astaneh has a video in which he discusses a perimeter column that he believes was damaged by an explosion.
See what I mean?
The reason you believe there's no evidence is because you never looked.
No, the reason we believe there's no evidence is that there's no evidence. And the reason you believe there's evidence is that you're mentally ill and have no understanding of physics whatsoever.
Hey Brian, have the widows had their questions answered yet?
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!
Lyin lies, and jeers at the widows' frustration. Nice company you guys keep around here.
There are pictures of columns that seem to have their walls bulged out...
Controlled demolition doesn't bulge columns, it breaks them. Astaneh-Asl categorically rejects controlled demolition, and his opinion is not physical evidence in any case.
In Brian's world the Titanic broke apart do to EXPLOSIVES! It simply didn't break apart due to the immense weight nor gravity cause they don't exist, explosives were planted in the ship when it was being built. Those "rusticles" aren't rust either, it's nanothermite.
"Why would you expect physical evidence of explosions when nobody went looking for it?"
Because the evidence would have been obvious to everyone working on the pile. It would have been obvious to the thousands of firefighters, policemen, journalists, National Guard, and anyone else at Ground Zero.
Yes, I know, on Brian Goode day at San Francisco Zoo they have to paint the elephants yellow so that you can find them, but everyone else is capable of the obvious.
"But actually there is physical evidence of explosions."
Nope. Explosive force yes, but not explosions caused by explosives.
"There are pictures of columns that seem to have their walls bulged out,"
Seem? Either they're bulging or they're not.
" and Dr. Astaneh has a video in which he discusses a perimeter column that he believes was damaged by an explosion."
The same Dr. Astaneh who thinks you are full of shit. Face it, anything the good doctor says is way over your head. Dolt.
Side note: Chris Mohr chimed in on Gage's personal integrity. He doesn't think Gage is trying to con anybody. He says that in many private conversations that Gage was genuine in his beliefs.
So don't think his a con-man. Just horribly wrong.
RGT, saying that "controlled demolition doesn't bulge columns, it breaks them," is like saying "Executions are done by lethal injection--you can't kill somebody by throwing them off a cliff."
Dr. Astaneh-Asl's opinion is not physical evidence, but he has photographic and video evidence of incendiary and explosive action on steel building components.
TAW, you're silly. Titanic broke because she wasn't built to take the stresses of cantilevering the stern out of the water.
RGT, saying that "controlled demolition doesn't bulge columns, it breaks them," is like saying "Executions are done by lethal injection--you can't kill somebody by throwing them off a cliff."
Using bulging columns as evidence of controlled demolition is like using bruises as evidence of stabbing. The evidence doesn't support what you're trying to do with it.
Unexplained bulges. Bruises are sometimes consistent with strangulation. Bruises are sometimes consistent with one person or two persons restraining someone, and so could be of interest in a stabbing case.
You guys are so quick to find excuses to discard inconvenient evidence. It's the only way you can hang on to your illusions.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dr. Astaneh-Asl's opinion is not physical evidence, but he has photographic and video evidence of incendiary and explosive action on steel building components.
When does he say that is the case?
He says in the video that damage to a perimeter column sample was caused by an explosion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyRw7gEKpBQ
Here is one of his pictures of incendiary action on a steel girder:
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2001/10/03_grou.html
Here is another one:
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/7434/wtcsteeloxidizedlq6.jpg
He says in the video that damage to a perimeter column sample was caused by an explosion...
...from an airplane. Come on, you're just trolling with that one. And I see no evidence that either of those photos indicates incendiaries.
I said there was video evidence of explosions and there was. I'm not aware that any tests were done on that sample to find information on the nature of the explosion.
The first picture shows a steel sample that appears to have been partially vaporized. Such thinning has been reproduced using thermate charges by the engineer Jonathan Cole. (See the five-minute Youtube video Incendiary Experiments http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXlC2TlNgEU )
The second picture shows a steel girder that appears to have had part of its flange melted away, and for which a rectangular portion appears to have been cut out.
I said there was video evidence of explosions and there was. I'm not aware that any tests were done on that sample to find information on the nature of the explosion.
Bill Deagle did tests on the sample and found it was consistent with a nuclear explosion (micro-nukes planted by modified attack baboons is the most likely explanation). The fact that you're unaware of his tests goes a long way towards explaining why you're so confused about 9/11.
The first picture shows a steel sample that appears to have been partially vaporized.
Nuclear weapons will vaporize steel much more efficiently than thermate.
The second picture shows a steel girder that appears to have had part of its flange melted away, and for which a rectangular portion appears to have been cut out.
Which would be consistent with modified attack baboons planting the micro-nukes in such a precise way.
Add in the unexplained mysteries, such as radiation in the dust cloud, and burnt baboon fur found in the wreckage, and I think Brian may have finally stumbled onto the explanation for the destruction of the towers.
Also, "Unexplained Bulges" is a good name for a punk rock band.
More Lyinanity, I see.
I'm not aware that any tests were done on that sample to find information on the nature of the explosion.
Astaneh-Asl said it was an airplane. Your photos show some kind of damage to steel, but there's no reason to suspect thermite.
Incidentally: your Berkeley link has a copyright of 2000, before the attacks. ZOMFG, explain that.
That's what he says. Would you really expect an Iranian who still has a strong accent to say anything different?
I didn't say thermite caused the explosion damage. I said there was evidence of explosive damage--and there is. It has not been demonstrated that kerosene can cause such damage.
The copyright date? Gosh, it couldn't be that the UC Berkeley Office of Public Affairs is over-worked and underpaid, could it?
"Here is one of his pictures of incendiary action on a steel girder:
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2001/10/03_grou.html
Here is another one:
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/7434/wtcsteeloxidizedlq6.jpg"
Great, where - exactly - were these girders located? Which building, which floor? At what point in the recovery where these removed? How long had they been in the pile? What was their location (depth) that they were recovered from the pile?
You have to answer all of these questions before you can try to cite them as evidence of explosives or thermite.
The story behind these photos is that the good doctor was returning or coming from his hotel when he saw the flatbed truck carrying the steel, and he snapped a few before it drove on to Fresh Kills.
The one thing these pictures do show is that no thermite was used. Whatever the cause of the corrosion it is not that.
Gosh, it couldn't be that the UC Berkeley Office of Public Affairs is over-worked and underpaid, could it?
You don't find it strange that the University was discussing the 9/11 attacks a year before they occurred? Falsifying a federal copyright notice is a federal offense, after all.
What makes you think they were discussing 9/11 in 2000? The story is dated Oct 3, 2001.
All the stories have the 2000 copyright date.
You're a real hoot, MGF. You can't see any evidence of incendiaries unless you get a whole lot of impossible questions answered.
But you can say without a doubt and without any questions and without having been there that it's not from thermite--even though Jonathan Cole's thermate devices reproduced the thinning of the steel.
The only way you can maintain your illusions is with a blatant double standard for evidence.
"You can't see any evidence of incendiaries unless you get a whole lot of impossible questions answered."
That's how it's done on science, and it's how it is done in the Crime Lab.
"But you can say without a doubt and without any questions and without having been there that it's not from thermite--even though Jonathan Cole's thermate devices reproduced the thinning of the steel."
There are dozens of factors possible and certainly present within the pile of Ground Zero that are more likely suspects. #1, and prime suspect is Sea Water. Depending on where those beams were located they could have been quietly being eaten away by its proximity to salt water.Chlorides in sea water will corrode steel exactly as is shown on the photos.
The #2, and even more likely cause of the corrosion is a Bimetallic reaction. In the pile there were many metal sources all compressed together for weeks and months and this could also cause the corrosion pictured.
This is what the experts must have thought to...because they're experts and not you.
You demand impeccable scientific proof of incendiaries before you will even permit an investigation into whether they were used.
But it's case closed, for you it wasn't thermite, based on no evidence whatsoever.
Sea water does not cause steel to vaporize, or to evaporate, or to undergo a sulfidation attack causing intergranular melting. Sea water does not cause steel girders to melt.
Stop pretending you're a chemist. You didn't even remember the heat of fusion from Chem 1A. It's for qualified scientists to determine what melted the steel--not Ferris Labs.
The story is dated Oct 3, 2001.
How could it be written in 2001 if it was copyrighted in 2000? You're acting like foreknowledge is a crazy idea.
All of the articles I checked dated from March to December 2001 had the 2000 copyright notice. Are you proposing that dozens of articles published during this period and maintained in the archives at Berkeley.edu are fabrications?
"But it's case closed, for you it wasn't thermite, based on no evidence whatsoever."
Lack of evidence is lack of existence. In this case it means no thermite was used.
"Sea water does not cause steel to vaporize, or to evaporate, or to undergo a sulfidation attack causing intergranular melting. Sea water does not cause steel girders to melt."
None of the things you listed happened to the girders in the pictures on your link. Dolt.
Ignorance of evidence is evidence of ignorance, but it's not evidence of absence, and it's not evidence of a lack of evidence.
How do you know the samples did not vaporize, evaporate, suffer sulfidation attacks, or melt? Were they tested at Ferris Labs? When did you become an expert metallurgist--when you crashed your forklift into an overhead door?
You're proving my point. You impose selective standards--you make unreasonable demands for proof from those who want new investigations, while you demand no evidence at all to support your ignorant and frantic belief that there's nothing to investigate.
Ignorance of evidence is evidence of ignorance, but it's not evidence of absence, and it's not evidence of a lack of evidence.
Oh so we're n***ers now?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nigger
Extremely Disparaging and Offensive. a person of any race or origin regarded as contemptible, inferior, ignorant, etc.
And no, don't even try to take this the wrong way or twist it to fit your imagination.
Hey Brian,
You didn't check out JREF did ya?
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=256440
"Ignorance of evidence is evidence of ignorance, but it's not evidence of absence, and it's not evidence of a lack of evidence."
No. It is absence of the obvious. Those beams weren't photographed in a classified hangar, the pictures were taken by chance on a public street.
Are you really so stupid to think that someone would use exotic charges, then somehow get the thousands of people working at Ground Zero to shut up, and then load key evidence on the back of a flat-bed trailer and truck it out of the city in broad daylight.
"When did you become an expert metallurgist..."
When did you? Do you know who doesn't think these beams are suspicious?
Actual Expert Metallurgists. Dolt.
" You impose selective standards--you make unreasonable demands for proof from those who want new investigations"
For two reasons, the troof-tards make unreasonable demands for proof, and actually got the NIST investigation of WTC-7, and then they got all butt-hurt when it didn't give them the fucked up answers they wanted. Second, I'm playing by troofer standards because it is so frustrating when their asshat logic is turned against them.
" while you demand no evidence at all to support your ignorant and frantic belief that there's nothing to investigate."
I have all the evidence I need...from the multiple investigations into 9/11 that have already been done.
I'm just not mentally feeble.
'Hey Brian,
You didn't check out JREF did ya?'
Nope, smart people scare him.
Are you proposing that dozens of articles published during this period and maintained in the archives at Berkeley.edu are fabrications?
What are you not getting here? Berkeley claims to have copyrighted that article before it was written. That's impossible, yet you trust the article with no evidence whatsoever. Your epistemology is defective.
As always Brian pretend to know better than the experts, and regularly tells everyone else they are not an expert. Sorry Brian, people saw your so called evidence and saw nothing the fringe cult of truth likes to believe existed.
"Nomaster" on the JREF forum has got to be Brian.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=9137848&postcount=13
My identity and credentials are irrelevant to the challenge. We already know that the case against NIST - and in favor of a new investigation - enjoys overwhelming support in the architecture and engineering communities, with or without me. More than 1800 voices against NIST, vs. 0 for NIST. That's not just overwhelming. That's unanimous.
Offtopic: Hoisting my glass tonight in honor of Truthaction. The last haven for Responsible Truthers has died peacefully in its sleep after a long illness. I shall remember it fondly for its deranged infighting and the cowardly cheap shots it took at its intellectual betters (e.g., SLC).
Survivors include Jon Gold, who's now welcome in one fewer place; and Cosmos, who fled to New Zealand, humiliated, having never known Mark Rothenberg.
Yup, after they scammed people out of money they naturally die off which means they they banked the money and are now living in luxury do to gullible idiots who handed out cash for a fraudulent organisation.
Watch as A&E for 9/11 Truth does the same thing.
I see Brian won't address the obvious implications of his evidence: that modified attack baboons planted micro-nukes in the towers.
Oh well, that explains why Bill Deagle is a world-renowned expert, and Brian is a failed janitor who was banned from the truth movement.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
TAW, yes, I regard people who lie about 9/11 as "contemptible, inferior, ignorant, etc.".
That includes Kevin Barrett, Craig Ranke, William Rodriguez, Ian, and you.
I checked out JREF years ago. A mutual admiration society of very juvenile aspies, trying to top each others' stupid one-liners.
MGF, please identify some actual metallurgists who think the "evaporated" and "vaporized" steel is not suspicious.
Where do you get the idea that asking for new investigations is asking for proof? You have a lot of funny ideas.
You have all the evidence you need--because you've made up your mind and you're not interested in facts.
What makes you think smart people scare me? You know who scares me? People like you who make up their facts and don't seem to realize they live in a fantasy world.
RGT, I ask you again--do you really think that dozens of articles hosted at berkeley.edu were fabricated? Is it not more reasonable to suppose that somebody installed obsolete copyright boilerplate on them? Lyin' Ian's nonsense has infected your mind.
GMS, when did I pretend to know better than the experts? I can point out experts' negligence and dishonesty without pretending to know better. Remember, in every lawsuit involving expert testimony, half the experts turn out to be wrong--and in many of them lay juries are permitted to rule on which expert is more credible.
Ian, there is no evidence of modified attack baboons in the towers. You haven't even presented any evidence of modified attack baboons in general.
"Remember, in every lawsuit involving expert testimony, half the experts turn out to be wrong--and in many of them lay juries are permitted to rule on which expert is more credible."
And troofers believe the experts who are wrong. It really is that simple.
How do you know that the experts who want new investigations are wrong? Who are the experts who say we don't need new investigations?
1854 architects and engineers are calling for new investigations--50 structural engineers, 40 high-rise architects, 6 AIA Fellows, 40 PhD engineers, 11 Stanford engineers.
TAW, yes, I regard people who lie about 9/11 as "contemptible, inferior, ignorant, etc.".
So you get a bump on the head and you think you're Judge Dredd?
That includes Kevin Barrett, Craig Ranke, William Rodriguez, Ian, and you.
Don't forget yourself you selffish idiot.
This comment has been removed by the author.
It's not surprising that you think it's okay to lie about 9/11--you do it so much and you tolerate others doing it.
I don't lie about 9/11, and I believe that those who do not lie about it are superior to those who do.
It's not surprising that you think it's okay to lie about 9/11--you do it so much and you tolerate others doing it.
I don't lie about 9/11, and I believe that those who do not lie about it are superior to those who do.
Double standards usually work for you don't they Brian?
If we're the ones that are "lying" pray tell us how come you're the one that got kicked out of the Truth Movement Brian.
They all said that you were too radical and that you always attacked their opinions because you thought that you should be the one running the show.
This comment has been removed by the author.
1854 architects and engineers are calling for new investigations--50 structural engineers, 40 high-rise architects, 6 AIA Fellows, 40 PhD engineers, 11 Stanford engineers.
0 of which are publishing any critiques in anything remotely resembling a reputable publication anywhere on the planet. We don't need a new investigation because a fringe cult collected the names of a relatively few nobodies.
GMS, when did I pretend to know better than the experts? I can point out experts' negligence and dishonesty without pretending to know better.
First you would need to be an expert yourself. As always Brian, massive delusions of grandeur.
Remember, in every lawsuit involving expert testimony, half the experts turn out to be wrong--and in many of them lay juries are permitted to rule on which expert is more credible.
Depends...but I a not even going to bother try to get you to explain that. Regardless Brian, science is not settled in the courtroom. It's not settled with lists of people's names. It's settled in academic forums. Keep dancing.
TAW, where did you get the idea that I was kicked out of the truth movement?
GMS, is ANYONE publishing any critique in any respectable publication? If not, doesn't that suggest that the problem is that no respectable publication is courageous enough to print the obvious?
I don't need to be an expert to point out the experts' dishonesty. I don't need to be a PhD structural engineer to know that Dr. Sunder lied when he claimed that the wreckage of the WTC was "scattered" because of rescue efforts.
I don't need to be a PhD to point out that when NIST terminated its analysis at the moment the towers began to collapse, they dodged all the ten essential mysteries of the collapses.
Since juries of lay people are called upon to judge the validity of experts in court every day, your notion that one must be an expert to recognize dishonesty in an expert is obviously absurd. Your argument was one much beloved by Rob Balsamo, whose response to me pointing out that DCA runway 15 was not used by 757s because it was too short was always to trumpet about his flying credentials.
Don't forget, you can't name even one independent architect or engineer who is willing to say publicly that the NIST collapse sequence is correct.
Poor Brian. He's hysterical because nobody cares about the delusions of a failed janitor whol lives with his parents.
TAW, where did you get the idea that I was kicked out of the truth movement?
From the truth movement. You were banned from scholars for 9/11 truth, CIT, The Northern California 911 Truth Alliance, 911oz, AE911Truth, etc. etc. etc.
GMS, is ANYONE publishing any critique in any respectable publication? If not, doesn't that suggest that the problem is that no respectable publication is courageous enough to print the obvious?
No, that means that there is no serious critique. If you were a scientist instead of a mentally ill unemployed janitor, you'd understand.
I don't need to be an expert to point out the experts' dishonesty. I don't need to be a PhD structural engineer to know that Dr. Sunder lied when he claimed that the wreckage of the WTC was "scattered" because of rescue efforts.
See what I mean? You don't understand anything about 9/11 or how science works.
I don't need to be a PhD to point out that when NIST terminated its analysis at the moment the towers began to collapse, they dodged all the ten essential mysteries of the collapses.
See what I mean? You don't understand anything about 9/11 or how science works.
Since juries of lay people are called upon to judge the validity of experts in court every day, your notion that one must be an expert to recognize dishonesty in an expert is obviously absurd. Your argument was one much beloved by Rob Balsamo, whose response to me pointing out that DCA runway 15 was not used by 757s because it was too short was always to trumpet about his flying credentials.
Here's where Brian makes the hysterical claim that he's competent to judge the work of serious scientists.
Brian, you're not competent to mop floors, which is why you have no job and live with your parents. You can squeal all you want about the NIST report or whatever else you like, but nobody is going to listen to you. You should be honored that I take time out of my busy day to taunt and humiliate you. At least I'm paying attention to you, something no scientists are doing.
Don't forget, you can't name even one independent architect or engineer who is willing to say publicly that the NIST collapse sequence is correct.
False.
Brian, we're still waiting for you to identify an independent widow with a question.
Without Liananity, Ian wouldn't have anything to say at all.
GMS, is ANYONE publishing any critique in any respectable publication? If not, doesn't that suggest that the problem is that no respectable publication is courageous enough to print the obvious?
Brian only in your little moronic little world would a lack of published criticism be evidence of foul play. Yo construct a conspiracy based on 0 evidence to rationalize the fact.
Same goes for creationists & flat earthers. Is there a cover-up there too? Every academic forum on the planet is covering it up? The job of real academic journals is to evaluate claims and publish those that demonstrate their claims. That's probably why the clown car of truth either make up excuses like you are, make up their own journals, or publish in frauds like Bentham. Just because someone isn't validating your inane babbling doesn't validate it. Like a good little conspiracy theorist, if the facts don't fit you just expand the conspiracy.
I don't need to be an expert to point out the experts' dishonesty. I don't need to be a PhD structural engineer to know that Dr. Sunder lied when he claimed that the wreckage of the WTC was "scattered" because of rescue efforts.
Changing the subject are we? We were talking about Astenah Asl. Try to focus Brian.
I don't need to be a PhD to point out that when NIST terminated its analysis at the moment the towers began to collapse, they dodged all the ten essential mysteries of the collapses.
Your sacred little list is irrelevant. If it wasn't it would be demonstrated in an academic forum instead of the head nodding of irrelevants like yourself. Crying on the internet is not evidence.
Since juries of lay people are called upon to judge the validity of experts in court every day, your notion that one must be an expert to recognize dishonesty in an expert is obviously absurd.
Again Brian, science is not determined in the court room. The world of law, & the world of science are very different places. If it is an area of controversy in science then it is up to the expert to validate what he is saying. Keep dancing.
Don't forget, you can't name even one independent architect or engineer...
Well we both know that's not true...hence your constant goal post moving of ad hom to "no NIST or govt" connections. Which is not a requirement in science anyway. Science does not involve lists of names to prove claims. It involves actual studies and the fullest academic scrutiny. Apologists like yourself can sing and dance, but as always you only fool yourself and the equally dim.
GMS, certainly the unspeakability of issues of the incomplete and dishonest nature of the NIST reports is a matter of concern.
I had accepted the truss failure theory that was conventional wisdom from 2002 to 2005. I was skeptical, but who was I to argue with MIT? When the conventional wisdom shifted in 2005 from truss failure to column failure and there was no debate, nobody saying "how could we have been so wrong?" I found that silence very conspicuous.
There is nothing inane about pointing out that NIST only gave us half a report and is thus able to dodge the ten essential mysteries of the collapses.
I didn't say Dr. Astaneh was dishonest. I said it was unreasonable to expect an Iranian college professor to challenge the official dogma. It was quite courageous of him as it was to say on TV that he saw "melting of girders".
GMS, certainly the unspeakability of issues of the incomplete and dishonest nature of the NIST reports is a matter of concern.
Who says the NIST report was dishonest and incomplete? You? You're a mentally ill unemployed janitor who believes in magic thermite elves. Nobody cares what you think.
The NIST report was clearly dishonest and incomplete. They admit that they did not analyze the collapse. Thus they dodged the ten essential mysteries of the collapses.
I don't believe in magic elves. Your lie.
Who says the NIST report was dishonest and incomplete? You? You're a mentally ill unemployed janitor who believes in modified attack baboons. Nobody cares what you think.
You're a liar, and the NIST report is dishonest and incomplete.
Yes, you've told us many times that the NIST report is dishonest and incomplete. And I've told you many times that nobody cares what you think of the NIST report, since you're a failed janitor who lives with his parents, and not a serious scientist.
And given that NIST hasn't created a new panel to investigate your claims, I think it's safe to say I've won that battle. You can squeal and cry all you want, but the facts won't change.
Even if I were a failed janitor (and I'm not) that doesn't change the fact that the NIST report is dishonest and incomplete.
If that were the case Brian would give us evidence in the manner of sourced reports rather than just blurting it out all the time that it's "dishonest and incomplete".
Hitler Syndrome works wonders don't it?
GMS, certainly the unspeakability of issues of the incomplete and dishonest nature of the NIST reports is a matter of concern.
Which should be easily demonstrable and withstand the rigors that every academic must undergo. Why do you clowns get a pass?
When the conventional wisdom shifted in 2005 from truss failure to column failure and there was no debate, nobody saying "how could we have been so wrong?" I found that silence very conspicuous.
No one cares what you find suspicious. Their findings were reviewed by the National Research Council, and individual researchers had related research published in independent journals. Stop crying & making excuses, & start publishing
There is nothing inane about pointing out that NIST only gave us half a report and is thus able to dodge the ten essential mysteries of the collapses.
It's inane because you fail to follow the rigors of actual science and instead concoct more excuses in its place.
I didn't say Dr. Astaneh was dishonest. I said it was unreasonable to expect an Iranian college professor to challenge the official dogma. It was quite courageous of him as it was to say on TV that he saw "melting of girders".
^Like I said...excuses. You clowns can't get published in a real forum anywhere on the entire planet so you concoct another conspiracy to back the first conspiracy.
He woud be dishonest as he conducted the studies and nothing he said purported explosives or incendiaries. Sorry, you can parade his name all you want but the fact is that the cast majority of what he has said and done contradicts your delusions. Only through your incessant mental backflips could you conclude otherwise
So Brian is there a cover up on flat earth & creationism?
*vast majority
What do you mean, "clowns get a pass"? It's hardly the experts' fault that the journals consider the issues unspeakable. During the 3 years that FEMA's zipper/pancake theory was conventional wisdom, what controversy was there about that? Then NIST came along and repudiated that in 2005, and there was no controversy about that.
You'd think that engineers would have a bit more interest in the greatest structural failures in history.
In what way have I failed to demonstrate rigorously that the NIST report is incomplete? They admitted that they did not analyze the collapse!
I didn't say Dr. Astaneh was dishonest. I don't have any way to know if he was or not.
Dr. Astaneh never said anything contradicting the fact that melted and molten steel was observed at the site. Its presence has not been explained other than by the thermite theory, and its presence represents one of ten essential mysteries that NIST dodged.
Even if I were a failed janitor (and I'm not) that doesn't change the fact that the NIST report is dishonest and incomplete.
Poor Brian. He's too stupid to understand that nobody cares what he thinks of the NIST report. I guess being a failed janitor makes it tough to understand how worthless one's own opinion is.
Dr. Astaneh never said anything contradicting the fact that melted and molten steel was observed at the site. Its presence has not been explained other than by the thermite theory, and its presence represents one of ten essential mysteries that NIST dodged.
See what I mean? Brian thinks we should take him seriously when he babbles about nonexistent "molten steel", magic thermite, and "essential mysteries" that exist only in his damaged mind.
So Ian, what does your financee think when you want to spend Friday nights posting obsessively about me? Or does she go out and have a good time without you?
So Ian, what does your financee think when you want to spend Friday nights posting obsessively about me? Or does she go out and have a good time without you?
So Ian, what does your financee think when you want to spend Friday nights posting obsessively about me? Or does she go out and have a good time without you?
Poor Brian. He's obsessed with my social life, because he has no friends or money or romantic relationships (stalking Carol Brouillet and Willie Rodriguez doesn't count).
But I guess he posts this spam because he knows 9/11 truth is dead and there's nothing left to talk about.
Says the guy who spends his Friday nights in NYC posting obsessively about somebody who in his fantasies is homosexual. And who won't tell us what his alleged financee thinks about that kind of thing.
Post a Comment
<< Home