Wednesday, June 25, 2014

AE911Truth Threatens to Sue CNN

I got this in e-mail earlier today, referring to the story we discussed earlier where they were criticized by CNN.


With our usual grace, guts, and grit, we need to tell CNN how we feel!
 Please copy your letter before you hit the send button on CNN's website, and paste it in the box on the AE911Truth.org "Contact Us" link.
We'd like to compile your missives and display them with your name on our website. Support AE911Truth's exploration into direct legal action against CNN. Our attorney has assured us that CNN has clearly stepped over the line in an act of slander, which carries legal ramifications. We need your financial support to hire the experts to enter into the exploratory stages of a lawsuit. This case could very well become the best opportunity yet to place the WTC evidence into the legal record through the discovery process and yield a dramatic win for 9/11 Truth over the entire mainstream media. 

 Yeah, I'm hoping they do. Grab the popcorn and watch another idiotic Truther legal case go down in flames.

65 Comments:

At 25 June, 2014 20:16, Blogger Steve said...

"With our usual grace, guts, and grit, we need to tell CNN how we feel!"

We feel butthurt.

 
At 25 June, 2014 20:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

James, we already discussed this matter and nobody was able to identify any lies in the pamphlet. You pointed out one unfortunate statement where the pamphleteer offered an opinion as if it were a fact ("residue of incendiaries was documented by the USGS") and I pointed out that since it was a supportable opinion it was not a lie.

 
At 25 June, 2014 20:20, Blogger Ian said...

James, we already discussed this matter and nobody was able to identify any lies in the pamphlet.

The name "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth" is a lie. There are no architects or engineers in the group, and they reject the truth about 9/11.

You fail again, Brian, but given that you failed at a job that had you mopping floors, it's par for the course for you.

 
At 25 June, 2014 20:30, Blogger Steve said...

Ian, I enjoy your refusal to acknowledge the legitimacy of that group as answer to their questions.

 
At 25 June, 2014 20:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

Lyin Ian, there are 119 structural engineers in the architects and engineers group, people with real names and license numbers. 3 og them PhD structural engineers.

http://www.ae911truth.org/signatures/Petition-2000-AEs-13-09.pdf

When are you going to provide your Uncle Steve's real name and license number?

There are 40 highrise architects in the group, 6 AIA Fellows, and 2207 architects and engineers altogether.

Why your colleagues on this board tolerate your blatant and STOOOOPID lying I don't know.

 
At 25 June, 2014 21:04, Blogger Ian said...

Lyin Ian, there are 119 structural engineers in the architects and engineers group, people with real names and license numbers. 3 og them PhD structural engineers.

http://www.ae911truth.org/signatures/Petition-2000-AEs-13-09.pdf

When are you going to provide your Uncle Steve's real name and license number?

There are 40 highrise architects in the group, 6 AIA Fellows, and 2207 architects and engineers altogether.

Why your colleagues on this board tolerate your blatant and STOOOOPID lying I don't know.


My, such squealing!

 
At 26 June, 2014 06:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

Nobody has identified any lies in the pamphlet. CNN never identified any lies in the pamphlet, but they claimed that the pamphlet spread lies.

I think it's entirely appropriate that the architects and engineers demand that CNN back up the claim that the pamphlet lies and, if CNN can't back up its claim, that CNN issue a retraction and an apology.

 
At 26 June, 2014 07:13, Blogger Emmanuel Goldstein said...

Form 990 ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS FOR 9-11 TRUTH INC, Part I Summary, 1.) mission statement

Our mission is to research, compile, and disseminate (some) scientific evidence relative to the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers, (not all 7, just 3 of the buildings) calling for a truly open and independent investigation and supporting others in the pursuit of justice. (Except Dr. Judy Wood)

Form 990 ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS FOR 9-11 TRUTH INC, Schedule A, Part II, Section A

from 2008 to 2012 AE911Truth income was $1.365 million!!! I think it's time for a tax audit...Just a thought, you know...

http://pdfs.citizenaudit.org/2014_01_EO/26-1532493_990_201212.pdf

If Mr. Gage was searching for the truth, then he would not be trying to deceive his supporters and the American people by claiming to present the best "scientific forensic evidence", only to completely ignore the large sum of scientific forensic evidence that thermite does not explain. If a scientist or researcher only presented the evidence that supports their hypothesis while completely ignoring the evidence that countered their hypothesis, they could be stripped of their professional license or degree for presenting such an unscientific and biased fraction of the total sum of important physical evidence that demands consideration.

Theory, speculation, and belief are not necessary to understand that directed energy was used on 9/11, rather, only detailed study of the empirical evidence from 9/11 is necessary. Situations like this are rare in science, where there is so much empirical evidence that one can bypass theory and speculation to draw an irrefutable conclusion from the evidence. This also helps to illustrate a major difference between Dr. Judy Wood and other 9/11 researchers, as she did not start with theory or speculation and then begin researching to see if it was consistent with the evidence. Instead, Dr. Wood simply did what any objective, vigilant scientist would do, she gathered and studied as much of the empirical evidence from 9/11 as possible, assembling a monumental database of verifiable physical evidence that dwarfs the efforts of any other 9/11 "research", including the unscientific '9/11 Commission Report'. After gathering and studying all of this important evidence, Dr. Wood arrived at the only logical, inescapable conclusion that explains all of this empirical evidence, a general category of weapon technology known as 'directed energy weapons' (DEW). It would be theory or speculation to go beyond that by trying to name a specific weapon technology or location, because that is not what the evidence allows us to irrefutably conclude. This is why the term is left as a general one, because that is the only logical, conclusive, and irrefutable conclusion that the evidence allows us to make.

This download is the Foreword and book review of "WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?" by Eric Larsen, Professor Emeritus at John Jay College of Criminal Justice 1971 - 2006 (35 years), plus the Author's Preface.

http://www.checktheevidence.com/pdf/Where%20Did%20The%20Towers%20Go%20-%20Dr%20Judy%20Wood.pdf

 
At 26 June, 2014 07:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

Mr. Goldstein, if you think $273,000 a year over five years is a lot of money for an organization that produced two DVDs in that time, you must live in an inherited cabin twenty miles up a dirt road.

The San Francisco Bay Area is very expensive, and $273 k doesn't go very far in that environment.

 
At 26 June, 2014 15:41, Blogger James B. said...

The who pamphlet was a lie. There is no evidence that the World Trade Center was blowed up by supersekrit nanothermite.

 
At 26 June, 2014 20:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

James B, can you link to the brochure? I can't seem to find it anywhere on the internet.

Where does it say the World Trade Center was blowed up by supersekrit nanothermite?

 
At 27 June, 2014 12:12, Blogger Wabble Wobble said...

Found it in about 5 seconds.
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2014/05/truthers_plan_to_hand_out_fake_brochures_for_911_museum_on_opening_day.php?page=2

"The destruction of Building 7 has all the characteristics of a controlled demolition with explosives" is a lie.

 
At 27 June, 2014 13:43, Blogger Pat said...

Here's an easily-proven lie from the pamphlet:

"The Twin Tower collapses have all the characteristics of controlled demolitions using explosives...."

In fact, Gage has admitted in the past (IIRC in the Mark Roberts debate on Hardfire) that the Twin Tower collapses were not accompanied by the ear-splitting explosions so typical of controlled demolitions.

 
At 27 June, 2014 16:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

Pat. not all controlled demolitions have ear-splitting detonations.

The verinage technique uses hydraulic rams to destabilize the structure so it falls down. A thermitic demolition of two 600 foot steel towers in 1935 no doubt lacked ear-splitting explosions. I remember reading (I think it was in Popular Science or Popular Mechanics) of the demolition of a tall smokestack by removing bricks from its base and replacing them with blocks of ice, so that when the ice melted the smokestack toppled. No ear-splitting detonations there.

So ear-splitting detonations are not a necessary feature of controlled demolition.

Do you happen to have the link to the text of the pamphlet? I read it somewhere online and now I can't find it to read it again.

 
At 27 June, 2014 16:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

Pat, have you considered the possibility that explosive charges may have been planted INSIDE the hollow box columns? If the column walls were heated with powerful incendiaries and relatively small explosive charges detonated inside, the explosive pressure would have bulged the column walls out, causing the columns to buckle and fail. Little of the sound would escape the confines of the box columns. Think of gasoline burning in your car's combustion chamber.



 
At 28 June, 2014 11:06, Blogger Wabble Wobble said...

"Pat. not all controlled demolitions have ear-splitting detonations."

Controlled demolitions with explosives do. The pamphlet said "all the characteristics of controlled demolitions with explosives."

It's a lie. The truth would have been something like, "The destruction was missing some characteristics of a controlled demolition, but we believe the Bush administration had an evil team of engineers who designed a sinister means of blowing up skyscrapers without visible prep work, loud noises, or the usual CD evidence in the rubble."

 
At 28 June, 2014 11:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

Sounds of explosions were reported by three witnesses to the destruction of WTC7, so your claim that there was no sound is incorrect.

Why would you expect prep work in the four vacant floors 14,15,16,and 17 to be visible?

How do you know what evidence was present in the rubble? The rubble was scooped up so fast that the complete body of a man in a business suit was found in the dump.

 
At 28 June, 2014 11:56, Blogger Wabble Wobble said...

I didn't claim there was "no sound" at WTC7. What there wasn't was ear-shattering explosions (easily picked up on audio recordings) immediately prior to the collapse. That's a characteristic of explosive controlled demolition.

Vacant floors are maintained and monitored by staff. It's not like Bush & crew are going to cross their fingers and hope nobody ever peeks into those floors for any reason.

As for evidence in the rubble, Brent Blanchard said, "Our team, working at Ground Zero, including myself, never saw indication of explosive use that would have been evident after the event. You just can't clean up all the det cord, shock tube, blasting cap remnants, copper backing from explosive charges, burn marks along clean-cut edges of columns, etc., nor is there any evidence in the thousands of photos taken by the press and dozens of agencies over the following days."

 
At 28 June, 2014 12:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

Why do you assume that ear-shattering explosions would be a necessary aspect of a covert demolition?

I pointed out that verinage demolitions have no explosives at all.

At best, your criticism is based on the use of adjective "explosive". Mr. Gage and others have been influenced by Dr. Jones to confidently conflate explosives with incendiaries. What if they are wrong? So what?

NIST claims that office fires brought WTC7 down. Would you argue that scientifically-applied incendiaries could not do what office fires are alleged to have done?

How do you know that vacant floors are monitored by "staff"? And how do you know who these staff were? And how do you know their circumstanced?

Why would you expect Mr. Blanchard to find det cord in the rubble? Why would a high tech no-expense-barred demolition op use det cord? They would use radio-controlled and self-destructing detonators that could be controlled by joystick in real time to make sure that the entire collapse stays on center.

You may as well argue that murder by hammer is impossible because it's always done by lethal injection.

 
At 28 June, 2014 16:15, OpenID mgferris said...

"The verinage technique uses hydraulic rams to destabilize the structure so it falls down. A thermitic demolition of two 600 foot steel towers in 1935 no doubt lacked ear-splitting explosions. I remember reading (I think it was in Popular Science or Popular Mechanics) of the demolition of a tall smokestack by removing bricks from its base and replacing them with blocks of ice, so that when the ice melted the smokestack toppled. No ear-splitting detonations there."

No hydraulic rams were seen in the days before the attack, nor were they seen on 9-11, nor were they found in the rubble.
In fact none of the examples you pathetically cite are relevant to 9-11.

TWC 1 & 2, and WTC7 were all healthy, structurally sound buildings on the morning of 9-11-2001. The only thing that changed was they were both struck by identical jumbo jets with identical outcomes.

You fail.

"Why do you assume that ear-shattering explosions would be a necessary aspect of a covert demolition?"

First off, there is no such thing as a covert demolition.

Second, the size of the charges required to bring down all three buildings would have been in excess of 5000lbs per building to drop them in the way EVERYBODY SAW THEM FALL.

You fail to argue using fact based on known events.

"I pointed out that verinage demolitions have no explosives at all. "

Neat, but this would have left obvious evidence.

"Why would you expect Mr. Blanchard to find det cord in the rubble?"

It would have been used.


" Why would a high tech no-expense-barred demolition op use det cord? "
Because they know what they're doing.

"They would use radio-controlled and self-destructing detonators that could be controlled by joystick in real time to make sure that the entire collapse stays on center."

This is hilarious.

So, in your world, explosives experts would use explosive charges set off by radio detonators...in a tower full of police and firefighters using THOUSANDS of radios - each one with the ability to set off a charge prematurely, or jam the detonator's receivers.

Guess what, Sherlock, a real demo team would have set the charges off on a lower floor to sent the towers over on their sides to do ten times the damage done on 9-11.

"How do you know that vacant floors are monitored by "staff"? And how do you know who these staff were? And how do you know their circumstanced? "

How do YOU know?

I've met people who worked in WTC1. While I don't know everything about them I do know they weren't going to sit around and let strange men plant explosives.

"You may as well argue that murder by hammer is impossible because it's always done by lethal injection."

No.

See we're arguing murder by lethal injection. You, Gage, and the rest of the Troofers are the ones running around looking for a hammer.



 
At 28 June, 2014 16:19, Blogger Wabble Wobble said...

Snug.bug:
You're missing the point, which is that the pamphlet contained lies. You can speculate all you want about a hypothetical CD that has no visible prep work, no ear-shattering booms immediately preceding the collapse, and none of the usual CD evidence in the rubble. But since your example is purely hypothetical, and does not resemble any type of known demolition, then it's a lie to say that the WTC collapses had all of the characteristics of an explosive demolition (or any other type of demolition, for that matter).

 
At 28 June, 2014 16:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

Wabble, it seems that you think that "you're missing the point" is a license to refuse to answer any of my questions.

You have not identified any lies. All I see is the adjective "explosive". You seem to think that the noise of explosions precludes their use, but since there are many witnesses to the noise of explosions and there is no witness at all to the sound of 47 concrete floors allegedly crashing to earth 8 seconds before the beginning of the visible collapse, you seem to be on shaky ground there.

If you guys had truth on your side, then why did the government supply you with such lousy talking points? Did that never occur to you?


 
At 28 June, 2014 16:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

Wabble, I'll repeat the questions you refused to answer.

1. Why do you assume that ear-shattering explosions would be a necessary aspect of a covert demolition?


2. Would you argue that scientifically-applied incendiaries could not do what office fires are alleged to have done?

3. How do you know that vacant floors are monitored by "staff"?

4. How do you know who these staff were?

5. How do you know their circumstances?

6. Why would you expect Mr. Blanchard to find det cord in the rubble?

7. Why would a high tech no-expense-barred demolition op use det cord?

 
At 28 June, 2014 16:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

mgf, contrary to your claim , WTC7 was not struck by an
airplane. WTC1 and WTC2 were designed to absorb the impact (and the fires) from a 4-engine 707 jetliner flying at 600 mph.

Upon what basis do you claim that there is no such thing as a covert demolition? Any demolition that is disguised a fire-induced collapse is a covert demolition.

When did you become an expert on explosives? NIST said that 9 pounds of RDX could take out column 79. Dr. Van Romero said that a few charges could bring the towers down. FEMA expected us to believe that a few failing truss anchors caused an irreversible chain reaction--and it seems that the engineering community agreed with them.

You just make shit up. That may be good enough for your buddies at Federico's who think you're smart because you had a few weeks of college at CSUMB, but it doesn't impress the rest of us.

How can you opine that det cord would have been used? Do you commonly employ explosives to demolish 100-story buildings?

You seem to think that radios operating at one frequency should set off or jam detonators operating at a different frequency. What basis have you for this opinion?

Guess what, Sherlock, a real demo team would have bent over backwards to avoid damaging adjacent buildings because they dare not risk high-powered insurance investigations on behalf of the neighbors.

How would the people you know in WTC1 have been in a position to detect explosive or thermitic devices planted in the towers' 15 miles of elevator shafts? Unlike you, I have worked in tall buildings, including the tippy top floors of Sears Tower. In all that time working there, I never had occasion to inspect the elevator shafts.

 
At 28 June, 2014 17:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

I worked in tall buildings long enough so that I got trapped in a stuck elevator. It stopped, we peeled the doors open and we saw a concrete block wall.

You really should challenge yourself more. Go to NYC, look around. The smartest homeless people in the world are in NYC.

 
At 28 June, 2014 20:26, OpenID mgferris said...

"mgf, contrary to your claim , WTC7 was not struck by an
airplane."

Didn't claim that. WTC7 was hit by WTC1 after WTC1 was hit by a plane.

" WTC1 and WTC2 were designed to absorb the impact (and the fires) from a 4-engine 707 jetliner flying at 600 mph. "

Obviously this is not true.

"Upon what basis do you claim that there is no such thing as a covert demolition? Any demolition that is disguised a fire-induced collapse is a covert demolition."

When was the last time a black ops team destroyed a building using fire and got away with it? Even the Russians couldn't get away with it last month in the Crimea.

"When did you become an expert on explosives?"

Not an expert. I do have the Ranger Handbook, and their cutting formulas are pretty clear as to how much demo you need.


" NIST said that 9 pounds of RDX could take out column 79."

One column...out of how many?


"Dr. Van Romero said that a few charges could bring the towers down."

Yes, and here's what he said 10 days later:

"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero, a vice president at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.

He made the correction because he was...wrong.


" FEMA expected us to believe that a few failing truss anchors caused an irreversible chain reaction--and it seems that the engineering community agreed with them."

Because that's what happened. The truss anchors buckled from the heat, and the floor collapsed. Each falling floor energy equal to a tactical nuke. Gravity did the rest.

"How can you opine that det cord would have been used? Do you commonly employ explosives to demolish 100-story buildings? "

No, but the guys WHO ARE IN THE DEMOLITION BUIZ DO.

"You seem to think that radios operating at one frequency should set off or jam detonators operating at a different frequency. What basis have you for this opinion? "

Radios on 9-11 (and today) operate on multiple frequencies, and on 9-11 what was the number one cause of FDNY deaths? The radios canceled each other out, so the guys in the North Tower didn't know that the South Tower had gone down, and didn't hear the EVAC orders.

Demo teams do not carry radios once the charges are in place.

"Guess what, Sherlock, a real demo team would have bent over backwards to avoid damaging adjacent buildings because they dare not risk high-powered insurance investigations on behalf of the neighbors."

So...in your world...a black ops team is going to kill thousands of people in cold blood under the staged event of a duel plane crash...but they're worried about the insurance guys from down the street.

"How would the people you know in WTC1 have been in a position to detect explosive or thermitic devices planted in the towers' 15 miles of elevator shafts?"

Because all work done on NYC and Port Authority property had to be inspected and signed off on. Your mystical team would have been busted.


"Unlike you, I have worked in tall buildings, including the tippy top floors of Sears Tower. In all that time working there, I never had occasion to inspect the elevator shafts."

Why would a window washer inspect an elevator shaft?

 
At 29 June, 2014 07:28, Blogger Wabble Wobble said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 29 June, 2014 07:31, Blogger Wabble Wobble said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 29 June, 2014 07:51, Blogger Wabble Wobble said...

As to snug.bug's questions that he begs I answer:

1. The possibility of an explosive demolition without ear-shattering explosions has not been demonstrated. In any case it would have required the invention, development, testing, and manufacturing of new demolition technology, which adds more participants and another layer of complexity to a conspiracy that is already absurdly complex. Recruiting engineers and workers willing to participate in such an insane plot (or keeping them silent afterwards with 100% certainty) is impractical in itself.

2. I never said that enough incendiaries (or RDX, or nukes...) couldn't bring down the WTC -- but there were no incendiaries at WTC. Protec "spoke directly with equipment operators and site foremen who personally extracted beams and debris from Ground Zero.... To a man, they do not recall encountering molten structural steel beams, nor do they recall seeing any evidence of pre-cutting or explosive severance of beams at any point during debris removal activities." (Astaneh-Asl used the word "melting," but his photos clearly show the corrosion which was found to have occurred at temperatures substantially lower than the steel's melting point.)

3. Yes, periodic or even constant monitoring of vacant floors is done. It's done in the building where I work. Another example: "daily inspections of vacant offices, monitoring of vacant floors with ITV cameras" (http://www.iino.co.jp/kaiun/english/docs/2009E_WEB_all.pdf). What, you think the WTC7 staff would simply abandon whole floors of the building for extended periods of time? More importantly, how would Bush *know* that nobody would monitor, or inspect, or do maintenance on the vacant floors? Lastly, I'm not convinced that the floors actually were vacant. NCSTAR 1A (Table 1-1, Use of floors in WTC 7) lists only floor 14 as "vacant," and 15 through 17 as "Citigroup."

4. I don't know the names of the staff. So what?

5. I don't "know the circumstances" of the staff, whatever you mean by that. So what? No, I don't believe the staff were in on a plot to destroy their building.

6. I most certainly would not expect Mr. Blanchard to find det cord in the rubble, since there was no controlled demolition.

7. I never said one would absolutely positively need det cord, but that is only one of several things mentioned by Blanchard that weren't in the rubble. Explosively cut steel wasn't seen in the rubble either. It is seen in the rubble of other demolitions -- why would WTC be uniquely different? More importantly, how would the Bush administration *know* that explosively cut steel would not be noticed?

 
At 29 June, 2014 12:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

mgf, did you never hear of the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy? An airplane hit a building and the building fell down does not mean the airplane made the building fall down. The buildings were designed for the impact of a 4-engine jetliner and the fires. Most structural engineers were surprised when they fell.

Since black ops teams rarely have any need to destroy buildings, such events are rare. There is the Reichstag fire, for one example.

NIST said 9 pounds of RDX could take out column 79. NIST claims that they believe that taking out that one column took out the entire building.

Dr. Van Romero said that a few charges could bring the towers down. That has nothing to do with his belief that fires could have done it. He never said that a few charges could not bring the towers down, and neither did anyone else. You have no evidence that he was wrong about that.

Your belief in the collapse mechanism for the towers is based on the $600,000 2002 report. Apparently you never consulted the 2005 $20 million report or its FAQs.

"NIST’s findings do not support the 'pancake theory' of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers . . . . [T]the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon."

Can you explain why a black ops team that was trying to disguise a covert demolition as a fire-induced collapse would use a protocol that left evidence of demolition around? Your claim that real demolitionists use det cord so a black ops team would too makes no sense. It's like saying real butchers kill cattle with a bolt gun, so nobody could kill anyone by throwing them off a high roof.

Radio control of detonators was completely practical. All that was needed was to use very powerful transmitters and very insensitive receivers that would not hear lower-powered signals.
Since every detonator receiver would need its own unique firing code, the serial code sequence would provide another layer of protection from accidental triggers.

Yes, a black ops team would be concerned about insurance investigations. It would be very difficult to control them. If the investigators faulted WTC Security and looked into the Ace Elevator contract, there's no telling what might have happened.

How do you know that explosives were not installed in the elevator shafts AFTER the work was inspected and signed off on? How do you know explosives and thermitic devices were not hidden under newly-sprayed fireproofing, or hidden inside the hollow core columns?



























 
At 29 June, 2014 13:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

Wabble

1. Lots of explosives have lower brisance than does RSX. They are thus less ear-shattering. I would submit that the din of a collapsing building can cover up a lot of bangs and booms--especially if the explosives were inside the hollow core columns and the column walls were bulged out so they buckled, but were not breached.

2. How do you know there were no incendiaries at the WTC? What made the melted steel if not incendiaries? Jet fuel can't melt steel. 8 PhDs attested to melted steel. One of Dr. Astaneh's pictures was published on October 3, 3 weeks after 9/11. That was pretty fast "corrosion". Of course if the "corrosion" was facilitated by incendiaries and chemical attack, the distinction between corrosion and melting is moot, both being detrimental to a building structure. You guys just use the word "corrosion" to try to om,ply that it's a natural process. That has not been demonstrated. Nor has the melted steel been explained.

3. TV monitoring of empty facilities can easily be defeated by electronic means or even by putting up a still in front of the lens of what the camera normally sees. Even if the empty floors were inspected, would activities of demolitionists necessarily have caused notice by the inspectors? Was there construction work going on on the vacant floors? Were the drop ceilings in place? Would you expect building staff to inspect above the drop ceilings?

The FEMA report says floors 14--17 were vacant. That Citigroup was leasing them does not mean they were occupied.

4. Were the staff members that you assume monitored the vacant floors security staff or janitorial staff? Low level employees or did a supervisor take over the responsibility? Full time building employees, or contract workers? It makes a difference.

5. On what basis do you not believe the staff was in on a plot to destroy the building? Have you never heard of the old security-guy-disguised-as-a-janitor ploy? The spy-disguised-as-a-janitor ploy?

6. You seemed to think that Mr. Blanchard's failure to find det cord in the rubble was significant. Why would you expect a black ops team doing a covert demolition disguised as a fire-induced collapse to use a protocol that leaves a bunch of demolition evidence at the site?


7. Again, why would you expect a black ops team doing a covert demolition disguised as a fire-induced collapse to use a protocol that leaves a bunch of demolition evidence at the site?
























































 
At 29 June, 2014 17:12, OpenID mgferris said...

"mgf, did you never hear of the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy? An airplane hit a building and the building fell down does not mean the airplane made the building fall down."

In this case it does.

"The buildings were designed for the impact of a 4-engine jetliner and the fires."

Obviously this is not true. To date, none of the design team has ever produced their calculations to show this is true.

" Most structural engineers were surprised when they fell."

No. Not engineer Mohamed Atta, or engineer Usma bin Laden. They're the only two engineers who count.

"Since black ops teams rarely have any need to destroy buildings, such events are rare."

Actually, between Iraq and Afghanistan they (real black ops teams) have destroyed hundreds. All you need is a laser, and a B-1 bomber.

" There is the Reichstag fire, for one example."

No cause has ever been determined for the Reichstag fire. There's a 50% chance it was just an accident.

"NIST said 9 pounds of RDX could take out column 79. NIST claims that they believe that taking out that one column took out the entire building."

You can't quote NIST, and then turn around and say that NIST's report is inaccurate. Only an idiot does this.

""NIST’s findings do not support the 'pancake theory' of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers . . . . [T]the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.""

Didn't say pancaking. Said the floors contained energy equal to a tactical nuke. The videos clear show the buildings tearing themselves apart from an array of forces caused by the collapse.

"Can you explain why a black ops team that was trying to disguise a covert demolition as a fire-induced collapse would use a protocol that left evidence of demolition around?"

The answer to that is no black-ops team would be stupid enough to carry out a scenario as you suggest.

"Radio control of detonators was completely practical."

Nope.


"All that was needed was to use very powerful transmitters and very insensitive receivers that would not hear lower-powered signals.
Since every detonator receiver would need its own unique firing code, the serial code sequence would provide another layer of protection from accidental triggers."

Problem is that none of that exists. Even now it does not exist, so it would have to be custom made, there would be a paper trail, and a year of testing.

Someone would have noticed.

"Yes, a black ops team would be concerned about insurance investigations."

No, because using your idiotic scenario with secret untraceable, silent demo that leaves zero residue there would be no reason to believe they'd be caught.


"It would be very difficult to control them."

Funny how in a thread about suing for liable you just implied that NYPD, FDNY, FBI. FEMA, and NIST all obstructed justice by lying about what they found at Ground Zero and Fresh Kills.

 
At 29 June, 2014 17:13, OpenID mgferris said...

"Lots of explosives have lower brisance than does RSX."

But can they cut steel? No.


"How do you know there were no incendiaries at the WTC? What made the melted steel if not incendiaries?"

There was no melted steel.

"8 PhDs attested to melted steel."

But never confirmed that is was melted steel. They saw what thyey thought was melted steel. Big difference.

"One of Dr. Astaneh's pictures was published on October 3, 3 weeks after 9/11. That was pretty fast "corrosion"."

You mean Dr. Astenah who knows that fire brought down the towers, and said he's considering suing people who keep misquoting him? That Dr. Astaneh?

'Of course if the "corrosion" was facilitated by incendiaries and chemical attack,..."

Really, so which beams were they? You imply that you know exactly where these beams had been in position within the building, and which building they came from. So just post a link to the blue prints and circle which where they were located.

What? You can't? I mean if you don't even know which of the seven WTC buildings these beams came from then how do you know what caused the corrosion? They were on the back of a truck. The good doctor didn't see where they'd come from.


"the distinction between corrosion and melting is moot, both being detrimental to a building structure. "

Not really. Steel has a pretty good life even with a layer of corrosion.

 
At 29 June, 2014 23:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

mgf, yes I can quote NIST and then turn around and say their report is inaccurate. NIST is your source. I can quote your source for information that refutes your claims.

First you said that black ops teams can not get away with covert demolitions, and then you say black ops teams have demolished hundreds of buildings. You are only trying to spread confusion.

You said collapsing floors caused a chain reaction--and then you denied that you said anything about a pancaking collapse. Your chain of pancakes is a pancaking collapse. You don't remember what you said a few hours ago.

Radio control of detonators is completely practical. It seems that you never heard of MIDI or Wi-Fi.

A black ops team could reasonably fear insurance investigators because they could be expected to be conversant in the laws of Newtonian physics, and could be expected to have the power to get restraining orders preventing the destruction of the crime scene.

I never said NYPD, FDNY, FBI. FEMA, and NIST lied about what they found. You make stuff up.

Steel does not need to be cut by explosives. It only needs to be bulged, and then it buckles under load because of stress concentrations.

There was melted steel at Ground Zero. 8 PhDs say so. Are you calling the President of Notre Dame University a liar? Are you calling Captain Philip Ruvolo, FDNY, a liar?

The FEMA report Appebdix C confirmed that steel girders were melted.

Nobody's misquoting Dr. Astaneh. he said "I saw melting of girders at World Trade Center." He can't sue people for quoting that.

I never implied that In knew exactly where the melted beams came from. Of course any thorough and honest investigation would have established that information, but we couldn't expect that from NIST in 2005.

Dr Astaneh's picture was hardly a "layer of corrosion". It was a steel girder evaporated to paper-thin thickness.

You guys use the term "corrosion" dishonestly to try to obscurfe the facts.









 
At 30 June, 2014 05:28, Blogger Wabble Wobble said...

Astaneh-Asl does not believe that his observations indicate controlled demolition; in fact he has complained about truther misuse of his comments.

The FEMA report Appendix C only confirmed intergranular eutectic melting, which the authors say occurred at temperatures much lower than the melting point of the steel, in the hot fires in the debris subsequent to the collapses. One of the authors, Professor Sisson, has said elsewhere, "I don't find it very mysterious at all, that if I have steel in this sort of a high temperature atmosphere that's rich in oxygen and sulphur this would be the kind of result I would expect."

The reports of molten steel at WTC (aside from Astaneh's corrosion) are not significant, because such reports are common in fires. JREFers have compiled a bunch of them from news archives. That the molten material in these reports was actually steel and not a metal with a lower melting point is doubtful, but the important point is that it's common for people to *report* seeing molten steel in fires. The WTC "molten steel" witnesses who have been contacted have failed to express confidence in their original statements.

Cleanup operators have said they did *not* see *molten structural members* or explosively cut steel. Protec "spoke directly with equipment operators and site foremen who personally extracted beams and debris from Ground Zero.... To a man, they do not recall encountering molten structural steel beams, nor do they recall seeing any evidence of pre-cutting or explosive severance of beams at any point during debris removal activities."

Again, I find the lack of explosively cut columns more significant than the lack of det cord. Bush would have no way of ensuring that such columns would not be found. To get around this problem you need to propose secret and exotic technologies, which would require more layers of conspiracy. Your many ad hoc hypotheses add up to an unrealistic, impractical fantasy.

I prefer sane, simple hypotheses to insane and complex ones. People motivated by hatred and paranoia will prefer the opposite.

"NIST said that 9 pounds of RDX could take out column 79" -- yes, if the hypothetical conspirators had a crystal ball and read the future NIST report, they might have known about the column 79 vulnerability, and might accomplish the feat with a small amount of explosives. Otherwise, there's no reason to think the conspirators would have used less explosive than in other demolitions.

In fact, truthers like Gage and Szamboti insist that the observed collapse of WTC7 would be impossible without simultaneously blowing up *all* of the columns over about eight floors. That's about 17% of the building's columns -- how could they not be noticed in the rubble?

If you want to believe building staff were in on a plot to destroy the buildings (and many innocent lives, in the towers), then go right ahead. I'm sure I speak for the rest of us when I say that kind of thinking is unrealistic and paranoid.

Also, why the large block of white space at the end of your comments?

 
At 30 June, 2014 09:05, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Brian baselessly asserting:

Why would you expect Mr. Blanchard to find det cord in the rubble? Why would a high tech no-expense-barred demolition op use det cord? They would use radio-controlled and self-destructing detonators that could be controlled by joystick in real time to make sure that the entire collapse stays on center.

[...]

Radio control of detonators was completely practical. All that was needed was to use very powerful transmitters and very insensitive receivers that would not hear lower-powered signals.
Since every detonator receiver would need its own unique firing code, the serial code sequence would provide another layer of protection from accidental triggers.

[...]

Radio control of detonators is completely practical. It seems that you never heard of MIDI or Wi-Fi.



Ahh yes, more from the professional opinion of the janitor. I guess we should all be satisfied that Brian can parrot AE911Truth's fact free claims about self consuming detonators and remote detonators; which even they backpeddled on, and continue to make up even more shit on the fly.

Brian should head over to Buildings Department of Hong Kong to inform them they have nothing to worry about.

As far as practicable, non-electrical initiation systems should be used to avoid the risk of pre-mature detonation by stray currents, external electro-magnetic waves or radio frequencies.

http://www.bd.gov.hk/english/documents/code/Demolition_e2004.pdf

 
At 30 June, 2014 09:05, Blogger Grandmastershek said...


or OSHA

Electrical detonators can be inadvertently triggered by stray RF (radio frequency) signals from two-way radios. RF signal sources should be restricted from or near to the demolition site, if electrical detonators are used.
https://www.osha.gov/doc/outreachtraining/htmlfiles/demolit.html

Or the British Ministry of Defense:

1.1.1 Over recent years there has been a significant increase in the use of electronic
communication/detection devices throughout all sections of the community. Types of appliances
now in common use range from management/control aids, telemetry, mobile telephones and
wireless communication links (Wi-Fi, LANs) to a growing variety of high-powered transmitters covering voice communication, electronic data transmission and radar.

1.1.2 These equipments produce radio frequency (RF) fields of varying intensity according to
their output power and antenna gain and are potentially hazardous when used in close proximity to
explosives
that have an installed electrical means of initiation."

[...]

3.3.1 Use of mobile phones and pagers must be controlled in the vicinity of munitions. As their
power output is unpredictable and can be well in excess of 1W. Mobile phones and pagers shall
NOT be used:
(1) In explosive storehouses (ESH) / potential explosion site (PES) / magazine/ weapon
stowage areas/explosive process buildings.
(2) Close to ordnance under preparation.

 
At 30 June, 2014 09:05, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Or the Canadian Government

"Minimum distances from radio frequency transmitters
76 (1) During electric blasting, an employer and a blaster must ensure minimum distances from radio frequency transmitters are maintained as detailed in the Institute of Makers of Explosives Safety Guide for the Prevention of Radio Frequency Radiation Hazards in the Use of Commercial Electric Detonators (Blasting Caps) Safety Library Publication No. 20, 2001, as amended.

(2) If the required minimum distance of electric blasting circuits from radio frequency transmitters has not otherwise been determined, the following minimum distances must be maintained:

(a) 100 m from a citizens’ band radio, cellular telephone, satellite telephone or other mobile or portable radio frequency transmitter; and

(b) 1000 m from a TV transmitter or an AM, FM or other radio frequency transmitter.
(Like the spire WTC 1)
http://www.novascotia.ca/just/regulations/regs/ohsblasting.htm#TOC2_72

No doubt Brian will continue to pretend he has in depth knowledge on the latest advancements in explosives and cite personal knowledge of all kinds of clandestine demolition operations, while failing to provide any evidence that such is the case in reality.

 
At 30 June, 2014 11:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

Wabble, what Dr. Astaneh (says he) believes about controlled demolition is irrelevant to the fact that he says he observed melted steel.

Your conflation of irrelevant beliefs with percipient testimony is irrational. You might as well argue that an eyewitness's testimony about the crucifiction of Christ must be discarded because the witness is a Christian--or the witness is not a Christian. The testimony must stand on its own merits.

The FEMA Appendix C report documented intergranular melting of steel. It concluded that the sulfur source needed to be identified, and further work was necessary. No further work was done. Dr. Sisson has not named his sulfur source, so the issue remains open.

Dr. Astaneh said "I saw melting of girders" on TV. Girders are steel. Did Dr. Astaneh, Dr. Glanz, Dr. Ghoniem, Dr. Geyh, Dr. Malloy, Dr. Barnett, Dr. Sisson, or Dr. Biederman "fail to express confidence" in their observations? I didn't think so.

Cleanup operators failed to detect in the rubble the complete body of a man in a business suit that wound up in the dup at Fresh Kills, so their failure to detect something they weren't looking for is hardly compelling evidence.

Why would you expect to find explosively cut columns? There's no need to cut columns. You need only bulge their walls out and they buckle, and their damage looks like the insults inflicted by an irresistible assault by a overwhelming mass.

The preference for simplicity is nothing to brag about. If you find a body in an alley with his skull battered to a pulp, do you assume suicide by hammer? Politics and history are not simple--though ideologues try to make them seem to be so.

Column 79 vulnerability was obvious to anyone who looked at the floor plan of WTC7. It supported an enormous floor area. Its obvious vulnerability could have been exploited by operatives who augmented its failure with the failure of adjacent columns. There would be no reason to rely on the untested perception of Column 79 vulnerability when adjacent columns could just as easily be compromised at the same time.

I don't want to believe anything. Your pretense that you know that building staff would have prevented a demolition op-- when you won't even specify whether these staff members were janitors, security, supervisors, or contract employees only shows your desperate attempts to deny the evidence.

 
At 30 June, 2014 12:29, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Why would you expect to find explosively cut columns? There's no need to cut columns. You need only bulge their walls out and they buckle, and their damage looks like the insults inflicted by an irresistible assault by a overwhelming mass.


Brian dancing back and forth again and making up shit again.

"...The squibs can not be explained except as ejection of pulverized building materials by explosives. (Brian Good, 12/25/11)

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2011/12/strawman.html#c2915721102072824883


" The multi-ton steel components hurled laterally for hundreds of feet are evidence of the use of explosives." (Brian Good 6/26/14)

Magic explosives both eject steel hundreds of feet but only bulge the columns to stay magically silent.

 
At 30 June, 2014 12:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

It seems that you don't understand the nature of evidence, and you don't understand the difference between an assertion of evidence for a proposition and the assertion of that proposition.

If there is liquid dripping off your nose, that is evidence that you might be out in the rain, that is evidence that you might be crying, and that is evidence that maybe somebody pissed in your face.

To point out that the liquid dripping off your nose might be evidence that someone pissed in your face is not to claim that someone pissed in your face.

 
At 30 June, 2014 12:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 01 July, 2014 04:34, Blogger Wabble Wobble said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 01 July, 2014 05:23, Blogger Wabble Wobble said...

Snug.bug

Again, so what if people said they saw melting steel. Such reports are common in fires. The "melting" reported by Barnett, Sisson, and Biederman was eutectic intergranular melting (corrosion), which happens at temperatures much lower than the bulk melting point of steel. Sisson said he didn't find it mysterious all. This "melting" is also what Astaneh saw the effects of. Reportedly, Alison Geyh later said she didn't personally see molten steel and Edward Malloy admitted he can't distinguish molten steel from any other kind of metal. I can't find an instance of someone confirming the sight of bulk melting (as opposed to eutectic intergranular "melting") of structural steel (as opposed to aluminum, or other lower-melting-point metal).

The towers had plenty of sulfur to produce the corrosion. Greening showed (pretty convincingly IMO) several ways that sulfur dioxide would be produced from gypsum wallboard and other sources such as stored diesel fuel.

You seem to think that since the cleanup crew missed the body of a man, then Protec and the equipment operators and site foremen *might* miss seeing all the exploded/cut columns. That argument misses the point that there's no practical way that the baddies could ensure for certain that nobody would notice those columns. They are seen in the rubble of other demolitions; why would the WTC buildings be immune to their discovery?

How you know that the bulging of columns is a practical means of controlled demolition, and what is the evidence that it was done? Do the thousands of photos of the rubble show box columns that look like they were blown up from the inside? Somehow I doubt it.

It's clear now that in your eyes, no evidence or lack of evidence can possibly count against the CD fantasy, as you can simply expand the conspiracy or make up a fake technology to account for anything. The hypothesis is unfalsifiable, much like Russell's teapot and the invisible dragon in Carl Sagan's garage. But it's also unrealistic and impractical, with too many subplots and too many participants required to be willing to kill their own innocent people and/or maintain silence forever.

"Column 79 ... Its obvious vulnerability could have been exploited" -- Do you disagree then with leaders of the truth movement who insist that the observed collapse of WTC7 would be impossible without simultaneously blowing up *all* of the columns over about eight floors?

"I don't want to believe anything." -- I don't believe you.

 
At 01 July, 2014 08:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

So what if people saw melted steel? Jet fuel can't melt steel, that's what. Office fires can;t melt steel. Diesel fuel fires can't melt steel. The melted steel needs to be explained, and it has not been explained.

If Dr. Sisson does not find the melting peculiar, then apparently his position has changed since the FEMA Appendix C report found the intergranularly melted steel quite mysterious. It called for further investigations, and said the source of the sulfur was a mystery. The New York Times called the "vaporized" steel "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation". Has Dr. Sisson been good enough to share with us his theory of the mystery? I've seen no evidence that his colleagues Dr. Barnett (a PhD Fire Scientist) and Dr. Biedermann share his sanguinity.

One of Dr. Astaneh's samples that you call "corrosion" was photographed within 3 weeks of 9/11. Pretty fast work. The source of the sulfur has not been identified. The "deepest mystery" remains a mystery.

Who says what Alison Geyh and Edward Malloy said? Do you think the president of Notre Dame goes around repeating urban legends to the press?

Dr. Steven Jones has a picture of a 40-pound ingot of formerly molten ferrous material that he was taken from Ground Zero.

http://www.american-buddha.com/911.blueprintfortruthae.htm#Slide%201: see Slide 146

Gypsum wallboard can not produce the sulfidation attack on the steel. Calcium sulfate is inert because it is already fully oxidized. That is why it is used for fireproofing. If wallboard could explain the sulfidation attack, the "deepest mystery" of the "evaporated" would have been explained. Same for diesel fuel.






























 
At 01 July, 2014 08:33, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

It seems that you don't understand the nature of evidence, and you don't understand the difference between an assertion of evidence for a proposition and the assertion of that proposition.

Great...so we should just ignore your assertions since you provide 0 evidence for them.


If there is liquid dripping off your nose, that is evidence that you might be out in the rain, that is evidence that you might be crying, and that is evidence that maybe somebody pissed in your face.

To point out that the liquid dripping off your nose might be evidence that someone pissed in your face is not to claim that someone pissed in your face


LOL! I love how Brian cries about people using semantics and then produces this drivel. You don't take one thing in isolation and hail it as evidence in spite of the other given facts and then concoct BS scenarios to rationalize it.

See, if there was liquid on my nose we would ask if there are clouds in the sky. No? Ok, rule out the rain. Oh but wait, until we can prove that there wasn't rain clouds a second ago and someone secretly flew a stealth plane with super secret technology that dissipated the clouds before we notices we must assume that the rain is a possibility and the water my nose is still evidence. What in the world are they spraying?!!! And maybe someone saw it happen, but they silenced that person before they could say anything.


Or maybe I was crying, but I am not upset. Oh but wait, how do we know I wasn't hypnotized to forget I was upset? And everyone else who may have been nearby was hypnotized, and it was an advanced form of hypnosis that also hypnotized the hypnotist so we can't really know.


Or maybe someone pissed on my face. Hmm...but the liquid does not smell like urine. And I wasn't around anyone. And I just took a piss in the toilet. Oh but wait, how do we know it's not urine from a person who drank an advanced solution that negates all the chemical attributes of urine? How do we know that person wasn't wearing a secret advanced form of the invisibility cloak like they made at Duke that not only makes you invisible but your piss as well and negates all noise? And surely that person would have been silenced by another person wearing an invisibility cloak.

I is so smart, just like Brian Good.

 
At 01 July, 2014 08:36, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 01 July, 2014 08:51, Blogger Grandmastershek said...


Cue Brian Good, the arm chair fire scientist.

So what if people saw melted steel? Jet fuel can't melt steel, that's what.

Who said it did?

Office fires can;t melt steel. Diesel fuel fires can't melt steel. The melted steel needs to be explained, and it has not been explained.

Yes it has

No it doesn't.

The presence of melted metals at floor level is particularly meaningless in the context
of a black hole fire. A study of the 1991 Oakland fire that burned 3,000 homes revealed the presence of melted copper in over 80% of the burned structures, and
what appeared to be melted steel in over 90% of the burned structures. With respect
to steel, looks can be deceiving. What appears to be melted may be merely oxidized.


http://www.firescientist.com/Documents/IndicatorsOfTrouble.pdf

If Dr. Sisson does not find the melting peculiar, then apparently his position has changed since the FEMA Appendix C report found the intergranularly melted steel quite mysterious. It called for further investigations, and said the source of the sulfur was a mystery.

Italics above is pure speculation. Or he understands that you find melted/corroded metals in fires. See source about.

The New York Times called the "vaporized" steel "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation".

So? Is the NYT an authority on metallurgey?


Has Dr. Sisson been good enough to share with us his theory of the mystery? I've seen no evidence that his colleagues Dr. Barnett (a PhD Fire Scientist) and Dr. Biedermann share his sanguinity.

Throwing around names proves nothing Brian. Guess what their report showed? No temps close to thermite. Cue magical incendiaries. You translating "mystery" into "supports my delusions" is not impressive.

One of Dr. Astaneh's samples that you call "corrosion" was photographed within 3 weeks of 9/11. Pretty fast work. The source of the sulfur has not been identified. The "deepest mystery" remains a mystery.

And Astenah, the actual expert, does not share your delusions of magical explosives or incendiaries.

Who says what Alison Geyh and Edward Malloy said? Do you think the president of Notre Dame goes around repeating urban legends to the press?

Who cares? Do any of them possess a magical ability to do chemical analysis by eye?

Dr. Steven Jones has a picture of a 40-pound ingot of formerly molten ferrous material that he was taken from Ground Zero.

Yes the great Stephen Jones, the professor who has continually ran from academic scrutiny. We'll trust him.

Slide 146:

Molten Metal Sample from WTC

40-lb chunk of previously molten metal from a larger "meteorite" from the South Tower

Small chip sent to physicist Steven Jones for analysis


Already proved molten metal is not a mystery in fires.

 
At 01 July, 2014 08:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 01 July, 2014 08:56, Blogger snug.bug said...


Wabble, the baddies don't need people to miss the evidence. All they have to do is make it seem uninteresting, and make its discussion taboo--which they have done very effectively.

Both Gordon Ross and Jonathan Cole have shown pictures of mysteriously bulged columns.

Bulging a column causes it to buckle. NIST and FEMA both postulate bowing columns that buckled as a collapse mechanism.

Photography at Ground Zero was strictly controlled. Heat-damaged and buckled columns would only serve the official meme that raging fires and irresistible gravity-fueled momentum did them in.

I would love to have evidence that the unanswered questions of 9/11 have been answered. The 273 unanswered questions of the widows' 300 questions, for instance. Do you have evidence that I would be dissatisfied by the answers that have not been given, or are you fortune-telling to make an excuse for not answering them? And so what if I would be dissatisfied? Isn't that my right? Isn't it the widows' right to decide for themselves whether they are satisfied or not? You think an anonymous internet poster should make that determination for them?
If the questions were answered, and my dissatisfaction with the answers were illegitimate, then that would seem to dispose of the issue, right? So why dispose of the issue prematurely, giving the impression of a stonewalling coverup?

You seem to believe that I have rigid beliefs about CD, and have inoculated myself against the evidence. Upon what evidence is your belief about my belief based? Why don't you try some evidence and see, instead of relying on talking points from lying propaganda websites maintained by anonymous persons?

The CD hypothesis can be disposed of easily when the official reports explain the ten essential mysteries of the buildings' collapses. When the official analysis terminates at collapse initiation and ignores the mysteries, the suspicion that they are covering up the truth is entirely justifiable, and conspiracy theories flourish.

Your belief that many participants would be required for CD is not true. FEMA said a few failing truss anchors could start a chain reaction that brought the building down. Dr. Van Romero said that a few charges in key places could have brought the towers down. So what huge conspiracy is needed?

I don't need to have an opinion about the alleged need to blow up all the columns. I am not an expert in blowing up 47-story buildings. NIST says that one column failing could bring the entire building down from fires. If fires could do it, the incendiaries could do it. We need a thorough and honest investigation.

I would love to be convinced that all the truthers are full of shit. Then I could have my life back. So answer the 273 questions, why don't they? Address the ten mysteries? Prosecute the perjury of Dr. Rice. Show some good faith. I won't hold my breath.

 
At 01 July, 2014 09:42, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

You seem to believe that I have rigid beliefs about CD, and have inoculated myself against the evidence. Upon what evidence is your belief about my belief based?

Mine is based on

http://s8.photobucket.com/user/grnadmastershek/media/WTCSymmetryBG_zps9fd92882.png.html?sort=3&o=0

 
At 01 July, 2014 09:44, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Wabble, what Dr. Astaneh (says he) believes about controlled demolition is irrelevant to the fact that he says he observed melted steel.


Yes, we can only trust Astenah when it is convenient to Brian's delusions, like any time he parades around someone's name.

You seem to believe that I have rigid beliefs about CD, and have inoculated myself against the evidence. Upon what evidence is your belief about my belief based?

^LOL!

 
At 01 July, 2014 11:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

GMS, the afternoon of 9/11 a Stanford professor with ties to the disaster/security establishment announced to the press that the WTC fires could have melted the towers' cores.

That evening NBC, CNN, and Fox News claimed that the steel was melted. BBC and NOVA also claimed that the steel melted. Scientific American reported that it was possible. After 9/11, the conventional wisdom was that the jet fuel melted the steel.

The melted steel has not been explained. Oxidized steel may be common in fires, and certainly holes can be burned into sheet metal ductwork and the like. Office fires to not burn hot enough to melt structural steel.

The NYT attibuted to the PhD fire scientist Dr. Barnett the observation that the steel was vaporized. Dr. Barnett has never disputed this. That this was mysterious was an opinion apparently shared by Dr. Barnett's college, which to this day features an article entitled "The 'Deep Mystery' of Melted Steel" on its website.
https://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html

If the college has ever run an article on Dr. Sisson's claim that he's not surprised by the "deep mystery" I've never heard of it.

The FEMA Appendix C report showed a sulfidation attack. The steel is never going to reach the thermitic temperatures of 4000 F if it melts eutectically at 1750 F before it gets to 4000 F.

A 40-pound junk of molten iron is certainly a mystery in fires. Your quibbling about symmetry is silly. The towers' cores were not symmetrical. Given that fact, the near-perfect symmetry of the floor-by-floor collapses collapses is very surprising to honest engineers.

Your inability to distinguish between Dr. Astaneh's opinions and his observations shows your lack of epistemic acumen. By your logic, if a witness in a murder trial does not believe that the defendant did the deed, then we should throw out the witness's testimony that the defendant threatened to kill the victim and was seen near the crime scene with a gun.

LOL indeed!



















 
At 01 July, 2014 16:24, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

GMS, the afternoon of 9/11 a Stanford professor with ties to the disaster/security establishment announced to the press that the WTC fires could have melted the towers' cores.....a long list of moronic drooling


The question was "who said the jet fuel melted the steel?". The only time you came close to giving an answer on that was by simply claiming it was the "conventional wisdom". Sorry Brian, baseless claim by a janitor.

The melted steel has not been explained.

Baseless claim by a janitor.

That this was mysterious was an opinion apparently shared by Dr. Barnett's college, which to this day features an article entitled "The 'Deep Mystery' of Melted Steel" on its website.

Which says:

"We may have just the inherent conditions in the atmosphere so that a lot of water on a burning building will form sulfuric acid, hydrogen sulfide or hydroxides, and start the eutectic process as the steel heats up," Biederman says. He notes that the sulfur could also have come from contents of the burning buildings, such as rubber or plastics. Another possible culprit is ocean salts, such as sodium sulfate, which is known to catalyze sulfidation reactions on turbine blades of jet engines. "All of these things have to be explored," he says.

Nothing about magical thermite or magical explosives. It could have easily been a result of everyday contents. You should read it some time.

The FEMA Appendix C report showed a sulfidation attack. The steel is never going to reach the thermitic temperatures of 4000 F if it melts eutectically at 1750 F before it gets to 4000 F.

Which the author's explain could happen due to normal contents. No magic incendiaries.

If the college has ever run an article on Dr. Sisson's claim that he's not surprised by the "deep mystery" I've never heard of it.

His colleague has already been quoted. They know it does not require magic thermite. I'll leave it them over the speculations of a janitor


A 40-pound junk of molten iron is certainly a mystery in fires.

Nope...already quoted a source in fire science. The baseless claims of a janitor are not relevant.

Your quibbling about symmetry is silly. The towers' cores were not symmetrical. Given that fact, the near-perfect symmetry of the floor-by-floor collapses collapses is very surprising to honest engineers.

Brian still frantically running away from his BS claims. LOL! Brian still pretending to speak for actual experts.

http://s8.photobucket.com/user/grnadmastershek/media/WTCSymmetryBG_zps9fd92882.png.html?sort=3&o=0


Honest psychiatrists know you need to up your meds.

 
At 01 July, 2014 16:30, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Your inability to distinguish between Dr. Astaneh's opinions and his observations shows your lack of epistemic acumen. By your logic, if a witness in a murder trial does not believe that the defendant did the deed, then we should throw out the witness's testimony that the defendant threatened to kill the victim and was seen near the crime scene with a gun.

Dumb ass can't do analogies. No one is throwing anything out except you. You ignore Astenah when his statement are inconvenient.

 
At 01 July, 2014 17:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

GMS, EVERYBODY said the jet fuel melted the steel. NBC, NOVA, BBC, New Scientist, CNN, Fox.

Your reliance on the lying ad hominem shows that you have descended to Ian's level and are not worthy of response.

 
At 02 July, 2014 06:24, Blogger Wabble Wobble said...

Snug.bug:

According to Greening (PhD, chemistry), carbon monoxide from incomplete combustion of hydrocarbon fuel and debris in the WTC fires would generate an environment favorable to the reaction: CaSO4 + CO -> CaO + CO2 + SO2, thereby liberating large quantities of sulfur dioxide from wallboard. Reactions between molten aluminum and the CaSO4 in wallboard would also release large quantities of SO2. Air sampling data recorded highly elevated concentrations of sulfur-containing gases/particulates in the aftermath of 9/11, even 50 days after the event.

Yes, the corroded steel was once a "mystery." Now, not so much. And "mystery" is not equivalent to "conspiracy."

"Wabble, the baddies don't need people to miss the evidence."

^ Yes they do. They would need people to miss explosively cut columns, and there's no practical way to ensure that would happen. Unless you think the baddies would just cross their fingers and hope for the best.

And please show me the "mysteriously bulged columns."

 
At 02 July, 2014 06:24, Blogger Wabble Wobble said...


"Upon what evidence is your belief about my belief based?"

^ It's based on your absolute refusal to accept evidence-based, plausible, prosaic, non-conspiratorial explanations for anything.


The official WTC7 analysis did not terminate at collapse initiation. NIST did model the collapse to the limited extent that was possible. The analysis as a whole was more extensive than those of the Space Shuttle disasters, I-35 bridge collapse, Hyatt Regency walkway collapse, etc.


"Your belief that many participants would be required for CD is not true."

^ People to plan, coordinate, and recruit for the conspiracy. Scientists and engineers to invent, develop, test and manufacture crash-proof, fireproof, quiet demolition technologies, and apply it to the buildings. Workers to plant charges in the buildings. Building staff and security. Scientists investigating the collapses (unless you think the conspirators are just going to cross their fingers and hope the scientists have no consciences, or feel to intimidated). If you believe otherwise, please construct a plausible narrative as to how you think it would be done.

You keep arguing that a "few failing truss anchors" or "a few charges" could bring down the towers, but in the archives of this blog, I find you saying this on 12-06-2011:
"MGF, why do you impose the condition "a few beams"? Gee, do you put your thumbs on the scale much? Do you think that cutting "a few beams" could bring down a highly-redundant structure that was built to withstand a hurricane?"

So there you are talking out of both sides of your mouth -- again. It's getting a bit tiring.

 
At 02 July, 2014 10:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

Wabble, I remember reading Dr. Greening's paper proposing drywall as the sulfur source. I am not aware that he still claims that is the case. Dr. Griffin acknowledges Dr. Greening's contributions to Griffin's "Mysterious Collapse" book, but does not mention any disagreements about Griffin's claim that calcium sulfate does not react.

Did Dr. Greening ever do any empirical tests to determine the effect of sulfur dioxide on steel?

Do the EPA air samples show elevated levels of sulfur dioxide? I don't remember that the cleanup workers at Ground Zero ever complained about sulfur dioxide, which is a stinky and toxic gas.

If drywall could do easily do that to steel, then why is the WTC's "evaporated" and "vaporized" steel "perhaps the deepest mystery"? Why was the fire scientist Dr. Barnett unfamiliar with this phenomenon? Why did NIST not run tests to demonstrate the validity of this hypothesis and solve the mystery?

A theoretical reaction that has not been tested is a solution for the mystery only for the severely confirmation-biased. Speculative hypotheses do not substitute for testing and demonstration.

The only empirical test I know of was when Jonathan Cole put powdered drywall, aluminum, and diesel fuel, between the flanges of a steel girder and burned it for two days. There was no effect on the steel.

Sure there's a practical way to get people to miss explosively cut columns--don't cut them. Disguise the damage as fire damage and damage from an unstoppable piledriver.






 
At 02 July, 2014 11:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

Where do you get the idea that I refuse to "accept evidence-based, plausible, prosaic, non-conspiratorial explanations for anything"? How about you try some?
All I get from you guys is handwaving, insule, and invented "facts".

I didn't say that the WTC7 report terminated at collapse initiation. I said the twin towers reports terminated at collapse initiation--and thus dodged all of the essential mysteries of the collapses.

Why do you believe the explosives must be crash-proof and fire proof? If you guys employed half as much ingenuity in trying to solve the problems of the op as you employ in inventing reasons to imagine that it's impossible, you wouldn't have such silly opinions.

Dr. Romero's proposition that a few charges in key places could bring the towers done has not been repudiated or refuted. FEMA's pancaking chain reaction was conventional wisdom for 3 years, and it doesn't necessarily need any explosives at all--just a couple of guys with high-speed cutting disks to cut a few floor truss anchors until the floors fell on them. A non-suicide approach would cut part way through the trusses and then use very small explosive charges or thermitic charges to finish the job.

Many of the leaders of the official investigations had already demonstrated their lack of integrity in their investigation of the OK City bombing. They were willing to sign off on that report even though they were not allowed to tour the site.

I don't need to construct a plausible narrative. All I need to do is to show that your claims that a demo op would be complicated and impossible are silly. All I need to do is show that the official report is incomplete, unscientific, and dishonest.

I didn't say a few truss anchors could bring the towers down. I said that FEMA said they could, and I said that entire engineering community seemed to find the idea plausible because only Dr. Jeff King was willing to challenge that thesis publicly despite its obvious flaws.

In the case of my remark to mgf, the context was that he stated his opinion that the ferrous microspheres were from the building materials because there were more microspheres in the dust than could be produced by thermitic action on "a handful of beams". I was teasing him for restricting his analysis to the condition of "a few beams" because these guys had always been maintaining that controlled demolition was too complicated to be practical.

Context matters, dude. I guess you'd find a contradiction if I wear a tank top to the beach and a suit to church. And when it's necessary for you to ascribe to me beliefs that I do not have in order to criticize my alleged inconsistency, your desperation to maintain your illusions is really showing.













 
At 02 July, 2014 16:14, OpenID mgferris said...

"A black ops team could reasonably fear insurance investigators..."

My guess is that you've never met anyone who's been part of a black ops team. I have, they are not stupid, nor do they spook easily.

"... because they could be expected to be conversant in the laws of Newtonian physics, and could be expected to have the power to get restraining orders preventing the destruction of the crime scene."

Actually, no. Insurance investigators hire out engineering firms to do the egg-head stuff (RJ Lee). Speaking of RJ Lee, the insurance investigators DID investigate 9-11, and didn't find anything but evidence of a plane crash and building collapse from fire. Hmmm...

"I never said NYPD, FDNY, FBI. FEMA, and NIST lied about what they found. You make stuff up."

Oh, but you imply this at every step.

"Steel does not need to be cut by explosives. It only needs to be bulged, and then it buckles under load because of stress concentrations."

Funny, why not just start a fire...it does the exact same thing...wait a second...

"There was melted steel at Ground Zero. 8 PhDs say so."

Neat.

"Are you calling the President of Notre Dame University a liar? Are you calling Captain Philip Ruvolo, FDNY, a liar?"

No, just mistaken.


"Nobody's misquoting Dr. Astaneh. he said "I saw melting of girders at World Trade Center." He can't sue people for quoting that."

He said he would, but he doesn't because crazy people usually don't have money.

"I never implied that In knew exactly where the melted beams came from."

But you think they're significant. This implies you know where in the structure these beams were located.

" Of course any thorough and honest investigation would have established that information, but we couldn't expect that from NIST in 2005."

So you're saying that NIST lied, yet you claim you've never said this. You fail at failing.


"You guys use the term "corrosion" dishonestly to try to obscurfe the facts."

No, just APPLY the facts.

No evidence of explosives rules out explosives.

 
At 02 July, 2014 16:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

You guys always want to frame the issue as Dueling Theories, because then you can just dismiss alternative theorists as fringous and unqualified conspiracists. Reality is not a football game with only two possible outcomes.

If you were truth seekers, you would evaluate the information on its merits, as real investigators do.

 
At 02 July, 2014 16:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

Look at mgf--thinks some guy he met at Franco's is a former black-ops operative! You're dumb enough to think Willie Rodriguez saved hundreds of lives, so I bet you'd be dumb enough to believe a story about platinum bars recovered from a sunken barge in Shanghai harbor right under the noses of the PLA. Bwa ha ha!
Get a life, dude.

I wouldn't want to know the kind of guy who claims he's a former black ops operative, and I don't need to know black ops operatives to know that they would have good reason to fear independent insurance investigations on behalf of neighboring buildings.

RJLee, for example, turned up the evidence of the iron microspheres, the source of which has not been explained.

No, fires do not cause the steel columns to bulge. NIST has not one piece of cores steel showing heating above 480 F. I think Dr. Astaneh's melted girders are significant because the NIST report has not explained them ans can not explain them.

I said NIST did not do an honest investigation. I didn't say they lied. If you had bothered to complete your college degree you might have figured out the difference by now.

There is a lot of evidence of the use of explosives. Your claim to the contrary is absurd. I warned you guys that your tolerance ofr Ian's nonsense was going to rot your brains.









 
At 02 July, 2014 18:04, OpenID mgferris said...

"I wouldn't want to know the kind of guy who claims he's a former black ops operative,..."

No surprise there. Real men frighten you.

"...and I don't need to know black ops operatives to know that they would have good reason to fear independent insurance investigations on behalf of neighboring buildings. "

And yet if you did know, you'd realize the depth of your stupidity.

"RJLee, for example, turned up the evidence of the iron microspheres, the source of which has not been explained."

Actually it has, 3 times.

"No, fires do not cause the steel columns to bulge. NIST has not one piece of cores steel showing heating above 480 F."

And yet NIST says the fires brought them down. Weird.

"I think Dr. Astaneh's melted girders are significant because the NIST report has not explained them ans can not explain them."

Because the NIST doesn't have to waste time explaining the obvious to stupid people and the mentally ill.

How many alkaline batteries do you think were inside WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7? What about cleaning chemicals? What about gypsum in dry wall and ceiling tiles?

These are all obvious corrosives present in massive amounts, and is obvious to everyone but a pathetic few.

"I said NIST did not do an honest investigation. I didn't say they lied."

So you can do a dishonest investigation without lying? In your twisted world maybe.


"There is a lot of evidence of the use of explosives."

Other than the jet fuel, no, there was no evidence of explosive used at the WTC.

" Your claim to the contrary is absurd. I warned you guys that your tolerance ofr Ian's nonsense was going to rot your brains."

Translation: IAN KEEP POINTING OUT I'M A GIANT LOSER. SQUEEEEEEEL!

 
At 02 July, 2014 18:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

Real men don't frighten me. The kind of guys who stop in at Franco's and wow the rubes with bogus tales of their black ops days don't frighten me either, but they sure don't interest me. You're such a sucker you think Willie Rodriguez saved hundreds of lives.

The source of the melted steel is not at all obvious. Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel. Nor do office fires.

So you're claiming alkaline batteries can melt steel?

If you had even half the science education you claim you would know that you can do a dishonest investigation without lying. All you have to do is ask the wrong questions and ignore the right ones--which is exactly what NIST did. They didn't ask "What brought down the towers?" They asked "How did fires bring down the towers?" and ignored all the evidence and all the questions that did not fit their thesis.

There is ample evidence of explosives at ground zero--squibs, multi-ton components hurled hundreds of yards, sounds of explosions reported by a hundred first responders.

If Ianinny had the power to point out that I am a loser, it would not be necessary for him to lie about me.





 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home