Wednesday, June 25, 2014

This Will Surely Break 9-11 Truth Into the Mainstream

How many times have we heard that before?  Four (or is it five?) Loose Change films, 9-11 Mysteries, Zero, the Core of Corruption, Blueprint for Destruction, Painful Deceptions... the list goes on and on.



I  love that bit about how the puffs of dust from the floors below the collapse wave was the easiest to spot.  I have discovered something amazing about my bicycle pump: when I push down on the handle, air comes out of the hose.  Must be a controlled demolition happening in there somewhere!

Anyway, this is being promoted by none other than Box Boy himself:



Gage claims that members of Architects and Engineers and Secretaries at Architectural Firms and Subscribers to Architectural Digest and Railroad Engineers for 9-11 Truth were interviewed for the film; just from the few clips I have seen it appears that Hooper snipped bits from Box Boy's Explosive Demolition.

He's apparently going with the big tent approach; he was interviewed by Kevin Barrett, who's mostly persona non grata with the supposedly responsible wing of the Truthers, although I don't know if they ever existed.  Not hard to see the part where the CT nutbars who support some alternative theory will latch onto to discredit him; early in the interview (4:20) he claims that his lifelong best friend is an FBI agent.

102 Comments:

At 25 June, 2014 12:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

Pat, your bicycle pump analogy is a good one in terms of showing that energy input (pushing down the handle) is necessary to recapitulate the results. Imagine a bicycle pump that had to rely on gravity to operate.

Your analogy to the twin towers holds only if your pump is built of wire screen, no energy input is permitted, and your gravitationally-powered piston has to fall through and demolish a whole lot of supporting structure that was designed (with a considerable safety factor) to keep the piston from falling.

My own introduction to the truth movement was when I saw the photos of the squibs on the internet. At first I assumed that they were a photoshopped hoax, somebody's sick joke. Then I saw they were in mainstream news footage.

So then I told myself it was air pushed down the elevator shafts. That illusion lasted for about a month before I recognized that the isolated and stereotypically central location of the squibs was contrary to the gas laws. When you press on a balloon, it reacts by expanding equally in all directions. If we had air forced down by a piston, it would have blown out ALL the windows on a floor, not just isolated ones.

So then I thought, OK, maybe hallways and office partitions led to these central windows and concentrated the force. Wrong. The office partitions only go up to the false ceiling, so the air pressure would have lifted the ceiling tiles and redistributed to all the windows.

If you're going to claim that some windows were weaker than others, you'll need to explain what was weaker about those center windows. Wouldn't we expect aberrantly weak windows to be randomly distributed?


The NIST report declined to explain the squibs when they decided not to analyze the collapses. Terminating their analysis at the moment of collapse initiation, they dodged the ten essential mysteries of the collapses--symmetry, speed, totality, the arrested rotation of the tipping top, the squibs,
the pulverized concrete, the lateral ejection of multi-ton steel components, the collapse of the robust lower core after its load had been removed, the evaporated steel, and the melted steel.

I'm impressed by the high concept of the movie, because I think it potentially can reach the many tens of millions of people who have questions about 9/11 but have not given the issues very much thought.









 
At 25 June, 2014 13:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

So far neither 911blogger nor 911truth.org have yet jumped on the bandwagon for this movie. I'd think that a sincere effort would have included interviews with the 9/11 widows and, if this one doesn't I wonder why not.



 
At 25 June, 2014 13:54, Blogger Ian said...

Nobody cares about your widows or your pathetic ignorance of what happened on 9/11. You are a failed who lives with his parents and can't even afford a decent haircut.

 
At 25 June, 2014 13:54, Blogger Ian said...

Failed janitor, I meant to type.

 
At 25 June, 2014 14:42, OpenID mgferris said...

"That illusion lasted for about a month before I recognized that the isolated and stereotypically central location of the squibs was contrary to the gas laws. When you press on a balloon, it reacts by expanding equally in all directions. If we had air forced down by a piston, it would have blown out ALL the windows on a floor, not just isolated ones."

A balloon is not a skyscraper. Your reason fails.

"If you're going to claim that some windows were weaker than others, you'll need to explain what was weaker about those center windows. Wouldn't we expect aberrantly weak windows to be randomly distributed?"

Let me explain it to you, dumbass. A plane, a BIG plane, flew into each building. The impact broke windows throughout the towers. There are pictures taken from the upper Port Authority office looking down through a massive hole in the glass. Windows were also broken in the lobby from the force of the impact, the sudden explosive stress on the building's frame, and the follow-on explosions from jet fuel.

The NIST didn't explain the squibs because they aren't kindergarten teachers, they're scientists not used to dealing with dolts, and idiots.

 
At 25 June, 2014 14:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

I didn't say a balloon was a skyscraper, mgf. The point is that balloons and skyscrapers are equally subject to the gas laws--which are another thing you apparently don't remember from your college days.

Why were the windows differentially broken in the middle of the wall, MGF? How did falling debris break windows on the west and east wall of the N, tower?

What evidence have you that jet fuel exploded? NIST doesn't say that. If they could have made that claim, that jet fuel explosions weakened the structure, why didn't they do so?

You and Ian just make stuff up, very poorly representing the ideas that you espouse.



 
At 25 June, 2014 15:48, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Of course what Brian failed to notice was not a single video of the collapses has audible explosions as a result of these "squibs".

Magic explosives in 3, 2,...

 
At 25 June, 2014 16:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

Why would you expect to hear explosions in the din of a building collapse?

Speaking of audio evidence, is there a shred of audio evidence for NIST's alleged pre-collapse collapse of the 47 concrete floors? How could 47 concrete slabs slam into each other and not make any sound?

 
At 25 June, 2014 16:09, Blogger Ian said...

So the building collapsed before the explosives went off, Brian? Why would there have been a "din".

GMS, his magic explosives apparently can reverse the order of time too!

 
At 25 June, 2014 16:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

The squibs manifest themselves after the collapse had already started, Ian. Try to catch up--maybe take some time away from your heavy manicure schedule and watch "Loose Change" or something. Ever hear of it?

 
At 25 June, 2014 16:53, Blogger Albury Smith said...

Brian jabbers stupidly: "Why would you expect to hear explosions in the din of a building collapse?"
I would expect to hear explosions BEFORE a C/D collapses a building, as well as during it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ
I'd also expect the shock waves from the explosives to scatter smoke BEFORE the collapse if the building was on fire.
Do you and Box Boy even know whether your imaginary stuff's an explosive or an incendiary? It seems to vary constantly.

 
At 25 June, 2014 17:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh look, it's Dingleberries Myth, here to bore us all to death.

Explosions were heard by first responders before the collapse began. Why would you expect to hear them when an acre-wide building was already falling down?

 
At 25 June, 2014 17:10, OpenID mgferris said...

"The point is that balloons and skyscrapers are equally subject to the gas laws--which are another thing you apparently don't remember from your college days. "

I do, I also know that the neither tower was under anywhere near the relative pressure that a balloon would be under.


Why were the windows differentially broken in the middle of the wall, MGF? How did falling debris break windows on the west and east wall of the N, tower? "

That has to do with the flex of the structure as the building absorbed and tried to distribute the force of the impact. Some windows cracked while other broke, and it all depended on their location relative to impact.

This has never been in dispute.

"What evidence have you that jet fuel exploded?"

The Naudet Brother's film shows a fire in the lobby of the north tower, and also shows broken lobby windows.

"NIST doesn't say that."

NIST didn't have to.

"If they could have made that claim, that jet fuel explosions weakened the structure, why didn't they do so?"

Did they weaken the structure? The fires certainly did.

 
At 25 June, 2014 17:16, OpenID mgferris said...

"Explosions were heard by first responders before the collapse began."

They heard what THEY THOUGHT were explosions. No evidence of explosive were found, no evidence is seen or heard in any of the hundreds of video recordings of the event.


" Why would you expect to hear them when an acre-wide building was already falling down?"

Because explosions move a lot of air at the speed of sound. The WTC would be the first CD in history to be completely silent, and considering the amount of explosives required to bring down the towers - in the way that they came down - would have required almost a ton it would have been unmistakable. The blast would have been heard in New Jersey, and broken windows in much of Manhattan.

 
At 25 June, 2014 17:54, Blogger James B. said...

Stratesec? Seriously?

 
At 25 June, 2014 18:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 25 June, 2014 18:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

I didn't specify any pressure for the balloon, mgf. The magnitude of the pressure doesn't matter. Its omnidirectional nature is what matters.

FEMA's figure 2-19 shows the redistribution of forces after the airplane impact. It does not indicate any increase of force on the lateral walls.

Your hypothesis of window breakage from frame distortion is not possible. If you would bother to look at the horizontal sections of the columns, you'll see that the steel columns are covered with that soft fireproofing, and that's all encased in aluminum cladding incorporating the aluminum window frames with the usual rubber gasket--so the steel frame can not exert direct pressure on the glass.

Can you explain how exploding jet fuel blew out the lobby windows? How many elevator shafts ran all the way from the 93rd floor to the lobby? How come there was no similar explosion from any of the other elevator shafts? Do you think exploding jet fuel damaged the massive core columns at the base of the buildings? They had walls 4 inches thick!

Since the authorities refused to look for evidence of explosives, and refused all but very limited site access to the collapse investigators, the lack of evidence of explosive residue is inevitable.

Why would the blast of explosives broken windows all over Manhattan? Isn't controlled demolition commonly done in urban environments without breaking windows of neighboring buildings?


You seem to believe that as long as you can just make shit up, your delusions are still safe.
Such a belief is not wise.

 
At 25 June, 2014 18:32, Blogger Pat said...

The balloon analogy is particularly apt. When you press down on a balloon, it obviously bursts everywhere, right, Brian? I mean, it's not like when you look at the balloon there is just one hole; there must be dozens.

 
At 25 June, 2014 19:45, Blogger Ian said...

Explosions were heard by first responders before the collapse began.

Yes, the last thing one would expect in a massive, uncontrolled fire is things exploding. Well, at least if you're a mentally ill unemployed janitor with a hideous homeless mullet.

The balloon analogy is particularly apt. When you press down on a balloon, it obviously bursts everywhere, right, Brian? I mean, it's not like when you look at the balloon there is just one hole; there must be dozens.

Obviously. This is why plane crashes due to explosive decompression leave no trace.

 
At 25 June, 2014 20:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

Pat, the balloon is not an analogy for the WTC towers. The towers, after all, did not burst. The balloon is a demonstration of a physical law--that pressurized gases expand ominidirectionally.

You guys seem to have some difficulty in distinguishing the map from the territory.

Ianinny, the first responders would be expected to be familiar with the things that normally go BANG! in fires. They reported explosions coincident with the start of the collapses.

 
At 25 June, 2014 20:17, Blogger Ian said...

The balloon is a demonstration of a physical law--that pressurized gases expand ominidirectionally.

Right, which is why an exploded balloon, as Pat said, has a million holes in it, and which is why a plane the experiences explosive decompression shatters into a million pieces in mid-air.

Ianinny, the first responders would be expected to be familiar with the things that normally go BANG! in fires. They reported explosions coincident with the start of the collapses.

Yes, they would. And it's interesting that none of them reported explosives. But I'm sure a mentally ill unemployed janitor in California knows this stuff better than the first responders.

Give it up, Brian. You're just waaaay too mentally feeble to understand 9/11. Barney the Dinosaur videos are much more your thing.

 
At 25 June, 2014 21:03, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you are simply trying to create confusion.

I didn't say the first responders reported explosives. I said they reported explosions, and that they could be expected to know what commonly explodes in a fire.

If you weren't such a toothless rube you might know that fire codes limit the explodables in high-rise buildings.

 
At 25 June, 2014 21:06, Blogger Ian said...

I didn't say the first responders reported explosives. I said they reported explosions, and that they could be expected to know what commonly explodes in a fire.

Yes, and they know there were no explosives in the fire. The rest is just typical Brian Good dumbspam.

If you weren't such a toothless rube you might know that fire codes limit the explodables in high-rise buildings.

"It", "She", "toothless rube", "beanie head", "skidmark", etc.

Brian has called me so many hysterical names over time because he can't deal with my constant reminders that he has no job and that the widows have no questions.

 
At 25 June, 2014 21:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

Lyin Ian, several firefighters believed there were explosives, including Chief Ray Downey and Chief Albert Turi. We've been over this a dozen times. You lie, skidmark. Thanks for reminding me of that one.

 
At 25 June, 2014 21:47, OpenID mgferris said...

"I didn't specify any pressure for the balloon, mgf. The magnitude of the pressure doesn't matter. Its omnidirectional nature is what matters."

Except the gasses you're confusing with squibs were following the path of least resistance. That's why you have to tie a balloon to keep the air from going out the way it came in.

"FEMA's figure 2-19 shows the redistribution of forces after the airplane impact. It does not indicate any increase of force on the lateral walls."

The force we're talking about here is a shockwave from the impact. Japanese university engineering students did a study that showed how stress was redistributed after the crash. FEMA is not the final word on this subject. Each tower's external layer was under incredible stress, and while it didn't cause initial collapse it contributed to the global collapse.

"Your hypothesis of window breakage from frame distortion is not possible."

It happened, therefore it's possible.

" If you would bother to look at the horizontal sections of the columns, you'll see that the steel columns are covered with that soft fireproofing, and that's all encased in aluminum cladding incorporating the aluminum window frames with the usual rubber gasket--so the steel frame can not exert direct pressure on the glass."

If your theory is correct then windshields shouldn't break from the heat. The rubber insulation was designed for normal extremes of wind and weather - not an airplane strike.

"Can you explain how exploding jet fuel blew out the lobby windows? "

I didn't say jet fuel blew out the lobby windows, I said the force of the crash did. The fuel did erupt in the lobby killing one person. This is not in dispute, it is on video.

Then again, if I need to explain how igniting fuel in the confined space of an elevator shaft would result in a blast it is you who needs to finish San Jose State.

"How many elevator shafts ran all the way from the 93rd floor to the lobby?"

At least one express elevator.

" How come there was no similar explosion from any of the other elevator shafts?"

There were, on at least two higher floors.

"Do you think exploding jet fuel damaged the massive core columns at the base of the buildings? They had walls 4 inches thick!"

Nope. The towers failed from damage at the impact zone...as every not mental patient knows...

"Since the authorities refused to look for evidence of explosives, and refused all but very limited site access to the collapse investigators, the lack of evidence of explosive residue is inevitable."


Made even more inevitable by the lack of explosives used, and the lack of evidence of explosives used.

Lack of evidence of explosives means no explosives. Glad I can help.

"Why would the blast of explosives broken windows all over Manhattan? Isn't controlled demolition commonly done in urban environments without breaking windows of neighboring buildings?"

Golly, you are such a dullard. First off, CD is not that common in Manhattan these days. When it is necessary they don't used a lot of explosives.

Why?

Because CD involves a lot of prep work like the cutting of beams, and concrete floors to ensure the building falls in a specific direction. The pre-demolition work means that they only have to use a small amount of explosives.

The WTC had no such pre-work done so they would have required over 5000 pounds of the fun stuff, and not thermite either, real boom-boom. It would have been heard 20 miles away.

 
At 25 June, 2014 23:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

You're babbling. You use some of the right diction, but your statements make no sense.

What makes the isolated center windows the "path of least resistance"? Where do you get the idea that the air came in the broken windows before it ejected as squibs? Your claim that the frame broke the glass makes no sense. There was an inch of soft fireproofing, an aluminum frame, and a rubber gasket between the steel and the glass. The window system has to be designed to resist hurricane winds.

The "shockwave" (characterized by Dr. Eagar as "like a bullet hitting a tree") is a completely different thing from the redistribution of loads due to the hole in the wall. The perimeter columns were rated for 20X the live load. They had to be to resist hurricane winds. Guess what--there was no hurricane blowing on 9/11.

Who says the windows broke from frame distortion? You make shit up.

Windshields are not isolated from the steel framework by an inch or soft fireproofing.

When I asked you how you knew the jet fuel exploded, you responded with the statement that the Naudet film showed broken lobby windows. Now you say the window breakage was from frame distortion. It seems that when you just make shit up, you can't remember what you made up a few hours ago.

The elevator shaft is not a confined space. It's 1200 feet long. How would igniting fuel in it result in a blast? The fuel had 1200 feet of expansion headroom above.

On what two higher floors were there jet fuel explosions in the elevator shafts, and who says so?

If there was no evidence of explosives used, then why did Chief Turi and Chief Downey think explosives were used? Why did Dr. Van Romero and Ronald Hamburger think explosives were used? Did they just make it up 'cause they were bored?

Your restriction of the universe of urban controlled demolitions to Manhattan is irrational. The point is, controlled demolition is done in urban environments commonly, and widespread window breakage is not a problem. So where do you get off claiming that WTC explosives would necessarily break windows all over Manhattan?

What if explosives were installed inside the hollow core columns, the walls were heated with thermite and the column walls were only bulged out but not breached by incendiaries inside? The columns would buckle and the building would come down. And no sound would give it away.






























 
At 26 June, 2014 04:37, Blogger Ian said...

Lyin Ian, several firefighters believed there were explosives, including Chief Ray Downey and Chief Albert Turi. We've been over this a dozen times. You lie, skidmark. Thanks for reminding me of that one.

Quoting dead men again in a desperate, hysterical attempt to keep your pathetic beliefs alive.

 
At 26 June, 2014 04:39, Blogger Ian said...

You're babbling. You use some of the right diction, but your statements make no sense.

Beyond parody. This is all a piece of performance art, right Brian? Please don't tell me you're seriously accusing someone else of babbling incoherently and using a lot of technical-sounding terms without making an ounce of sense.

 
At 26 June, 2014 04:42, Blogger Ian said...

First off, CD is not that common in Manhattan these days.

It's actually illegal in NYC. They even had to dismantle old Yankee Stadium and Shea Stadium piece by piece, rather than implode them as is usually done with obsolete sports stadiums.

 
At 26 June, 2014 04:44, Blogger Ian said...

And let's remember the important point here. Despite the pages and pages of spam Brian has posted here, there is not a shred of evidence that explosives were used in the WTC. Brian is just too mentally feeble to understand that his suspicions about youtube videos he watched while high on glue isn't "evidence".

 
At 26 June, 2014 05:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, unlike you, I don't have "beliefs". Also unlike you, I have facts.

Yes, I accuse MGF of throwing around technical terms he does not understand and not making sense. Unlike MGF, I didn't let my janitorial work interfere with my ability to finished college and I remember about stuff like enthalpy and the gas laws and the laws of thermodynamics that apparently he missed because
he was too busy with his farm labor schedule. It's obvious that he doesn't make sense, and I explained why.

I guess that when blowing up the World Trade Center is outlawed, only outlaws will blow up the World Trade Center. And your point is what?

Ian, the testimony of dozens of witnesses is evidence of the use of explosives. The squibs are evidence of the use of explosives. The multi-ton steel components hurled laterally for hundreds of feet are evidence of the use of explosives. The behavior of the towers when they were collapsing is evidence of the use of explosives or powerful incendiaries. The inability of the official investigators to explain the ten essential mysteries of the towers' demise by any means other than explosives and/or incendiaries is evidence of the use of explosives and/or incendiaries.


 
At 26 June, 2014 08:28, Blogger Ian said...

Yes, those things are evidence that you're delusional and ignorant, thanks for proving my point.

But I'm looking for evidence of explosives, remember? Maybe if you learned to read, you wouldn't be so confused about 9/11.

 
At 26 June, 2014 09:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

Empty assertions from lying Ianinny. How about for once in your life you provide evidence for your claims?

 
At 26 June, 2014 17:50, Blogger Avery said...

This movie has scooped up a cool $25k

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-anatomy-of-a-great-deception

Showing the continued strength of the truthie movement, i guess.

 
At 27 June, 2014 06:49, Blogger John said...

About those Mormons...

 
At 27 June, 2014 15:25, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Why would you expect to hear explosions in the din of a building collapse?

Called it, magical explosives. They go off after the collapse began. Apparently cause and effect go out the window in 9/11 Truth World.

Be that as it may Brian, explosives in actual CD's are clearly audible miles away, while the sound of WTC collapse was not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s8qVvhhT18

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ft2uIYucsXo

Speaking of audio evidence, is there a shred of audio evidence for NIST's alleged pre-collapse collapse of the 47 concrete floors? How could 47 concrete slabs slam into each other and not make any sound?

^^^AKA- "FOR THE LOVE OF GOD CHANGE THE SUBJECT!!!"

LOL! You know how truthers are constantly harping on the banging sounds people heard? Or the videos of supposed "explosions"?

 
At 27 June, 2014 15:28, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Another magical property of these explosives is the shock wave which singles out specific windows.

So unlike all other explosives, they are both silent and highly accurate shock waves.

If only there was some more rational explanation.

 
At 27 June, 2014 15:36, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

the testimony of dozens of witnesses is evidence of the use of explosives.

People hearing bangs or even explosions is not evidence of explosives. Nor is speculation in the absence of physical evidence. There would have been remains of devices everywhere.

Cue magical properties or unrealistic cover up of thousands of people.

The squibs are evidence of the use of explosives.

Not when they are magically silent and do not behave like explosives.

The multi-ton steel components hurled laterally for hundreds of feet are evidence of the use of explosives.

Which never happens in CD. Oh right, we cherry pick when to pretend it's a "classic controlled demolition". Somehow the steel was hurled hundreds of feet but the wave which caused this ejection did not carry the sound. Again, magical.

The behavior of the towers when they were collapsing is evidence of the use of explosives or powerful incendiaries.

Sadly Brian, in every known case where explosives are used to bring down buildings, their debris is not spread across 9 city blocks. So wrong again.

The inability of the official investigators to explain the ten essential mysteries of the towers' demise by any means other than explosives and/or incendiaries is evidence of the use of explosives and/or incendiaries.

Probably because they do not believe in explosives with +10 sneaking, or incendiaries with +8 stealth.

 
At 27 June, 2014 15:39, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

ten essential mysteries

Who deemed them as such? Surely some sort of reputable professional organization in structural engineering, fire science, or explosives was consulted, correct?

 
At 27 June, 2014 18:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

GMS, what makes you think that collapse initiation makes total progressive collapse at near-freefall acceleration inevitable?

If it's not inevitable, and few experts who have examined the issues think it is, then energy inputs are necessary to disrupt the structure to allow the tower to collapse at the rate it did.

Incendiaries don't need to be audible. "Real CDs" use archaic, WWII-era explosives. Covert CDs that are intended to mimic the effects of fire-induced collapses could be reasonable expected to use more up-to-date technology.

Is there any audio evidence for NIST's alleged pre-collapse collapse of the 47 concrete floors in WTC7? How could 47 concrete slabs slam into each other and not make any sound? You dids't answer the question.

I never said that explosives singled out isolated windows. I said that the officials have not explained how a gravitational collapse could blow out the isolated windows.

People hearing explosions is evidence of the use of explosives until the explosions are explained. First responders can be expected to have the experience to evaluate what commonly goes BANG! in office fires.

What exactly is "magical" about these squibs? Do you mean to deny that they exist? Do you mean to claim that they have been explained?

The lateral ejection of multi-ton steel components does not normally happen in CD, true. So what is your point? It didn't happen? It's been explained (it hasn't)?

How do we know what sounds were associated with this? Witnesses reported sounds of explosions. Can you provide audio evidence of the pre-collapse collapse of 47 concrete floors in building 7? How did 47 concrete floors fall on each other and make no sound?

Where do you get your information that WTC debris was scattered over 9 city blocks? Would you expect anything else from the demolition in ten seconds of two 110 story buildings?

The ten essential mysteries are obvious to anyone who bothers to honestly look at the evidence. If you think that any of them are not mysteries. then try showing that is the case instead of relying on a fallacious argument from authority.


















 
At 28 June, 2014 05:20, Blogger Albury Smith said...

Here's a thought, Brian:

Ask Box Boy* and his "more than 2100 [9/11 crackpots]" to show you on video with audio how explosives or incendiaries (which is it today?) secretly cut the 4.91" flanges, 3.07" webs, and 215 sq in cross sections of W14 X 730 columns like the 11 of 24 in WTC 7's core, and the 4 corner columns in each tower's core:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0c2o8k4n9CY

http://www.ochshorndesign.com/cornell/writings/milstein-critique/images/8-fig04.png

If they ever HAD TO do it, this "debate" would be OVER.

*Box Boy's ONLY 9/11 "research":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFVi4qbN2jM

 
At 28 June, 2014 08:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

So Dinglberries Myth thinks that
the scientific application of explosives and incendiaries can not bring the buildings down, but office fires can.

NIST claims that the 47 concrete floors inside of WTC7 collapsed, and yet they provide no evidence that these concrete floors made any sound.

Do you, Dingelberries, believe that the 47 concrete floors can slam into each other and make no sound? No witnesses?

The only way your demand for audio evidence of explosives is at all meaningful is if you provide audio evidence for the alleged internal collapse of WTC7.

Application of scientific principles has many means available for containing or mitigating sound energy. Your criticism of Mr. Gage's perfectly valid demonstration of physical principles indicates that you have no scientific education, and rely on the power of your own ignorant emotional responses for your belief that your attitude is justified.

 
At 28 June, 2014 14:50, OpenID mgferris said...

Let's check Brian's failure rate:

"You're babbling. You use some of the right diction, but your statements make no sense."

Because I live in the real world.

"What makes the isolated center windows the "path of least resistance"?"

It was where the force of the collapse over-took the windows damaged in the initial impact.

" The window system has to be designed to resist hurricane winds."

Neat, except there's a difference between a plane crash and a hurricane.

Normal people know this.

"The "shockwave" (characterized by Dr. Eagar as "like a bullet hitting a tree") is a completely different thing from the redistribution of loads due to the hole in the wall."

My guess is you're misquoting Eagar as you always do when confronted with people who are smarter than you.

"The perimeter columns were rated for 20X the live load. They had to be to resist hurricane winds. Guess what--there was no hurricane blowing on 9/11. "

No, dipshit, there was a jumbo-jet. I'll use small words because you're a moron:

A hurricane releases energy over a period of hours. A plane crash happens all at once. If a hurricane release all of its energy like a plane crash there would be no tall buildings on the east coast.

"Who says the windows broke from frame distortion? You make shit up."

Nope. Basic science. The frames bent from the impact fracturing the windows.



"When I asked you how you knew the jet fuel exploded, you responded with the statement that the Naudet film showed broken lobby windows."

No, dipshit, YOU asked how I knew jet fuel exploded in the lobby, and I cited (correctly) the Naudet film. The widows were broken from impact.

" Now you say the window breakage was from frame distortion. It seems that when you just make shit up, you can't remember what you made up a few hours ago.

No, you fail to follow basic reasoning, and apparently cannot read.

"The elevator shaft is not a confined space. It's 1200 feet long. How would igniting fuel in it result in a blast? "

Ever hear of a canon?

"The fuel had 1200 feet of expansion headroom above."

Did it? because you just said there were no elevators that ran directly from the impact site.

You make shit up.

"On what two higher floors were there jet fuel explosions in the elevator shafts, and who says so?"

National Geographic, FEMA, NYC...

"If there was no evidence of explosives used, then why did Chief Turi and Chief Downey think explosives were used?"

Because they were mistaken.

" Why did Dr. Van Romero and Ronald Hamburger think explosives were used? Did they just make it up 'cause they were bored?"

They are mistaken. Plus you're citing them, and everyone knows by now that you cannot read.

"Your restriction of the universe of urban controlled demolitions to Manhattan is irrational."

Nope, it's the law, moron.

"The point is, controlled demolition is done in urban environments commonly, and widespread window breakage is not a problem."

No it's not. Check the facts.

" So where do you get off claiming that WTC explosives would necessarily break windows all over Manhattan? "


Because this is one of the primary reasons CD was outlawed in NYC.

Thanks for playing.

What if explosives were installed inside the hollow core columns, the walls were heated with thermite and the column walls were only bulged out but not breached by incendiaries inside? The columns would buckle and the building would come down. And no sound would give it away.

 
At 28 June, 2014 17:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

mgf, "I live in the real world" may impress your buddies at Franco's as long as you're buying, but in the real real world it ain't worth #$%$#%%(&.

You provide no evidence for your claim that that the center windows were preferentially damaged by impact. Do you think that NIST did not investigate this? But instead of demonstrating your assumptions, they chose not to discuss the issue at all.

I never misquoted Dr. Eagar. If you had bothered to investigate the "bullet hitting a tree" quote you would know that. ou lie. ,

A 767 was by no means a jumbo jet. Do you think a 767 is bigger than a 747? Is that where you're coming from?

How do you get distortion of steel frames resulting in fractured windows when the window frames are anchored in aluminum cladding over soft fireproofing? It seems that you lack construction experience.

How do you know what broke the windows in the lobbies? Was any experiment ever done to show that jet fuel falling down elevator shafts would explode? I know licensed engineers who say it would simply paint itself on the walls of the elevator shafts as it fell.

Yes, I've heard of a cannon, and cannons commonly fire their warheads out the barrel instead of blowing up at the breech. That's my point exactly. Jet fuel at the base of a 1300-foor elevator shaft would, if ignited, simply shoot its energy up the elevator shaft for 800, 900, 1000 stories. The proposition that it would blow out the lobby windows needs very skeptical examination.


On what two higher floors were there jet fuel explosions in the elevator shafts, and who says so?
You provide no links.

 
At 28 June, 2014 23:00, OpenID mgferris said...

"You provide no evidence for your claim that that the center windows were preferentially damaged by impact."

So the windows only broke in the impact zone and the lobby but nowhere else.

Good logic skills, Skippy.

"Do you think that NIST did not investigate this?"

No I don't. It had nothing to do with the collapse.

"How do you know what broke the windows in the lobbies?"

Lllllogic...

" Was any experiment ever done to show that jet fuel falling down elevator shafts would explode? I know licensed engineers who say it would simply paint itself on the walls of the elevator shafts as it fell."

Then you know idiots.

 
At 29 June, 2014 09:20, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

near-freefall acceleration inevitable?

66% is not near free fall. And total collapse at near free fall is not what happened. As usual Brian is not dealing with reality.
http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg

few experts who have examined the issues think it is, then energy inputs are necessary

LOL! Didn't I just see you referencing verinage? Cherry pick much? Cool let me know when they publish their claims in real journals.

Incendiaries don't need to be audible...use more up-to-date technology.

No one said incendiaries had to be audible, but explosives, which you keep talking about are. Incendiaries like thermite are highly visible. But I enjoy how you invoke the secret technology you cannot provide. Again, magic.

Is there any audio evidence for NIST's alleged pre-collapse

Yes I did. You just like pretending I didn't.

LOL! You know how truthers are constantly harping on the banging sounds people heard? Or the videos of supposed "explosions"

I never said that explosives singled out isolated windows.

But that's exactly what the "squibs" did.

 
At 29 June, 2014 09:21, Blogger Grandmastershek said...



http://www2.ae911truth.org/images/infoitems/nist-photo-release-explosion.jpg

IIRC they accounted for it by air pressure. Air will exploit the weakest point, explosives do not. Explosives do not magically make no noise, air makes very little comparatively.

First responders can be expected to have the experience to evaluate...

When does this training occur? Oh right, Brian is just making shit up again. Meanwhile Brian tells others they are not experts and just makes any claim he likes about explosives, CD's, etc.

What exactly is "magical" about these squibs?

We already explained why. Apparently you can't read and comprehend. They are explosives that do not go bang, and they select windows.

Explosions happen in fires, and loud noises occur in collapses. Bangs explained.

The lateral ejection of multi-ton steel components does not normally happen in CD

Of course it happened, just not by magical silent explosions. Since under normal circumstances with explosives no such ejection occurs, we must assume more explosives were needed to cause such ejections. So where are the detonations during collapse? Magic.

 
At 29 June, 2014 09:21, Blogger Grandmastershek said...


Can you provide audio evidence of the pre-collapse collapse

I see, so Brian can mindlessly assert anyone who heard a bang was hearing explosives, but we cannot attribute loud noises to building collapses during collapses. Crack-pottery at its finest. Here is one example of many instances that could account for such collapses

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YvrKfWkxdw

Or some sounds recorded at WTC 7 that truthers pretend is caused by hush boom explosives.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2gJsOjXUU8


Get ready for more magic explosive properties.

Where do you get your information that WTC debris was scattered over 9 city blocks?

It wasn't 10 seconds. Again deal with reality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzm2wfiXdW4

Each tower encompassed approximately 1 city block. Figure it out for yourself.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/nasathermalimages/public/images/fema_debris_distribution.jpg


Nice dodge though Brian, what are you comparing such characteristics against to claim it was the result of explosives. As usual Brian tries to dazzle with BS.

 
At 29 June, 2014 09:21, Blogger Grandmastershek said...




The ten essential mysteries are obvious to anyone who bothers to honestly look at the evidence... try showing that is the case instead of relying on a fallacious argument from authority.

So the honest answer to my question is "no reputable authorities were consulted and it's based on the speculation of a fringe group".

Arguments from authority are only fallacious in areas where the subject is highly debated in the relevant academic community or if the person being cited is not an actual authority. The characteristics of demolitions is not something highly debated. Please don't pretend to understand logic, you clearly don't. I didn't even invoke an authority with a claim to begin with. It's just hilarious watching you run in circles.

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum%20ad%20verecundiam

Funny though that you think you honestly look at the evidence when your claims are not based in reality. Before writing "GMS, what part of my claims are not based in reality?", go back over my post, I provided numerous examples which you will no doubt pretend do not exist.

 
At 29 June, 2014 09:26, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Let's also not forget Brian likes to pretend the explosives could not be heard since they were inside the box columns. Yet they are ejecting steel across Lower Manhattan. Makes sense if you don't think about it.

 
At 29 June, 2014 11:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

mgf, first you attribute to me something I didn't say, then you get tangled up in a double negative, and then accuse me of poor logic skills.

How does logic tell you what broke the windows in the lobbies? Why would jet fuel burning in a 1300-foot tall shaft blow open the elevator doors and blow out the windows instead of just compressing the 1300 feet of air above it?

How do you know the squibs had nothing to do with the collapses? Did the WTC commonly have jets of pulverized building materials exiting from isolated windows in the absence of collapses?

When did you become on expert on the behavior of liquid fuel as it falls 1100 feet through a narrow tube? How do you know better than the engineers who think the fuel would just paint itself on the walls of the elevator shaft as it fell?

 
At 29 June, 2014 11:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

GMS, Dr. Sunder told NOVA that "The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds." That's free fall. Dr. Sunder has never corrected this statement, which is confirmed by statements in NCSTAR 1. I'm pretty sure we've been over this before.

I recently gave you a list of academic papers on 9/11 published in real journals, suggesting that they "might not interest you". I guess you forgot.



February 2014 | Reassessing the Plastic Hinge Model for Energy Dissipation of Axially Loaded Columns
Journal: Journal of Structures, Vol. 2014, Article ID 795257, 7 pages, 2014. doi:10.1155/2014/795257.
Authors: Dr. Robert Korol and Dr. K. S. Sivakumaran (McMaster University)
Link: http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jstruc/2014/795257/

June 2013 | Some Misunderstanding Related to WTC Collapse Analysis
Journal: International Journal of Protective Structures (Vol. 4, No. 2 / June 2013)
Authors: Dr. Gregory Szuladzinski (PhD, Structural Mechanics), Tony Szamboti (ME), and Richard Johns.
Link: http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/bl60385h25254748/
Download Preview (PDF): Preview – Some Misunderstandings of WTC Collapse Analysis

April 2013 | Conspiracy Theory in America (Book)
Publisher: University of Texas Press
Author: Dr. Lance DeHaven-Smith (Florida State University)
Link: http://www.utexas.edu/utpress/books/dehcon.html

November 2012 | Energy Absorption Potential of Light Weight Concrete Floors
Journal: Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering (Vol. 39, pp: 1193-1201)
Authors: Dr. Robert Korol and Dr. K. S. Sivakumaran (McMaster University)
Link: http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/abs/10.1139/l2012-107?journalCode=cjce#.ULJfcmfK3GE

March 2012 | Launching the U.S. Terror War: the CIA, 9/11, Afghanistan, and Central Asia
Journal: The Asia-Pacific Journal
Author: Dr. Peter Dale Scott (University of California, Berkeley)
Link: http://japanfocus.org/-Peter_Dale-Scott/3723

February 2012 | Temporal Considerations in Collapse of WTC Towers
Journal: Int. J. Structural Engineering, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp.189-207
Author: Dr. Gregory Szuladzinski (PhD, Structural Mechanics; FEIA & Member of ASCE)
Link: http://www.inderscience.com/offer.php?id=47711

September 2011 | Conspiracy Theories and Stylized Facts
Journal: Journal for Peace and Justice Studies 21.2 (Fall 2011)
Author: Dr. Kurtis Hagen (SUNY)
Download Paper (PDF): Kurt Hagen – Conspiracy Theories and Stylized Facts

June 2011 | Was There Abnormal Trading in the S&P 500 Index Options Prior to the September 11 Attacks?
Journal: Multinational Finance Journal, 2011, vol. 15, no. 1/2, pp. 1-46
Authors: Wing-Keung Wong (Hong Kong Baptist University) and Dr. Howard E. Thompson (University of Wisconsin-Madison) et al
Link: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1588523
Download Paper (PDF): Abnormal Trading in the S&P 500 Index Options Prior to the September 11 Attacks


April 2011 | Collapse Time Analysis of Multi-Story Structural Steel Buildings
Journal: The Open Civil Engineering Journal (Bentham Open) (Vol.5, 2011, pp. 25-35)
Authors: Dr. Robert Korol (McMaster University) et al
Link: http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tociej/articles/V005/25TOCIEJ.pdf

 
At 29 June, 2014 11:54, Blogger snug.bug said...


There is nothing magic about explosives and incendiaries. In fact research is being done on nanomaterial explosives and nanomaterial incendiaries at government labs.

What audio evidence of NIST's pre-collapse collapse in WTC7 is there?

I never said he squibs were from explosives. I don't know what they're from. They have not been explained, is the point.

If you're going to claim that those isolated windows were the weakest point in the system, you have to explain why the central ones were the weakest. Simple substandard windows should be randomly distributed.

Are you claiming that first responders are not trained to anticipate explosion hazards in fires? Do you have evidence to support this claim? I had on-the-job training with all the other employees in fire safety that identified explosion hazards in our building.

Your claim that the squibs are magical contradicts your claim that they are prosaic and of no interest.

The lateral ejection of multi-ton steel components has not been explained. You seem to be satisfied not to explain them because you feel that explosives can not explain them. Your limiting of your curiosity on such an unscientific basis is quite telling. Some of us feel that the family members deserve to have complete investigations of the day their loved ones died.

I never asserted that anyone who heard a loud bang was hearing explosions. When some liar like mgf or Ian claims there us no evidence of explosives, I assert that dozens of witnesses reported that they heard explosions, and that explosions until they have been explained are evidence of explosives.

Neither of the videos you linked had audio evidence of the pre-collapse collapse that NIST claims happened in WTC7.

The ten essential mysteries can be identified in the literature and in interviews with experts readily available on the internet. For instance, Kathy McGrade saying "symmetry is the smoking gun".

I never said explosives propelled the multi-ton steel building components laterally for hundreds of feet. I said the lateral expulsion was a mystery that needed to be explained.

I don't pretend anything about explosives.

 
At 29 June, 2014 14:47, Blogger Albury Smith said...

Brian Good jabbers stupidly: "Do you, [Albury], believe that the 47 concrete floors can slam into each other and make no sound? No witnesses?"
No, I don't Brian, nor did any live eyewitness to WTC 7's 5:21 PM fire-induced collapse ever make that claim.
Please stick to Supersizing™ Happy Meals™ for your hungry customers and leave forensic structural engineering to competent and experienced SEs.

 
At 29 June, 2014 15:28, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

GMS, Dr. Sunder told NOVA that...

So you believe NIST now? Funny that. You pretend these guys are lying, but when their statement which contradict the visual record you take their word for it out of convenience to your delusions.

Sorry, you're wrong and the video shows it.

I recently gave you a list of academic papers on 9/11 published in real journals, suggesting that they "might not interest you". I guess you forgot.

Throwing out titles in journals without showing which support your claim and how is a sad attempt at appearing credible.

 
At 29 June, 2014 15:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

Dingleberries Myth, I take it that you can not provide any audio recording or name any witnesses who heard the 47 concrete floors slamming into each other in NIST's pre-collapse collapse.

In other words, you have no evidence that it actually happened, and your maundering about the lack of audio evidence of explosions is meaningless.

 
At 29 June, 2014 16:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

GMS, I didn't say I believed NIST. I said what Dr. Sunder said. That's what he said. He said what I said he said.

Where I come from it's generally considered smart to use the other guy's quotes to hang him. Did ya'll grow up in a barn?

What is the provenance of your video? Do you have any idea how ridiculously easy it is with cheap video editing software to slow down or speed up a video clip?

You didn;t answer my question. What makes you think that collapse initiation makes total progressive collapse at near-freefall acceleration inevitable?

If it's not inevitable, and few experts who have examined the issues think it is, then energy inputs are necessary to disrupt the structure to allow the tower to collapse at the rate it did.

I provided the list of peer-reviewed papers to support the claim that experts think energy inputs are necessary.

 
At 29 June, 2014 16:18, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

There is nothing magic about explosives and incendiaries. In fact research is being done on nanomaterial explosives and nanomaterial incendiaries at government labs.

When the explosives are magically silent and the incendiaries invisible, they are magic. Keep dodging Brian.

What audio evidence of NIST's pre-collapse collapse in WTC7 is there?

Provided examples already. Repeating yourself will not help.


I never said the squibs were from explosives. I don't know what they're from. They have not been explained, is the point.

LOL! Poor Brian, always running from his own claims. I love how you clowns think no one can use google.

There is much evidence for use of explosives--squibs, eyewitness testimony, dust clouds including upward ejections. (Brian Good, 12/13/10)
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2010/12/nist-did-test-explosives.html#c8603315339349184527

The evidence for explosives is the squibs...(Brian Good, 12/24/11)
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2011/12/strawman.html#c3580740927209946222

I actually pointed these out to you before. No surprise you are still lying.

 
At 29 June, 2014 16:19, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

you have to explain why the central ones were the weakest. Simple substandard windows should be randomly distributed.

LOL! Nice strawgrasping. No I don't because that didn't happen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4dpBzDm5MU

Are you claiming that first responders are not trained to anticipate explosion hazards in fires? Do you have evidence to support this claim?

I am sure as a janitor you were explained how all kidns of house cleaning products, dust accumulation, etc can lead to explosions. Identifying explosive hazards, and cause of explosion by ear are different things. Still waiting for you to support your claim, aside from your typical BS appeals of self expertise. Just to clue you in Brian when you start relying on yourself as an authority we all quickly realize it's bullshit.

Your claim that the squibs are magical contradicts your claim that they are prosaic and of no interest.

The ejections themselves are not magical, your insistence that they are squibs, and your actual belief as I just proved, that they are the result of explosives, is what's magical. Quite hilarious too b/c squibs are explosives. So like many other terms you post you may want to know what they mean before throwing words around.
http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/8.6765?journalCode=jjp


The lateral ejection of multi-ton steel components has not been explained.

Please Brian, we all know you think it's explosives. And your desperate attempts to avoid dealing with reality are just pathetic. You're just trying to avoid dealing with the fact that your beliefs about magical explosives are ridiculous. Maybe they haven't been explained in a way that the nutters want, but that's no one else's concern.

 
At 29 June, 2014 16:19, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

I assert that dozens of witnesses reported that they heard explosions, and that explosions until they have been explained are evidence of explosives.

No they're not. You don't get to assert any explosion as evidence of explosives b/c it's your pet theory. The sound of an explosion is evidence of an explosion, not the cause.

Neither of the videos you linked had audio evidence of the pre-collapse collapse that NIST claims happened in WTC7.

LOL! Oh but any loud noise or supposed explosion is evidence of explosives right? What a friggin idiot. Sorry Brian, but we know buildings collapsed. So we know sounds could be attributed to them. What we do not have evidence of is explosives. One video I provided is from WTC 7, it is nowhere near the sound of an explosive, but it does occur right before the collapse of the penthouse. Or is this one of your magical explosives?

The ten essential mysteries can be identified in the literature and in interviews with experts readily available on the internet. For instance, Kathy McGrade saying "symmetry is the smoking gun".

Oh wow...nothing but the most rigorous research for Brian Good! It's on the interwebs! Talk about appeal to authority, Brian. Kathy McGrade is no authority on such topics, and your position is not established in the academic world. LOL! Nice fail.

 
At 29 June, 2014 16:19, Blogger Grandmastershek said...



Regardless they were not symmetrical as I proved already, but hey, when has reality ever gotten in your way?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzm2wfiXdW4

I never said explosives propelled the multi-ton steel building components laterally for hundreds of feet. I said the lateral expulsion was a mystery that needed to be explained.

LOL! Right Brian, good thing I already quoted you above saying otherwise.

I don't pretend anything about explosives.

Then stop pretending your baseless assertions carry weight.

Good job dancing as always, Brian.

 
At 29 June, 2014 16:39, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Application of scientific principles has many means available for containing or mitigating sound energy.

Meaningless attempt to throw words around to avoid backing up BS claims.

Since we know you are just dancing around your actual BS beliefs about magical explosives and incendiaries, perhaps you can explain how you mitigate the sound of explosions when they would have to be more powerful than actual CD's to eject steel hundreds of feet.

Let the Brian Good dance marathon continue!

 
At 29 June, 2014 16:52, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

I never said he squibs were from explosives. I don't know what they're from. They have not been explained, is the point.




"...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

Also of note is we were basically have the same exact argument with Brian in 2011, but oddly he seems to have retreated from his claims about explosives. I guess the embarrassment was too much to bear hence why he pretending to be JAQing off in this thread.

 
At 29 June, 2014 22:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

Nobody said any explosives were magically silent, GMS. A collapsing 100 story building makes plenty of noise to mask the sounds of small explosions.

Why would you expect incendiaries planted in elevator shafts to be visible?

You did NOT provide audio evidence of a pre-collapse invisible collapse of WTC7. Your links provided nothing of the sort.

I said squibs were evidence of explosives. I did not say they were from explosives. Liquid dripping off your nose is evidence of rain, evidence that you're crying, and evidence that somebody pissed on your face. Only an honest investigation can say for sure.

You guys need to check a dictionary for big words you don't understand.

Actually, as a janitor I wasn't trained in shit. I don't think they even instructed me not to mix ammonia and chlorine.

I have worked in high tech production facilities in silicon valley and was trained in the safety hazards associated with the specific chemicals utilized in these facilities in case of fire.

You are relying on YOUR own authority for your opinion that FDNY personnel are not trained in the the common explosive hazards in ordinary fires.

When peedunkers start telling me what I think, I know they're lying. I have no beliefs about magical explosives.

An explosion is evidence of explosives until it's explained.

I never said that any loud noise was evidence of explosions. Witness reports of explosions are evidence of explosions. Squibs are evidence of explosions. The symmetrical, total, and near-freefall collapse is evidence of explosives.

The collapses were symmetrical, floor by floor, as symmetrical as anything in nature can be. By your definition a palm tree and a pine tree would not be symmetrical. Your desperate denial and weasely semantic-picking is noted.

I'm sorry that containing sound and mitigating sound are concepts too complex for you. Buy a dictionary if you don;t know how to google.

I don't have to explain how explosives propel multi-ton steel components at 55 mph for hundreds of feet. NIST has to explain how a gravitational collapse can do it. you are dishonestly shifting the burden of proof on me.

 
At 30 June, 2014 07:06, Blogger Albury Smith said...

MORE stupid jabbering from Mrs. Good's little pride and joy Brian: "[Albury's] Myth, I take it that you can not provide any audio recording or name any witnesses who heard the 47 concrete floors slamming into each other in NIST's pre-collapse collapse.

"In other words, you have no evidence that it actually happened, and your maundering about the lack of audio evidence of explosions is meaningless."
Your silent and imaginary explosives are amazing enough. Do they now make floors collapse silently TOO? Please explain why Ashley Banfield knew to turn around and look toward WTC 7 if she didn't hear the collapse, you fool:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0pKUz8UpSs
Were all of those many people in that video DEAF, or "in on it"?

 
At 30 June, 2014 07:32, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

LOL! I love watching Brian get all butt hurt b/c he lies about his claims and then goes prattling on these mindless tirades of even more baseless claims.

Nobody said any explosives were magically silent, GMS. A collapsing 100 story building makes plenty of noise to mask the sounds of small explosions.

Small explosions that eject tons of tons of steel,right? See? Magic.

Why would you expect incendiaries planted in elevator shafts to be visible?

Oh right, now the incendiaries are in the shafts. Must be because it's convenient at this very moment. Like when you claimed explosives became hush boom inside the columns while simultaneously blowing steel across the WTC site based on what claim was convenient at what time..

A nine-month elevator renovations project in the 15 miles of WTC elevator shafts provided plenty of cover for planting of explosives in the elevator shafts, which provided access to most of the core columns. (Brian Good, 12/18/10)
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2010/12/bentham-comedy-continues.html#c8953403945600485790

 
At 30 June, 2014 07:33, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

You did NOT provide audio evidence of a pre-collapse invisible collapse of WTC7. Your links provided nothing of the sort.

Yes...yes...let the butt hurt flow through you. So what was the most likely cause of such noises from WTC7, Brian? More magic explosives? Of right explosions are evidence of explosives but booms and bangs during a collapse are not evidence of collapse. Only makes sense to a janitor I guess.

I said squibs were evidence of explosives. I did not say they were from explosives. Liquid dripping off your nose is evidence of rain, evidence that you're crying, and evidence that somebody pissed on your face. Only an honest investigation can say for sure.

LOL! Poor Brian running from his claims 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

Magic explosive ejecting debris but magically quiet.

 
At 30 June, 2014 07:33, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

You guys need to check a dictionary for big words you don't understand.

LOL! Awww..it's ok Brian. Stamp your feet. This most recent bout of failure must be very trying for you. I provided a source. sadly as always we have to accept your pretend expertise.

You are relying on YOUR own authority for your opinion that FDNY personnel are not trained in the the common explosive hazards in ordinary fires.

Nope...didn't say that. Keep lying, Brian

Identifying explosive hazards, and cause of explosion by ear are different things (Me)

I am still waiting to hear of this training first responders (your original claim) receive on identifying explosions by ear. Poor butt hurt Brian pretending being a janitor grants equivalent training to being FDNY.


When peedunkers start telling me what I think, I know they're lying. I have no beliefs about magical explosives.

Sadly, I quoted you directly. Try again.

An explosion is evidence of explosives until it's explained.

According to a janitor. Sorry, Brian your non expertise does not allow you to simply make claims without backing them up. I know this part is hard for you.

 
At 30 June, 2014 07:34, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

I never said that any loud noise was evidence of explosions.

Nice bat n switch Brian. First you say it's evidence of explosives, then claim it's evidence of explosions, what I have been saying all along. Keep dancing.

Squibs are evidence of explosions.

I already provided a source on squibs actually being explosives. Your continued misuse only proves your inability to deal with reality, as I have consistently proven.
http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/8.6765?journalCode=jjp

The symmetrical, total, and near-freefall collapse is evidence of explosives.

More repeated lies from the janitor who thinks he can magically identify explosives by ear.

http://s8.photobucket.com/user/grnadmastershek/media/11tower2collapseap.jpg.html?sort=3&o=56

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W0-W582fNQ
The collapses were symmetrical, floor by floor, as symmetrical as anything in nature can be.

Lie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W0-W582fNQ

I'm sorry that containing sound and mitigating sound are concepts too complex for you.

Not too complex, just not to be taken on the word of a janitor. LOL! Poor Brian invoking his delusions of grandeur.

I don't have to explain how explosives propel multi-ton steel components at 55 mph for hundreds of feet. NIST has to explain how a gravitational collapse can do it. you are dishonestly shifting the burden of proof on me.

Nope. Your claim, as has been proven, is that it's the result of explosives. I can quote you again if you want. Poor butt hurt Brian, thinks his days as a janitor means he can make any claim he want.


LOL! Oh well...magical explosives it is.

 
At 30 June, 2014 07:57, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

The collapses were symmetrical, floor by floor, as symmetrical as anything in nature can be. By your definition a palm tree and a pine tree would not be symmetrical. Your desperate denial and weasely semantic-picking is noted.

To quote Ian, "My, such squealing!".


http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a19/grnadmastershek/WTCSymmetry_zpsff8011df.png


Anything in nature, huh Brian?

 
At 30 June, 2014 08:24, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

More examples of Brian dancing back and forth like any good truther. First the thermite is in the perimeter columns and "weaken" the steel while not being exposed. Evidence? Just Brian's word as a janitor.

Thermite placed inside the perimeter columns could have softened them without any visible flames or explosions. (Brian Good, 3/7/11)
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2011/03/stupid-troofers.html#c3143522612926740819

Today:

Why would you expect incendiaries planted in elevator shafts to be visible?

Don't worry all, we can be rest assured that this is all plausible based on Brian's extensive experience and expertise.


All the while not a single shred of demolitions paraphernalia recovered at the scene by any of the thousands of people at the scene.

More magic demolition materials

 
At 30 June, 2014 10:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

Dingleberries Myth, it is NIST's fantasy pre-collapse internal collapse of WTC7 that is silent. There is no audio evidence that it happened.

Don't you think that if NIST could have found any evidence to support that fantasy, they would have publicized it?

 
At 30 June, 2014 11:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 30 June, 2014 11:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

My what obsessive posting, GMS! Aren't you afraid of sounding just a little bit shrill? And hysterical?
Why should you be hysterical in trying to defend things you regard as self-evident truths from people you regard as dumber than dirt?

Does that make any sense?

 
At 30 June, 2014 11:48, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Lol...awww its OK Brian. I am sure whining hysterically on the internet will make you feel better

Too bad yet again your bs symmetry claim fell apart again. Reality sucks huh?

 
At 30 June, 2014 12:09, Blogger snug.bug said...

The symmetry claim by no means falls apart. Look at the video. The symmetry is unnatural.

Upon what basis do you expect natural or unnatural symmetry to be total?

 
At 30 June, 2014 12:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

If you allow natural symmetry to be less than total, why would you deny that right to unnatural symmetry--especially if the operatives were trying to plausibly simulate a fire-induced collapse?

Why wouldn't a demolition op choose to topple at the last minute to the south to avoid damage to adjacent standing structures, to remove the impression of symmetry and straight down collapse, and to give you the talking point you are now flogging?

 
At 30 June, 2014 12:42, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

The symmetry claim by no means falls apart. Look at the video. The symmetry is unnatural.

Upon what basis do you expect natural or unnatural symmetry to be total?


LOL! Your claim Brian:

The collapses were symmetrical, floor by floor, as symmetrical as anything in nature can be.

I found symmetry in nature, a pine tree even, that was far more symmetrical. Your hand waving is expected.

Why wouldn't a demolition op choose to topple at the last minute to the south to avoid damage to adjacent standing structures, to remove the impression of symmetry and straight down collapse, and to give you the talking point you are now flogging?

LOL! It's your claim dumb ass. I am not sure what they would do. I won't pretend to know as I am not an expert. And neither are you as much as you like to pretend to be.

But I especially love how you proudly stand there declaring symmetry and then reality crushes your delusions, you find any way to make yourself feel better. Poor little butt hurt Brian.

 
At 30 June, 2014 12:44, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

And of course if butt hurt Brian had watched the video he would know the collapse video I posted shows no such topple.

Unsurpisingly Brian isn't actually checking any of the evidence posted. He just rambles on pretending he is some sort of demo expert.

 
At 30 June, 2014 12:47, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Yes, the magical explosives demo team was obviously concerned with avoiding peripheral damage.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/World_Trade_Center_Site_After_9-11_Attacks_With_Original_Building_Locations.jpg

Brian's dumbassery at odds with reality again.

 
At 30 June, 2014 12:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

The collapses of the towers were floor by floor and symmetrical. WTc7 fell to the south at the last second. Your conflation of different incidents is dishonest.

 
At 30 June, 2014 14:45, Blogger Albury Smith said...

Grandmastershek opines: "I am sure as a janitor you were explained how all kinds of house cleaning products, dust accumulation, etc can lead to explosions..."
I owe our little Brian an apology. For years now I thought he Supersized™ Happy Meals™ for his hungry customers at the local McDonald's. My bad; he's apparently been a janitor who thinks he's a forensic SE with a doctorate and PE certification all that time.

 
At 01 July, 2014 00:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

Look at Dingleberries Myth, showing why he's so misinformed about 9/11. He cruises around the internet and when some anonymous internet poster tells him what he wants to believe, he believes it--and never thinks to ask "how does the guy know"?

 
At 01 July, 2014 04:55, Blogger Albury Smith said...

Still more stupid jabbering from Brian Good: "Look at Dingleberries [sic] Myth, showing why he's so misinformed about 9/11. He cruises around the internet [sic] and when some anonymous internet [sic] poster tells him what he wants to believe, he believes it--and never thinks to ask "how does the guy know"?"
Does little Bri-Bri ever think to ask "How does my pal Box Boy know more about forensic structural engineering than the ASCE, NCSEA, SEI, SEAoNY, NIST, AIA, RIBA, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, structuremag.org, ENR..."?

 
At 01 July, 2014 07:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

I don't know any "Box Boy". Was he a friend of yours from your misspent youth? How did he get the name "Box Boy"? Did he live in a box? Did he share his box for money or drugs? What was your nickname? Did you know Willie Rodriguez back in those days? Did you know James Randi?

You don't have to be a structural engineer to know that when an agency sets out to explain "why and how" a building collapsed and then claims that they did not analyze the collapse, the report is not complete. And when not analyzing the collapse allows them to dodge the ten essential mysteries of the buildings' demise, you know it's not scientific. And you know it's not honest.

But you're missing the point of my post, which is your crippled epistemology. You are so poorly educated that you lack any concept of proper sourcing, you are very gullible when anonymous internet posters tell you what you want to hear, and you don't understand how your poor education and your gullibility pack your knowledge base with nonsense.







 
At 01 July, 2014 09:00, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

The collapses of the towers were floor by floor and symmetrical.

Liar.

The collapses were symmetrical, floor by floor, as symmetrical as anything in nature can be.

http://s8.photobucket.com/user/grnadmastershek/media/WTCSymmetry_zpsff8011df.png.html?sort=3&o=0


WTc7 fell to the south at the last second. Your conflation of different incidents is dishonest.

LOL! Yes, Brian. That makes even more sense. They were concerned about damage for WTC 7 but not the Towers. FYI dumb ass, it's the debris field of the entire WTC site, including the damage caused to Fitterman Halland the Verizon building by WTC 7.

But yes, we know when something happens in the Towers it means explosives, but if it doesn't happen in 7 that still means explosives...continually ad infinitum.

 
At 01 July, 2014 09:03, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

http://s8.photobucket.com/user/grnadmastershek/media/WTCdebris_zps6e36a570.png.html

 
At 01 July, 2014 09:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

The collapses were symmetrical, GMS as anyone who watches the videos can see. The towers came down floor by floor by floor all the way down. Your belief that a trivial exception refutes the fact of the symmetry is absurd. You might as well argue that a car is not symmetrical unless the steering wheel is in the middle.

The towers were not perfectly symmetrical. They had two stairwells on one side of the core, and one stairwell on the other. That is a far more dramatic case of asymmetry than is your trivial semantic lawyering. Get real.

Also, your comparison of the towers with a tree is inept. You shows us the outside of the tree. You show us the inside of the tower. Unless you can show that the trunk of the tree is perfectly symmetrical, with 118 branches on the left and 118 branches on the right, your graphic proves my point, not yours.

Why do you guys expend such enormous energies on arguing a case you regard as self-evident against people you regard as idiots--and why do you do it so ineptly?






 
At 01 July, 2014 09:33, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

The collapses were symmetrical, GMS as anyone who watches the videos can see.


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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W0-W582fNQ

The towers came down floor by floor by floor all the way down.

^Brians x ray vision lets him see through the debris cloud.

Your belief that a trivial exception refutes the fact of the symmetry is absurd. You might as well argue that a car is not symmetrical unless the steering wheel is in the middle.

Keep flailing, Brian. Your claim:

The collapses were symmetrical, floor by floor, as symmetrical as anything in nature can be.

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



The towers were not perfectly symmetrical. They had two stairwells on one side of the core, and one stairwell on the other. That is a far more dramatic case of asymmetry than is your trivial semantic lawyering. Get real.

LOL! Awwww...poor Brian now needs to open up the Towers and see inside to do a mental backflip to ignore his own claims and reality. You said the collapses, not the interior design of the building. Symmetrical floor by floor, Brian.

Also, your comparison of the towers with a tree is inept. You shows us the outside of the tree. You show us the inside of the tower.

Poor Brian, trying so hard to avoid his delusions.

The collapses were symmetrical, floor by floor, as symmetrical as anything in nature can be.

Now poor butt hurt Brian is trying to change his claim. You said the collapses, which I show, compared to anything in nature, which I showed. LOL! Keep squealing, Brian.

Unless you can show that the trunk of the tree is perfectly symmetrical, with 118 branches on the left and 118 branches on the right, your graphic proves my point, not yours.

anything in nature <<< Brian's claim. Now anything in nature is whatever straw Brian is grasping at in any given moment.

Why do you guys expend such enormous energies on arguing a case you regard as self-evident against people you regard as idiots--and why do you do it so ineptly?

LOL! Poor little Brian squealing because reality will not conform to his delusions.

 
At 01 July, 2014 09:36, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

THE COLLAPSES WE SYMMETRICAL AS ANYTHING IN NATURE CAN BE!!! AS LONG AS YOU ONLY PAY ATTENTION TO THE PARTS WHERE THE COLLAPSES ARE OBSCURED AND ONLY LOOK AT THINGS IN NATURE THAT ARE CONVENIENT TO MY PRECIOUS BELIEFS

^Brian's squealing in a nut shell.

 
At 01 July, 2014 11:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

The towers collapsed floor by floor by floor--symmetrically, as anyone who watches the videos can see.

 
At 01 July, 2014 11:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

You'd argue that a blue car is not blue because its tires are black.

 
At 01 July, 2014 12:22, Blogger Albury Smith said...

Brian Good again jabbers stupidly: "The towers collapsed floor by floor by floor--symmetrically, as anyone who watches the videos can see."
As opposed to doing WHAT, pray tell? You have heard of gravity, haven't you, Brian?

 
At 01 July, 2014 16:33, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

The towers collapsed floor by floor by floor--symmetrically, as anyone who watches the videos can see

Anyone with magic x ray vision. Brian still lies.

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7W0-W582fNQ


You'd argue that a blue car is not blue because its tires are black.

Awww...poor butt hurt Brian is crying again.

 
At 01 July, 2014 16:41, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Albury,

Brian is just crying b/c like always he is parroting the tenets of the holy truther faith, and sadly reality will not conform. It's like the dumb asses who pretend the universe is finely tuned for life and only look at the Earth while ignoring the bulk of the universe is totally inhospitable to life.

Now he just sits here and cries b/c he made the claim that the towers collapse was just as symmetrical as anything in nature, even a pine tree. I provide numerous examples of things in nature, including a pine that have quite great symmetry next to the collapse.

So instead of recognizing his idea was moronic he constantly dances around pretending part of the towers still standing about 40% of the total height doesn't count.

Makes sense if you don't think about it. No matter what in Brian's little world symmetry and level conform to his delusions.

 
At 01 July, 2014 16:53, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Here Brian, this seems a bit more your speed.

http://www.linkslearning.k12.wa.us/kids/1_math/2_illustrated_lessons/4_Line_Symmetry/index.html

 
At 01 July, 2014 16:55, Blogger Albury Smith said...


Grandmastershek:
Our little Brian once told me that v2 is the square root of velocity, and that F varies inversely with m in Newton's Second Law. Brian lives in his mom's basement and is extra special. :-)

 
At 01 July, 2014 17:32, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Brian constantly proves he has no knowledge of physics. All he can do is throw around terms like "2nd law of thermodynamics" and "Newton's 2nd Law". He thinks he can dazzle people by invoking the terminology and making grandiose claims. Meanwhile anyone with a pulse knows they just have to point out he never backs up his claims, and then he dances around trotting out BS claim after BS claim.

We really need to come up with a format to search for his constant bungles. Something like a hashtag at the end.

Something like #Briansstupidsymmetry

He always gets irate when you point out his posts from the past that prove he is full of shit.

 
At 01 July, 2014 18:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

When I throw around terms like
"2nd law of thermodynamics" and "Newton's 2nd Law" I know what I'm talking about--unlike you, who must rely on lying ad hominems to give the false impression that you have a point.



 
At 01 July, 2014 18:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

GMS, we talked about this months ago. I guess you forgot. Your definition of "symmetry" requires that any deviation from perfect symmetry is asymmetry.

If we imposed a comparable requirement on you, any claim of asymmetry would be defeated by any appearance at all of symmetry.

Your claims are silly.

 
At 02 July, 2014 04:05, Blogger Albury Smith said...


GMS correctly opines: "Brian constantly proves he has no knowledge of physics."

Brian's fuzzy knowledge of physics was acquired through quick looks at wiki pages after he discovered his sudden expertise in building collapse investigations, since it wasn't taught in his special ed classes and he wouldn't have understood it anyway. He misread the explanation of F=ma and/or was too stupid to realize that F varies directly with m in Newton's Second Law, and followed that one with the equally absurd claim that v^2 is the square root of velocity. He then told me that he was "distracted" (probably blind drunk again - an unfortunate lifestyle choice since he's already seriously lacking brain cells) after I corrected him, and that I didn't understand physics, despite my having studied it at the university level.
Brian Good is truly pathetic.

 
At 02 July, 2014 09:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

My knowledge of physics was acquired from college courses in the 1970s, Dingleberries Myth.

Your belief that the first law of thermodynamics does not apply to a demonstration involving dropping cardboard boxes shows your ignorance of physics.

Sometimes in the morning before I've had coffee. I get my algebra tangled up Your belief that this makes me stupid confirms your lack of experience with people more intelligent than yourself. Poor blighted Dinglebury.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home