Saturday, October 11, 2014

Terrific Interview With Brett Blanchard

For a change, there has been some US  news involving the 9-11 nutbars, so I have been a little late in linking this excellent interview.  Our bad, not theirs.  Read:

Undicisettembre: Since you already mentioned thermite, let's proceed with this topic. What do you think of thermite? Is it even vaguely possible to demolish the Twin Towers and 7 World Trade Center with thermite?

Brent Blanchard: No. In explosive demolitions thermite is never used.

The thermite assertion first came out three or four years after the event; there was no talk of thermite until 2004 or 2005. All of a sudden this new theory came out because all other theories were very easily proved impractical or impossible.

There was a professor over here in States that decided back then that thermite was his new theory, but the more you look into thermite the more you understand that the way it causes the metal to fail is not consistent with what happened. Then he changed his theory into nano-thermite and now he might even come out with double-nano-thermite. There are always variations that pop up about how thermite might have been used.

In order for thermite to work you have to have a release of the chemical and the chemical has to actually cause the steel to deteriorate. I don't how they think it can be done to an H-beam, or to any very thick steel beam. Thermite doesn't work horizontally, it works vertically. You can't cause thermite to cut horizontally through steel. You can't attach thermite to a bunch of columns, dozens and dozens of columns, and expect it to start cutting clean through all those columns at a predetermined time or especially finish at the same time. I don't understand how it can even theoretically occur. And it's never been articulately explained by the theorists.

Thermite folks just tend to assert that a bunch of guys went in there, put thermite on columns that happened to already be exposed, them somehow triggered it all, and the thermite somehow cut horizontally through a bunch of columns at the same time and caused the building to fail. That makes no sense whatsoever.
Exactly.  We have heard a couple of kooks like Jon Cole claim they could cut one (one!) column with a thermite cutter charge.  But CD experts want to cut multiple columns simultaneously, for the exact reason we hear the idiots claim again and again--because the building must collapse into its own footprint.  If you have one column collapsing out of sequence it probably is a big deal, but if you have dozens going off randomly, who can tell what would happen? Charlie Sheen?

160 Comments:

At 11 October, 2014 01:34, Blogger Hammer said...

Hi Pat,

thanks for linking my article!

But you are actually linking my homepage, not the interview itself. You should use this link instead:

http://undicisettembre.blogspot.it/2014/10/an-interview-with-explosive-expert.html

 
At 11 October, 2014 01:39, Blogger Hammer said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 11 October, 2014 02:54, Blogger Bricco baldo said...

i am sure that if a people a person believes that Jesus was a alien that incoming in america from another world (mormons), then he can truly believe in any bullshit.
Which will be more "fundamentalist" between a mormon and a Ba'ath ?
Who make more world damage between a subprime system produced by economic fundamentalism and a war produced by fundamentalism religion.
one, other, every two, anyone...

 
At 11 October, 2014 11:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

What's terrific about the interview? The excerpts are ignorant from beginning to end.

In the response to the first question the first word is incompetently ambiguous. What does he mean by "No"? Is he saying "No, it is not possible to demolish the towers with thermite"? How does he know? Has he ever tried? Why would anyone say such a stupid thing?

Then he states "In explosive demolitions thermite is never used." Well, duh. He wasn't asked about "explosive demolitions". He was asked about demolishing the towers with thermite. Why did he bring up explosive demolitions at all?

The thermite theory came up because it was the only plausible explanation of the melted iron found at ground zero. As yet we have no plausible theory for the melted iron or the "evaporated" steel other than thermite and/or sulfur-enhanced thermite.

Mr. Blanchard's claim that thermite's mechanism of action "is not consistent with what happened" seems to be ignorant of the fact that Jonathan Cole demonstrated devices employing thermite that reproduced what happened--the thinning to razor sharpness and the holes in steel members.

Mr. Blanchard's claim that thermite doesn't act horizontally is ridiculous. Mr. Cole demonstrated horizontal cuts on vertical surfaces using thermite.

Mr. Blanchard's framing of the thermitic demolition issue as "cutting clean through all those columns at a predetermined time or especially finish at the same time" is equally silly. There is no need to cut "clean through" the columns. It is only necessary to weaken them to the point of failure. There is no need to finish the cuts all at the same time. If the columns were partly cut through or even just heat-weakened through thermitic action, their simultaneous failure could be assured by the simultaneous detonation of relative small explosive charges, perhaps hidden inside the hollow core columns.

His argument from personal incredulity is made ludicrous by his demonstrated ignorance.

Finally Pat's characterization of the thermitic demolition of a building as "dozens going off randomly" is very silly.

You guys need to polish up your critical thinking skills, and not leap to the conclusion that an interview demonstrating such rampant irrationality and ignorance helps your case simply because you agree with the expert's conclusions.








































 
At 11 October, 2014 12:34, Blogger Pat said...

Ignorant from beginning to end certainly describes your comments, Brian. Fixed the link, Hammer. Great job.

 
At 11 October, 2014 18:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

Those with analytical skill know better, Pat.

There's not much percentage in catering to the truthurtses and Stewies and Ians of the world.

 
At 11 October, 2014 18:37, Blogger Marc Ferris said...

"There is no need to cut "clean through" the columns. It is only necessary to weaken them to the point of failure. "

Which is what happened after burning for 8 hours without intervention.

 
At 12 October, 2014 07:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

How do you know that's what happened? How does an office fire (which according to NIST burns only 30 minutes in one place before all the fuel is consumed) weaken a 2-foot by 2-foot box column with walls 3-1/2 inches thick?

You guys settle for plausible-sounding answers that conform to your prejudices and which you are too lazy to fact-check.

 
At 12 October, 2014 14:21, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

I would like to know if Brian really knows that Thermite welds steel together?

Since our troops in WWII used thermite grenades to weld the breeches of artillery pieces in order to disable them.

How does Brian explain that?

 
At 12 October, 2014 16:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

What is your point? Do you think that something that welds can not cut? Do you not know that the same oxy-acetylene rig can both cut and weld? All you need to do is turn up the oxygen to cut.

You guys seem to be people of little practical experience in the world.

 
At 12 October, 2014 19:25, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

What is your point? Do you think that something that welds can not cut?

You haven't learned a damn thing about history have you Brian?

Do you not know that the same oxy-acetylene rig can both cut and weld? All you need to do is turn up the oxygen to cut.

So you're moving the goal posts from thermite to cutting torches? You are a fucking idiot you know that Brian?

 
At 12 October, 2014 19:38, Blogger Marc Ferris said...

"How do you know that's what happened? "

Because the building fell down.

"How does an office fire (which according to NIST burns only 30 minutes in one place before all the fuel is consumed) weaken a 2-foot by 2-foot box column with walls 3-1/2 inches thick?"

An office fire...it wasn't just an office fire. It was a fire that raged through multiple floor, and hundreds of offices, and a diesel storage tank.

You also ignore the massive damage done to WTC7 by WTC1 when it collapsed. 7 could have very well collapsed on its own without the fire. It certainly would have been red-tagged and demolished.

Are you really that stupid?

 
At 12 October, 2014 21:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

You know the steel structure was weakened to the point of failure because the building fell down?

Did you never hear of the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" logical fallacy?

How do you know the fire raged? Did NIST say it raged? There are no pictures of raging fires. Diesel tanks had nothing to do with it, says NIST.

What massive damage was done to WTC7? NIST says that damage from flying debris played no part in collapse initiation.

 
At 12 October, 2014 21:55, Blogger Marc Ferris said...


"There are no pictures of raging fires."


All the pictures you need right here:

http://www.attivissimo.net/11settembre/wtc7/ipotesi_demolizione.htm

Also, you don't get to quote NIST. You cannot attack them as being incomplete and corrupt and then quote them as gospel.

 
At 13 October, 2014 06:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 13 October, 2014 06:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

There are no pictures of raging fires at WTC7. The only pictures of raging fires at your attivissimo.net site are of the jet fuel fireballs at the towers. There were no jet fuel fireballs at WTC7. The jet fuel fireballs can hardly be said to be "raging fires" because they burned off in a few seconds.

I get to quote anybody I want. You don't get to tell me who I can't quote. Would you tell me that a criminal prosecutor is not allowed to question a defense witness?

Where I went to school it was considered the best debate tactic to hang the other side with their own words. Your framing of the issue as one of "gospel" suggests that you think I should keep my profane hands off your sacred text, so I'll suppose that you went to some kind of faith-based school that was more interested in pumping you full of dogma than in developing your ability to analyze and synthesize and evaluate. That's too bad for you, but nothing that a few years of diligent study in junior college couldn't fix.

 
At 13 October, 2014 07:23, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

LMAO Brian didn't learn anything about thermite cause he never researched it. He never knew that thermite during WWII was used in welding artillery breeches to disable them. Not to mention they dropped thermite bombs on Japan because the houses were made out of paper and thatch.

So Brian loses again to history and common sense.

 
At 13 October, 2014 08:13, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

There are no pictures of raging fires at WTC7

Brian was not there to witness the fires raging for over 6-7 hours unfought. His ass was in California and was watching it live on TV all the while sitting comfortably on his sofa.

That's right Brian, you weren't there.

 
At 13 October, 2014 09:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

What makes you think I never researached thermite?

What makes you think I didn't know it was used to disable artillery?

What makes you think I didn't know it was used in incendiary bombs?

What makes you think I was in California on 9/11?

What makes you think there were raging fires at WTC7 for 6 hours? There were no pictures taken of any fires in WTC7 until after noon. There are no pictures of raging fires in WTC7.

You make stuff up and call it common sense. It's common all right, but it's not sense.

 
At 13 October, 2014 09:34, Blogger Hammer said...

Brian,

these are the pictures of WTC7 engulfed with flames:

http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_fire.html

see this in particular:

http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/WTC7_Smoke.jpg

Next, I personally know people who were there on 9/11 and they all say WTC7 was burning uncontrolled. There were there, you were not.

So you either think they are liars, or you think I'm a liar.

Let me know which one you pick.

 
At 13 October, 2014 09:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

That picture you cite does not show WTC7 engulfed in flames. It doesn't show any flames at all.

NIST tells us that fires persisted on only six floors of the building. None of those six floors are visible in your picture, which shows a bunch of smoke on the south side. NIST explains that the smoke from Ground Zero was sucked up into the low-pressure zone on the south side of WTC7. You can see the same phenomenon with WTC1 shortly after the collapse of WTC2. It looks like there's white dust belching from every window on the south side of WTC1. But obviously, that is just an illusion. Exactly the same illusion took place later with WTC7.

WTC7 was burning uncontrolled only because a decision was made not to control the fire.

I don't need to have an opinion on whether you're a liar or not. Anyone with half a brain knows that the hearsay accounts of anonymous internet posters are just noise. Stop catering to the prejudices of the Stewies and Ians and truthhurtses of this board and maybe you can improve its quality of discourse.



 
At 13 October, 2014 09:55, Blogger Hammer said...

Brian,

It doesn't show any flames at all.

Come on, be serious! Where do you think that smoke comes from? Were they alla baking pizza? Do you realize you are acting silly?

accounts of anonymous internet posters are just noise

You are 100% wrong. Firefighters and eyewitnesses I interviewed have their real names published on my blog. Do you want to have a phone call with one of them?

 
At 13 October, 2014 10:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

You said the picture shows "WTC7 engulfed with flames". When I pointed out that it doesn't show any flames at all, you change the subject to the origin of the smoke.

I told you where NIST thinks the smoke comes from. Do you read my posts before going off on a rant?

Alleged interviews by anonymous bloggers are still hearsay accounts and not to be trusted. Anyone with half a brain knows that.

 
At 13 October, 2014 10:22, Blogger Hammer said...

Brian,

You talk about people having half a brain but you don't have half of it.

Of course if there's smoke there's fire inside. Are you that stupid?

Don't beat around the bush. Do you want to have a phone call with a firefighter who was there?

 
At 13 October, 2014 10:38, Blogger snug.bug said...

Your claim that "if there's smoke there's fire inside" is silly. That's like saying that if someone has blood on his face it must be his blood.

NIST says the fires persisted on only six floors, and that the smoke was sucked up from fires to the south.

No, I don't need any phone calls from alleged witnesses whose alleged identities I have no way of verifying. Waste of time. FDNY personnel have had plenty of opportunity to tell the media about their belief that there were massive fires. It seems that neither FEMA nor NIST took these stories seriously. You might want to look into why that was, since you seem to think NIST and FEMA were wrong.

I'm not interested in the "journalism" of anonymous bloggers for obvious reasons of lack of accountability, lack of verifiability, and lack of credentials.










 
At 13 October, 2014 10:41, Blogger Hammer said...

Run, coward, run. I offered you the chance to hear first hand accounts but you prefer to run away like crybabies do. Run.

 
At 13 October, 2014 10:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

Your belief that I should take at face value an anonymous voice on the phone shows you to be a very credulous person and thus an incompetent journalist. That's why I choose not to waste my time with guys like you.

If you think FEMA and NIST conspired to cover up massive fires in WTC7 then you should be joining honest people in demanding new investigations.

 
At 13 October, 2014 11:10, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Brian you've never researched thermite in your life. You just assume it can do what it's not meant to do and that's weld.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exothermic_welding

"Exothermic welding, also known as exothermic bonding, thermite welding,and thermit welding, is a welding process for joining materials that employs molten metal to permanently join the conductors. The process employs an exothermic reaction of a thermite composition to heat the metal, and requires no external source of heat or current. The chemical reaction that produces the heat is an aluminothermic reaction between aluminium powder and a metal oxide."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite

"Thermites have been used for welding metal parts such as railway rails, in metal refining, demolition of munitions, and in incendiary weapons."

"History

The thermite (thermit) reaction was discovered in 1893 and patented in 1895 by German chemist Hans Goldschmidt. Consequently, the reaction is sometimes called the "Goldschmidt reaction" or "Goldschmidt process". Goldschmidt was originally interested in producing very pure metals by avoiding the use of carbon in smelting, but he soon discovered the value of thermite in welding.


The crowd goes wild as Brian swings and misses to strike out.

 
At 13 October, 2014 11:11, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Anyone with half a brain knows......


That Brian has half a brain? Shit we all knew that. LMAO!

 
At 13 October, 2014 11:13, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

demolition of munitions

I bet Brian thinks that munitions is code word for "buildings".

 
At 13 October, 2014 11:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

Stewie, your belief that because thermite can weld, therefore it can not cut is a real hoot.

You seem to have missed the fact that an oxy torch can both cut and weld.

You seem to have missed the fact that Jonathan Cole has demonstrated a number of devices that permit thermite to make cuts--even on vertical surfaces.

It's a good thing I'm not trying to change your mind, because your inability to absorb facts would cause me to be veru frustrated if I were.



 
At 13 October, 2014 11:42, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Stewie, your belief that because thermite can weld, therefore it can not cut is a real hoot.

You've just proven to me that you didn't research a damn thing on it.

You seem to have missed the fact that an oxy torch can both cut and weld.

You seem to forget that oxyacetylene torches don't reguire thermite. Unless you want to prove that thermite can magically turn into a gas fueled by high pressure oxygen tanks?

You seem to have missed the fact that Jonathan Cole has demonstrated a number of devices that permit thermite to make cuts--even on vertical surfaces.

Yeah and the time and materials required for such a feat wouldn't go unnoticed you dumb fuck.

It's a good thing I'm not trying to change your mind, because your inability to absorb facts would cause me to be veru frustrated if I were.

And that would be a big "Fuck You!" by you. Ditto for you Brian.

 
At 13 October, 2014 11:43, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Brian thinks that oxyacetylene torches require thermite to magically turn into a gas in order to cut. NOW THAT'S A REAL HOOT!

 
At 13 October, 2014 11:46, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Hey James or Pat. Could you make a post where Brian thinks that thermite can magically turn into a gas to use in torches? I would love to see Brian squirm over that issue.

 
At 13 October, 2014 11:49, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Brian forgot that people involved with thermite would get thermite poisioning.

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/833495-overview

What a dumb ass!

 
At 13 October, 2014 12:18, Blogger Marc Ferris said...

"Where I went to school it was considered the best debate tactic to hang the other side with their own words."

This is why you are a dipshit. This is not a debate. WTC7 had fires on multiple floors which burned unabated for eight hours.

Nobody disputes this. Thousands of FDNY personnel not only witness this, they also knew it was doomed to collapse, a fact available to anyone who can sped 20 seconds to double check.


" Your framing of the issue as one of "gospel" suggests that you think I should keep my profane hands off your sacred text,"

That would imply that you can read, which is clearly not the case. I don't blame you, you are mentally ill and it's why you are unemployable beyond manual labor.


"so I'll suppose that you went to some kind of faith-based school that was more interested in pumping you full of dogma than in developing your ability to analyze and synthesize and evaluate."

So what you just said is that you were molested in Catholic school...and you liked it.


"That's too bad for you, but nothing that a few years of diligent study in junior college couldn't fix."

To quote the guy who kicked you out of San Jose State, there's no point in talking with a moron.

 
At 13 October, 2014 12:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 13 October, 2014 12:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

Stewie, if you had bothered to read your own reference beyond the title you would know that thermite poisoning only happens when you are in the immediate proximity to ignited thermite--such as when somebody tosses a thermite grenade into your car.

Anybody who was in the presence of ignited thermite in the WTC obviously had more clear and present dangers than thermite poisoning to deal with.

 
At 13 October, 2014 12:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, all right, you're right--we weren't debating. I'll agree that we weren't debating. You were simply disputing everything I said by making stuff up, and I was correcting you. A demonstration of ignorance by one party along with a display of knowledge by the other party can not be considered a debate.

WTC7's fires persisted on only six floors. That is a fact generally recognized by everyone except idiots who get all their information from anonymous liars at propaganda websites.

How did FDNY know WTC7 was going to collapse? Who said, exactly? No high rise building has ever collapsed before 9/11 or after 9/11, even though many of them had huge fires that burned much longer than WTC7 burned.

More likely FDNY declined to fight the fire in WTC7 because it was so wimpy they didn't think it needed fighting, and they had reasonable concerns about evidence of explosions in WTC7 and in the twin towers.

You must be mighty sensitive about that Catholic molestation thing to project it on me. It seems that Guitar Bill had some of the same issues. I didn't bring it up. I just said that your thinking showed signs of having been molded by a very dogmatic environment--as GB's did.

Please identify the person who you believe kicked me out of San Jose State. Why do you guys kill your credibility by making stuff up?

 
At 13 October, 2014 13:12, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Stewie, if you had bothered to read your own reference beyond the title you would know that thermite poisoning only happens when you are in the immediate proximity to ignited thermite--such as when somebody tosses a thermite grenade into your car.

Then why don't YOU explain why no one had thermite poisioning on the following days after 9/11? Because you can't!

Anybody who was in the presence of ignited thermite in the WTC obviously had more clear and present dangers than thermite poisoning to deal with.

Care to explain why no one showed up a the hospital with thermite poisioning?

 
At 13 October, 2014 13:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

Stewie, if you would bother to read your own reference beyond its title
(did your lips get tired?) you'd see that the symptoms of thermite poisoning are burns and thermal injury to lungs. Lots of first responders had burns and injuries to lungs.

 
At 13 October, 2014 14:51, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Brian just got his ass handed to him about thermite. LMAO!

 
At 13 October, 2014 14:53, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Brian has no reason to explain thermite since it:

A: Doesn't cut steel, it welds it.
B: People who are around thermite will get thermite poisioning.
C: No evidence that thermite was used (lack of slag) and no one reported having thermite poisioning in the hospitals.

He just got his ass handed to him in a big way.

 
At 13 October, 2014 15:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

Stewie, your A, B, and C are all lies.


 
At 13 October, 2014 16:01, Blogger Ian said...

I think some of you are taking this waaaay too seriously. Brian isn't worth a serious response. He's just this pathetic loser who has failed at everything he's ever attempted in life, which is why he's unemployed and lives with his parents. This 9/11 truth crap is his desperate attempt at relevance, so the last thing that anyone should do is dignify his idiocy with serious responses. Instead, just taunt and mock him and remind him that he will always fail.

That's what I do, and that's why Brian's reactions to me are so hysterical. He has called me "she", "it", "skidmark", "beaniehead", a "worm". It's hilarious.

 
At 13 October, 2014 16:06, Blogger Ian said...

And yes, Brian, I'm back from my wonderful weekend out of town. It's too bad that you have no friends, no job, and no romantic life so you can't experience that, so you just end up posting spam about magic thermite elves every weekend.

 
At 13 October, 2014 16:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

I didn't post anything about magic elves, I didn't post all weekend, and I didn't post any spam, Skidmark.

I posted devastating critique of Mr. Blanchard's silly interview, and I slapped down some simple-minded liars.



 
At 13 October, 2014 17:40, Blogger Ian said...

I didn't post anything about magic elves, I didn't post all weekend, and I didn't post any spam, Skidmark.


Poor Brian. He's hysterical because I win every day, and Brian loses every day, and then I take a victory lap by taking fun trips with my wife, which I can do because I'm smart and successful. Brian, on the other hand, lacks the intelligence to mop floors, and he can't afford a decent haircut, much less take a woman away for a romantic weekend.

I posted devastating critique of Mr. Blanchard's silly interview, and I slapped down some simple-minded liars.

What's hilarious about your lies is how obvious they are, Brian. Are you really so stupid that you believe what you write, or are you dumb enough to think that we do?

Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that the widows will never have their questions answered, which is what they deserve. Maybe if Laurie Van Auken weren't such a greedy bitch, her husband wouldn't have left her, and they could still take weekend trips together.

 
At 13 October, 2014 19:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

You lie and lie and lie, Skidmark.

 
At 13 October, 2014 20:55, Blogger Ian said...

I see you don't dispute that the widows will never have their questions answered. At least you admit to your total failure.

 
At 13 October, 2014 21:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

You lie and lie and lie, Skidmark.

 
At 13 October, 2014 21:50, Blogger Ian said...

Yup, tonight is another night where I go to sleep with a smile on my face knowing that the widows will never have their questions answered.

And there's nothing Brian Good can do about that except squeal hysterically. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!

 
At 13 October, 2014 22:33, Blogger Marc Ferris said...

"How did FDNY know WTC7 was going to collapse?"

Well, dolt, we'll take it step by step:

1. They're fire fighters. It's their job to know.

2. Unlike a Palo Alto hacks, they were ACTUALLY STANDING IN ITS SHADOW, and could see the damage from WTC1.

3. They're fire fighters.

4. The collapse began almost an hour earlier than the final plunge. This is documented in ALL OF THE ORAL HISTORIES of 9-11. We know you can't read.

5. They're fire fighters.


" Who said, exactly?"

Every swinging dick at the pile.


"No high rise building has ever collapsed before 9/11 or after 9/11, even though many of them had huge fires that burned much longer than WTC7 burned."

Yet none of those buildings had been raked and damaged by the collapse of a taller building prior to the fire starting. None of those buildings matched the construction of any of the WTC buildings that failed. It should be be obvious from the damage sustained by those other buildings which represented traditional design and construction.

9-11 is only a mystery to retarded clowns, puked-out wanna be hippie hacks, brain damaged and mentally ill people, and sundry morons.

 
At 13 October, 2014 22:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

Thanks go to Ian for demonstrating the moral depravity of this board. I've never seen any one of his "debunker" colleagues rebuke him in any way.

 
At 14 October, 2014 05:09, Blogger Ian said...

Thanks go to Ian for demonstrating the moral depravity of this board. I've never seen any one of his "debunker" colleagues rebuke him in any way.

Squeal squeal squeal!

 
At 14 October, 2014 05:14, Blogger Ian said...

Speaking of moral depravity, Brian posts endless spam here because he's been banned everywhere else that 9/11 truth is discussed. He was stalking Carol Brouillet and got kicked out of the Northern California Truth Alliance. He joined AE911Truth only to use its computers to post homosexual spam about Willie Rodriguez all over the internet, before he was banned there too.

That's moral depravity. Me putting lying floozy "widows" in their place is not.

 
At 14 October, 2014 07:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you lie and lie and lie.

Thanks for admitting that you think the widows are floozies who should be put in their place. Maybe someday karma will strike and your widow will be put in his or her place.

 
At 14 October, 2014 12:35, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Stewie, your A, B, and C are all lies.

Well atleast I didn't lie about researching about thermite like you did Brian. Now do yourself a favor and go outside and play hide and go fuck yourself.

 
At 14 October, 2014 12:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

I didn't lie about researching thermite, Stewie. 1444

 
At 14 October, 2014 13:19, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

I didn't lie about researching thermite, Stewie.

Yes you did. Otherwise you'd known about thermite poisioning. You never brought it up so you're lying.

 
At 14 October, 2014 13:31, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

If thermite was used Brian, then why didn't you ever discuss about thermite poisioning?

Clearly if thermite was used on 9/11, lots of people involved would've came out having thermite poisioning. Because you didn't cover the issue, we know for a fact that you're making the thermite shit up.

Care to explain why you don't talk about thermite poisioning if you believe thermite was used?

 
At 14 October, 2014 15:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

Stewie, thermite-poisoning only happens to people who are directly exposed to burning thermite. Anyone who was directly exposed to burning thermite would not likely survive the collapse, and if they did, any injuries from thermite poisoning would not likely be distinguishable from other fire-related and collapse-related injuries. Thermite-poisoning is a non-issue--except among industrial workers who use thermite every day and doubtless wear heavy aprons and gloves and eye protection and perhaps respirators.

Where do you get the idea that I believe that thermite was used? I never said that.

I see that you can not defend any of the ridiculous and ignorant things said by Mr. Blanchard in his "terrific" interview.

 
At 14 October, 2014 17:01, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Stewie, thermite-poisoning only happens to people who are directly exposed to burning thermite.

And you don't have proof that thermite was even used on 9/11 because no one wentto the hospital complaining of being sick when "planting" thermite in the buildings.

Where do you get the idea that I believe that thermite was used? I never said that.

You brought it up dickhead.

I see that you can not defend any of the ridiculous and ignorant things said by Mr. Blanchard in his "terrific" interview.

I'm not Mr. Blanchard retard.

 
At 14 October, 2014 18:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

Stewie, your demands for proof are premature before there's even been a proper investigation.

I can imagine you as a homicide detective: you'd walk into a motel room wherein lies the body of a man with his head beaten to a pulp. You'd say: "Well, there's no weapon here, so there's no proof of a murder and no proof of suicide either. So I'll just have to conclude that this poor fellow's head imploded spontaneously! One of my anonymous friends on the internet told me about a case like that. Case closed."

You have no proof that use of thermite on 9/11 would have left any survivors with thermite poisoning. Your demand that I prove what I'm not trying to prove while allowing yourself to claim what you can't possibly prove is kind of hypocritical.

I never said thermite was used. No one here has even tried to refute my criticisms of Mr. Blanchard's ignorant and ridiculous remarks.








 
At 14 October, 2014 18:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

Stewie, did you never learn to use clarifying commas? Were you home-schooled?

 
At 14 October, 2014 21:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh, and whatever happened to Willie Rodriguez, hero to scumbags and fools? He ran away screaming and crying after I exposed his hero story as a fraud and a lie, and he hasn't been back.

 
At 14 October, 2014 21:32, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Stewie, your demands for proof are premature before there's even been a proper investigation.

You just don't get it. If there's no cases where people went to the hospital from having thermite poisioning you're theory is fucking dead in the water.

You have no proof that use of thermite on 9/11 would have left any survivors with thermite poisoning.

And you're a God damned idiot for not thinking about thermite poisioning in the first place. There's no cases because no one got sick from it, therefore your thermite theory is total garbage.

I never said thermite was used.

Then why in the hell are you hellbent on defending it?

Stewie, did you never learn to use clarifying commas? Were you home-schooled?

Resorting to personal attacks isn't getting your thermite theory off the ground Sherlock.

He ran away screaming and crying after I exposed his hero story as a fraud and a lie, and he hasn't been back.

Go ahead and move the fucking goal posts, that's what you're good at Brian.

 
At 14 October, 2014 22:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

Stewie, YOUR theory is dead in the water. I've shown why.

What makes you think I have a theory?

What makes you think that if I did, I would share it with a bunch of fools like you?

According to your own reference thermite poisoning does not exist unless somebody get hits with a thermite grenade thrown into their car.

I defend the thermite hypothesis against ignorance and against lies, which are much in evidence in these commentaries. I never said thermite was used.

Pointing out the deficits in your education is not a personal attack, Stewie. It's a blot on your credibility. I don't have a thermite theory.

YOu can't defend Mr. Blanchard and you can't defend Mr. Rodriguez. Pretty pathetic, Stewie.



 
At 14 October, 2014 22:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

Mr. Rodriguez won't defend himself after I have proven that his hero story is impossible, a fraud, a lie, and stolen in its main points from a dead hero of 9/11, Pablo Ortiz.

 
At 15 October, 2014 03:38, Blogger truth hurts said...

Funny, you defend thermite, but you also admit that you aren't convinced thermite was used.
You also admit not even having a theory about 911.
Yet you call others ignorant...

Mirrortalk again Brian.

Blanchard does not need defending, he made his point very clear and you weren't able to shoot any holes in it.

Willie does not need to defend himself against loons like you.

And indeed, it is a waste of time posting your insanities on this blog, but you have nowhere else to go...

 
At 15 October, 2014 03:44, Blogger truth hurts said...

"I can imagine you as a homicide detective: you'd walk into a motel room wherein lies the body of a man with his head beaten to a pulp. You'd say: "Well, there's no weapon here, so there's no proof of a murder and no proof of suicide either."

Wrong analogy, Brian...

With you it would have been like this :

You walk into a hotelroom and find someone dead with a huge hole in his chest and argue : that could not have killed him, so it must have been an execution by lethal injection.

 
At 15 October, 2014 05:17, Blogger truth hurts said...

NIST says the fires persisted on only six floors, and that the smoke was sucked up from fires to the south.


You mean the same NIST, who'm you accuse of not doing a proper investigation into the collapses, which is why a new investigation is needed?

 
At 15 October, 2014 05:25, Blogger truth hurts said...

How do you know the fire raged?

As shown on pictures..


Did NIST say it raged?


You said that NIST didn't do a proper investigation, so why all of the sudden does it matter what they said?


There are no pictures of raging fires.

Yes there are, including pictures of large fires on the opposite of the damage in wtc7.

Diesel tanks had nothing to do with it, says NIST.

You said that NIST didn't do a proper investigation, so why all of the sudden does it matter what they said?

What massive damage was done to WTC7?

According to NIST, who all of the sudden you no longer quote, there was damage to the roof, one corner was gone up to the 20th floor, the facade was gone between two columns on the south and there was a gaping hole in the middle of the building, about 1/3 into the structure, also up to the 20th floor.


NIST says that damage from flying debris played no part in collapse initiation.

Indeed, they implied that the structure was flawed in such a way that the building would also collapse if there wasn't any damage at all.
Also, the collapse initiation was in the north east of the building, which wasn't damaged.

As said before: NIST had to determine how and in what way the structure and used materials played a role in the global collapse of the building and come with reccomandations on how to prevent such an event in the future.
NIST wasn't assigned to determine exactly why what part of the building collapsed. They only had to determine that a global collapse was possible and how it could occur in wtc7.
Which they did.

 
At 15 October, 2014 06:28, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Stewie, YOUR theory is dead in the water. I've shown why.

What "theory" jackass? That there weren't people rushed to the hospital for thermite poisioning? You haven't shown a damn thing other than defending your thermite theory.

What makes you think I have a theory?

It's obvious douchebag.

What makes you think that if I did, I would share it with a bunch of fools like you?

You already did by defending it.

According to your own reference thermite poisoning does not exist unless somebody get hits with a thermite grenade thrown into their car.

I'm not a doctor and you're just throwing strawmen my way in order to distance yourself from your illogical folly.

I defend the thermite hypothesis against ignorance and against lies, which are much in evidence in these commentaries. I never said thermite was used.

So you lied about defending it and you're lying again to cover your ass.

Pointing out the deficits in your education is not a personal attack, Stewie. It's a blot on your credibility. I don't have a thermite theory.

I've got a diploma, what you got?

YOu can't defend Mr. Blanchard and you can't defend Mr. Rodriguez. Pretty pathetic, Stewie.

Are you retarded or something cause I said that I wasn't Brett Blanchard.

 
At 15 October, 2014 06:35, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Oh man I could just run with this story like Brian does with his stories of 9/11. So Brian's just a ghost in the computer? LMAO!

http://www.wowktv.com/Global/story.asp?S=15813046

Woman in Brian Good's Vehicle During Shooting is Arrested

Updated: Sep 21, 2009 11:50 PM EDT

The woman who was in the truck when Brian Good was killed by Charleston officers following a police chase. Natasha Light and her husband Jeremy Light were taken into custody Monday evening by West Virginia State police. Both live in Kanawha County. According to Trooper Michael Baylous of the WV State Police, Jeremy Light was charged with failure to comply with sex offender registry laws. Both were taken into custody at a home in Elkview Monday evening and transported to Kanawha County Magistrate Court in Charleston. According to State Police records, Authorities went to the residence to arrest Mr. Light for moving without changing his address on the Sex offender Registry. But Mrs. Light allegedly began pushing and kicking troopers and screaming obscenities. She was also arrested and taken to charleston. Jeremy Light faces charges as a sex offender and battery on an officer, Natasha Light faces three charges: battery on a police officer, resisting arrest and disorderly conduct. The husband and wife are in the South Central Regional Jail tonight. Natasha Light was in Brian Good's truck when he was shot and killed by police. Also shot at the scene, was Patrolman Jerry Jones, apparently a victim of friendly fire by a fellow officer.

 
At 15 October, 2014 07:05, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

I still love these videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwiA-Dosh-o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=457SoOWxc3c

 
At 15 October, 2014 07:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

th, since you don't get the concept of contrsdiction, it's no surprise that you believe that it's ignorant for me to defend an idea of which I am not convinced but which I think deserves further investigation.

I didn't just shoot holes in Mr. Blanchard's silly claims; I obliterated them. He made his opinion very clear, and he also made clear that his opinions were ignorant.

Willie can not defend himself against the facts. That's why he ran away screaming and crying after I proved that his hero story was a lie.

What exactly is wrong with my analogy? It is perfectly appropriate. Just like our bungling detective, Stewie invokes a false lack of proof to justify leaping to a premature conclusion.

Your analogy is inappropriate because the victim is suffering from a fatal wound and because I have not leaped to any silly conclusions.

NIST says the fires persisted on only six floors, and that the smoke was sucked up from fires to the south. If you think they're wrong, it is for you to prove that they're wrong and explain why they should underestimate the extent of the fires when they were trying to explain why the building fell down.

I don't know where you guys get this argument about sacred and profane texts. Did you all go to faith-based schools? By your illogic, a defense attorney in court would not be able to question the prosecution's witnesses and would not be able to use evidence turned over to the defense by the prosecution--and the prosecution could not introduce the defendant's confession into evidence.

The pictures of WTC7 do not show any raging fires. You sound like a very silly Italian guy with whom I once had dealings who ran away after I showed that his pictures of "WTC7 engulfed with flames" didn't show any flames at all.

It matters what NIST said because if you think that NIST is wrong, it is up to you to explain how they are wrong, why they are wrong, and to try to set them straight.

NIST does not say one corner was gone up the 20th floor. NIST has admitted that there was no gaping hole on the south side reaching 1/3 of the way into the building. Do your homework. Your information is out of date. You don't know what you're talking about.

If you think it wasn't NIST's job to explain why WTC7 collapsed, don't you think it's about time we had an investigation into why WTC7 collapsed?

NIST's collapse scenario is full of demonstrable scientific dishonesty from beginning to end.





 
At 15 October, 2014 07:37, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Let me try to piece some things together on that story I just posted.

Brian Good....police chase....sex offender....began pushing and kicking troopers and screaming obscenities....faces charges as a sex offender and battery on an officer....when he was shot and killed by police.

Now let me piece this together with some words thrown in there (just like Brian does).

Brian Good was involved in a police chase. He is a sex offender. Mr. Good began pushing and kicking troopers and screaming obscenities at police officers. Mr. Good faces charges as a sex offender and battery on an officer. Mr. Good made a struggle when he was shot and killed by police while attempting to flee the scene.

It's not the hard to make up a story just by editing out the whole story and adding in some elements to elaborate on it. Then again I've never done anything like this and thought it would be fun to poke fun at Brian since he's such a gullible idiot.

 
At 15 October, 2014 07:39, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

I didn't just shoot holes in Mr. Blanchard's silly claims; I obliterated them.

Talking out your ass doesn't count ya know.

his opinions were ignorant.

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

Need I say more? LMAO!

 
At 15 October, 2014 07:41, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Is it me or did Brian just rip off of the late Michael Jackson?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qR5tRwvuas

 
At 15 October, 2014 07:47, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Is it me or is Brian ripping off Michael Jackson when we say that he sexually harassed and stalked Carol Brouillet? There are simularities

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=855qMXaFl-E

 
At 15 October, 2014 08:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 15 October, 2014 08:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

I didn't talk out my ass, Stewie. I obliterated Mr. Blanchard's ignorant remarks by citing facts. You should try citing facts some time.

Your lying ad hominems are the argument of someone who has no argument otherwise.

 
At 15 October, 2014 09:03, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

I didn't talk out my ass, Stewie. I obliterated Mr. Blanchard's ignorant remarks by citing facts. You should try citing facts some time.

Hahaha! You have a hard time trying to debunk Blanchard but you can't and you're getting mad.

Your lying ad hominems are the argument of someone who has no argument otherwise.

Practice what you preach dumb fuck!

 
At 15 October, 2014 09:17, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Brian is literally a gold mine of stupid.

http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss/2012-August/013629.html

"There was a crafts faire downtown today in Palo Alto, I found by accident, with a
big Voter Registration for Obama tent, and life-sized cardboard image of the president. People were getting their pictures taken with it.

So I went home and got better clothes and took my "The Audacity of War Crimes" sign and stood in front of their tent.

A woman came by and said she was generally sympathetic to my point of view but that though she was torn she felt that she ought to vote for Obama on pragmatic grounds. I said that if I were young like her I would probably feel the same way, but I saw Germany 20 years after WWII and I saw what happens to countries that think that international laws don't apply to them, and that I was bound by the Nuremberg Principles not to be complicit in war crimes.

A couple of the Democrats came out from the tent to parley and the first guy asked me if I thought it would be better under Romney than Obama. I told him that Karl Rove wants Obama re-elected, because if Romney were elected he would be expected to 1) balance the budget, 2) win the war in Afghanistan, 3) demonstrate that trickle-down works and 4) outlaw abortion, and he can't do three of those things and he won't do #4 because that would kill redneck indignance.

The second guy listened quite respectfully for a long time while a woman in American
Indian jewelry who claimed to be African American ranted very cogently. When he finally got a chance he said he understood the problem the Democratic left has and he thinks the party needs to find a way to address this. I suggested ranked-choice voting, pointing out that we could vote our conscience on ballots 1 and 2 and then vote pragmatically only on ballot 3 and then we could have it both ways--voting to make a statement without throwing our votes away.

For the woman in Indian jewelry I gave references to "What's the Matter With Kansas" and "Words that Work". After I got there with my sign I didn't see anybody getting their picture taken with the cardboard image.

Brian"

 
At 15 October, 2014 09:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

Poor Stewie can not defend Mr Blanchard's ignorant claims or Mr. Hammer's ignorant claims or his own ignorant claims, so he has to change the subject.

 
At 15 October, 2014 09:35, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 15 October, 2014 09:36, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Poor Stewie can not defend Mr Blanchard's ignorant claims or Mr. Hammer's ignorant claims or his own ignorant claims, so he has to change the subject.

I'm not Brent Blanchard you retard. How many times am I gonna tell you that Brian? You got a problem you email Brent Blanchard yourself at implosionworld.com

Of course shifting the burden of proof on me like a typical ass clown.

 
At 15 October, 2014 09:38, Blogger snug.bug said...

You don't need to be Mr. Blanchard to show that I'm wrong when I obliterate the ignorant claims that appear in his "terrific interview".

But you CAN'T show that I'm wrong when I obliterate the ignorant claims that appear in his "terrific interview" so instead you choose to ransack the internet for irrelevancies you can spam.

 
At 15 October, 2014 09:39, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Occupy Palo Alto? ROFLMFAO!

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/occupypaloalto/aUPMYFt6lAE

Brian Good
10/2/13


Greetings, Occupiers!

Silicon Valley today symbolizes the polarization of wealth that is destroying America. CHAM Deliverance Ministry of San Jose will hold a March to Heal the Valley October 7-10. Starting in East San Jose, we will crisscross the diverse neighborhoods and gather those who’ve had the short end of the stick these last thirty years. We’ll march to the North County campuses of the wealthiest corporations in the world to see who will join our campaign for SOLUTIONS TO POVERTY.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151549476936116&set=a.361852486115.160164.359619806115&type=1&theater

The march will be about six miles a day, with lodging at churches at night, but Thursday’s noon rally (October 10) at the Google campus at 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway (off N. Shoreline) in Mountain View is most important.

http://www.siliconvalleydebug.org/healthevalley/

I would appreciate it if you would forward this notice to people on your list who might be interested in participating.

Brian


Guess what guys, no one showed up. LMAO!

 
At 15 October, 2014 09:41, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

You don't need to be Mr. Blanchard to show that I'm wrong when I obliterate the ignorant claims that appear in his "terrific interview".

You haven't done a fucking thing Brian. You're so egotistical that it's pathetic.

But you CAN'T show that I'm wrong when I obliterate the ignorant claims that appear in his "terrific interview" so instead you choose to ransack the internet for irrelevancies you can spam.

Why would I need to Brian? You're doing an out standing job debunking yourself and making an ass out of yourself in the process.

 
At 15 October, 2014 09:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

I obliterated Mr. Blanchard's ignorant claims. You lie.

In the response to the first question the first word is incompetently ambiguous. What does he mean by "No"? Is he saying "No, it is not possible to demolish the towers with thermite"? How does he know? Has he ever tried? Why would anyone say such a stupid thing?

Then he states "In explosive demolitions thermite is never used." Well, duh. He wasn't asked about "explosive demolitions". He was asked about demolishing the towers with thermite. Why did he bring up explosive demolitions at all?

The thermite theory came up because it was the only plausible explanation of the melted iron found at ground zero. As yet we have no plausible theory for the melted iron or the "evaporated" steel other than thermite and/or sulfur-enhanced thermite.

Mr. Blanchard's claim that thermite's mechanism of action "is not consistent with what happened" seems to be ignorant of the fact that Jonathan Cole demonstrated devices employing thermite that reproduced what happened--the thinning to razor sharpness and the holes in steel members.

Mr. Blanchard's claim that thermite doesn't act horizontally is ridiculous. Mr. Cole demonstrated horizontal cuts on vertical surfaces using thermite.

Mr. Blanchard's framing of the thermitic demolition issue as "cutting clean through all those columns at a predetermined time or especially finish at the same time" is equally silly. There is no need to cut "clean through" the columns. It is only necessary to weaken them to the point of failure. There is no need to finish the cuts all at the same time. If the columns were partly cut through or even just heat-weakened through thermitic action, their simultaneous failure could be assured by the simultaneous detonation of relative small explosive charges, perhaps hidden inside the hollow core columns.

His argument from personal incredulity is made ludicrous by his demonstrated ignorance.

Finally Pat's characterization of the thermitic demolition of a building as "dozens going off randomly" is very silly.

You guys need to polish up your critical thinking skills, and not leap to the conclusion that an interview demonstrating such rampant irrationality and ignorance helps your case simply because you agree with the expert's conclusions.


 
At 15 October, 2014 09:48, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

So Brian says he's not for the thermite theory but yet he's all for it? Let's see if we can catch him in this big old lie shall we?

http://nation.time.com/2013/09/11/sept-11-truthers-mark-anniversary/

snug.bug Sep 28, 2013

@barrymead For a good five-minute video showing Nat Geo's phony test and Jonathan Cole's thermite cutting charges, see the Youtube Incendiary Experiments.


That link I provided is literally a gold mine of comedy by Brian. I'm reading his other comments and it's hilarious.

 
At 15 October, 2014 09:51, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

I obliterated Mr. Blanchard's ignorant claims. You lie.

I'm not Brent Blanchard you fucking retard. So you saying he's lying about the profession he's in?

The thermite theory came up because it was the only plausible explanation of the melted iron found at ground zero.

There was no melted iron Brian. And you switched from steel to iron. How ironic!

You guys need to polish up your critical thinking skills, and not leap to the conclusion that an interview demonstrating such rampant irrationality and ignorance helps your case simply because you agree with the expert's conclusions.

Hey Brian, it's not our fault you can't fight your way out of a brown paper bag. You made up all this shit and still refuse to acknowledge it with factual evidence. All we hear from you is bullshit and nothing more. You can cry like a baby and kick your feet at us but it's your story against the official narrative. You lost Brian. Admit defeat and walk away.

 
At 15 October, 2014 10:02, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Brian pretty much defends the thermite theory in his strings of stupidity on this url:

http://nation.time.com/2013/09/11/sept-11-truthers-mark-anniversary/

 
At 15 October, 2014 10:07, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Of course Brian always runs away from any challenge presented to him. Whether it be from Rodriguez, Barrett, Gage, Fetzer. ect. ect. ect.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=256440

Here's Brian in action:

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

 
At 15 October, 2014 10:13, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

You know why I love making fun of you Brian?

A: You paint yourself a nice target.
B: You never back down from an argument that you clearly lost.
C: You insist that you're always "right".
D: You think you're much "better" at researching than everyone else.
E: You think you have all the "answers" but you don't.
F: You pretend that normal people are "shills", "girls" and what not.
G: You make yourself out to be an idiot. Hey, you did that on your own pal.
H: You got thrown out of the 9/11 Truth Movement because of what you did to Carol, Kevin and Willie.
I: You're denial of harassing Kevin and Willie is something that gets under your skin. Especially the sexual harassment and stalking of Carol.
J: You deny everything and won't admit that you're wrong on all counts.
K: Your ego.

 
At 15 October, 2014 10:17, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

You like to dig dirt on other people but when people dig dirt on you you lose your mind Brian.

This is for you:

http://www.curiositiesbydickens.com/wp-content/uploads/no-i-didnt-lose-my-mind.jpg

 
At 15 October, 2014 10:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

Stewie, I didn't say you were Blanchard. I said you could not defend him from my devastating obliteration of his ignorant remarks. Nobody can, because I cited facts.

No I didn't say he was lying. I said he was ignorant. Of course at some point when a professional is as irresponsibly ignorant as Mr. Blanchard is, his statements become something of a lie.

There is evidence of melted steel and melted iron at Grounz Zero, Stewie. You don't know what you're talking about.

You make fun of me because your ignorance of 9/11 and your lousy logic skills make you unable to defend your opinions rationally, so making fun is all you can do.


 
At 15 October, 2014 10:31, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

I said you could not defend him from my.....blah blah blah who gives a fuck?

I'm not Brent Blanchard retard.

I said he was ignorant

Whatever you say Michael Jackson.

There is evidence of melted steel and melted iron at Grounz Zero, Stewie.

You said steel, then iron, now its back to steel. Can you tell the difference between the 2 Brian? One is brittle the other isn't, which one?

You make fun of me because your ignorance of 9/11 and your lousy logic skills make you unable to defend your opinions rationally, so making fun is all you can do.

Here's something for you Brian:

https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/l/t1.0-9/1011624_615904751851333_7817129571864609689_n.jpg?oh=114759a6d2e327354332fda6dd3ec7b7&oe=54BCBEEF

 
At 15 October, 2014 10:35, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Brian, the thing is you have no reason to cite that Brent Blanchard is "lying". You have no degrees in demolition nor the competence to think about places charges on columns of the building being demolished. You have not worked in the field like Blanchard does. You never rigged a building to be demoed.

Until you finally do something worthy of Blanchard's work then you can have a say in it. But now you can just STFU and stop with the gossiping.

 
At 15 October, 2014 10:40, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

http://911truthersexposed.blogspot.com/

"There's a fellow on the Screw Loose Change Blog by the name of Brian Good, aka "Snug-Bug". He was kicked out of the 9/11 Truth Movement for being abnoxious and causing trouble. Everyone can do a Google search of this person. He's also caused trouble for Willie Rodriguez and Kevin Barrett."

Looks like I'm not the only 1 that's been researching you Brian.

 
At 15 October, 2014 10:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

Stewie, like th you are finding contradictions where there are none.

Steel is mostly iron. Some of the melted material at Ground Zero was partially-melted structural members, which were clearly steel (and not aluminum and not lead).

Some of the melted material was melted material that has not been reliably assayed. We don't know if that's steel or iron.

I didn't say that Mr. Blanchard was lying. I said his remarks were ignorant. I also said that at some point a professional's ignorance becomes so irresponsible that it becomes dishonest, and IMHO Mr. Blanchard's remarks reach that standard.

Your arguments are fallacious--an argument from authority and an ad hominem attack.

 
At 15 October, 2014 10:46, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Stewie, like th you are finding contradictions where there are none.

Stop comparing me to someone else. Focus on me and not another person. That's your problem.

Steel is mostly iron.

Show me the chemical make up of the steel then I'll agree. If not then shut up about it.

Some of the melted material

Steel, iron, steel now material? You're really reaching out there ain't ya?

I didn't say that Mr. Blanchard was lying.

You're implying he is.

I said his remarks were ignorant.

Michael Jackson reference.

Your arguments are fallacious--an argument from authority and an ad hominem attack.

Practice what you preach fucktard.


 
At 15 October, 2014 11:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

Stewie, I'm focusing on the problem of false contradictions--which is only one of the bits of irrationality that you and th share.

It's not my job to educate you about the properties of steel. Do your own research.

I said Mr. Blanchard was ignorant. He was shockingly, irresponsibly, and perhaps dishonestly ignorant.

I do practice what I preach.

 
At 15 October, 2014 11:50, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Stewie, I'm focusing on the problem of false contradictions--which is only one of the bits of irrationality that you and th share.

Name the contradictions doofus.

It's not my job to educate you about the properties of steel. Do your own research.

Show me the chemical make-up of the steel Brian. You talk shit now prove what you say. I did my own research and found out that you're still full of shit.

I said Mr. Blanchard was ignorant.

Are you related to Michael Jackson?

I do practice what I preach.

Understatement of the year.

 
At 15 October, 2014 11:52, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

I like how Brian shifted from thermite to molten steel/iron/material.

He can't come up with a coherent theory much less come up with evidence of his own. Is he making shit up? Yes he is!

 
At 15 October, 2014 11:53, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Brian, show me that you lack some brain power please. You're just using circular reasoning as a way to weasel out of proving yourself wrong.

 
At 15 October, 2014 12:10, Blogger Marc Ferris said...

"I obliterated Mr. Blanchard's ignorant claims."

No. sorry, you didn't. You've just been oinking your stupidity. Blanchard is a demolition's EXPERT. You aren't even a good conspiracy loon.

"In the response to the first question the first word is incompetently ambiguous. What does he mean by "No"?"

See, this is why you're an idiot. It's not the first question in the interview, just the one that Pat highlighted. You failed to click the link and failed to read.



" Is he saying "No, it is not possible to demolish the towers with thermite"?"

Yup.

" How does he know? Has he ever tried?"

No, Blanchard is a DEMOLITIONS EXPERT, and not prone to doing stupid things like trying to take down a building with thermite.

"Then he states "In explosive demolitions thermite is never used." Well, duh. He wasn't asked about "explosive demolitions"."

Sure he was, in that first question of the actual interview that you are too stupid to read.


"The thermite theory came up because it was the only plausible explanation of the melted iron found at ground zero."

There was no melted iron found at Ground Zero.


"As yet we have no plausible theory for the melted iron or the "evaporated" steel other than thermite and/or sulfur-enhanced thermite."

None of that was found either. It exists only in conspiracy land.



"Mr. Blanchard's claim that thermite doesn't act horizontally is ridiculous. Mr. Cole demonstrated horizontal cuts on vertical surfaces using thermite."

Not really, no.

The number of buildings Brain Goode has demoed? - 0

You're the clown always asking why experts don't address 9-11, and then when one does you ignore everything he says. Meanwhile, you offer ZERO evidence. 9-11 Troof sites are not valid sources of evidence as they are filled with other like-minded morons who do not know what they're talking about.

Your clear mental illness will not allow your to admit that you are 100% wrong about 9-11.

 
At 15 October, 2014 12:13, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Did you read the part that says that none of their core steel samples shows heating above 480 degrees F and thus they have no physical evidence to back up their claims that the fire weakened the steel? Brian Good

ROTFLMFAO! Brian really thinks that the fires didn't reach above 480*F? According to thermal imaging and thermal radar the fires were close to 1,300*F. And when the Towers came down the fires inside the pile were no less than 1,200*F. Way too far below the melting point of steel which is 2,600*F.

I know Brian, I know. You're gonna claim that the fires couldn't have brought down the Towers, nor the planes impacts. You're gonna assume that thermite was the cause (which wasn't the case) and that Johnathan Cole is the only idiot worth noting since you hold him in such high regard. Problem is no one went to a hospital with thermite poisoning, proving that thermite wasn't used. If thermite was in the buildings, the people who breathed it in would've had it in their lungs. Out of all the bodies recovered from GZ none of them showed any signs of thermite poisoning. Care to coment on that or are you going to go through your steps of circular reasoning again like you always do?

 
At 15 October, 2014 12:22, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Brian should run in the special olympics.

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR1QTwq3SdnkxAjVUG8QwS9DB2bmiI7AzTX6TsbUrp_fLYChlve

 
At 15 October, 2014 12:51, Blogger truth hurts said...


It's not my job to educate you about the properties of steel.


True indeed.
That is why you aren't qualified to make any comments about it.



I said Mr. Blanchard was ignorant.

Which is your right to do...


He was shockingly, irresponsibly, and perhaps dishonestly ignorant.

Nope, he wasn't.
You try him to be that way, because for some odd reason, you want the thermite demolition theory to be true.
That is why you will call world leading experts on this field dishonest and ignorant if they don't support your delusion...

 
At 15 October, 2014 12:54, Blogger truth hurts said...

There is evidence of melted steel and melted iron at Grounz Zero

Nope, there isn't.

Which you admit later on:



Some of the melted material was melted material that has not been reliably assayed. We don't know if that's steel or iron.


 
At 15 October, 2014 13:05, Blogger truth hurts said...

I obliterated Mr. Blanchard's ignorant claims.

Nope, you came with ignorant remarks about what he said, clearly not understanding a single thing about the expertise involved.


Is he saying "No, it is not possible to demolish the towers with thermite"?

Apperently.

How does he know?

He is the world leading expert on this field. Go figure..


Has he ever tried? Why would anyone say such a stupid thing?

Since you don't know on what he bases his opinion, you cannot judge if he said something stupid.
You simply find his reply stupid because you desperatly want the thermite theory to be true.


Then he states "In explosive demolitions thermite is never used." Well, duh.

Ah, so now you admit that he is right.

And may i remind you that you were the one stating that the buildings were destroyed by explosive demolitions and that you claimed numerous people saw and heared those explosions...
And at the same time claimed that the explosives occured after the collapse initiation to hide the sound...

He wasn't asked about "explosive demolitions". He was asked about demolishing the towers with thermite.

And he explained why thermite is not a good choice for that.
Obviously, you ommit that part in your squeeling.


Why did he bring up explosive demolitions at all?

Because it makes you bounce your head against the wall.
He got you cornered here.


The thermite theory came up because it was the only plausible explanation of the melted iron found at ground zero.

Well, that is how Steven Jones started it.
First thermite, then thermate, then superthermite, then nanothermite... Always changing his theory as soon as the former was defeated...
Never mind that the latest theory does not involve any pools of molten steel that stay molten for days, which was the first claim..



As yet we have no plausible theory for the melted iron

There is not melted iron.


or the "evaporated" steel

Since you put evaporated between quotation marks, you finally admit that there wasn't really evaporated steel.
also, thermite does not evaporate steel.



Mr. Blanchard's claim that thermite's mechanism of action "is not consistent with what happened"

Indeed.



seems to be ignorant of the fact that Jonathan Cole demonstrated devices employing thermite that reproduced what happened--the thinning to razor sharpness and the holes in steel members.

Nope, Cole didn't prove that.

Mr. Cole demonstrated horizontal cuts on vertical surfaces using thermite.

yup, but completely besides the point.
We did not see any of that happening to the twin towers during their collapses.

 
At 15 October, 2014 13:12, Blogger truth hurts said...

Mr. Blanchard's framing of the thermitic demolition issue as "cutting clean through all those columns at a predetermined time or especially finish at the same time" is equally silly.

Funny to see how you think you know it better than the world leading expert on this field, Brian...


There is no need to cut "clean through" the columns. It is only necessary to weaken them to the point of failure.


Ah, so you admit that it is not neccesary for your so called free fall speed collapse to completely take out any resistance of the building structure...


There is no need to finish the cuts all at the same time. If the columns were partly cut through or even just heat-weakened through thermitic action, their simultaneous failure could be assured by the simultaneous detonation of relative small explosive charges, perhaps hidden inside the hollow core columns.

Ah, so Blanchard is not allowed to mention the explosive demolition theory, but you are, Brian...

Typical..

Having that said: the above statement of you shows how ignorant you are about demolishing high rises..


You guys need to polish up your critical thinking skills

Nope, we already clearly see through your nonsense, Brian.
No need for more education on that field.

 
At 15 October, 2014 13:14, Blogger truth hurts said...

Is he saying "No, it is not possible to demolish the towers with thermite"? How does he know?

The fun is that you admit that it is not possible, by coming with this theory:

f the columns were partly cut through or even just heat-weakened through thermitic action, their simultaneous failure could be assured by the simultaneous detonation of relative small explosive charges, perhaps hidden inside the hollow core columns.

You always debunk yourself, Brian..

 
At 15 October, 2014 13:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, I obliterated Mr. Blanchard's ignorant statements. It is a logical fallacy to assume that because Mr. Blanchard is an expert, therefore he is right. As I have shown, his claims were contrary to fact and highly irresponsible.

I was referring to "No" in the first question in Pat's digest of the interview, not to the text of the interview.

Mr. Blanchard's opinion that taking down a building with thermite is impossible is based on his own astounding ignorance of thermite, and is thus easily obliterated by anyone with commonly available knowledge.

The question he was asked was about the possibility of a thermitic demolition. The question did not mention explosive demolition at all.

How do you know no melted iron was found at Ground Zero? Did you assay Dr. Glanz's stalagmite to determine that it was steel rather than iron? Did you assay the 40-pound ingot that was taken from the site?

The "evaporated" steel was certainly found at Ground Zero--it was reported in FEMA's Appendix C and a photograph of it was published by Dr. Astaneh.

You remain willfully ignorant on these matters, like someone who is in hysterical denial, and your claim that Mr. Cole did not demonstrate horizontal cuts on vertical surfaces using thermite is a bald-faced lie.

I didn't ignore everything Mr. Blanchard said. I read his statements quite carefully--which is why I was able to obliterate his ridiculous claims.

You lazily ignore what the experts say when you fail to read them carefully enough exercise even rudimentary critical analysis.

Your claim that I offer zero evidence is an hysterical bald-faced lie.














 
At 15 October, 2014 13:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

Stewie, please don't try to tell me what I think. You clearly have a lot of confusion about the differences between opinions, facts, and beliefs.

You guys all need to put more energy into how to think instead of what to think. Instead of dealing with my points rationally, with logical arguments and relevant facts, you incoherently rant against heresy and heretics.

Did you, Stewie, by any chance have a faith-based education?


 
At 15 October, 2014 13:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

th, Mr. Blanchard's ignorance about thermite is an objective fact. Your attempt to dismiss a fact by pretending it is an opinion is dishonest.

There is evidence of melted steel and melted iron at Ground Zero. Without reliable assays we can't discard the evidence of both.

I didn't make any ignorant remarks about what Mr. Blanchard said. I made informed refutations of his ignorant remarks.

What evidence have you that Mr. Blanchard is a leading expert? His "explanations" about thermite are based in his ignorance about thermite.

The thermite hypothesis has never been defeated.

Mr. Cole demonstrated devices employing thermite that reproduced what happened--the thinning to razor sharpness and the holes in steel members. Your denial of this verifiable fact is hysterical.

th, when you can't see through a blatant con artist like Willie Rodriguez, your claim that you can see through me is a real hoot.

Your claims about what I "admit" are as silly as your claims about what I think.










 
At 15 October, 2014 17:25, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Stewie, please don't try to tell me what I think. You clearly have a lot of confusion about the differences between opinions, facts, and beliefs.

It's quite the opposite moron.

You guys all need to put more energy into how to think instead of what to think. Instead of dealing with my points rationally, with logical arguments and relevant facts, you incoherently rant against heresy and heretics.

Practice what you preach moron.

Did you, Stewie, by any chance have a faith-based education?

Same question moron!

 
At 15 October, 2014 17:26, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Mr. Cole demonstrated devices employing thermite that reproduced what happened--the thinning to razor sharpness and the holes in steel members. Your denial of this verifiable fact is hysterical.

Reproduced? Anything reporduced isn't gonnahave the same effect moron.

 
At 15 October, 2014 17:30, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

The thermite hypothesis has never been defeated.

Until I questioned you about thermite poisoning. Which you completely ignore.

Which survivors had thermite poisoning and which workers (who put them there) also had the same poisoning? Can you name them or are they just a figment of YOUR imagination?

There is evidence of melted steel and melted iron at Ground Zero.

Also a figment of your oveactive imagination.

What evidence have you that Mr. Blanchard is a leading expert? His "explanations" about thermite are based in his ignorance about thermite.

But then again you've never really mixed iron oxide and aluminum powder have you?

 
At 15 October, 2014 17:55, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Thermite is used for welding, always has been and always will and nothing in the world can ever change that fact. Not even our stubborn pack mule Brian Good can change it.

Brian doesn't know shit about thermite and what it can and can not do. He's been lying out of his ass since day 1.

 
At 15 October, 2014 17:57, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

The only way thermite can be explosive is when it comes in contact with ice. Brian didn't even bother looking into the matter. Hell even the Mythbusters used 1,000 lbs. of thermite to try to cut a SUV in half, it failed.

So what does that tell us? Brian is lying and making shit up. His own ego is his own ignorance.

 
At 15 October, 2014 17:59, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

You can try to say shit about me and other people Brian but the matter of your problem is you keep getting your ass handed to you on a silver platter. The amount of bitching he does on here and elsewhere tells us that he hasn't been laid in a long long time.

 
At 15 October, 2014 18:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

Stewie, delusions are rigid, fixed, erroneous beliefs held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.

It's really a hoot how many of the denizens of this board are technically delusional. I'll suppose they come here to project their own pathology on "da twoofers".

The mythbusters did not try to cut a car in half with 1000 pounds of thermite. They tried to make a lot of noise and light. You can see a 5-minute video about their silly stunt on Youtube: "Incendiary Experiments".

Your concern for my sex life is kind of creepy given the fictional biography of your avatar.


 
At 16 October, 2014 03:26, Blogger truth hurts said...

th, Mr. Blanchard's ignorance about thermite is an objective fact.

Nope.
To the contrary: you implied that he has a point when you came up with your hypothesis about how they could have used thermite.
Doing so, you admitted that you cannot demolish a high rise like the twin towers using thermite alone.


There is evidence of melted steel and melted iron at Ground Zero.

Nope, and you admitted that by stating that no proper research has been done to determine if the found material you refered to is iron or steel.

Without reliable assays we can't discard the evidence of both.

in which you admit again that there is no evidence for molten steel or iron at ground zero.


I didn't make any ignorant remarks about what Mr. Blanchard said.

You aren't the one who can judge on that.


What evidence have you that Mr. Blanchard is a leading expert?

Lookup his CV, Brian
I know that involves Google, which you cannot even use properly to find pictures of Rodriguez, but you might give it another try.


His "explanations" about thermite are based in his ignorance about thermite.

You haven't pointed out any wrong statement of him about thermite.
Since you also have no clue about what Blanchard does for a living or what his CV is, you cannot judge about his expertise at all.



The thermite hypothesis has never been defeated.

It has never been proven.
That is the point.
There is zero evidence for the thermite hypothesis to be correct.
You admitted that by coming with an alternative theory about the demolition of the towers.


Mr. Cole demonstrated devices employing thermite that reproduced what happened--the thinning to razor sharpness and the holes in steel members.

Indeed, but they did not even convince you.
So you came up with an alternative theory.
If Cole cannot even convince you, why should he convince Blanchard?


Your denial of this verifiable fact is hysterical.

Well, regarding your squeeling, you get hysterical over just about anything.


th, when you can't see through a blatant con artist like Willie Rodriguez

A fun statement proving again how you try to bend the truth..
I pointed out several times that Willie got debunked in 2006 and 2007.
But you cannot use that in your decievement, so you ignore that completely and state the opposite about me.


But coming back to the subject:
you yourself admitted that thermite could not do the job. It needs the aid of explosives to make the building collapse in a controlled way.

So whether you like it or not, you agree with Blanchard.
But you are too thick to see or admit it.

 
At 16 October, 2014 03:28, Blogger truth hurts said...

The mythbusters did not try to cut a car in half with 1000 pounds of thermite. They tried to make a lot of noise and light

Your 1935 demolition example also involved a lot of spectacle, Brian.

Of course, you completely ommit that.

You just scrape together some random events and facts and tie them together to get 'proof' for your demolition theory, while implying that you yourself know that it is impossible.

 
At 16 October, 2014 03:42, Blogger truth hurts said...

I obliterated Mr. Blanchard's ignorant statements.

Nope, that is just your delusion..


It is a logical fallacy to assume that because Mr. Blanchard is an expert, therefore he is right.

It is even more stupid to believe that you with your crippled google experience know more about demolishing buildings than an expert like Blanchard.


As I have shown, his claims were contrary to fact

Nope, not at all.


and highly irresponsible.

Your average squeeling..


Mr. Blanchard's opinion that taking down a building with thermite is impossible is based on his own astounding ignorance of thermite

Since you admitted not to know what Blanchard knows about thermite, you cannot make such a claim.
Even more, your knowledge is based on some youtube videos and what you read on google...

That does not make you an expert who can judge about the expertise of a leading demolition expert, Brian.


and is thus easily obliterated by anyone with commonly available knowledge.

You mean after watching youtube videos...


The question he was asked was about the possibility of a thermitic demolition.

On which you agree that it is impossible..


The question did not mention explosive demolition at all.

Totally besides the point.
The question was about demolishing a building with thermite.
You know that it is impossible, so you start ranting about how a question is phrased, in stead about the subject itsel.

How do you know no melted iron was found at Ground Zero?

How do you know that there were no modified attack baboons present collecting the molten iron?

It is not about what wasn't found, but about what was found and evidence for it.
There is zero evidence for molten iron on ground zero, as result of a thermitic reaction that demolished the towers.


Did you assay Dr. Glanz's stalagmite to determine that it was steel rather than iron?

He doesn't have to.
The fact that you don't know if it was iron, steel or something else is exactly his point.
There is no evidence that the material forming the stalagmite was either iron or steel.


Did you assay the 40-pound ingot that was taken from the site?

Same as above: you have no evidence that the ingot is made from molten iron or steel.


The "evaporated" steel was certainly found at Ground Zero

Nope, it wasn't.
You made that up.
also, thermite does not evaporate steel.
So the whole claim is m00t.


--it was reported in FEMA's Appendix C and a photograph of it was published by Dr. Astaneh.

Nope, there are no photos of steelvapor.
You made that up.
The appendix has pictures of steel samples that have been corroded by sulphur onder extreme heat conditions.
Such extreme heat conditions involving sulphur can corrode steel when it is exposed to it for a long period; at least several days.
Thermite does not heat steel for several days.


You remain willfully ignorant on these matters

Nope, you are the one who remains completely ignorant and makes up his own phantasys about certain events and facts.


I didn't ignore everything Mr. Blanchard said. I read his statements quite carefully--which is why I was able to obliterate his ridiculous claims.

only in your dreams, Blanchard.
It takes an completely dishonest and ignorant person to think that he oblerated the expertise of one of the worlds leading expert on the subject involved, using youtube videos and such..


You lazily ignore what the experts say when you fail to read them carefully enough exercise even rudimentary critical analysis.

Mirror talk.
The above implies to you vs Blanchard.


Your claim that I offer zero evidence is an hysterical bald-faced lie.

Nope, anyone reading this thread can see that you presented zero evidence.

 
At 16 October, 2014 04:56, Blogger Ian said...

This thread is like a Brian Good greatest hits collection.

Babbling about magic spray-on thermite
Babbling about invisible silent explosives
Babbling about invisible widows with "questions"
Homosexual stalker spam about Willie Rodriguez.

And, of course, my favorite: that the collapsing towers muffled the sounds of the explosions. Because the towers were collapsing on their own, but Dick Cheney decided to plan explosives anyway, so that years later, intrepid unemployed janitors who live with their parents could figure it out.

 
At 16 October, 2014 05:01, Blogger Ian said...

And it's been about 6 years since Brian first started posting spam on this blog about magic thermite elves, invisible widows, and his homosexual lust for Willie Rodriguez. 6 years later, nothing has changed. For most people (like me), so much changes (for the better) in 6 years, but for Brian, nothing will ever change. He'll still never get a new investigation into 9/11, he'll still never get the "widows" questions answered, he'll still never get "meatball on a fork" published in a journal, he'll still never prove that Willie Rodriguez is a fraud, he'll still never get a job or move out of his parents basement, and he'll still never get a decent haircut.

 
At 16 October, 2014 09:38, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Stewie, delusions are rigid, fixed, erroneous beliefs held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary.

Right but you also prove that by doing what you normally do.

It's really a hoot how many of the denizens of this board are technically delusional. I'll suppose they come here to project their own pathology on "da twoofers".

Are you an architect? Nope! Did you ever work in contrsuction? Nope! So shut the hell up.

The mythbusters did not try to cut a car in half with 1000 pounds of thermite. They tried to make a lot of noise and light. You can see a 5-minute video about their silly stunt on Youtube: "Incendiary Experiments".

Yes they did you idiot:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIpa1K51os4

Your concern for my sex life is kind of creepy given the fictional biography of your avatar.

Then again you're creepy as fuck. So there!

 
At 16 October, 2014 11:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

th, your notions about what I implied and what I admitted are just out of touch with reality.

Melted ferrous material is evidence of melted steel and melted iron until it is assayed and found to be one or the other.

I didn't make any ignorant remarks about what Mr. Blanchard said, and anyone who checks Blanchard's claims can see that his claims are ignorant.

I pointed out many wrong statements by Blanchard about thermite: 1) his claim that thermite's mechanism of action "is not consistent with what happened" is untrue and ignorant of Jonathan Cole's demonstrations and 2) his claim that thermite doesn't act horizontally is ridiculous and 3) his framing of the thermitic demolition issue as "cutting clean through all those columns at a predetermined time or especially finish at the same time" is equally silly.

The thermite hypothesis has much evidence to support it. You are a liar. It has never been proven because it has never been investigated by a body with subpoena power.

Please do not try to tell me what convinced me or didn't convince me or what I admitted, what I believe, what I think, or what I implied. You lack the logical skills to do so competently.

I never said I know more about demolishing buildings than Blanchard does. But clearly I know more about thermite than Blanchard does, because he makes ridiculously incorrect statement.

You're a liar, truth hurts. Truth hurts YOU.




 
At 16 October, 2014 11:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

Lyin Ian, I didn't babble about anything, much less anything magical, spray-on, or invisible. There is nothing homosexual or stalker-related about pointing out that Willie Rodriguez abandoned this board after I proved that his hero story was a lie.

Your inability to recognize that the sound of a collapsing building could mask the sounds of explosions lower down that kept the collapse going shows your irrational and unscientific nature.

You lie and lie and lie, and what satisfaction you get out of that is a mystery to me.

 
At 16 October, 2014 11:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

Stewie, how do you know what my profession is and my work history?

The mythbusters admitted that they did not seriously try to cut the car in half. They said the stunt was a joke and they just wanted to make noise and light. They didn't even put dams up to keep the molten thermite from running down the windshield. Their silly op didn't even cut the top window frames.

Your belief that I am creepy is based on the lies of lying liars like Ianinny.

 
At 16 October, 2014 11:16, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Melted ferrous material is evidence of melted steel and melted iron

Wrong!

Blanchard's claims can see that his claims are ignorant.

Rinse and repeat!

I pointed out many wrong statements by Blanchard about thermite

And all without evidence to disprove him. Out-fucking-standing!

The thermite hypothesis has much evidence to support it

Then again no one got thermite poisoning. TADA!

You lack the logical skills to do so competently.

Irony! Melted IRONY!

I never said I know more about demolishing buildings...

No, you're just demolishing your own self and ego. WTG fuck head!

You're a liar, truth hurts. Truth hurts YOU.

So says the talking penis with ears who doesn't have evidence for thermite and other loony theories he comes up with.

 
At 16 October, 2014 11:18, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Stewie, how do you know what my profession is and my work history?

Ask your mommy!

The mythbusters admitted that they did not seriously try to cut the car in half. They said the stunt was a joke and they just wanted to make noise and light. They didn't even put dams up to keep the molten thermite from running down the windshield. Their silly op didn't even cut the top window frames.

No they didn't. They proved it wasn't a joke by video taping it. Video doesn't lie like you do penis breath.

Your belief that I am creepy is based on the lies of lying liars like Ianinny.

No, you are fucking creepy. No wonder why Carol was disgusted at you.

 
At 16 October, 2014 11:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

You are very silly, Stewie.

 
At 16 October, 2014 12:27, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

You are very silly, Stewie.

I'd rather be silly than creepy like you. But thanks!

 
At 16 October, 2014 12:42, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Everything Wrong with The Matrix:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGR4OMpMTQU

Like everything wrong with the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories.

 
At 16 October, 2014 13:37, Blogger truth hurts said...

th, your notions about what I implied and what I admitted are just out of touch with reality.

The usual babbling, Brian..


Melted ferrous material is evidence of melted steel and melted iron until it is assayed and found to be one or the other.

You haven't proved that they found melted ferrous material that could point to a thermitic reaction, Brian..


I didn't make any ignorant remarks about what Mr. Blanchard said

You aren't the one who can judge on that.


and anyone who checks Blanchard's claims can see that his claims are ignorant.

That is correct in the truther world. In truther world, anyone with youtube expertise can 'prove' an experts ignorance...



I pointed out many wrong statements by Blanchard about thermite

Nope, you didn't.


1) his claim that thermite's mechanism of action "is not consistent with what happened" is untrue and ignorant of Jonathan Cole's demonstrations

Nope, he isn't. Not on any perimeter column did whe witness the thermite charges that Cole demonstrated.
Not even a single sign.



his claim that thermite doesn't act horizontally is ridiculous

Nope, it isn't.
Cole did not prove that thermite acts horizontally.
What Cole did is create a box around the thermite, forcing its heat to go sideways.

his framing of the thermitic demolition issue as "cutting clean through all those columns at a predetermined time or especially finish at the same time" is equally silly.

Nope, you just want it to be silly.


The thermite hypothesis has much evidence to support it.

it has none.
The fact that you have not presented even a single piece of evidence, but in stead called everyone a liar, proves that.


It has never been proven because it has never been investigated by a body with subpoena power.

Bladiebla..
You again admit that there is no evidence.


Please do not try to tell me what convinced me or didn't convince me

I'm not trying to tell you anything.
Your confusement is not caused by me, but by your own contradictions..


I never said I know more about demolishing buildings than Blanchard does.

You called him ignorant and that you completely defeated his claims.

And now you admit that you aren't qualified...


But clearly I know more about thermite than Blanchard does, because he makes ridiculously incorrect statement.

Nope, you just babble about what you have seen on some youtube video.
That doesn't make you an expert on thermite, Brian..

 
At 16 October, 2014 14:12, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Bring up thermite poisioning next time Brian decides to bring up thermite.

There were no cases of anyone having thermite poisioning. Not the survivors, not the bodies of victims, nor the firefighters, police, clean up crews, the whole 9 yards.

 
At 16 October, 2014 20:39, Blogger Ian said...

Lyin Ian, I didn't babble about anything, much less anything magical, spray-on, or invisible. There is nothing homosexual or stalker-related about pointing out that Willie Rodriguez abandoned this board after I proved that his hero story was a lie.

False.

Your inability to recognize that the sound of a collapsing building could mask the sounds of explosions lower down that kept the collapse going shows your irrational and unscientific nature.

I expect nothing less ridiculous of a claim from a mentally ill unemployed janitor who lives with his parents.

You lie and lie and lie, and what satisfaction you get out of that is a mystery to me.

Squeal squeal squeal!

Hey Brian, do you think Laurie Van Auken will enjoy this weekend knowing that her questions still haven't been answered? HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!

 
At 16 October, 2014 20:41, Blogger Ian said...

Hey Brian, remember that time you were banned from Wikipedia for vandalizing the page of the Chinese Olympic gymnastics team?

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

 
At 16 October, 2014 20:41, Blogger Ian said...

Hey Brian, remember that time you were banned from CIT after you ran away squealing and crying from a debate challenge from Craig Ranke?

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

 
At 16 October, 2014 20:42, Blogger Ian said...

Hey Brian, remember how you used to babble about pyroclastic flows at the WTC collapse, and about smoldering carpets and nomadic fires (fires that ride camels, apparently)? And then you stopped after I repeatedly humiliated you about such idiocy?

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

 
At 16 October, 2014 20:43, Blogger Ian said...

Hey Brian, remember that time you got yourself a good haircut?

I don't either.

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

 
At 17 October, 2014 10:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

More lying Iananity from Lyin Ianinny.

I never vandalized any wikipedia pages, let alone wikipedia pages about gymnasts.

 
At 17 October, 2014 11:39, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Aweful shame that thermite wasn't used huh Brian? No one got thermite poisoning from the fumes and smoke coming off the ignited thermite. Damn shame it's not provable huh?

 
At 17 October, 2014 15:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

Stewie, I have explained three times to you why your belief is absurd that thermite poisoning is a valid test for thermite: because its indicators are indistinguishable from more prosaic fire-induced injuries, because nobody could be expected to recognize it as thermite poisoning if it were present, and because it's unlikely that anyone who was close enough to experience any igniting thermite charges directly would have survived the collapse of the building to go to the hospital.

Delusion, I will repeat, is the maintenance of a rigid, fixed belief in the presence of incontrovertible proof to the contrary. Your belief in your thermite poisoning litmus is delusional.

 
At 17 October, 2014 17:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

th, your claim that Jonathan Cole did not prove horizontal action by thermite is a blatant lie. I'm not going to waste my time debating a liar.

Your claim that no perimeter columns showed thermite charges is another lie. Mr. Cole has a video showing perimeter modules at their base heated to red hot. This is inexplicable except by Mr. Cole's hypothesis that thermite charges were planted inside the hollow core columns.

PhDs who testified to melted steel consistent with thermitic included DR. Alison Geyh, Dr. Edward Malloy, Dr. Ahmed Ghoniem, Dr. Sisson, Dr. Barnett, Dr. Biedermann, Dr. Astaneh, and Dr. Glanz.

Your aggressive ignorance is not evindece.

 
At 17 October, 2014 20:08, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Stewie, I have explained three times to you why your belief is absurd that thermite poisoning is a valid test for thermite

No one got thermite poisoning hence there was no thermite. You lost! You are the weakest link, goodbye! Adios!

Delusion, I will repeat, is the maintenance of a rigid, fixed belief in the presence of incontrovertible proof to the contrary.

You should be a preacher for the stupid and unwise Brian.

Your belief in your thermite poisoning litmus is delusional

Ahhhhh but you can't show evidence that it doesn't exist now can ya sucker?

 
At 17 October, 2014 20:13, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Funny thing over on the International Skeptics Forum (aka JREF). Truthers are using up all their WTC dust samples and they're in short supply. Wonder why that is? Oh that's right they've been looking for thermite and nanothermite for 13 yrs and haven't found a single molecule of it any where.

 
At 17 October, 2014 20:30, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

I challenge Brian to debate with me thermite.

Ok Brian first question:

Since you believe thermite brought down the Towers, can you explain why moisture, in the presence of ignited thermite, is highly flammable?

Second question:

If thermite was used, can you explain why none of the firefighters, police and emergency response teams had any accumulation in their lungs or organs while in the presence of thermite and its reaction?

I got plenty more questions coming from this source I found:

http://www.hms-beagle.com/MSDS/Thermit.pdf

I think you might as well give it up Brian.

 
At 17 October, 2014 20:32, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

The melting point of thermite is:

1565°C (2849°F) based on data for: Ferric oxide. Weighted average: 1266.47°C
(2311.6°F)

The fires inside the buildings didn't reach above 1,200*F.

How does Brian explain that?

 
At 17 October, 2014 20:34, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

DOT Classification:
CLASS 4.3: Material that emits flammable gases on contact with water.

So why would FDNY firefighters put water on ignited thermite?

Care to explain Brian?

 
At 17 October, 2014 20:38, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Thermite mixture:

Aluminum 33%
Iron (III) Oxide 67%

What was the percentages that Truthers found in the WTC of thermic material?

Explain that Brian.

 
At 17 October, 2014 20:44, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Under "Handling and storage" why would the precaution say: "Never add water to this product"?

Water is moisture, so it would be highly flammable material if fire hoses were used on the material.

Remember the firefighters who went up to the 78th floor to put out a fire there? Why didn't those firefighters talk about seeing how the water aggitated the flames and made it worse and radio it in that it was thermite?

Brian is gonna dodge all these questions and such. He's a very predictible bastard.

 
At 17 October, 2014 20:47, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

I know more about thermite than Brian ever had.

Watch him dodge and weave and mke up some kind of an excuse that I'm "wrong". Fuck, I put up a link about thermite and the effects that moisture (water) would do to it. He'll ignore that and shrug it off like he always does.

 
At 18 October, 2014 00:10, Blogger truth hurts said...

your claim that Jonathan Cole did not prove horizontal action by thermite is a blatant lie. I'm not going to waste my time debating a liar.

Nope, just more proof that you have a reading problem.
I never implied that.

Your claim that no perimeter columns showed thermite charges is another lie. Mr. Cole has a video showing perimeter modules at their base heated to red hot. This is inexplicable except by Mr. Cole's hypothesis that thermite charges were planted inside the hollow core columns.

Nope.
As he demonstrated, those charges would cut through the steel, not just make them glow.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home