Sunday, October 05, 2014

Truthers Silent About Missing NYC Ballot

Because, hey, they could still get some donations!

Remember a few weeks ago, when the High Rise Safety Initiative was still hoping to get on the fall ballot?
We expect Justice Wooten to issue a decision by mid-week, leaving about 9 days before the October 3rd cutoff for either side to appeal.
 October 3rd, you say?  Passed already?  Why is there no update on their sad failure to get on the ballot?  Oh, I know!  Because there are still Truther Morons who have not yet sent all of their money to that nice bank auditor in Nigeria who informed them of their forgotten uncle's unfortunate demise in a plane crash.

79 Comments:

At 06 October, 2014 11:12, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

And no Brian Good to wreck the comment section about this? WHAT?!?!?!

 
At 06 October, 2014 13:31, Blogger truth hurts said...

Well, that will probably change soon..

Meanwhile, Brian wrote:

I like people having different opinions from mine. I can learn from them.

which is a lie, Brian.
You call anyone who disagrees with you a liar. That is your standard reaction.


I get bored just hanging around a bunch of truthers who agree with each other--even when their opinions are silly, such as their one time affection for the raging con artist Willie Fraudriguez.

While earlier, you stated that the truth movement does not believe Willie anymore.


The 9/11 families never deemed Willie a hero for helping their relatives escape. That's the point.

Nope, that is how you try to bend it.


Willie can not provide even one credible witness to support his claim that he saved hundreds of lives.

He doesn't have to.
On 911, there were already interviews with rescued people who praised him for helping them to get out of the tower.

He is a hero to them and they don't care if he did save hundred of people or just a few. Either way, he is a hero.

 
At 06 October, 2014 20:10, Blogger Marc Ferris said...

Head's up, Pat and James:

Undicisettembre has a NEW interview with a demolitions expert, Brent Blanchard,discussing the stupidity of CD on 9-11.

It is a thing of beauty, he shoots down just about everything.

 
At 06 October, 2014 20:11, Blogger Marc Ferris said...

Oops, here's the link:

http://undicisettembre.blogspot.it/

 
At 06 October, 2014 22:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 06 October, 2014 23:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

And does it go beyond the usual "execution is done by lethal injection and not by strangulation, and since no hypodermic needles were found at the site the decedent was not murdered and the bruises on his neck are irrelevant" kind of argument?

Do you admire the "thing of beauty" because it is a solid argument or because you agree with it?

 
At 07 October, 2014 05:21, Blogger truth hurts said...

And does it go beyond the usual "execution is done by lethal injection and not by strangulation, and since no hypodermic needles were found at the site the decedent was not murdered and the bruises on his neck are irrelevant" kind of argument?

You mean the usual truther tacktics?
Nope, they don't apply on that blog.

Your question is a classical example of how truthers try to bend facts.

In your example, you speak of a murder and of an execution. Two different things.

you are comparing the event to a murder.
Lets say the official story is that the building was murdered, while the truthers argue the building was executed using a lethal injection. By doing so, they should provide evidence for that argument. They should show the needles used, the needle marks on the corps, etc. etc. But they don't have that evidence, so in stead, they start downplaying the evidence supporting murder by strangulation, saying that is was faked, that the researchers were payed by the govt and therefore cannot speak the truth, distort facts so it looks like strangulation is impossible, etc. etc..

 
At 07 October, 2014 05:26, Blogger truth hurts said...

Undicisettembre has a NEW interview with a demolitions expert, Brent Blanchard,discussing the stupidity of CD on 9-11.

Ah, thanks for the link.
I see that Undicisettembre also has an interview with a civil engineer from New Zealand, who publicly supported the official story after doing his own research.
A person that according to Brian does not exist...
And an Italian interview with a local demolition expert who also proves the truthers wrong on every point.

 
At 07 October, 2014 06:16, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Just like witnesses saw that Brian was sexually harassing and stalking Carol Brouillet.

 
At 07 October, 2014 08:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

th, I didn't say a murder and an execution are the same. They are analogous to a secret demolition and a sanctioned public demolition.

You seem to be ignorant of the fact that truthers do provide evidence that the towers came down through controlled demolition. The youtube "9/11 Explosive Evidence: Experts Speak Out" might be a good place for you to start to learn some of the things you don't know.

Since the officials hastily scooped up the steel structure and shipped it off to China, investigators do not have the opportunity to examine "the corps". But photos were taken, observations of melted steel were made, and FEMA documented a high-temperature sulfidation attack on the steel that NIST had no interest in investigating.

Truthers aren't downplaying evidence of strangulation. They are highlighting it.

You might try consulting some SAT training books, in particular the exercises on metaphor, because you suck at it.






 
At 07 October, 2014 09:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

Stewie, no witnesses saw me stalking or sexually harassing Carol Brouillet.

 
At 07 October, 2014 09:03, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Stewie, no witnesses saw me stalking or sexually harassing Carol Brouillet.

Kevin Barrett and his wife did as well as other people. Didn't you always say that witnesses heard bombs and saw a cruise missile? You relied on those "witnesses" but when it comes down to you doing criminal acts to other people you forget that there were witnesses around.

 
At 07 October, 2014 09:06, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

There are witnesses every where Brian. On Youtube, here and every where you've been online. Those witnesses saw you deliberately attack Barrett and Rodriguez both in person and online.

Are you that fucking stupid to assume that those people (debunker and truther) aren't witnesses to your crimes?

 
At 07 October, 2014 09:10, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Let's take a look at what Barrett said shall we?

http://kennysideshow.blogspot.com/2009/09/kevin-barrett-911.html

"Question: What about the allegations going around about you saying that Germany's invasion of Poland was "worse?" Did you say that, and if so, why.

Kevin Barrett: This story was invented by Brian Good, who stalked and sexually harassed a prominent 9/11 activist by inflicting his sick fantasies on her until she was forced to beg for help from other activists, including me, to get him to leave her alone. According to her, some of Good's sick sexual fantasies that he inflicted on her against her will, despite her repeated pleas that he stop, involved me. This twisted sexual obsession with me is apparently the reason he continues to cyber-stalk me, tirelessly trolling the internet for anything I post, or anything involving me, and responding with venomous attacks. He has done the same thing to William Rodriguez, whom he also apparently has a crush on. Which is somewhat more understandable -- Willie IS a lot better looking than I am.

Good's allegation here isn't even close to what I actually said. What I said, and continue to say, is that under international law, aggression is the supreme war crime. As the supreme war crime, aggression is by definition a greater crime than torture, genocide, or any other war crime. This is not my opinion. It is a fact attested to by international law experts, including those I have interviewed on my radio show such as William Pepper and Francis Boyle. See: http://truthjihad.blogspot.com/2009/08/aggression-supreme-war-crime-fact-not.html"

Brian should be on Wheel of Fortune because he likes to spin things.

 
At 07 October, 2014 09:13, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Truthers Silent About Missing NYC Ballot

Of course they're silent. They haven't proven a damn thing for 13 yrs. Why stop there? LMAO

 
At 07 October, 2014 09:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

Stewie, Kevin Barrett and his wife never saw me stalking and sexually harassing Carol Brouillet. You make stuff up.

I never said that witnesses heard bombs and saw a cruise missile. You make stuff up.

I have committed no crimes. You make stuff up.

I have attacked Barrett in person and online because he is a bigot and a crackpot who showed a creepy fascination with the violence-porn of "V-for Vendetta", and his association with the truth movement was damaging the movement. I have no need to apologize for that.

I have attacked Willie Rodriguez on line because he is a liar and a fraud, and his association with the truth movement was damaging the movement. I have no need to apologize for that. I have also informed him that if he ever appears in Northern California in person I will be there to inform people about his nature and he will wish he had not come. He has not had the guts to appear in Northern California since I made that warning. I have no need to apologize for that.

Barrett is lying about what he said on the radio. He said the invasion of Poland was a greater crime than was the holocaust, which he characterized as "toasting 6 million jews". The audio from the radio program was captured. It's available on youtube.

He is lying about inflicting sick fantasies. He's the one with the sick fantasies, having publicly expressed his fascination with the violence-porn in "V for Vendetta" and having fantasized about armed insurrection and a mob burning down the governor's house in California.




 
At 07 October, 2014 10:11, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Stewie, Kevin Barrett and his wife never saw me stalking and sexually harassing Carol Brouillet. You make stuff up.

Since you're not ignoring it then it's true.

I never said that witnesses heard bombs and saw a cruise missile. You make stuff up.

You're a self proclaimed truther and activist. So yeah you do believe that bullshit.

I have committed no crimes. You make stuff up.

Your choice to ignore it is infallible. You are guilty!

He is lying about inflicting sick fantasies. He's the one with the sick fantasies, having publicly expressed his fascination with the violence-porn in "V for Vendetta" and having fantasized about armed insurrection and a mob burning down the governor's house in California.

Sure and who wore a V For Vendetta costume when Kevin Barrett and Carol was at some meeting that you apparently were at in protest of Kevin? Sure the hell wasn't Kevin, his wife or Carol.

 
At 07 October, 2014 10:11, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

He has not had the guts to appear in Northern California since I made that warning.

So you basically threatened Willie.

 
At 07 October, 2014 10:17, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss/2010-April/010939.html

"Brian Good was banned from the Northern California 9/11 Truth Alliance meetings and our e-mail list. He attended our last meeting, when Kevin Barrett and his wife, Fatna were there. They had been invited to join us for a potluck dinner prior to the meeting. Brian wore black and a giant V for Vendetta mask, and at some point rudely verbally attacked Dr. Barrett, and of course he gave his flyer/handout to all who would take them, when they left the meeting."

I like this particular sentence Brian said:

"If my leaflet (email me and I'll send you a pdf) nudged either of them
an inch away from Barrett the trip was worth it, burst radiator hose
and all."

So you had a shitty car?

 
At 07 October, 2014 10:25, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Honestly I'm done with arguing with Brian. He's guilty of sexually harassing/stalking Carol. He's continued to harass, cyber-stalk Willie and Kevin and his denial is just his way of showing guilt that he did all that to the 3 of them.

If he would ignore it then it wouldn't be true. But he choose not to ignore it and he's all defensive about it.

You know Brian, people say some truthful things about me and I ignore it. But the fact is there are witnesses to the things people say about me which aren't true and I don't ignore that.

The fact is there is 3 witnesses who saw you at the meeting along with countless others. They saw you throw leaflets and verbally assault Kevin right in front of his wife Fatna.

You can say all kinds of shit but it's the truth. Yeah they might be nutcases but I'll take their word over yours any day of the week.

 
At 07 October, 2014 10:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

Stewie, your obsession with me is quite comical.

Maybe someday you'll learn that unintelligent people can be valuable when they are helpful and nice, but when they try to be mean they only waste everybody's time.

 
At 07 October, 2014 10:36, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Stewie, your obsession with me is quite comical.

Not an obsession. I spoke the truth and you didn't like it. You're the 1 denying all that you did despite having numerous witnesses seeing you verbally attack Kevin and then sexually harassing/stalking Carol. Like I said I'm done with that shit and you're guilty. End of story!

Maybe someday you'll learn that unintelligent people can be valuable when they are helpful and nice, but when they try to be mean they only waste everybody's time.

Yeah, like you tried to help out Willie, Kevin and Carol then got dumped in the gutter because of what you did? Practice what you preach Brian.

 
At 07 October, 2014 10:49, Blogger truth hurts said...

I didn't say a murder and an execution are the same. They are analogous to a secret demolition and a sanctioned public demolition.

Nope, you said that since there are no signs of an execution, the victim cannot have been murdered.

That is not a good comparisation.

The buildings were destroyed, ergo murdered. Nobody is arguing about that.
The argument is about if they were murdered by terrorists, or executed by the govt.
We have evidence that they were murdered: the bruises on their neck.
What truthers argue is that the strangulation wasn't enough and that afterwards, the govt executed the victims secretly by lethal injection.

Well, you have to prove that first.


You seem to be ignorant of the fact that truthers do provide evidence that the towers came down through controlled demolition.

Nope, they don't .


The youtube "9/11 Explosive Evidence: Experts Speak Out" might be a good place for you to start to learn some of the things you don't know.

So in stead of providing the evidence, you ask me to watch a video...

Well, case closed.


Since the officials hastily scooped up the steel structure and shipped it off to China,

Which is not true..

investigators do not have the opportunity to examine "the corps".

About 1000 policemen and FBI personnel were going through the debris at ground zero and fresh kills. They examined the corps and did not find any evidence for an execution.


But photos were taken

Ad published.
In fact, NIST published over 2 terrabyte of pictures and videos.
None show any sign of an execution.


observations of melted steel were made

No, observation of molten material were made. If it was steel has never been determined and NASA thermal imaging did not show temperatures hot enough for molten steel.

But even if there was molten steel in the rubble pile: it does not prove in any way an execution.


and FEMA documented a high-temperature sulfidation attack on the steel that NIST had no interest in investigating.

NIST wasn't doing a criminal investigation, NIST investigated if and in what way the construction and used materials played a role in the global collapses.

The ruble pile burned for quite some time after 911 and as you acknowledged, became hot enough to melt material.
So high temperature attacks on the steel aren't a surprise.


Truthers aren't downplaying evidence of strangulation. They are highlighting it.

No they don't, they argue that the strangulation could not have killed the towers, an execution was also necessary.


You might try consulting some SAT training books, in particular the exercises on metaphor, because you suck at it.

mirrortalk again...

 
At 07 October, 2014 10:51, Blogger truth hurts said...

But to summorize Brian:

You admit that there is no evidence for a controlled demolition.

 
At 07 October, 2014 11:25, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

"9/11 Explosive Evidence: Experts Speak Out"

That's the one Brian helped out with Carol. So yeah he's peddling the explosions = explosives bullshit still.

 
At 07 October, 2014 11:28, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

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

Undicisettembre: Many conspiracy theorists believe that molten steel was found at the bottom of the towers and this should prove it was a controlled demolition. Is it true that controlled demolitions leave molten steel pools?

Brent Blanchard: No. And there is no evidence there was molten steel. The way they phrase that question is fundamentally wrong and that's why it reaches wrong conclusions every time. There were molten materials, there were very hot burning materials, but there's no evidence that any of those materials were steel. It is much more likely that they were aluminum, or copper, or composite materials.


Steel can't melt under 2,600*F. But other metals can. Brian got debunked.

 
At 07 October, 2014 12:27, Blogger truth hurts said...

He got debunked multiple times.
But just like those other truthers, like the noplaners, the CIT'ers, the mininukers, et. etc. he will deny that.
He will state that he has tons of evidence supporting him, but when asked can only babble about how the govt prevent the collecting of evidence and all he has is some video with people talking about 911...

 
At 07 October, 2014 14:47, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Bascially he's just circle jerking us around. 1 theory flops, go to the next, and the next, and the next, ect. ect. ect. til he comes back to the first theory he dished out.

All he has is the opinions of others and grasp them as being "facts" and the "truth" all the while ingoring the fact that he has no evidence what-so-ever to prove his BS stories.

 
At 07 October, 2014 22:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

Stewie, nobody saw me stalk or harass Mrs. Brouillet. You are very silly--and it seems you lack the self-awareness to recognize it.

th, you really should stop trying to interpret what I say. You don't have the intellectual bandwidth.

You make empty claims. You don't know what you're talking about.

Brent Blanchard's claim that there is no evidence of molten steel shows his ignorance. There is ample evidence of melted steel, including samples discussed in the FEMA report.



 
At 08 October, 2014 03:32, Blogger truth hurts said...

Brent Blanchard's claim that there is no evidence of molten steel shows his ignorance.

Nope, it isn't.

There is ample evidence of melted steel

Which you obviously don't present, since there is not a shred of evidence for it..


including samples discussed in the FEMA report.

The fEMA report doesn't speak of the molten steel that was discussed with Blanchard.

So as usual, you are just babbling, Brian.

You also ommit the fact that molten steel is not a byproduct of a demolition and that thermite reactions don't create pools of molten steel that stay molten for days after the event.
.

 
At 08 October, 2014 05:04, Blogger Ian said...

Poor Brian. He's hysterical because he's been banned from the truth movement for being a liar and a sex stalker.

And, of course, he's failed at everything he's ever attempted. He failed out of San Jose State after sniffing too much glue. He failed to get a new investigation into 9/11. He failed to get "meatball on a fork" published in a journal. He failed to get the widows questions answered. He failed to convince anyone that Rodriguez is a fraud.

And while we're at it, he failed to hold down a job mopping floors, and failed to get a decent haircut, which is why he lives with his parents and has a hideous homeless mullet.

So all he does all day is post spam here and get ridiculed mercilessly for it. I can't imagine living such a pathetic existence.

 
At 08 October, 2014 08:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

th, so you're saying the melted steel in the FEMA report was different from the melted steel Mr. Blanchard was denying? How does that work?

Melted steel can be a byproduct of demolition. It's certainly not a byproduct of office fires, and no plausible explanation of the melted steel has been proposed--except thermite.

More lying Iananity from lyin Ianinny, I see.



 
At 08 October, 2014 08:42, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Stewie, nobody saw me stalk or harass Mrs. Brouillet. You are very silly--and it seems you lack the self-awareness to recognize it.

I recognize witnesses. Kevin, his wife Fatna, Carol and many others.

 
At 08 October, 2014 08:46, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Melted steel can be a byproduct of demolition.

No it's not otherwise you'd show us a video of a demolition with the melted steel. But you don't cause it doesn't exist.

 
At 08 October, 2014 08:47, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

It's certainly not a byproduct of office fires, and no plausible explanation of the melted steel has been proposed--except thermite.

Thermite welds you dipshit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5uxsFglz2ig

 
At 08 October, 2014 08:48, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Also if thermite was used why isn't there a whole shitlod of slag left behind?

 
At 08 October, 2014 09:24, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

If Brian thinks corrosion is a form of molten steel then he's an idiot, and an illiterate idiot at that.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

 
At 08 October, 2014 11:14, Blogger truth hurts said...

th, so you're saying the melted steel in the FEMA report was different from the melted steel Mr. Blanchard was denying? How does that work?

They were discussing the supposed molten steel found in the rubble pie.
There is no evidence for its existence, nor is it a byproduct of a controlled demolition.


Melted steel can be a byproduct of demolition.

No, it can not. No demolition leaves behind molten steel that stays molten for several days.


It's certainly not a byproduct of office fires

It is also not proven that there was any molten steel, so the whole discussion about molten steel as whatever byproduct is bogus.



and no plausible explanation of the melted steel has been proposed--except thermite.

Not even thermite will create pools of molten steel that stay molten for a long period.

 
At 08 October, 2014 11:16, Blogger truth hurts said...

If Brian thinks corrosion is a form of molten steel then he's an idiot,

He is just babbling whatever Gage babbled...
He doesn't think for himself.
Like truthers always do.....

 
At 08 October, 2014 14:42, Blogger Marc Ferris said...

"ou seem to be ignorant of the fact that truthers do provide evidence that the towers came down through controlled demolition. The youtube "9/11 Explosive Evidence: Experts Speak Out" might be a good place for you to start to learn some of the things you don't know."

No, they have not. They have no evidence, only allegations. The video you cite as a resource is nothing but pure shit.

 
At 08 October, 2014 14:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

Stewie, neither Carol nor Kevin nor Fatna witnessed me sexually harassing anyone. You seem to have a difficult time perceiving reality.

A demolition by thermite was done in 1935. This no doubt resulted in melted steel. Video technology being somewhat primitive in those days, there is no video.

Thermite welds, and it also cuts. An oxy-acetyulene torch also welds and cuts. Thanks for showing your ignorance.

There was slag left behind. Dr. James Glanz said he saw a stalagmite of formerly molten steel.

The NYT characterized the melted steel as "evaporated". They attributed this characterization to the fire scientist Dr. Jonathan Barnett and he has never disputed that statement. The FEMA report said the steel suffered a high-temperature sulfidation attack resulting in intergranular melting. Maybe you don't know enough to know that to a chemist, high-temperature corrosion and melting can be the same thing.

You have a tendency to leap at easy answers that are not true.









 
At 08 October, 2014 14:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

th, as usual you lie. There is a lot of evidence of melted steel, including photographs and the FEMA Appendix C report.

 
At 08 October, 2014 17:07, Blogger truth hurts said...

You still haven't provided any evidence, Brian.
And we all know why: because there is none.
The fema report does not show pictures of molten steel, Brian..
You haven't shown any photographs of molten steel

 
At 08 October, 2014 17:12, Blogger truth hurts said...

"A demolition by thermite was done in 1935. This no doubt resulted in melted steel. Video technology being somewhat primitive in those days, there is no video."

So you you have no evidence.

All you can come up with is a demolition in 1935 of a structure totally incomparable with the twin towers.

 
At 08 October, 2014 17:22, Blogger truth hurts said...

The FEMA report said the steel suffered a high-temperature sulfidation attack resulting in intergranular melting. Maybe you don't know enough to know that to a chemist, high-temperature corrosion and melting can be the same thing."

Can be.
That is the best you can do...
The hot rubble pile performed hot corrosion on the steel, causing some members to turn into Swiss cheese.

You have zero evidence that thermite can do that to a vertical beam, Brian.

Same with your steel stalagmite.
Any idea how much thermite is needed for that?
And again: how do you melt a vertical column to form a stalagmite with thermite.

You are grasping straws, Brian...

 
At 08 October, 2014 18:27, Blogger Ian said...

Poor Brian. He's babbling about magic spray-on thermite again.

If he hadn't been banned from the truth movement, he might be aware that Bill Deagle's theories that modified attack baboons planted micro-nukes have replaces the laughable thermite theories that Brian still has delusions of.

 
At 08 October, 2014 18:37, Blogger Marc Ferris said...

"A demolition by thermite was done in 1935."

So? It was done ONCE. Why do you think that was?



"There was slag left behind. Dr. James Glanz said he saw a stalagmite of formerly molten steel."

I doubt it was steel.

"The NYT characterized the melted steel as "evaporated"."

They were wrong.


"They attributed this characterization to the fire scientist Dr. Jonathan Barnett and he has never disputed that statement. "

Who cares?

"The FEMA report said the steel suffered a high-temperature sulfidation attack resulting in intergranular melting. Maybe you don't know enough to know that to a chemist, high-temperature corrosion and melting can be the same thing."

Yeah, but a chemist would point out that sulfur is present in a lot of materials( Vulcanized Rubber, Gypsum - both would be present in abundance in the WTC.) A chemist would aslo ask why the fuck would anyone believe thermite was used in a demolition, let alone 9-11.



 
At 08 October, 2014 19:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

th, the FEMA report shows pictures of partially-melted steel in Appendix C. By the time the FEMA researchers got the samples, they had already cooled, however, they did document that the samples suffered intergranular melting.

You have no evidence that heating in the rubble pile corroded the steel. No practical source for the sulfur has been proposed--except sulfur-enhanced thermite.

Thermite can do the swiss cheese effect and the thinning to steel, as demonstrated by Jonathan Cole. Mr. Cole also demonstrated the making of vertical cuts and horizontal cuts on vertical surfaces.

You don't know what you're talking about, and you mistake your ignorance for knowledge.

Lying Ianinny, I am not babbling about anything--least of all anything magical, or anything spray-on. Thermite is quite a prosaic material.

MGF, the thermite demolition in 1935 was entirely successful. I suspect that it was not used later because professional demolitionlists wished that their brotherhood be restricted to those who could get explosives-handling licenses.

If you think a NYT science writer with a PhD in astrophysics doesn't know steel from lead and aluminum, take it up with him.

What makes you think the NYT was wrong about the steel being evaporated? Dr. Barnett never disputed that claim. The pictures look like the steel was evaporated.

Don't you think that if mousepads could vaporize the steel that NIST would have demonstrated that they can? No practical source for the sulfur has been demonstrated--except thermate.
Gypsum is not a possible candidate because Calcium Sulfate is already fully oxidized, making it inert. That is why it is used for fireproofing.

You are of course free to burn a bunch of mousepads and shower curtains and drywall with steel girders and see if you can make them evaporate. Go ahead. Show some scientific curiosity.

It's obvious why thermite would be used--because it doesn't make explosive sounds, it doesn't leave explosive residues, and because bomb-sniffing dogs are not trained to look for thermite.

If you exercised half as much imagination in trying to understand reality instead of inventing reasons why everything is impossible you just might find a way to make the world a better place.














 
At 08 October, 2014 20:37, Blogger Marc Ferris said...

"You are of course free to burn a bunch of mousepads and shower curtains and drywall with steel girders and see if you can make them evaporate. Go ahead. Show some scientific curiosity."

Sure, just point me in the direction of 60,000 mouse pads, and 35 tons of sundry rubber items and I'll get right on that.

"It's obvious why thermite would be used--because it doesn't make explosive sounds, it doesn't leave explosive residues, and because bomb-sniffing dogs are not trained to look for thermite."

No, it's obvious that Troofers NEED it to be thermite - because there were no explosions and that means no CD which mean's they are full of shit.

Who cares about bomb sniffing dogs? What about the 6000 people who investigated and cleared Ground Zero? You think they've lied? They would have seen evidence of thermite and NONE WAS FOUND. Had thermite been used it would have lit up like a Christmas tree with the amount needed to achieve the collapse everyone saw. It would have smelled long after it came down. Any FDNY or NYPD would have immediately known what it was.

This is why you fail. You, a loser who has done zero investigating, knows more than the thousands of experts who handed the wreckage of the WTC directly. You have bought into a lie and you can't admit that you have been wrong the entire time.
You, Brian Goode, a pretend academic who is actually a laughing stalk.

 
At 09 October, 2014 01:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 09 October, 2014 02:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

Why do you need 60,000 mousepads to test your claim that vulcanized rubber can explain the evaporated steel at the WTC? You haven't had much experience in designing experiments, have you?

There were plenty of explosions. Dozens of witnesses reported them.

Why do you think the cleanup workers would have seen evidence of thermite? What if the evidence of thermite was just heat-weakened steel? How would the cleanup crew know thermite-weakened steel from fire-weakened steel? Besides, the cleanup was so careless that the complete body of a man in a business suit was found at the dump.

Why would you think that thermite planted inside the hollow box columns in the elevator shafts would light up the tower like a christmas tree? The fires didn't light up the WTC like a christmas tree, so why does thermite need to?

How do you know thermite would have smelled, and what it would have smelled like? What I smelled was the smell of cooking wiring.

I have done extensive investigation. What makes you think I am a loser?

I'm a laughing stalk? I'll take that as a compliment. I'm laughing at you.


 
At 09 October, 2014 03:47, Blogger truth hurts said...


Why do you need 60,000 mousepads to test your claim that vulcanized rubber can explain the evaporated steel at the WTC?


The fact that you don't know that proves your ignorance regarding physics..


There were plenty of explosions.

First you argue that they used thermite to avoid explosions and then you argue that there were plenty of explosions.

That is what you get from making things up: you contradict yourself..


Why do you think the cleanup workers would have seen evidence of thermite?

You yourself claimed they did.


What if the evidence of thermite was just heat-weakened steel?

Ah, so now you deny the existance of molten steel.
The thermite only had to weaken it...
Not melt it.
So much for your babbling about experiments cutting through vertical beams and your babbling about thermite melting beams into swich cheese..


How would the cleanup crew know thermite-weakened steel from fire-weakened steel?

Again, no mention of the swiss cheese.
Only weakened steel that doesn't look different compared to fire weakened steel...


Besides, the cleanup was so careless that the complete body of a man in a business suit was found at the dump.

They also searched fresh kills for evidence..


Why would you think that thermite planted inside the hollow box columns

Why would thermite planted inside a hollow box burn horizontally through it?


I have done extensive investigation.

No you haven't.
you would not have come with such ludicrous conclusions.

What makes you think I am a loser?

Your obsession with Willy.

 
At 09 October, 2014 03:54, Blogger truth hurts said...

they did document that the samples suffered intergranular melting.
Yes, intergranular melting, caused by hot corrosion involving sulfur.
Not melting by hot iron from a thermite reaction.


You have no evidence that heating in the rubble pile corroded the steel.

Yes i have: in order to cause hot corrosion with sulfur, the steel has to been exposed to the heat and sulfur for several days.
That is only possible in the rubble pile.


No practical source for the sulfur

According to FEMA, the amount of sulfur in acid rain would be sufficient.
There were several sources for sulfur, like the fuel from tanks in wtc7 and fuel from cars parked in the basement.
Also, the corroded pieces were only found at the wtc7 site.
drywall has also been pointed out as source.
The pile was hot enough to decompose the gipsum into sulfur and other elements that could have attacked the steel.


Thermite can do the swiss cheese effect and the thinning to steel, as demonstrated by Jonathan Cole. Mr. Cole also demonstrated the making of vertical cuts and horizontal cuts on vertical surfaces.

He did not demonstrate how you can turn a vertical beam into swisscheese.
That is what we are talking about, Brian.
Also, the cuts he made with thermite did not leave behind pools of molten steel or calgamites..



You don't know what you're talking about, and you mistake your ignorance for knowledge.

blabiebla, Brian.
Your usual mirror talk.

 
At 09 October, 2014 04:09, Blogger truth hurts said...

the thermite demolition in 1935 was entirely successful.

used on a completely different structure and in a way that would have made the twin towers lid up like a christmas tree.
Of course, you don't mention that, hoping that we are ignorant about that demolition and won't notice it.
Too bad, Brian. I know about that demo and know its differences compared with what we witnessed at ground zero.


I suspect that

You mean you made something up to fill in the foid caused by the fact that this is the only thermite demolition you can get a hold on.
Completely ignoring what Blanchard said about demolishing a building like the twin towers and why thermite would not be usefull for that..


If you think a NYT science writer with a PhD in astrophysics doesn't know steel from lead and aluminum, take it up with him.

Why?
You haven't proven what he said.


What makes you think the NYT was wrong about the steel being evaporated?


You are aware that steel evaporates at 5200F?
Thermite does not get that hot.


Dr. Barnett never disputed that claim.

That doesn't make it true.

The pictures look like the steel was evaporated.

And how would you know how vaporised steel looks like on a picture?


No practical source for the sulfur has been demonstrated--except thermate.

Nope, thermate won't cause a hot corrosion on the steel. Hot corrosion is caused by exposior to sulfur and extreme heat for a period of several days.


Gypsum is not a possible candidate because Calcium Sulfate is already fully oxidized, making it inert.

It decomposes at temperatures reached in the rubble pile, according to NASA imaging.
Also, gypsum is not the only possible source for sulfur.
Fuel is another source.


You are of course free to burn a bunch of mousepads and shower curtains and drywall with steel girders and see if you can make them evaporate.

You can't make steel evaporate using thermite or thermate.
that is the whole point.



It's obvious why thermite would be used--because it doesn't make explosive sounds, it doesn't leave explosive residues, and because bomb-sniffing dogs are not trained to look for thermite.

Yet you claim that lots of explosions were heared, that the thermite was only used to weaken the structure and that they did find evidence for thermite.

You keep on contradicting yourself, brian..

 
At 09 October, 2014 05:04, Blogger Ian said...

Don't you think that if mousepads could vaporize the steel that NIST would have demonstrated that they can?

Thermite doesn't vaporize steel. Nuclear weapons do. Thanks for proving Bill Deagle's point about micro-nukes planted by modified attack baboons.

 
At 09 October, 2014 05:08, Blogger Ian said...

There were plenty of explosions. Dozens of witnesses reported them.

Thermite doesn't explode, but micro-nukes do. Also, you're conveniently ignoring that one of the essential mysteries was burnt baboon fur found in the wreckage.

What makes you think I am a loser?

You're unemployed and live with your parents. You failed out of college. You have no friends. You have no romantic life. You were banned from the truth movement for stalking people.

Yeah, you're a loser.

 
At 09 October, 2014 05:11, Blogger Ian said...

Of course, your hideous homeless mullet is the biggest reason why you're a loser:

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

I mean, what do you think happens when people see you looking like that on the street. They're probably not thinking, "Well, there goes a sane, successful person."

 
At 09 October, 2014 08:02, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Brian can't comment on the lack of slag material left behind after the thermite reaction.

Why wasn't there a slitload of slag left behind on 9/11 Brian?

 
At 09 October, 2014 08:03, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Stewie, neither Carol nor Kevin nor Fatna witnessed me sexually harassing anyone. You seem to have a difficult time perceiving reality.

Brian, they're witnesses and yes you did exactly what they said you did. Now STFU you old fuck!

 
At 09 October, 2014 08:05, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

New York Times journalist James Glanz.

He isn't a Doctor Brian, You're lying out your ass again.

 
At 09 October, 2014 09:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

Stewie, Dr. James Glanz has a PhD in astrophysics from Princeton.

You guys all show a tendency to mistake facts for lies, which goes a long way to explain why you're so confused about 9/11.

 
At 09 October, 2014 09:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

Stewie, the evidence for slag left behind is well worth further investigation. Dr. James Glanz said he saw a stalagmite of formerly-molten steel in the basement. Photos exist of a 40-pound ingot of melted iron that wasd alleged to have been taken from the basement.

Neither Carol nor Kevin nor Fatna witnessed me sexually harassing anyone. You're not just lying, you're libeling me. Cease and desist.

 
At 09 October, 2014 10:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

Look at Skidmark, squealing on and on about haircuts. Where I come, successful people are often too busy for silly stuff like haircuts. You have provided no evidence of baboon fur in the rubble. You think that obsessive posting of dumb jokes about 9/11 is clever.

You lie and you lie and you lie, and your lies are libelous. Cease and desist.

 
At 09 October, 2014 12:41, Blogger truth hurts said...

Dr. James Glanz

And you call Stewie a liar...

 
At 09 October, 2014 12:45, Blogger truth hurts said...

Stewie, the evidence for slag left behind is well worth further investigation.

Again you contradict yourself, Brian.
You said that all the evidence was shipped away at a fast rate, so nothing could get examined..


Dr. James Glanz said he saw a stalagmite of formerly-molten steel in the basement.

A doctor in astrophysics you said..
What was he doing at ground zero?
And did he test the material to get a positive ID that it was in fact steel?


Photos exist of a 40-pound ingot of melted iron that wasd alleged to have been taken from the basement

And as usual, you don't show them...

But besides that: as has been stated before, the rubble pile reached extreme temperatures in the days after 911.
That covers just about everything you bring up.
You haven't shown even the smallest evidence for a thermite demolition.
You simpley made stuff up..

 
At 09 October, 2014 14:48, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Stewie, the evidence for slag left behind is well worth further investigation. Dr. James Glanz.........

There wasn't any slag you fucking goof. Don't you read anything you're told Brian? Are you that fucking illiterate? A journalist isn't a "Dr.", stop lying.

 
At 09 October, 2014 14:50, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Stewie, Dr. James Glanz has a PhD in astrophysics from Princeton.

Every time I google the SOB's name I always come across him as being a journalist.

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

Stop your lying Brian.

 
At 09 October, 2014 14:52, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

"Astrophysics (from Greek astron, ἄστρον "star", and physis, φύσις "nature") is the branch of astronomy that deals with the physics of the universe, especially with "the nature of the heavenly bodies, rather than their positions or motions in space."

WTF does the WTC and 9/11 have to do with space? You're trying to confuse people that the Death Star is "operational" ain't ya?

 
At 09 October, 2014 15:28, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Brian's world according to popular TV shows. Cause Brian's mind is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out there.


Outer Limits:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCcdr4O-3gE

X Files:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQoRXhS7vlU

Twilight Zone:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzlG28B-R8Y

Batman:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSaDPc1Cs5U

Star Trek:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdjL8WXjlGI

 
At 09 October, 2014 15:37, Blogger Ian said...

Look at Skidmark, squealing on and on about haircuts. Where I come, successful people are often too busy for silly stuff like haircuts.

Poor Brian. Nothing humiliates him more than my merciless ridicule of his hideous haircut.

Brian, where you come from is your parents basement. Also, your definition of "success" is being unemployed at age 60 with no friends, no romantic life, and nothing to do all day but post spam about magic thermite elves everywhere.

You have provided no evidence of baboon fur in the rubble.

I haven't, but Bill Deagle has. If you knew how to Google, you'd know this. Also, you might not be so confused about 9/11.

You lie and you lie and you lie, and your lies are libelous. Cease and desist.

Squeal squeal squeal!

Poor Brian. He's so stupid, he thinks it's libel for me to point out how hideous his haircut is!

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

Brian's world according to popular TV shows.

Those shows are way too cerebral for Brian. He prefers Barney the Dinosaur. That's where he got the name "punxsutawneybarney" that he uses to post homosexual stalker spam about Willie Rodriguez all over Youtube.

 
At 09 October, 2014 23:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

th, I never said the stupid things you attribute to me. Thanks for exhibiting your lack of reading comprehension yet again.

I didn't make anything up.

Stewie, lots of journalists have PhDs. Thanks for exhibiting your ignorance. Your own link says Dr. Glanz has a PhD in astrophysics from Princeton--just as I said.

The destruction of the WTC has to do with physics, Stewie. Try to keep up.

Lyin Ianinny is posting more lyin Iananity I see.




 
At 10 October, 2014 04:33, Blogger truth hurts said...

I never said the stupid things you attribute to me.

I'm glad you find them stupid as well.

and anyone can read that you did write them, Brian..


I didn't make anything up.

You even made that up...


Stewie, lots of journalists have PhDs.

And what is the relevance?


Your own link says Dr. Glanz has a PhD in astrophysics from Princeton-

911 isn't about astrophysics, Brian.


The destruction of the WTC has to do with physics

not with astrophysics, brian...

 
At 10 October, 2014 06:07, Blogger Ian said...

Lyin Ianinny is posting more lyin Iananity I see.

Brian, unfortunately, I won't be able to humiliate you this weekend, as my wife and I are headed on a trip out of town. You wouldn't understand, since you have no money and no romantic life.

But rest assured, I'll be back to humiliate you over your "widows" next week. And 10 years from now, when I'm living in an affluent town and preparing to send my kids to an Ivy League school, and you're living in a homeless shelter, I'll still taunt you over the "widows" and the fact that nobody ever answered their "questions". HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!

 
At 10 October, 2014 17:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

th, the relevance of the fact that the NYT science writer Dr. James Glanz (as well as a lot of other journalists) has a PhD is that it refutes Stewie's ignorant claim that one could not be both a "Dr." and a journalist.

Dr. Glanz is relevant to the discussion because he claimed he saw a stalagmite of melted steel in the WTC basement, and thus refuted the ignorant claim that there was no slag from thermite.

9/11 isn't about astrophysics, correct. I didn't say it was. It's about first-year college physics--the first law of thermodynamics, Newton's 3rd law, and the law of conservation of angular momentum. Dr. Glanz is surely competent in all of those areas. Also, as a science writer for the NYT he deserves IMHO the assumption that if he saw a stalagmite of melted metal, he would scrape it with a key to see if it was lead or aluminum or steel before reporting that it was steel. If you think he does not deserve that assumption, you are free to take it up with him.

Lyininny,your belief that you know my financial status is just your usual silly clairvoyance. Unlike you, I know that it is necessary to be able to articulate both the bullish position and the bearish position in the financial markets at any given time.

Your contempt for the 9/11 is widows is all that anyone needs to know about you, Skidmark.







 
At 12 October, 2014 14:23, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Stewie, lots of journalists have PhDs. Thanks for exhibiting your ignorance.

Care to explain why you're not a journalist with a PHD in dumb shit behavior?

 
At 12 October, 2014 14:24, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Wonder why Brian doesn't talk about the lack of slag left behind by thermite?

 
At 12 October, 2014 15:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

There is no lack of slag left behind by thermite. Dr. Glanz reported on a atalagmnite of formerly-molten steel. Have you forgotten already?

 
At 12 October, 2014 19:33, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

There is no lack of slag left behind by thermite. Dr. Glanz reported on a atalagmnite of formerly-molten steel. Have you forgotten already?

Until you prove that "Dr" Glanz actually works in the field other than astrophysics I'm not buying a fucking thing you say Brian.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home