Sunday, July 13, 2014

De Blasio: Truther Initiative Ridiculous, Insensitive and Inappropriate

Couldn't have put it better myself:

"I believe the City Council will share our view that this should never be on the ballot," he said, with Council Speaker Melissa Mark-Viverito nodding in agreement beside him.
 At this point, I'm kind of hoping that they get it on the ballot, so the voters can smack it down.  Or even that it passes and the Buildings Department just laughs and tells them to look at the NIST report.  No matter what happens the Truthers are going to lose out in the end, because they don't have a real case, just a bunch of crackpot conspiracy theories.

112 Comments:

At 13 July, 2014 12:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

Pat, the "real case" about WTC7 is that NIST's report is not satisfactory because it is incomplete and dishonest.

They expect us to take their word for it that a change in coloration for one pixel in a video means that the north wall of WTC7 was invisibly buckling before the free-fall collapse began.

They do nothing to give us any confidence at all that the change in coloration was not due to the swaying of a 300-foot-wide northern wall under the influence of a NW breeze, a wall that NIST claims had no lateral support whatsoever because, they say. all the floors had collapsed.

And then there is the issue of NIST's removal of essential structural elements from the Column 79-girder a2001 system to make their "girder walk-off" theory appear to be plausible. They removed the shear studs from the girder, they made the bearing plate smaller, and they took away the flange stiffener plates.



 
At 13 July, 2014 13:01, Blogger truth hurts said...

bria,

the report of wtc7 was prereleased for public scrutiny.
None of your 'complaints' were filed.

 
At 13 July, 2014 14:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

The draft report on WTC7 had a very limited time for public comment before it was finalized.

What is your point? Are you claiming that criticism of its unreliable nature is not permitted after the comment period has passed?

 
At 13 July, 2014 15:48, Blogger truth hurts said...

Are you claiming that criticism of its unreliable nature is not permitted after the comment period has passed?

No, that is what you are claiming.

I merely point out that during the draft report, none of the so called issues that you have with the report were addressed by others.

And considering your type of reasoning, apparently no one has started a dialog with NIST about the 'issues' you have with the report.
We both know that is is a waste of time asking you if you can provide any letter directed to NIST that complains about your so called unreliable nature of the report.

 
At 13 July, 2014 16:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

IIRC there was only a month's period for public comment on the report. Not a lot of time for busy professionals to read a 1000-page report and ruminate on its contents.

If you had bothered to read the posts in this very blog, you would know about the extensive dialog that has been undertaken with NIST over the years, most recently a letter from Dr. William Pepper about the removal of vital structural elements from the column 79-girder a2001 system to make NIST's silly "girder walk-off" theory seem plausible.

Yes, it's a waste of time for you to ask me for the letter when any fool (even you) can just google ,,,, Pepper NIST letter,,,, and get it justlikethat.

But asking you to show a little initiative in informing you is way too much--you seem to prefer to have your talking points spoon fed to you by lying propagandists.



 
At 13 July, 2014 18:15, OpenID mgferris said...

I don't care what Dr. Pepper says. What did Mountain Dew say?

 
At 13 July, 2014 18:19, OpenID mgferris said...

"IIRC there was only a month's period for public comment on the report. Not a lot of time for busy professionals to read a 1000-page report and ruminate on its contents. "

So we're clear, AE911Troof pushes for the NIST investigation - which was not necessary - and then lacked the ability to read it in a timely manner. That screams stupid to me.

 
At 13 July, 2014 19:17, OpenID mgferris said...

This explains what happens when rusty steel meets aluminum. (Hint thermit rection:

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

Before nanothermite can be ruled in, tons of steel, rust and aluminum slamming together has to be ruled out...and you can't rule it out.

 
At 13 July, 2014 19:21, Blogger truth hurts said...

Well, those engineers and architects can't read a 1000 page report in a month time :o)

 
At 13 July, 2014 19:27, Blogger truth hurts said...

@brian, you mean esteemed human rights attorney William F. Pepper

And in what way is he an expert that can comment on the wtc7 report?

 
At 13 July, 2014 21:39, Blogger kameelyun said...

Here is Craig McKee's response:

http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2014/07/13/de-blasio-lashes-out-911-truth-getting-noticed-thanks-to-building-7-ballot-initiative

 
At 14 July, 2014 00:54, Blogger Pat said...

"If you had bothered to read the posts in this very blog, you would know about the extensive dialog that has been undertaken with NIST over the years, most recently a letter from Dr. William Pepper about the removal of vital structural elements from the column 79-girder a2001 system to make NIST's silly "girder walk-off" theory seem plausible."

You mean the Dr William Pepper who's the fruitcake attorney for this ridiculous, insensitive and inappropriate ballot measure? Somehow I doubt if his knowledge of vital structural elements of a 47-story skyscraper is all that strong.

 
At 14 July, 2014 01:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

mgf, the NIST investigations were mandated by congressional legislation (the National Construction Safety Team Act) in 2002, many years before Richard Gage became interested in 9/11. When you make up your facts, it's no surprise that your opinions are peculiar.

Congress thought the investigations were necessary. Engineers found WTC7's collapse in particular very mysterious because its structure was more conventional than that of the towers and because modern highrise buildings don't fall from fires.

We can rule out a thermitic reaction from tons of aluminum hitting rusty steel because if there was any such reaction it would have taken place only in the impact zone and only at the moment of impact. Since the towers stood for as much as 102 minutes after impact, obviously no momentary kinetic thermitic reaction could have brought the towers down.

th, the response of Mr. Gage's group to the release of the NIST WTC7 report was completely disrupted by Mr. Gage's preparations for a European tour. As I understand it, the unfortunate timing of this distracting tour was arranged by a former MI-5 agent (allegedly former) who was friendly to the truth movement (allegedly friendly). She had toured the UK with a former MI-6 agent, David Shayler (allegedly former), who traveled around advocating the worst sort of 9/11 science fiction scenarios and later melted down completely, claiming to be the reincarnation of an Egyptian deity or some such like.
She also toured with your buddy William Rodriguez. At one point I had an opportunity to confront her personally about this, telling her that she was much too intelligent to ever have believed Willie's blatant lies for a minute. She had no meaningful response to give to that.








 
At 14 July, 2014 04:55, Blogger Ian said...

Pat, the "real case" about WTC7 is that NIST's report is not satisfactory because it is incomplete and dishonest.

Brian, we've been over this many times. Nobody cares what you think about the NIST report. You're unemployed and live with your parents because you're too incompetent to hold down a job mopping floors.

 
At 14 July, 2014 05:04, Blogger Ian said...

th, the response of Mr. Gage's group to the release of the NIST WTC7 report was completely disrupted by Mr. Gage's preparations for a European tour. As I understand it, the unfortunate timing of this distracting tour was arranged by a former MI-5 agent (allegedly former) who was friendly to the truth movement (allegedly friendly). She had toured the UK with a former MI-6 agent, David Shayler (allegedly former), who traveled around advocating the worst sort of 9/11 science fiction scenarios and later melted down completely, claiming to be the reincarnation of an Egyptian deity or some such like.

Yup, the New World Order disrupted Mr. Gage's European tour (do you have the setlist for his show in Hamburg?). Also, Brian, these "allegedly former" spies were just decoys. The New World Order uses modified attack baboons to track truthers these days, since they proved on 9/11 to be undetectable. I see that the decoys worked well, since a pathetic simpleton like you became concerned about them.

 
At 14 July, 2014 09:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 14 July, 2014 10:45, Blogger snug.bug said...



Lyin Ianinny, I do not expect anyone here to care about my opinions. I also do not expect them to care about the fact that NIST's reports are incomplete and dishonest.

I didn't say Mr. Gage's european tour was disrupted. The tour was quite successful.

Speaking of Willie Fraudriguez, can anyone explain why his "fabulous" photos taken with famous scumbags have not appeared anywhere else on the internet except at SLC? Can anyone explain why SLC got exclusive access to them

 
At 14 July, 2014 12:43, Blogger Ian said...

1) if you don't expect anyone here to care about your opinions, why have you spent half a decade posting spam here?

2) did he play "Free Bird" in Hamburg?

Everyone knows a real scientist doesn't do silly things like research. A real scientist goes "on tour" to swindle the rubes.

3) nobody cares about your homosexual obsession with Rodriguez.

 
At 14 July, 2014 14:28, Blogger Pat said...

"...can anyone explain why his "fabulous" photos taken with famous scumbags have not appeared anywhere else on the internet except at SLC? Can anyone explain why SLC got exclusive access to them?"

This is indeed a big mystery. I can''t figure it out myself. It's like they magically appear in some inbox I have somewhere.

 
At 14 July, 2014 14:45, OpenID mgferris said...

"We can rule out a thermitic reaction from tons of aluminum hitting rusty steel because if there was any such reaction it would have taken place only in the impact zone and only at the moment of impact. Since the towers stood for as much as 102 minutes after impact, obviously no momentary kinetic thermitic reaction could have brought the towers down."

No, but it would have left residue resembling a thermitic reaction including your stupid microspheres.

 
At 14 July, 2014 23:28, Blogger truth hurts said...

The tour was quite successful.

It wasn't

Gage only spoke to thruthers that were already convinced that 911 was an inside Job.

How many members does AE have?
2000?
After a worldwide tour?
You call that a success?

 
At 15 July, 2014 04:54, Blogger Ian said...

Remember, truth hurts, we're talking about someone who lives with his parents at age 60 because he can't hold down a job mopping floors. We're talking about someone who has babbled about "widows" with "questions" for over 5 years on this blog without getting so much as one of those questions answered.

His definition of "success" is very different from a normal person's.

 
At 15 July, 2014 07:42, Blogger truth hurts said...

can anyone explain why his "fabulous" photos taken with famous scumbags have not appeared anywhere else on the internet

Quite funny to see that you are unable to use Google yourself :o)

 
At 15 July, 2014 07:45, Blogger truth hurts said...

I do not expect anyone here to care about my opinions

So for years now, you have been posting the same opinions over and over again on this blog, knowing that no one cares..

Man, that must be sad....

 
At 15 July, 2014 08:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

Pat, the question is not how did the pix get from your inbox to your webpage. The questions are: 1) did you have exclusive access and if so, why? and 2) if you did not have exclusive access, why did no one else put up the images after they appeared in their inboxes and why did SLC put up the pix when nobody else would?

mgf, what's stupid about microspheres? What did they ever do to you? Why should you have such hostility to physical evidence? I mean, sure, microspheres made a total fool of your buddy GutterBall, but I don't recall that you ever bought into his nonsense.

th, I bet you can not name a single Engineer for the Official Reports--and if you did, I bet he or she would have professional ties to NIST. 2000 architects and engineers is 10,000% of the number of courageous engineers who are willing to put their professional reputations on the line and endorse NIST's collapse sequence.

Ianinny, any fool can get an MBA and of course since you lie so much there is no reason to believe your claims that you have one. All we know about you is that you seem to spend a lot of time lying on the internet, which seems like a pretty peculiar definition of success.

th, I can use Google myself, which is how I know that Willie's "fabulous" pictures have not been picked up anywhere else on the internet besides SLC--not even on Willie's own website. That suggests that those pictures may be fakes that were given to Pat as a clever prank.

It is sad that no one cares about my opinions. Of course, since I rarely post about my opinions and more often post about facts, the issue is of little concern to me. No one here cares about facts, and demonstrating that suits my purposes just fine.





 
At 15 July, 2014 09:38, Blogger Ian said...

See what I mean about Brian having a different definition of success than normal people? Brian brags about less than 1% of architects and engineers being part of Gage's moronic cult. That's "success" to Brian.

 
At 15 July, 2014 09:40, Blogger Ian said...

Well, nobody cares what you think are facts, because you're a delusional liar. I mean, you don't talk about the fact that you were banned from the northern California truth alliance for stalking Carol Brouillet.

 
At 15 July, 2014 09:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you seem to be unable to recognize that only 0.0007%
of the 2.8 million architects and engineers agree with the NIST report--even if you count a non-existent expert like your "Uncle Steve".

100X that number were willing to put their professional reputations on the line and agree with Mr. Gage.

The silence of the engineering community about the FEMA zipper/pancake theory (despite its obvious flaws) and the inability of the community to defend that report after NIST came up with a new thesis suggests not a consensus but instead a great chill, which makes the courage of the 2000 in asserting the obvious all the more impressive.

Your belief that I was banned from the truth movement is absurd. What evidence is it based on?

I didn't stalk Carol Brouillet, and she doesn't claim I did. She invited me to her house many times, and introduced me to her kids.

 
At 15 July, 2014 09:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

The "stalking" canard is the work of Kevin Barrett and Willie Rodriguez, who considered it stalking when I would find news articles about them on the internet and write comments to the articles exposing their bigotry and fraudulence.

 
At 15 July, 2014 10:34, Blogger Ian said...

Spoken like a true stalker.

Anyway, Brian, I thought you were only posting facts here? Suddenly, you're babbling about "a great chill", as if anyone cares what a failed janitor with a hideous homeless mullet thinks of the engineering community.

Fact: less than 1% of engineers have joined the Gage cult. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

 
At 15 July, 2014 11:28, Blogger truth hurts said...

I can use Google myself, which is how I know that Willie's "fabulous" pictures have not been picked up anywhere else on the internet besides

Two mouse clicks, and i found another website with the picture that Pat used.
The site contains a serie of pictures of the memorial, including other pictures of him.

not only are you incabable using Google, you are also arrogant enough to believe that when you can't find it, it doesn't exist.
While anyone who has some basic knowledge of search engines knows that search engines find less than 30% of what is available on internet.
So even if the pictures can't be found with google doesn't mean that they aren't published on other sites.


 
At 15 July, 2014 11:31, Blogger truth hurts said...


you seem to be unable to recognize that only 0.0007%
of the 2.8 million architects and engineers agree with the NIST report


Can you prove that, brian?

 
At 15 July, 2014 11:42, Blogger truth hurts said...

@brian:
To give you a hint, i found the picture on a news site about the opening of the 911 memorial.
it contains a serie of pictures, including a close up of a whistle with the label "WTC Fire Safety Team", a close up of a wtc master key, rodriguez standing in front of 20+ camera's, picture of the face of obama, in front of a wall with pictures of the victims, a picture of obama looking at Ladder 3, which had its rear crushed by debris, a picture of rodriguez standing in front of a window overviewing manhattan, holding his master key, rodriguez standing in front of a wall with the line "No day shall erase you from the memory of...", rodriguez in front of the memorial footprint of wtc2, 3 firemen in front of Ladder 3, a 15th anniversary wine bottle of the 'windows of the world', overview of someone speeching in front of a large audience (rodriguez?) and some other pictures..

I'm not going to provide a link, the above hints should easily point you to the right website.

But i bet that you will say that all the above is my imagination and that your google skills are better than mine :o)

 
At 15 July, 2014 11:42, Blogger Billman said...

Cracked put out a decent article on conspiracy theorists today..

http://www.cracked.com/article_21341_5-ways-every-conspiracy-theory-makes-world-worse.html

 
At 15 July, 2014 11:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian: it's a fact that less than 0.01% of engineers have spojen out in defense of the NIST report.

 
At 15 July, 2014 12:42, Blogger truth hurts said...

@brian:
It is a fact that you fail to prove that 99,9% of engineers don't accept the findings in the reports.

 
At 15 July, 2014 12:44, Blogger truth hurts said...

only 0.0007%
of the 2.8 million architects and engineers agree with the NIST report


And the fun in that is that you call it a success that Gage can only get 2000 architects and engineers worldwide to support his call for new investigations...

 
At 15 July, 2014 12:45, Blogger Syed Kazim Ali said...

Online Business with hourly profit, Just Invest and Rest
AllTimeProfit.com

 
At 15 July, 2014 12:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

th, I didn't say that 99.9% of engineers don't accept the findings of the reports. Your basic incompetence makes you unqualified to perceive reality.



 
At 15 July, 2014 13:10, Blogger truth hurts said...

only 0.0007%
of the 2.8 million architects and engineers agree with the NIST report


And what about the other 99,99%?


I didn't say that 99.9% of engineers don't accept the findings of the reports.


You should get a job on TellSell :o)

Anyway, you have proven my point.


 
At 15 July, 2014 13:49, Blogger Ian said...

Yes, Brian, it is a fact that only a handful of engineers have spoken out in favor of the report. But that's a totally irrelevant fact. You care about it because you're a mentally I'll unemployed janitor who doesn't understand how science works.

 
At 15 July, 2014 14:22, Blogger truth hurts said...

Well, Brian can't even google a picture :o)

Anyway, what Brian tries to ommit is that silence is consent. It is not as if every engineer should speak out openly their support to the findings of the report.

 
At 15 July, 2014 15:46, Blogger Ian said...

Anyway, what Brian tries to ommit is that silence is consent. It is not as if every engineer should speak out openly their support to the findings of the report.

Well, yeah, to sane people like you and me, that's obvious. I mean, I haven't heard too many engineers speaking out in favor of the theory of gravity lately.

But to a paranoid lunatic who failed out of college and doesn't understand how science works, the fact that some carnival barker is traveling the world yelling about magic thermite means that serious scientists should drop what they're doing to address him.

 
At 15 July, 2014 15:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

th, where do you get the principle that silence is consent? If you beat your wife and 300 million Americans don't speak out about it, does that mean they approve of you beating your wife?

If you beat your wife and an angry mob of 500 people assembles on your front lawn, does that mean that 299,999,500 American approve of you beating your wife?

 
At 15 July, 2014 15:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

I never said every engineer should speak out openly. Probably most would simply say they lack qualifications in the design of 100-story buildings.

What I say is that you can not name even one independent engineer who is willing to speak out in favor of the NIST report's collapse sequence. If I were an engineer and I thought that Mr. Gage was going around selling snake oil, I would consider it my duty to go and speak out against him as I have spoken out against Kevin Barrett and Willie Rodriguez and Craig Ranke.

Ianinny, actually, physicists and engineers speak out in favor of gravity every day, Ian. As one engineer for truth said, "I believe in the laws of physics and I rely upon them every day."
Thousands of books endorse the law of gravity.

Where did you get the idea that I failed out of college?









There is no need to speak out in favor of gravity. There is no controversy about it. The investigations about it are complete and honest.



 
At 15 July, 2014 16:24, Blogger Ian said...

th, where do you get the principle that silence is consent? If you beat your wife and 300 million Americans don't speak out about it, does that mean they approve of you beating your wife?

#2,687,445 in the series "Brian Good's idiotic analogies".

 
At 15 July, 2014 16:27, Blogger Ian said...

What I say is that you can not name even one independent engineer who is willing to speak out in favor of the NIST report's collapse sequence.

False.

If I were an engineer and I thought that Mr. Gage was going around selling snake oil, I would consider it my duty to go and speak out against him as I have spoken out against Kevin Barrett and Willie Rodriguez and Craig Ranke.

You're not an engineer. You're a failed janitor who lives with his parents. No wonder you don't understand what an engineer would do!

 
At 15 July, 2014 16:28, Blogger Ian said...

There is no need to speak out in favor of gravity. There is no controversy about it. The investigations about it are complete and honest.

There is no need to speak out in favor of the NIST reports either, because there is no controversy about it either. The investigations about it are complete and honest.

And before you waste electrons posting gibberish about "essential mysteries", remember that nobody here cares what you think. You're a failed janitor, liar, and lunatic who can't even afford a decent haircut.

 
At 15 July, 2014 16:36, Blogger truth hurts said...

Funny,
You don't require that every engineer speaks his agreement or disagreement of the nist report, but at the same time you state that less than one percent agrees with it and demand that i name any engineer that agrees with the report.

Well, following you strategy, i should point you to Google, but we both know that would be a waste of time since you can't even Google one picture of Rodriguez...

 
At 15 July, 2014 16:40, Blogger truth hurts said...

@brian,
So the fact that hardly any engineer with the proper expertise has spoken against the nist report, in despite of the extensive world tour of gage to make engineers aware of it, proves that there is no controversy.

 
At 15 July, 2014 19:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, there is a lot of controversy about the NIST reports because of their incomplete and unscientific nature. That's why we have thousands of architects and engineers speaking out to call for new investigations.

th, 2200 architects and engineers speaking out is quite a significant number when you consider that no independent engineers can be found who are willing to endorse NIST's collapse sequence.

The math says that only 0.0007% of the 2.8 million architects and engineers are willing to endorse NIST's collapse sequence--even if you count a non-existent expert like Ian's "Uncle Steve".

100X that number were willing to put their professional reputations on the line and agree with Mr. Gage.

99.93% of the architects and engineers are too cowardly to express an opinion. You unjustifiably assume that their silence signifies agreement with NIST. A more thoughtful view is that their silence might represent a fear of the truth.

Of 30 to 150 million truthers, only 21,000 have bothered to sign the petition at ae911truth. That's a signing rate of 1/100th of 1% (of 150 million truthers) to 7/100ths of 1% (of 30 million truthers).

Though the 2.8 million architectural and engineering professionals face many more inhibitions to signing the petition than do ordinary citizens, because they are putting their professional reputations on the line and risking harm to their relationships with clients and colleagues, their participation rate is either exactly the same as the participation rate of the 30 million truther population, or it is 7X the rate of the 150 million truther population. The 2200 who signed the ae911truth petition are 7/100ths of 1% of the 2.8 million BLS architects and engineers—10X the signing rate of the general public.

By contrast, how many of the 2.8 million architects and engineers in the USA are architects and engineers for the official story? I've seen a list of about 20. That's 7/10,000th of 1% of the 2.8 million. The signing rate of the general population on the ae911truth petition is 7/1000 of 1%--10X more—and the signing rate of the architects and engineers for truth is 100X that of the architects and engineers for the official story. And get this--every one of the 20 on the official story list has professional ties to NIST.

 
At 15 July, 2014 20:39, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, there is a lot of controversy about the NIST reports because of their incomplete and unscientific nature. That's why we have thousands of architects and engineers speaking out to call for new investigations.

There is no controversy over the NIST reports. That's why only 0.07% of architects and engineers have joined Gage's clown show.

Maybe if you understood basic math, you wouldn't have failed out of San Jose State, Brian.

99.93% of the architects and engineers are too cowardly to express an opinion. You unjustifiably assume that their silence signifies agreement with NIST. A more thoughtful view is that their silence might represent a fear of the truth.

Brian, you're posting your opinions again, and I've already explained to you that nobody cares about your opinions. Stick to facts, like how you were banned from Wikipedia.

 
At 15 July, 2014 20:41, Blogger Ian said...

Anyway, it's almost midnight here on the east coast, and you know what that means: yes, another day has gone by in which Brian failed spectacularly to get any of the widows questions answered.

How pathetic are you Brian? Just one question answered. One. That's all. You can't even do that. You've posted thousands of pages of dumbspam on this blog, and yet you can't get one single measly little question from the widows answered. NOT ONE!

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

 
At 15 July, 2014 20:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

More Lyin Ianianity from Lyin Ianinny,

There was no controversy in the engineering community about the FEMA report--despite its glaring flaws. The only engineer who was willing to criticize it publicly was Dr. Jeff King.

That being the case, the existence of 2200 architects and engineers speaking out against the NIST report's incomplete and unscientific nature is huge.

Where did you get the idea that I failed out of San Jose State? You make stuff up.

Your belief that the fact that the widows' questions are not answered is a reason they should not be answered is irrational.

 
At 15 July, 2014 21:31, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Of course instead of wasting the $250k they are collecting, they could pay competent scientists to perform any number of studies and submit them to any of the highly reputable journals in fire science, engineering, etc.

But no, they have to get the City of NY to waste the money of the people who suffered most in this tragedy, as well as the resources of the city because a few clowns have delusions of magic explosives/incendiaries.

 
At 15 July, 2014 21:34, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 15 July, 2014 21:36, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

That being the case, the existence of 2200 architects and engineers, who make up a minute fraction of the academic community, speaking out against of the NIST report's incomplete and unscientific nature with our unsupported claims is a huge fallacy truthers think is relevant and I keep parading around because I find logic inconvenient.

FTFY

 
At 15 July, 2014 21:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

The collapse of a highrise building has not been plausibly explained.

It needs to be explained.

 
At 15 July, 2014 21:38, Blogger snug.bug said...

Since 9/11 we've seen spectacular highrise fires in Beijing, Shanghai, Dubai, Grozny, and Moscow. None of those buildings fell down.

 
At 16 July, 2014 03:02, Blogger truth hurts said...

@brian:


Since 9/11 we've seen spectacular highrise fires in Beijing, Shanghai, Dubai, Grozny, and Moscow. None of those buildings fell down.



So what you are saying is that an event is only possible if it happened more than once.

Interesting thought...


The collapse of a highrise building has not been plausibly explained.
It needs to be explained.


It has been explained, but you find the explanation implausible.

You earlier pointed out that there are about 2.8 million engineers.
You also pointed out that:

" If I were an engineer and I thought that Mr. Gage was going around selling snake oil, I would consider it my duty to go and speak out against him"

The same of course counts for the NIST reports.
2.8 million engineers. And the only ones speaking out against it aren't qualified.

Like this one:

The only engineer who was willing to criticize it publicly was Dr. Jeff King.

He is a physician, not an engineer.
Due to the lack of engineers supporting the truthers view, they posed him as an MIT engineer, while he merely studied electrical engineering at MIT, before switching to medics.

So the only critic about the FEMA report was a physician who studied electrical engineering in the past...

There is also Judy Woods, who as a civil engineer has more expertise than Jeff King.
She also speaks out againt the NIST report.
Her take: a starwars like energy beam from outer space vaporised the steel of the towers..

 
At 16 July, 2014 03:04, Blogger truth hurts said...

Seaking about speaking out against the truthers: Doctor Dutch did so.
He clarified why Judy Woods and the attack baboons were wrong.
He did so in 2006.

But like any sane human, he moved on since then.

Truthers stay stuck in the past and keep repeating the same shit over and over again.

In 2006, i also saw other engineers and universities publishing papers about why the towers collapsed according to them.
They also moved on.

 
At 16 July, 2014 03:06, Blogger truth hurts said...

@gmh:

i guess it is because brian wants to subpoena the squibs, pools of molten steel, girders and dust cloud...

 
At 16 July, 2014 04:49, Blogger Ian said...

That being the case, the existence of 2200 architects and engineers speaking out against the NIST report's incomplete and unscientific nature is huge.

Yes it is. It shows how strong the consensus on the NIST reports is when only 0.07% of the engineering community disputes them. There's far more controversy about climate change than there is about the NIST reports.

The collapse of a highrise building has not been plausibly explained.

It needs to be explained.


The fact that you find it implausible doesn't tell us anything other than what we already know: you're mentally ill and completely incompetent to mop floors, which is why you have no job and live with your parents. We wouldn't expect you to understand the NIST report.

Leave the technical stuff to smart, successful people like me, th, or GMS, and stick to your "Barney the Dinosaur" DVDs, Brian.

 
At 16 July, 2014 08:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

th, I wish you would stop trying to restate what you think I think. You lack the reading comprehension skills for the task. Please stick to direct quotes when you're trying to refer to what I think.

 
At 16 July, 2014 08:59, Blogger truth hurts said...

@brian:
You haven't made clear why you want to subpoena, so that leaves room for speculation.
If you don't like that, you should be more specific.

Furthermore, you speculate that the pictures of rodriguez on this blog must have been forged, based on your poor Google skills.
While anyone who does know how to use Google can find an another source for the picture with just two mouse clicks (you don't even have to type any key words, just 2 clicks with your mouse...

So don't start compaining about my comprehension skills, Brian.
Look at yourself first..

 
At 16 July, 2014 09:03, Blogger truth hurts said...

th, 2200 architects and engineers speaking out is quite a significant number when you consider that no independent engineers can be found who are willing to endorse NIST's collapse sequence

Like i stated before, when i contacted a local engineer with questions about the collapse, he didn't find any problem explaining it, once i provided the documents that AE911truth have published about the structure of wtc7.

For some reason that scares you, you started name calling when i stated the above in another thread.

 
At 16 July, 2014 09:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

th, the empty claims of an anonymous internet poster (you) are less than worthless.

Your idea that I speculated that Willie's pictures must have been forged is an oxymoron.

I don't have poor Google skills. There is no reason to believe your empty claims about Willie's pics or your anonymous engineer.

I'm not scared of your imaginary friends.



 
At 16 July, 2014 09:39, Blogger Ian said...

Yes, the empty claims of anonymous internet posters are worthless indeed, Brian. That's why nobody cares about your ridiculous "great chill" speculation.

 
At 16 July, 2014 09:46, Blogger truth hurts said...

@brian:


I can use Google myself, which is how I know that Willie's "fabulous" pictures have not been picked up anywhere else on the internet besides SLC--not even on Willie's own website. That suggests that those pictures may be fakes that were given to Pat as a clever prank.


And now you deny having typed that :o)

Anyway, still having trouble finding another source that published the pictures, brian?

You could blame yourself for once, in stead of speculating that the pictures could be fakes...

 
At 16 July, 2014 09:49, Blogger truth hurts said...


I don't have poor Google skills.


Yes you do, you can't even find another source for the pictures on this blog using google..
Which requires only two mouse clicks..



 
At 16 July, 2014 10:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, the "great chill" is more than a speculation. It was demonstrated in the case of the grossly flawed FEMA investigation--which no engineer with the exception of Dr. Jeff King was willing to criticize. When the FEMA thesis was inverted by NIST In 2005, nobody could be found to defend the thesis they previously were afraid to criticize.

 
At 16 July, 2014 11:03, Blogger Ian said...

Thanks for proving my point. You have no evidence of a great chill. You're just a paranoid lunatic who has no idea how science works.

 
At 16 July, 2014 12:27, Blogger truth hurts said...

It was demonstrated in the case of the grossly flawed FEMA investigation--which no engineer with the exception of Dr. Jeff King was willing to criticize.

You mean the physician Jeff King, who had studied electrical engineering at MIT before changing his course..

No one else critisized the report. And according to you, they would if they believe the report was severely flawed.

So according to your own reasoning, the FEMA report was accepted by the engineering community.


When the FEMA thesis was inverted by NIST In 2005, nobody could be found to defend the thesis they previously were afraid to criticize.

Why does the report needed to be defended?
Hardly anyone criticized the report. And NIST defended the few critics that they received.

You haven't named one engineer with the proper expertise that challenged the nist report.

I mentioned one, DR Judy Wood.
And her stand has been challenged by doctor Dutch, who you cleverly ommit in your babbling..

 
At 16 July, 2014 18:12, Blogger Ian said...

And another day has gone by and Brian hasn't gotten the widows questions answered. What else is new?

See Brian, you need to understand, it's your word against mine when it comes to "widows". You can repeat all you want about how there are 273 unanswered questions, but people are going to be skeptical given that you're a failed janitor who can't even afford a decent haircut.

Meanwhile, I'm smart and successful and cool and have an MBA. People listen to me when I say that the widows have no questions.

That's just how it goes in America, Brian. Sorry.

 
At 16 July, 2014 22:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ianinny, the lack of criticism of the FEMA theory followed by its lack of defense, is evidence of a great chill. The "consensus" flip-flopped with almost no comment.
That is evidence of a great chill.

Even if I were a failed janitor with a bad haircut, that has nothing to do with the fact that the widows have 273 unanswered questions. Your belief that you can kill the message by killing the messenger is typical Iananity.

An MBA is nothing to brag about. Any idiot can get one.

th, I didn't say that engineers would criticize the FEMA report if they thought it was deeply flawed. I say that since it was deeply flawed, and they were afraid to criticize it, this demonstrates a great chill in the engineering community.

The FEMA report should have been defended by the people who pretended they believed it--else we should have seem some "how could we have been so wrong?" breastbeating.

NIST has not defended itself against its many critics. It refuses to debate its findings.

I mentioned 119 structural engineers, 40 high-rise architects, 7 Fellows of the AIA, 10 Stanford engineers, 40 PhD engineers, and 3 PhD structural engineers who have challenged the NIST report.


 
At 17 July, 2014 00:08, Blogger truth hurts said...

. I say that since it was deeply flawed, and they were afraid to criticize it, this demonstrates a great chill in the engineering community

So you simply made some random conclusion.

 
At 17 July, 2014 00:14, Blogger truth hurts said...

The FEMA report should have been defended by the people who pretended they believed it-

Funny, first you claim nobody critisized it, and then you complain that nobody defended it?
What is there to defend if the report wasn't challenged?

 
At 17 July, 2014 00:23, Blogger truth hurts said...

I mentioned 119 structural engineers, 40 high-rise architects, 7 Fellows of the AIA, 10 Stanford engineers, 40 PhD engineers, and 3 PhD structural engineers who have challenged the NIST report.

So of the 2.8 million, only 162 engineers challenged the report.
A very small number, Brian.

And nist did respond to critics.

Also i have pointed out the critics of engineer judy woods, which proves that the experts that challenge the report don't have to correct or even worth debating.

Remember Gage dropping cardboard boxes to prove his case?

And what about the russian engineer who 'proved' that it was a nuclear demolition?

 
At 17 July, 2014 00:30, Blogger truth hurts said...

the widows have 273 unanswered questions.

First you claimed they had 300 unanswered questions, them you David it were 3000 and now you speak of 273.

But when asked, you can't even mention one question.

And we learned from you to conclude that those unanswered questions don't exist.

 
At 17 July, 2014 04:56, Blogger Ian said...

Ianinny, the lack of criticism of the FEMA theory followed by its lack of defense, is evidence of a great chill. The "consensus" flip-flopped with almost no comment.
That is evidence of a great chill.


False.

Even if I were a failed janitor with a bad haircut, that has nothing to do with the fact that the widows have 273 unanswered questions. Your belief that you can kill the message by killing the messenger is typical Iananity.

Thanks for admitting that you're a failed janitor with a bad haircut. It's already common knowledge, though.

An MBA is nothing to brag about. Any idiot can get one.

You can't. You failed out of San Jose State as an undergrad, remember?

I mentioned 119 structural engineers, 40 high-rise architects, 7 Fellows of the AIA, 10 Stanford engineers, 40 PhD engineers, and 3 PhD structural engineers who have challenged the NIST report.

Yup, all of 0.07% of the engineering community. Thanks for proving that the consensus is with the NIST report.

 
At 17 July, 2014 08:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

th, what conclusion other than a chill explains the failure of engineers to criticize the obviously-flawed FEMA report on the WTC? What other "random" conclusions are possible?

The FEMA report was challenged by the NIST report. And yes, I find it quite noteworthy that for three years the entire engineering community seemed to find the FEMA report credible despite glaring flaws obvious even to a layman like me. And yet when NIST came along and reversed the collapse mechanism, nobody could be found to defend what had previously been considered conventional wisdom.

I am getting really tired of your ignorant comments. If I say I had lunch with a friend yesterday you'll say "so you have only one friend". If I say I walked to the grocery store you'll say "so you don't have a car".

NIST has never debated critics. NIST had made some responses in its answers to FAQs--which name no author, which are often dishonest, and which sometimes contradict the reports.

Dr. Wood's colorful theories have no bearing on the legitimate criticisms of responsible engineers to the NIST report.

What is wrong with dropping boxes to demonstrate principles of physics that apply both to boxes and to buildings? Do you think Mr. Gage needs to use $30,000 titanium alloy cubes to demonstrate the 1st law of thermodynamics and Newton's 3rd law? I've seen physics demonstrations done in college with sledge hammers and cinder blocks and balloons and surgical tubing and water hoses and clotheslines. Should I ask for a tuition refund on that basis?

The widows had 300 questions. They only got 27 answers. That leaves 273 questions unanswered.

I have mentioned the questions many, many, many times. Maybe you should ask Willie Rodriguez how to get to them.

You think you are defeating my points. You are not. You are only being ignorantly contrary and relying on straw man restatements.








 
At 17 July, 2014 08:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ianinny, your lying ad hominem Iananity is NWOR.

By your logic if you managed to con one woman into marrying you, that means 3.5 billion women in the world rejected you.

 
At 17 July, 2014 13:34, Blogger Ian said...

Poor Brian. He's hysterical because I will soon be happily married in addition to being smart, successful, handsome, and affluent. Brian, on the other hand is broke, ugly, has a hideous haircut, can't hold down a job mopping floors, and has a romantic life that consists of posting spam about Willie Rodriguez all over the internet.

 
At 17 July, 2014 14:01, Blogger truth hurts said...


th, what conclusion other than a chill explains the failure of engineers to criticize the obviously-flawed FEMA report on the WTC?


Why do you believe that all engineers agree with you on that point?

You also haven't shown any flaw in the report, which is of course no surprise to me.

What other "random" conclusions are possible?

 
At 17 July, 2014 14:01, Blogger truth hurts said...

I don't see any reason why the engineering community had to stand up against the FEMA report. It has done its purpose.


The FEMA report was challenged by the NIST report.

No, it wasn't.

That is what you have made up.


And yes, I find it quite noteworthy that for three years the entire engineering community seemed to find the FEMA report credible despite glaring flaws obvious even to a layman like me.

Well, that is a classical truther error: believing that layman with no expertise can point out the flaws.


And yet when NIST came along and reversed the collapse mechanism, nobody could be found to defend what had previously been considered conventional wisdom.

Why should they?
It is how science works: a theory is accepted until a better one comes along.
FEMA came with preliminary conclusions, NIST did a more in dept research and came with some other findings. None of those findings are so crucial different between the two to support your conspiracy theory.


I am getting really tired of your ignorant comments.

No you don't.

If I say I had lunch with a friend yesterday you'll say "so you have only one friend". If I say I walked to the grocery store you'll say "so you don't have a car".

Nope, that is your type of reasoning.
You state that because you can't find something with google, it must be a fake or non existent. you state that if engineers don't speak out in favor of the reports, they don't agree with them, etc. etc.


 
At 17 July, 2014 14:02, Blogger truth hurts said...

NIST has never debated critics.

They have. They were open for questions, adjusted their reports several times based on critics, opened a website to explain to laymen like you what is in the report, etc.

NIST had made some responses in its answers to FAQs--which name no author, which are often dishonest, and which sometimes contradict the reports.

all merely your opinion, and since you are some anonymous person on the internet, we aren't allowed to put any value to them..


Dr. Wood's colorful theories have no bearing on the legitimate criticisms of responsible engineers to the NIST report.

And how many critisisms would you call legitimate?
You already admitted that the critics of Woods aren't legitimate.
You also don't accept the mini nukes theory, which is supported by quite a lot of people


What is wrong with dropping boxes to demonstrate principles of physics that apply both to boxes and to buildings?

Everything.
If Gage would have dropped the large box on top of the smaller one, they would still be both undamaged.
But even you agree that the lower floors would never survive the collapse of the rest of the tower.
Also, look at the Mariott Hotel, it got allmost completely crushed by debris of the twin towers.
something that doesn't happen with 2 empty boxes...

Do you think Mr. Gage needs to use $30,000 titanium alloy cubes to demonstrate the 1st law of thermodynamics and Newton's 3rd law?

So basicly, you admit that the demonstration with boxes was silly to say the least.

The fun with gage and you is that your theory is only plausible if the buildings fell at free fall speed.
But they didn't.
And that is what you are trying to hide: the fact that the buildings didn't fall at free fall speed, so there was indeed resistance.



The widows had 300 questions. They only got 27 answers. That leaves 273 questions unanswered.


So in a week time, 27 questions got answered...



I have mentioned the questions many, many, many times.

No you haven't.


Maybe you should ask Willie Rodriguez how to get to them.

See, you don't know the questions. You need to reside to others..

You think you are defeating my points.

You don't have any points.
You have only shown that you are unable to use Google in a proper way to find a picture.
One of the most simple tasks on internet.

And you haven't provided anything.
Not one question of your widows, not one example of a structural engineer that critisized the reports, not one essential myth that needs to be addressed.

You came with nothing.

 
At 17 July, 2014 18:58, Blogger hassan mouse said...

Find best Online Jobs on Facebook...
JobzCorner

 
At 18 July, 2014 00:38, Blogger snug.bug said...

Poor Ian, he's so ignorant that he expects us to believe the boasts of an anonymous internet poster who lies repeatedly and persistently and who pretends to knowledge he can not possibly have--and who seems blind to the fact that whether his alleged financee already knows he's a shit or doesn't know he's a shit, the prognosis for the relationship is poor.

 
At 18 July, 2014 00:57, Blogger snug.bug said...

th, most of your questions and claims are so flawed by faulty assumptions and mistaken beliefs that there's no point in responding.

Yes, a layman can (and did) see the flaws in the FEMA report. Any fool can see that the pancake theory does not explain what took down the towers' cores. The FEMA theory never should have been accepted.

There is no reason to believe your claims that Willie's "fabulous" photos with famous scumbags appear anywhere except on SLC. But the real point is, they don't appear on any truth movement websites anywhere, indicating that the truth movement has rejected Willie.

It is not an opinion that NIST's FAQs name no author. It is an easily-verified fact that NIST's FAQs name no author.

Mr. Gage's demonstration of dropping boxes had nothing to do with demonstrating damage. It had to do with demonstrating Newton's 3rd law and the 1st law of thermodynamics.

The Marriot was only partly crushed. It did not fall totally and symmetrically at near-freefall acceleration. It was hit by debris accelerating from a great height with zero resistance.

Please stop trying to reinterpret what I say. Obviously you lack the reading comprehension and reasoning skills for the task.

Dr. Sunder said the the buildings fell at free fall. The NIST report said the same thing. Neither of them has ever issued a correction.

I have many points, and you have failed to refute them.

I have many times provided the link to the widows' questions, the link to the list of architects and engineers who want to investigations, and the lisat of the ten essential mysteries. You make up your facts.

















 
At 18 July, 2014 03:24, Blogger truth hurts said...


most of your questions and claims are so flawed by faulty assumptions and mistaken beliefs that there's no point in responding.


A complicated way of saying that you don't have any answers..


Yes, a layman can (and did) see the flaws in the FEMA report.

Still, you failed to point them out.

Any fool can see that the pancake theory does not explain what took down the towers' cores.

The cores remained standing during the initial start of the collapse.


The FEMA theory never should have been accepted.

Who says it was accepted?
If Fema gave a 100% explanation for the collapses, there was no need to let NIST do research as well. Also, between the FEMA and NIST report, there have been several papers published by others who tried to explain the collapse.

People accepted the FEMA theory as is: a theory.
Nothing more, nothing less..


There is no reason to believe your claims that Willie's "fabulous" photos with famous scumbags appear anywhere except on SLC.

Indeed, because anyone who knows how to use a computer can perform two mouse clicks to search and find another source that used the picture.


But the real point is, they don't appear on any truth movement websites anywhere, indicating that the truth movement has rejected Willie.

Your type of reasoning is quite hilarious..


It is not an opinion that NIST's FAQs name no author.

It is also not relevant.
it is the FAQ of NIST.


Mr. Gage's demonstration of dropping boxes had nothing to do with demonstrating damage. It had to do with demonstrating Newton's 3rd law and the 1st law of thermodynamics.

That is what you are trying to make of it.
It is also silly, because it is a well known fact that the collapse of the towers wasn't at free fall speed and even you acknowledge that the collapse could not have stopped like the box stopped falling down.


The Marriot was only partly crushed.

Indeed, a small part of the building remained standing.
That has been explained in the documentary about wtc3: that part of the building was reinforced after the 1993 bombing.

But that doesn't matter, since also the wtc buildings didn't collapse 100%, dispite the fact it had a lot more debris falling into it than the marriott hotel..


It did not fall totally and symmetrically

Neither did the twin towers, nor did wtc7.

at near-freefall acceleration.

Which you can't prove: you cannot provide the collapse time of the marriott hotel.
Also, the twin towers, nor wtc7 were at near freefall acceleration.

It was hit by debris accelerating from a great height with zero resistance. Dr. Sunder said the the buildings fell at free fall.

You can't prove that.
Anyone who sees the pictures and videos of the collapses can see that they didn't drop at free fall.
And above, you also stated 'near free fall'.

The NIST report said the same thing.

NIST also didn't say the collapse was at free fall speed.
You are making it all up..

Neither of them has ever issued a correction.

I have many points, and you have failed to refute them.

I have many times provided the link to the widows' questions

Nope, you haven't.
That is why you can type lengthy answers in these threads, but are unable to provide a link or even one question or fact.


the link to the list of architects and engineers who want to investigations

A fun statement, as you didn't know what i was talking about when i quoted their list about the collapses..

And the lisat of the ten essential mysteries. .
Same as the above:
You do have the time and effort to post lengthy answers, but you can't produce even one link, fact or question...

 
At 18 July, 2014 03:26, Blogger truth hurts said...


to believe the boasts of an anonymous internet poster who lies repeatedly and persistently


Like you have been doing for years now on this blog, brian?

 
At 18 July, 2014 05:05, Blogger Ian said...

Poor Ian, he's so ignorant that he expects us to believe the boasts of an anonymous internet poster who lies repeatedly and persistently and who pretends to knowledge he can not possibly have--and who seems blind to the fact that whether his alleged financee already knows he's a shit or doesn't know he's a shit, the prognosis for the relationship is poor.

Squeal squeal squeal!

Brian can't stand the fact that I'm better than him in every way. I'm smarter, more successful, better looking, have more friends, and have a wonderful relationship. He has none of these things, and he's almost twice my age!

So I not only pwn Brian when it comes to 9/11, I also pwn him when it comes to life. How humiliating this must be.

 
At 18 July, 2014 05:08, Blogger Ian said...

I love Brian's babbling about "symmetry and totality". It pretty much proves that his "research" amounts to watching grainy youtube videos while sitting in his (women's) underwear in his parents' basement.

 
At 18 July, 2014 05:10, Blogger Ian said...

Dr. Sunder said the the buildings fell at free fall.

The same Dr. Sunder that you constantly call a liar? Well, don't worry, he didn't say the above. You said he said the above, but we all know that you're a pathetic liar who has no job and lives with his parents, so we all ignore what you say.

 
At 18 July, 2014 05:15, Blogger Ian said...

I have many times provided the link to the widows' questions, the link to the list of architects and engineers who want to investigations, and the lisat of the ten essential mysteries.

The widows have no questions, nobody cares about the 0.07% of architects and engineers who joined Gage's cult, and the list of essential mysteries suggests micro-nukes planted by modified attack baboons.

You've been pwn3d again, Brian.

 
At 18 July, 2014 05:17, Blogger Ian said...

And to cap my utter humiliation of Brian, let's look at a photo of our hero:

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

The thousand-yard stare, the hideous homeless mullet, the clothes shoplifted from a Salvation Army thrift store, yes, that's our Brian.

Also, note that Scholars for 9/11 Truth is yet another truther group that Brian was banned from.

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

 
At 18 July, 2014 07:23, Blogger truth hurts said...

The fun is that while rodriguez gets invited to openings with presidents as attendens, you reside here getting insulted over and over again

 
At 18 July, 2014 10:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

th, I'm truly sorry that you think that your faulty assumptions and mistaken beliefs are complicated. That's not my fault. Here, I'll simplify it for you: GIGO.

I did point out the flaws in the FEMA report. Maybe you should read my posts before responding to them.

The FEMA report appears to have been accepted because, as I said, no one in the engineering community was willing to criticize it except Dr. Jeff King. There was a huge chill.

I know how to use a computer and I can't find any instance of Willie's "fabulous" pictures except at SLC. There is no reason to believe the unsupported claims of an anonymous liar such as you.

NIST said the collapses were "essentially in free fall". Dr. Sunder said 9 seconds and 11 seconds. Neither has ever withdrawn those statements.

MOST of the Marriot remained standing. Only the middle part was crushed. You don't even bother to check your claims before you make them.

It can probably be proven from photo evidence that structural elements from WTC2 crushed part of the Marriot. Since it's a trivial point, there's no reason to pursue it.

NIST said the collapses were "essentially in free fall". Dr. Sunder said 9 seconds and 11 seconds. Neither has ever withdrawn those statements.

The widows' 300 questions can be seen at Appendix 4 at justicefor911.org.






 
At 18 July, 2014 10:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, the lyining iananity of a lying ianinny does not have the power to humiliate me.

I don't constantly say that Dr. Sunder is a liar. Dr. Sunder is your authority. Where i come from, citing the other guy's authority to make your point is considered good forensic practice.

Only people with faith-based epistemology try to restrict the bibliography to one's own canonical texts. I bet you got your MBA from some backwoods bible college.


 
At 18 July, 2014 12:37, Blogger truth hurts said...

The widows' 300 questions can be seen at Appendix 4 at justicefor911.org.

Ah, thanx.

after a quick look i understand why you didn't want to post them earlier: none of the questions imply an inside job.

 
At 18 July, 2014 12:41, Blogger truth hurts said...


NIST said the collapses were "essentially in free fall". Dr. Sunder said 9 seconds and 11 seconds. Neither has ever withdrawn those statements.


Fun to see that you accuse NIST of a lot of things, but now all of the sudden conclude that they are correct :o)

Same with dr Sunders.

Anyway: as usual you are misquoting.
The 9 and 11 seconds are the time between the first visible sign of the collapse and the first moment debris hits the street.
That debris did indeed essentially fall at free fall speed.
The towers didn't.

Anyone who looks at video footage can see how the debris falls faster than the collapse.

You are quite desperate if you ommit such facts and then reside to quote mining people and organisations you don't support to make your point.
The whole problem with the truth movement is that their theory is completely based on the impossibility of the collapses.
That is why you keep on babbling about symmetric free fall collapses, while that didn't happen.

 
At 18 July, 2014 12:50, Blogger truth hurts said...


MOST of the Marriot remained standing


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/WTC1.jpg

You call that 'most of the building'?

it is quite curious how you are stretching the meaning of words...

 
At 18 July, 2014 12:57, Blogger truth hurts said...

The FEMA report appears to have been accepted because, as I said, no one in the engineering community was willing to criticize it except Dr. Jeff King

Jeff King is not member of the engineering community.
He is a physician..

Furthermore, you first blamed me for using the phrase 'silence is consent', but when it is convenient for you, you are doing the same thing :o)

Anyway, no one makes a fuzz of the FEMA report, except you.

Why don't you just move on with your life?
why make such a fuzz about a preliminary report coming from FEMA?

The only thing that matters is whay the towers collapsed.
And that has been explained by NIST.
And wether girder X fell to the left in stead of to the right: that is of no interest.
You yourself acknowledged that once the global collapse was going, there was no stopping it.
So the only thing that needs to be explained is the initiating of the global collapse. And that is what NIST has done and which has not been refuted by anyone, except some people not worth spending time on (as you said it), like Judy Woods...

 
At 18 July, 2014 13:10, Blogger truth hurts said...


I know how to use a computer


Yet you cannot find another instance of the picture used by Pat, while it invokes only two mouse clicks.

Like you said yourself:

There is no reason to believe the unsupported claims of an anonymous liar such as you.

So I don't believe you, Brian.
You can prove it to me, by either providing another source of the picture, or telling which two mouseclicks should make Google search for the image.


Also, the fun in this is that you never asked on which site the picture is also published.

You are so full of yourself that you are completely convinced that if you can't find it, it doesn't exist...
And anyone stating the contrary must be a liar..

 
At 18 July, 2014 13:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

I didn't say the widows' questions implied an inside job. I said they had not been answered. Congratulations, you picked a straw nit.

I didn't conclude that NIST was correct. I reported what they said. What they said contradicts what you said. Try to process it.

Dr. Sunder told NOVA that the BUILDINGS fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. Not loose debris. Your reckless lies are getting to be quite tiresome.

By your logic, a prosecutor would not be able to quote a defendant's admissions because the defendant is on the other side of the controversy. It seems that you think that Dr. Sunder and NIST are wrong in their reports about the collapse times, but it doesn't seem to bother you. You think you can just make up your own facts.

I never said the collapses were impossible. There goes the mighty th, crushing yet another straw flea!

The collapses were symmetrical, floor-by-floor. You can see that in the videos. NIST said they were "essentially" free fall. Process it.

Most of the Marriott remained standing after the collapse of WTC2. See Fig. 3.7 of the FEMA Report. I was not aware that it was further crushed by the debris from WTC1. Congratulations, you found a meaningless nit. And what was your point?





 
At 19 July, 2014 00:30, Blogger truth hurts said...


I didn't say the widows' questions implied an inside job.


Yup, you were smart enough not to do that.
The fact remains that the widows questions are completely unrelated to your inside job babbling.
You are using the mere fact that they have questions to give your point of view some value.
which is why you were reluctant to provide any of the questions when asked..



I reported what they said. What they said contradicts what you said.

So that is all you have now, the opinion of X against the opinion of Y.

No facts.


Dr. Sunder told NOVA that the BUILDINGS fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. Not loose debris.

According to the NIST report, that was the time between the first sign of the collapse and the moment the debris hit the street.
Anyone with a stop watch can time the collapses on video and discover how long the collapses took.
You know that and you know that you will get a longer time. That is why you are trying to omit that and start emphasizing some quote by a doctor you don't endorse on his other point of views.


Your reckless lies are getting to be quite tiresome.

mirror talk.


By your logic, a prosecutor would not be able to quote a defendant's admissions because the defendant is on the other side of the controversy.

Nope, by your logic, someone can be prosecuted by matter of opinion, in stead of based on the facts.


It seems that you think that Dr. Sunder and NIST are wrong in their reports about the collapse times, but it doesn't seem to bother you.

Nope, i conclude that you are using qoute mining to make NIST state something different.
The report is very clear on this subject.
You know that, that is why you don't quote the report, but some opinion..


I never said the collapses were impossible.

So you now admit that the collapses were possible.


The collapses were symmetrical

They were not. anynone looking at the videos and at the damage done to the surrounding buildings can see that.

floor-by-floor.

Which you can't see on video.


NIST said they were "essentially" free fall. Process it.

Yup, but you turn that into a free fall, while any video shows the debris fallng faster.
And you constantly omit that fact, because it crushes your theory that the collapses were impossible without explosives.


Most of the Marriott remained standing after the collapse of WTC2.

I've shown you a picture of what was left.
Only a small portion of the right of the building, about 4 storey high.

See Fig. 3.7 of the FEMA Report.

Fun to see that you are sourcing a report of FEMA while you find their reports deeply flawed.

I was not aware that it was further crushed by the debris from WTC1.

And that is why you found it meaningless..


Congratulations, you found a meaningless nit. And what was your point?

You said most of the building remained standing.
Now, is it so hard to admit that you were wrong?
Are you so full of yourself that you cannot even do that?

 
At 19 July, 2014 00:33, Blogger truth hurts said...

since you didn't tell how you use google, i can only conclude that you are missing the basic knowledge of using a computer, which is why you cannot even find another source of some picture....

Admit it Brian, you fail...

But it was fun to read that you find Rodriguez of such great importance that you expected all truther sites to report that he was present at the opening of the memorial....

 
At 19 July, 2014 09:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

th, I never babbled anything about an inside job. It seems that you'd rather pose straw action figures than discuss facts.

The fact is that the widows only got 27 answers to 300 questions.

I have never been reluctant to provide the questions. I wished to demonstrate your lousy research skills.

Yes, we have battling opinions. We have Dr. Sunder's opinion that the measurements show that the buildings fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds--against your opinion that they did not.

The NIST report did not say what you claim. The NIST report says that the buildings came down "essentially in free fall" (section 6.14.4). The NIST report says that WTC1 fell in "less than 12 seconds". The NIST report does not address fall times for freefalling debris, which is an issue of no controversy.

Anyone can time videos of unknown provenance on Youtube. That's a waste of time.

I haven't called for any prosecutions. I have called for further investigations. It is you who leaps to prosecution mode, and demands that I produce conviction-worthy evidence before you will even admit the need for further investigations.

The collapses were symmetrical. The videos show it.

You don't know that the debris was falling faster than the collapse of the building, which may have been screened by persistent exterior wall panels.

Rather than finding the Marriott meaningless because it was crushed by WTC1, I was unaware that it was crushed by WTC1 because it was meaningless. I admitted I was wrong. What is your point about the Marriott again? You never had one.

When I withhold links from you to show your lack of google skills, it is because I can instantly demolish your claim that my evidence does not exist--if I want to.

I will show you how to find the ten essential mysteries on google if you will show me how to find your pics of Willie with two keystrokes on google.

I challenge you. Prove your case.

I don't find Rodriguez of great importance. He's toast. Certainly he's been toast since Der Speigel featured him as a washed-up magician trying to pass a $1 bill off as a $20 bill.

The only reason I bring him up is because I wanted to show that SLC is the only place in the world that seems to think he deserves some love. That is why the failure of the truther sites to show his pictures is of significance. It shows that they rejected Willie years ago.




















 
At 19 July, 2014 10:49, Blogger truth hurts said...

3 I never babbled anything about an inside job.

So you deny babbling about incendiaries, explosives, controlled demolitions, etc. etc.


It seems that you'd rather pose straw action figures than discuss facts.

I'm aware that you don't dare to speak out fully.

The fact is that the widows only got 27 answers to 300 questions.

And the fact is that they don't ask any of your questions about symetrical collapses, why person X says something different than person Y, they don't see a great chill in the engineering community or whatever else you have been babling about.
In fact, their questions are totally unrelated to this discussion.


I have never been reluctant to provide the questions.

Yet it took a long time before you provided them.
And you still haven't provided your list of ten essential myths..


I wished to demonstrate your lousy research skills.

Says brian, who can't even find the source of a picture on the internet, which invokes only 2 mouse clicks.


We have Dr. Sunder's opinion

Nope, we have some anonymous poster on this blog who calls himself snug.bug who claims that Sunder said something like that, and that same snug.bug admitted that his postings are merely empty and of no concern..

against your opinion that they did not.

Nope, it is a know fact, which anyone can check by timing the collapses themself.
Something you know very well but can't use in your babbling about 911, so you omit it.


The NIST report did not say what you claim. The NIST report says that the buildings came down "essentially in free fall" (section 6.14.4). The NIST report says that WTC1 fell in "less than 12 seconds". The NIST report does not address fall times for freefalling debris, which is an issue of no controversy.

It is indeed no issue of controversy, as anyone can time the collapses using the seismic data, the audio recordings and video footage.
NIST came to the following conclusions:
wtc1 collased in 21 seconds, core 31 seconds
wtc2 collapsed in 15 seconds, core 31 seconds

You know this very well, but since this refutes the alleged impossibility of the collapses that you desperatly try to defend, you omit these facts.


I haven't called for any prosecutions.

Nice swing, brian..
You stated this:

By your logic, a prosecutor would not be able to ...
But you lost that discussion, so you now try to make it appear as if i'm calling for a prosecution.

 
At 19 July, 2014 10:49, Blogger truth hurts said...

The collapses were symmetrical. The videos show it.

They don't.
and you know it, because:



You don't know that the debris was falling faster than the collapse of the building, which may have been screened by persistent exterior wall panels.

So you can't tell if the collapses were symmetrical, brian.



Rather than finding the Marriott meaningless because it was crushed by WTC1, I was unaware that it was crushed by WTC1 because it was meaningless.

What is so meaningless about the crush of wtc3 by wtc1?
People died in the marriott due to the falling debris of wtc1, after surviving the crushing of wtc2.


What is your point about the Marriott again?

See, that is what you get if you sway from the subject over and over again.

According to Gage his demonstration, the marriott would not have crushed by falling debris.
Yet it did.


When I withhold links from you to show your lack of google skills, it is because I can instantly demolish your claim that my evidence does not exist--if I want to.

So this all is just a game to you, to show how good you are...
It isn't about 911 at all.


I will show you how to find the ten essential mysteries on google if you will show me how to find your pics of Willie with two keystrokes on google.

hmm, so now you admit that they could exist?


I don't find Rodriguez of great importance.

Out of the blue, you started talking about him..
Why, if he isn't of any importance?

Why don't you just forget about him and move on with your life?


The only reason I bring him up is because I wanted to show that SLC is the only place in the world that seems to think he deserves some love.

Well, you are wrong.
He was invited to the opening of the memorial, he had a speech at the memorial opening, he is on photo with the clintons, and in a photo shoot of a spanish news website. He is also on picture in front of 20 camera's, so most likely more media has picked him up...

That is why the failure of the truther sites to show his pictures is of significance. It shows that they rejected Willie years ago.

if they did, i would consider that a good thing, as it means that he moved on with his life, got rid of those ridiculous theories and is back on track.
His presence at the memorial opening proves that.

 
At 19 July, 2014 14:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

th, I haven't babbled anything about anything. I have contributed some clarity about some things. When I have discussed incendiaries, explosives, controlled demolitions, etc. etc., it was usually in the context of correcting hysterical claims by y'all that incendiaries are magical or invisible, or that the planting of explosives would be impracticably complex.

I dare to speak out fully. Since i restrict myself to the realm of facts, there is no reason not to speak out fully.

The fact is that the widows only got 27 answers for 300 questions. The fact that these questions predated the questions surrounding the NIST report is of no relevance.




 
At 19 July, 2014 15:31, Blogger truth hurts said...

I have contributed some clarity about some things.

Face it, you were only babling.


When I have discussed incendiaries, explosives, controlled demolitions, etc. etc., it was usually in the context of correcting hysterical claims by y'all


Not really, you made the false claim that the buildings came down symetrical at free fall speed into their own footprints and that only a controlled demolition can do that.'
You also emphasized the fact that other sky scrapers didn't collapse while on fire.
And you speculated about how the whole engineering community must be a chill, that NIST came with flawed reports, that FEMA came with flawed reports, that the explosives were detonated *after* the initiation of the collapse to hide the sound they make, etc. etc.
You claimed quite a lot, brian...

that incendiaries are magical or invisible

They are if they did what you claimed they did.


or that the planting of explosives would be impracticably complex.

You haven't proven otherwise.
Look at Landmark Tower: a vacant building that was demolished. It took a team 3 months to prepare it for demolition.
The tower doesn't even come near the size of the twin towers and was blown up at the bottom, not top down as you claim with the twin towers.
The twin towers were occupied 24/7 during your alleged preparation.
You haven't given any plausible explanation how a demolition team can unseen plant the neccesary devices to make the towers collapse symmetrical at free fall speed, in a short time without anyone noticing it.


I dare to speak out fully.

No you don't.
You imply that bombs and incendiaries most have been used, but you don't dare to speak of an inside job.

Since i restrict myself to the realm of facts

No you don't: the alleged absence of the pictures of rodriguez anywhere else on the internet made you speculate that Pat must have been the victim of a prank with fake pictures.
The absence of the pictures on truther sites made you speculate that those communities most have dropped their support for Rodriguez..
The alleged absence of critics against the FEMA report made you speculate that there must be a huge chill among the engineering community..
And the list goes on and on...


The fact that these questions predated the questions surrounding the NIST report is of no relevance.

To the contrary: that fact proves that the questions have nothing to do with the subject of this article and that you only wave around with those questions to give your phantasies about 911 some value.

You don't are about the widows or their questions.
Because if you did, you would have linked to them from the first mention, and not days later after repeatedly being asked to do so. You knew that once you provided the question, we would become aware that they are totally off topic.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home