Saturday, December 20, 2014

Something Rotten in the State of Denmark

A bunch of Danish Truthers appear in this video, mostly focused on WTC-7, including one rather famous one, Niels Harrit.



It's the usual collection of hogwash--never before, free-fall speed, small fires, etc.  They do get into the Pentagon crap as well, coming down firmly on the missile theory.

But I noticed one very curious thing.  Harrit, whose name appeared first on the infamous "peer-reviewed study" that "proved" nano-thermite was in the WTC dust, and who probably gets the most face-time in the movie, never once mentions thermite at all.  Remember, he's the one with the supposed chemistry credentials, who gave "credibility" to the paper.

67 Comments:

At 20 December, 2014 09:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

What's hogwash about "never before", Pat? Can you name a modern highrise skyscraper that collapsed from fire before the three skyscrapers fell on 9/11?

What's hogwash about "small fires"? Fire protection engineers tell us that the black smoke emanating from the towers showed that the fires were oxygen starved and very inefficient. What pictures do you have of WTCV7 that show anything other than small fires? NISt says that fires persisted on only six floors of WTC7.

What's hogwash about freefall? NIST acknowledged the freefall of the towers when it said the buildings came down "essentially in free fall" and when its report admitted that WTC7 came down for a period of 2.25 seconds in freefall.

Do you dispute Dr. Harrit's "supposed chemistry credentials"? On what basis?

 
At 20 December, 2014 10:45, Blogger Pat said...

The usual collection of hogwash from Brian. Can you name a modern high-rise skyscraper that was allowed to burn uncontrolled for 7+ hours with no firefighting efforts? Small fires? How about we ask some of the firemen involved? Kevin Howe: "At that time there was a lot of fire going on. I think it was the Customs House was roaring. The 7 World Trade Center was roaring."

Another thirteen firefighters mentioned the danger of collapse with WTC-7, noting that the fire chief had ordered a collapse zone be set up around the building.

Harrit states that the building imploded at freefall speed, not specifying the first 2.25 seconds.

If you buy Harrit's credentials, then why does he not mention his peer-reviewed paper, which "proved" the existence of nano-thermite in the dust?

 
At 20 December, 2014 10:54, Blogger Pat said...

Besides, as I recall, you've "always been a skeptic" on the nano-thermite claims.

 
At 21 December, 2014 07:45, Blogger truth hurts said...

NIST acknowledged the freefall of the towers when it said the buildings came down "essentially in free fall"

That is even more hogwash.
Saying that something was essentially in free fall doesn't make it a fact.


and when its report admitted that WTC7 came down for a period of 2.25 seconds in freefall

And with that, you yourself admit that the collapse wasn't at free fall speed, only 2.25 seconds were.

This is why the truther movement hasn't been able to get anything done in the 13 years after 911: they keep on lying about the events and make up their own facts.

 
At 21 December, 2014 07:48, Blogger truth hurts said...

What i found appaling is that Harrit calls the collapse of wtc7 the biggest event in history..

WTF?? The collapse of an empty building?

But for the rest, the video is again a masterpiece of truther propaganda.
They don't actually state anything.
Like Pat pointed out, Harrit doesn't even dare to name his thermite 'theory' .
They carefully keep it all fluent, so nothing can stick on it.

 
At 21 December, 2014 10:05, Blogger truth hurts said...

Fire protection engineers tell us that the black smoke emanating from the towers showed that the fires were oxygen starved and very inefficient.

Also a bogus fun statement.
Anyone who is able to use Google (which excludes Brian, as we have seen when he was bouncing of the walls after seeing pictures of Willy on this blog)can find pictures of oil platform burning with large clouds of thick black smoke, while those fires were anything but oxygen starved.

 
At 21 December, 2014 11:06, Blogger Ian said...

Yes, Brian Good has been released from jail and can post more hysterical spam about magic thermite elves just in time for Christmas!

 
At 21 December, 2014 11:09, Blogger Ian said...

Saying that something was essentially in free fall doesn't make it a fact.

NIST doesn't say that. Brian says that because he's a pathetic liar who thinks we can't check for ourselves what NIST says.

Brian is as good at lying as he is at holding down a job (he's unemployed and lives with his parents).

 
At 21 December, 2014 11:10, Blogger Ian said...

Hey Brian, what do you think will happen first: will you get a single question from your "widows" answered, or will you get a decent haircut instead of a hideous homeless mullet?

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

 
At 21 December, 2014 14:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

Pat, your framing of the issue as "a modern high-rise skyscraper that was allowed to burn uncontrolled for 7+ hours with no firefighting efforts" is skewed because of course skyscrapers are not allowed to burn with no firefighting efforts--except in the case of WTC7 on 9/11.

Why do you cite a witness who thinks the Custom House was "roaring"? Do you know where the Customs House is located? Did you do any check for corroboration of the claim that the Customs House was "roaring"?

How come none of the FDNY witnesses' claims about the fires were quoted in the FEMA report or the NIST report?

I didn't say I bought or did not buy Dr. Harrit's credentials. I asked you upon what basis you disputed them--and your answer to that question was completely non-sequitur.

NIST says the fires in WTC7 persisted on only 6 floors. On none of those floors is there photo evidence of fires before 2:00 p.m. So where do you get your spec of fires "allowed to burn uncontrolled for 7+ hours"?

I have a healthy skepticism of the nano-thermite claims, as any rational person should. I think the claims deserve further investigation because. unlike you, simple skepticism is not enough for me to dispose of a question.

 
At 21 December, 2014 14:57, Blogger snug.bug said...

th, I won't criticize someone for not knowing what "fluent" means, but I will criticize them for using the word when they don't know what it means.

 
At 21 December, 2014 15:54, Blogger truth hurts said...

of course skyscrapers are not allowed to burn with no firefighting efforts--except in the case of WTC7 on 9/11.

So you agree that Pat has a point here.
Also, keep in mind that wtc7 was severely damaged, which wasn't the case with other steel skyscrapers that were on fire.

How come none of the FDNY witnesses' claims about the fires were quoted in the FEMA report or the NIST report?

Nobody cares about your twists, Brian...


I didn't say I bought or did not buy Dr. Harrit's credentials

Yup, trying to be fluent, not sticking to any hard statements, Brian.
For someone who is kicked out of the truther movment, you surely have learned how to behave like a truther.


NIST says

And you said that NIST was dishonest ( i know, you did not intend to say that, so don't bother to try to counter this in order to remain fluent, Brian...), so there is no point in using statements of NIST, Brian..


On none of those floors is there photo evidence of fires before 2:00 p.m. So where do you get your spec of fires "allowed to burn uncontrolled for 7+ hours"?

Do you have any evidence that the building wasn't on fire 7 hours prior to the collapse?
I know that there is no point in asking what proof you have that none of the pictures were taken before 2:00 PM..

I have a healthy skepticism of the nano-thermite claims, as any rational person should. I think the claims deserve further investigation because. unlike you, simple skepticism is not enough for me to dispose of a question.

So the scientific report of Harrit about the nano thermite did not convince you.
Care to explain why?

 
At 21 December, 2014 15:56, Blogger truth hurts said...

I will criticize them for using the word when they don't know what it means.

A creative way of saying that you don't understand what i mean by the use of Fluent...

But that was to be expected.

 
At 21 December, 2014 16:03, Blogger Marc Ferris said...

"Pat, your framing of the issue as "a modern high-rise skyscraper that was allowed to burn uncontrolled for 7+ hours with no firefighting efforts" is skewed because of course skyscrapers are not allowed to burn with no firefighting efforts--except in the case of WTC7 on 9/11. "

It's not skewed, it's accurate. And since no other building has been allowed to burn for 7+ hours nobody can say what should or shouldn't happen.

Again, you ignore the damage to WTC7 from WTC1 that ignited the fire(s) to begin with. This is why you fail. The collapses did not happen in a vacuum. It all started with 2 plane crashes.

"How come none of the FDNY witnesses' claims about the fires were quoted in the FEMA report or the NIST report?"

Because the fires have never been in question.

 
At 21 December, 2014 16:19, Blogger Ian said...

Well, I see Brian is so humiliated by me that he doesn't even address my points. He'd rather pretend they don't exist.

That's funny, considering that Brian pretends that widows exist.

 
At 21 December, 2014 16:42, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

If we follow truther logic buildings are needlessly made with fire protection and firefighters don't need to try to put them out.

 
At 21 December, 2014 16:45, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

A creative way of saying that you don't understand what i mean by the use of Fluent...

But that was to be expected.


Indeed...and don't expect Brian to let on for a minute he was just ignorant. I love pointing out how Brian said the collapses were as "symmetrical as anything found in nature". Yet when Brian sees he is wholly wrong he runs in circles.

 
At 21 December, 2014 19:31, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Forget it guys. Brian knows that thermite was never present on 9/11. He's just mocking the other TM idiots because they're slowly backing away from the thermite issue cause frankly there's nothing there to support it.

And of course Brian said that he didn't want to get into an discussions about thermite cause he's confused on the matter. First he claims thermite then drops it like a hot potatoe the next. Then when it's brought up again he's all for it until his dream is smashed by the reality that he's not a FDNY firefighter, he was never any where near the Twin Towers, the Pentagon nor Shanksville, PA. All he does is parrot the same stupid BS that others have parroted for the last 13 yrs.

 
At 21 December, 2014 22:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, as usual you make up your "facts". Since 9/11 we've had spectacular highrise fires in Shangai, Beijing, Grozny, Dubai, and Moscow. Were any of those fires extinguished in less than 7 hours?

I ignore the damage to WTC7 because NIST ignores the damage to WTC7. They day it played no part in the initiation of the collapse.

Your claim that the fires have never been in question is absurd. NIST certainly rejected the firefighters' tales of massive fires, reporting that fires only persisted on six floors.

GMS, buildings need fire protection to get the two and three hour ratings that are required. Since office fires burn at most 1/2 hour in any given location before all the fuel is consumed, that is sufficient to protect the building. WTC7 did not suffer any damage to the fire protection.

th is such an idiot he thinks he can invent his own definitions for words.

 
At 22 December, 2014 02:13, Blogger truth hurts said...

Were any of those fires extinguished in less than 7 hours?


Not the point.
Point is that those fires were met with some form of firefighting, while the fires in wtc7 did not have any.


I ignore the damage to WTC7 because NIST

Yet you call NIST dishonest.
That is the fun with you. You dismiss the NIST reports because you find them dishonest, but at the same time you only follow what NIST might have said...

ignores the damage to WTC7. They day it played no part in the initiation of the collapse.

So you accept the position of NIST on WTC7.
Well, that means that there is no need for a new investigation.
Case closed.

Having said that;
The collapse initiation is not the issue. The issue here is how a local collapse turned into a global collapse.
NIST has shown that fire alone would make the whole building collapse.
And now that you admitted that NIST was correct with their findings, there is no longer any need on this blog for a new investigation.


NIST certainly rejected the firefighters' tales of massive fires

The same NIST that you called dishonest..
Fun to see how you cling onto NIST.

But that is not the only joke, the main joke is that you still have no idea what the objective of the NIST investigation was.


GMS, buildings need fire protection to get the two and three hour ratings that are required.

And why is that, Brian?

Since office fires burn at most 1/2 hour in any given location before all the fuel is consumed, that is sufficient to protect the building.

If a fire can only burn for 1/2 hour, then why does the fire protection need 3 hour ratings? That is 6 times more than necessary according to your own babbling...


WTC7 did not suffer any damage to the fire protection.

WTC7 burned for 7 hours, and as you stated, fire protection only protects for 2-3 hours.

th is such an idiot he thinks he can invent his own definitions for words

The fun is that you still have no clue what fluent means in that context
But that is not surprising, coming from someone who believes that pictures don't exist when he can't find them with Google, while everyone else finds the pictures with just 2 mouse clicks..

No wonder you were kicked out of the truther movement.
No wonder you cannot even hold a job mopping floors..

 
At 22 December, 2014 05:11, Blogger Ian said...

th is such an idiot he thinks he can invent his own definitions for words.

Brian is a failed janitor who lives with his parents because he's too stupid to mop floors competently, and yet he's babbling about how others don't understand what words mean. It's hilarious.

Also, Brian, it's December 22. You've got 9 days left to get all of the widows' questions answered before another year is wasted.

 
At 22 December, 2014 05:15, Blogger Ian said...

Since office fires burn at most 1/2 hour in any given location before all the fuel is consumed, that is sufficient to protect the building.

Yes, Brian is babbling about nomadic fires again! Brian, you still haven't told us if nomadic fires ride camels to the next source of fuel. I told Laurie Van Auken that you won't answer my questions and she burst into tears.

Why do you take pleasure in the widows' pain? What's wrong with you.

 
At 22 December, 2014 08:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

th, yes, the question of whether any of the five spectacular highrise fires were extinguished in less than 7 hours is exactly the point--because MGF made the silly claim that the fires (he claimed 7 hours) in WTC7 burned uncontrolled for an unprecedented length of time.

In fact there are no photos of fires at all until noon, and the fires on the floors where fires persisted did not begin until 2:00.

You guys make up your facts. You're a waste of time.

 
At 22 December, 2014 08:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 22 December, 2014 10:13, Blogger truth hurts said...

h, yes, the question of whether any of the five spectacular highrise fires were extinguished in less than 7 hours is exactly the point--because

Nope, it is not.

MGF made the silly claim that the fires (he claimed 7 hours) in WTC7 burned uncontrolled for an unprecedented length of time.

They did, as in all the examples you gave, the fires met active firefighting, while wtc7 did not receive any.
Also, some of the buildings you mentioned were build after the nist reports came out and some were empty at the time of fire, reducing the amount of available fuel.


In fact there are no photos of fires at all until noon

A fact that you haven't proven yet.
Also, the absence of evidence isn't evidence.


and the fires on the floors where fires persisted did not begin until 2:00

a bogus argument as you yourself stated that fires don't burn for 7 hours at one particular place.

But none of this matters anymore, as you now accept NIST as a credible authority on this field, and their reports clearly showed how the building could collapse when on fire.

 
At 22 December, 2014 10:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

th, you seem to be missing the fact that the five spectacular highrise fires that seem to have burned more that 7 hours did so despite the efforts of firefighters to fight them.

By contrast, the WTC7 fires were wimpy despite the lack of firefighting effort.

Your belief that the wimpy WTC7 fires were somehow more severe than the spectacular highrise fires simply because the former were unfought and the latter were fought is very, very silly.

 
At 22 December, 2014 11:39, Blogger truth hurts said...

th, you seem to be missing the fact that the five spectacular highrise fires that seem to have burned more that 7 hours did so despite the efforts of firefighters to fight them.

And you are missing the fact that those fires looked spectacular because they were filmed at night and two of the buildings had their facade burning.

By contrast, the WTC7 fires were wimpy despite the lack of firefighting effort.

So what you are basicly saying is that fighting the fires in a high rise building is useless, as uncontrolled fires will remain wimpy and that larger than wimpy fires will remain that way despite the firefighting effort..


Your belief that the wimpy WTC7 fires were somehow more severe than the spectacular highrise fires simply because the former were unfought and the latter were fought is very, very silly.

You still haven't proven that the fires were wimpy, or that an uncontrolled fire in an open space office building would remain wimpy for 7 hours.

You also failed to answer why you don't accept the scientific paper that Harrit wrote about his scientific research into the presence of nanothermite in the wtc buildings.

 
At 22 December, 2014 15:14, Blogger Ian said...

By contrast, the WTC7 fires were wimpy despite the lack of firefighting effort.

Your belief that the wimpy WTC7 fires were somehow more severe than the spectacular highrise fires simply because the former were unfought and the latter were fought is very, very silly.


Well, that's it. I've convinced that 9/11 was an inside job. After all, if a failed janitor who lives with his parents says that the fires were "wimpy" (that's a serious technical term, of course), who are we to argue?

 
At 22 December, 2014 15:36, Blogger Billman said...

I remember when he called the fires "soggy" and "campfire" like.

 
At 22 December, 2014 17:39, Blogger Marc Ferris said...

Brian has to ignore a lot of basic facts to make his flaccid arguments.

WTC7 was CLEARLY damaged by WTC1. The few photos of the face of the building show at least one floor had a chunk taken out.

None of the other buildings Brian thinks burned were constructed anything like WTC7. He needs all buildings to be the same to make is silly claims, and the truth is that they are not.

 
At 22 December, 2014 17:49, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

GMS, buildings need fire protection to get the two and three hour ratings that are required. Since office fires burn at most 1/2 hour in any given location before all the fuel is consumed, that is sufficient to protect the building.

And why do they require that rating if they don't need them? Good job being irrelevant.

WTC7 did not suffer any damage to the fire protection.

Cool story, bro. But it's nice of you to point out the fire ratings. Funny enough WTC 7 burned well past those ratings. But you know that. Not that reality has ever had an effect on you.

 
At 22 December, 2014 17:51, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

th is such an idiot he thinks he can invent his own definitions for words.

Or you are just so self deluded you can't be bothered to find out if there is a definition you are not familiar with. Don't worry, Brian, we all know which reason is correct.

 
At 22 December, 2014 22:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

th, the fires in WTC7 are proven to be wimpy because there are no photos that show that they are not wimpy. In fact the photographic record shows that the fire on floor 12 (the fire that is alleged to have caused the collapse) burned out an hour before the collapse.

MGF, the claim was made that WTC7 was a unique case because the fires burned a long time. I showed that WTC7 did not burn as long as was claimed, and no one showed that the other buildings burned for less time than WTC7 did.

You are changing to the subject to WTC7's alleged unique construction, which was not part of the issue under discussion (the length of time of the fires). If you think features of WTC7's construction were sufficient to cause the collapse, it is for you to identify those features and to explain why NIST did not declare the building's design or construction to be substandard.

 
At 22 December, 2014 23:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

GMS, it is usual in engineering practice to operate with substantial safety factors. The tradition comes from the days when calculations were done with slide rules instead of computers. I remember being told by an engineering professor that a factor of five was not unusual for steel construction.

Thus the fire rating overload. It is hardly surprising that a building designed to resist a half-hour office fire was rated for two to three hours,and it's hardly surprising that a building with three-hour fire ratings could burn much longer than that.

Please educate me. What was th's definition of "fluent" when he wrote "Harrit doesn't even dare to name his thermite 'theory' .
They carefully keep it all fluent, so nothing can stick on it."



Capiche?

 
At 23 December, 2014 01:00, Blogger truth hurts said...

th, the fires in WTC7 are proven to be wimpy because there are no photos that show that they are not wimpy.

the absence of evidence isn't evidence, Brian.
Having that said; there are pictures showing complete floors on fire, with flames of several feet high coming through broken windows.


In fact the photographic record shows that the fire on floor 12 (the fire that is alleged to have caused the collapse) burned out an hour before the collapse.

And for some lame reason, you believe that when the fire is out, the building is safe?


the claim was made that WTC7 was a unique case because the fires burned a long time.

Nope, the claim was made that wtc7 was unique because the fires burned uncontrolled. You cleverly try to ommit that part, but we don't buy it, Brian.


I showed that WTC7 did not burn as long as was claimed

You haven't shown anything.
You did not show a single picture of WTC7 prior to 2PM that revealed that WTC7 wasn't on fire at that time.
Not even one.


and no one showed that the other buildings burned for less time than WTC7 did.

irrelevant.


You are changing to the subject to WTC7's alleged unique construction,

it is not alleged, it is proven to be unique.
And you hate that fact, that is why you want to leave it out of the discussion.


explain why NIST did not declare the building's design or construction to be substandard.

You called NIST dishonest, so there is no point to explain that.
But nevertheless: NIST pointed out very clear what the flaw was in the design of WTC7, which caused it to collapse.

 
At 23 December, 2014 01:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

th, the photo evidence is that the fires in WTC7 were wimpy. NIST seems to agree.

If you disagree, you are free to try to make a case.

 
At 23 December, 2014 01:16, Blogger truth hurts said...

it is usual in engineering practice to operate with substantial safety factors.

The safety factor according to you was 2-3 hours. WTC7 burned for 7 hours.
That is way beyond its safety factor.


The tradition comes from the days when calculations were done with slide rules instead of computers. I remember being told by an engineering professor that a factor of five was not unusual for steel construction.

that is not the point.
The point is that truthers like you claim that a steel framed structure cannot ever collapse due to fire. If that is the case, then why even bother to fireprove it?


It is hardly surprising that a building designed to resist a half-hour office fire was rated for two to three hours,and it's hardly surprising that a building with three-hour fire ratings could burn much longer than that.

They did burn longer than that: they burned for 7 hours.
That is way above your half hour and way above the 2-3 hours.
So the collapse of the building cannot be a surprise.
Only people desperate to get an inside job out of 911 would find it a surprise...
Like Harrit, who is so desperate that he called the predicted collapse of an empty building on 911 the biggest event in history.


Please educate me. What was th's definition of "fluent" when he wrote "Harrit doesn't even dare to name his thermite 'theory' .
They carefully keep it all fluent, so nothing can stick on it."


Aah, all of the sudden, you decided to ask what somebody meant, in stead of being an asshole who pretends to know everything.
Well, you didn't ask me, so i won't answer.
I can give you a hint though:
fluent, fluid, smooth, liquid...

 
At 23 December, 2014 01:20, Blogger truth hurts said...

th, the photo evidence is that the fires in WTC7 were wimpy.

You haven't shown any picture showing wimpy fires in WTC7.

Every sane person knows that an uncontrolled fire burning in an open space office building for 7 hours won't remain wimpy.


NIST seems to agree

seems to, meaning that you aren't sure about that.
you also called NIST dishonest, so your references to NIST, whether they are unsure or not, are bogus.

 
At 23 December, 2014 05:07, Blogger Ian said...

Let the record show that Brian is so terrified of me humiliating him again that he hasn't responded once to me in this thread. Somewhere, deep in that malfunctioning mind of his, he's finally figured out that if he doesn't say anything, I can't pwn him yet again.

Of course, he's still babbling about wimpy fires in WTC 7 (always with the lunatic obsession with the irrelevant WTC 7), so he can still be mocked mercilessly. And of course he's still a failed janitor who was banned from the truth movement, so the mockery practically writes itself.

 
At 23 December, 2014 05:08, Blogger Ian said...

Hey Brian, I'm aware that you have no idea how to Google, which is why you're so confused about 9/11, but there's a rumor going around that Willie Rodriguez is going to receive the Medal of Freedom. Amazing!

 
At 23 December, 2014 10:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

th, no the "safety factor" was not 2-3 hours. The fire resistance rating was 2-3 hours.

A safety factor is a multiple by which you increase the building's specs. So if you calculate that a column needs to support 10,000 tons you design it to support 50,000 tons to give it a safety factor of 5.

ALL of the photos of the WTC7 fires show wimpy fires. There are no photos showing anything but wimpy fires in WTC7.

Steel-framed high rise structures can not collapse from fire--except on 9/11, when three of them can. In dozens of high-rise fires, none of them have totally collapsed before or after 9/11.

You have no evidence to support your claim that WTC7 burned for 7 hours. The first photos of any WTC7 fires at all were at noon. The first photos of any fires on the floors where the fires persisted were at 2:00 pm.

 
At 23 December, 2014 16:32, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

GMS, it is usual in engineering practice to operate with substantial safety factors...

Brian, the voices in your head are not real engineers. Regardless, a safety factor implies a real quantifiable danger, one you derps pretend doesn't exist. Hence, why you think "the first time in history" canard is impressive.

Thus the fire rating overload. It is hardly surprising that a building designed to resist a half-hour office fire was rated for two to three hours,and it's hardly surprising that a building with three-hour fire ratings could burn much longer than that.

Nice nonsensical rambling. Buildings get fire safety ratings based on their design, not the other way around.

Please educate me. What was th's definition of "fluent" ...

FFS you're useless. How can you expect anyone to take you seriously if you are so abjectly lazy or incapable of finding something so simple by yourself?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fluent


Capiche?

Trust me, I well understand you're a rube.

 
At 23 December, 2014 16:32, Blogger truth hurts said...

The fire resistance rating was 2-3 hours.

as you said earlier.
wtc7 burned for 7 hours, that is a lot more than the rating, Brian..

ALL of the photos of the WTC7 fires show wimpy fires. There are no photos showing anything but wimpy fires in WTC7.

Totally irrelevant, Brian.
You haven't shown any picture of wimpy fires.


Steel-framed high rise structures can not collapse from fire

So they don't need fireproving.
But they do have fireproving.
Care to tell us why, Brian?
I know that you won't answer that question.


--except on 9/11, when three of them can.

Indeed and of course, you will ommit the small detail that those high rises were severely damaged before they started to burn.


You have no evidence to support your claim that WTC7 burned for 7 hours.

Yes there is, according to NIST, the first sign of fires in the building were observed around 10:00 AM.



The first photos of any WTC7 fires at all were at noon. The first photos of any fires on the floors where the fires persisted were at 2:00 pm.

Not relevant.
You have to look at all the evidence, not just the ones you like.
I am aware that you try to keep your arguments fluent, Brian. As soon as i present a picture of fires prior to 2:00 pm, you will simply drop that argument and argue that there is no video evidence prior to 2:00 and so on.
That is why after 13 years, you still have nothing.

The facts are, according to NIST, who you like to quote if it suits you:
at 10:00 AM the first sign of fire in wtc7 was observed. That is even prior to the collapse of wtc1.
At 10:28, large amounts of smoke coming from wtc7 were observed
at 12:15 fires were observed on the west side of wtc7
at 12:30, fires were observed on the 10th to 15th floor of wtc7
on 14:00 fires were observed along the whole side of the building on several floors
at 15:00 fires were seen on north side of the building on several floors.
At that time, Daniel Nigro decides to evacuate the area around wtc7 because they fear the building will collapse (and of course, you won't explain why the fire brigade would fear an impossible collapse)
at 15:15 fires were observed on several floors, traveling in all directions
at 16:45 floor 12 was burned out.
Other floors were still burning
at 17:21, wtc7 collapsed.


You must be very desperate for attention if you ommmit all those facts for the sake of making the collapse of wtc7 significant, Brian...

 
At 23 December, 2014 16:36, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

ALL of the photos of the WTC7 fires show wimpy fires. There are no photos showing anything but wimpy fires in WTC7...


Steel-framed high rise structures can not collapse from fire--except on 9/11..

Brian, no one cares what an irrelevant nobody thinks on these subjects. I always love how you run around telling everyone else they are not an expert, but in almost every post you demonstrate you are so deluded that you think we should treat your opinions as those of an expert.

 
At 23 December, 2014 16:44, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Only in Brian's stupid world could fire blazing out of a building could be considered "wimpy". Of course that's why Brian has to pretend he's relevant by kissing Gage's ass, and obsessing about Willy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVHuAexB83w#t=1m16s

Or creates a wall of smoke the length of the building. Cue Brian parroting some of Dickie Gage's baseless assertions in 3, 2...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvJpNPTom0Q

 
At 23 December, 2014 19:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

GMS, there's a difference between structural design and fire protection design.

The quantifiable dangers in structural design are the forces of gravity operating on the structure, on its contents, on snow pack; and wind forces. I never denied that they exist.

I never denied that fires represent quantified dangers in steel buildings. It is a fact that no modern steel-frame highrise has ever collapsed before 9/11 or after 9/11.

I didn't ask you for the dictionary definition of "fluent". I know that. I asked you for th's definition of "fluent".

th, you don't have any evidence to back up your claim that "wtc7 burned for 7 hours". A small fire in a large building is not a building burning. It's simply a small fire. There are no photos of fires before noon, and no photos of fires on floors where fires persisted there are no photos before 2 pm. Who "observed" these fires you claim, and where did NIST report them?

I've already explained dozens of times why the fire crews could reasonably expect a collapse. There were reliable reports of explosions inside the building before 11 am, and they found an elevator car blown 20 feet down the hallway from its hoistway.

GMS, modern steel-frame highrises do not collapse from fires--except on 9/11.

Your belief that fire "blazing out of a building" means the fire is not wimpy is silly. It's blazing out of about six windows.
There are 450 windows in the buildings. Compared with the 6 spectacular highrise fires we've seen since 9/11 (Shanghai, Dubai, Beijing, Grozny, Moscow) WTC7s fires were wimpy.

Your persistent and delusional belief that the WTC7 fires created "a wall of smoke the length of the building" is silly. And the NIST report says so.







 
At 24 December, 2014 00:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

I note that Pat was never able to back up his claim that free-fall and small fires were "hogwash" nor point out any problem with Dr. Harrit's credentials.

 
At 24 December, 2014 01:09, Blogger truth hurts said...

And i note that you decided to completely ignore the fact that everyone else has pointed out to you why your arguments are a collection of hoghwash, while Pat clearly explained in his first post why your arguments are a collection of hoghwash.

Such tactics only result in you getting nothing, not even after 13 years...

 
At 24 December, 2014 05:18, Blogger Ian said...

Just remember, everyone, Brian is babbling about WTC 7 because, to they eyes of a mentally ill unemployed janitor looking at youtube videos shot from the north, it resembled a controlled demolition. It's a clear admission that nothing about the destruction of WTC 1 and 2 was like a controlled demolition, as well as the fact that the airplane impacts were a major cause of the collapse.

Of course, since we're talking about someone too stupid to mop floors for a living, his endless babbling about WTC 7 just goes to show how desperate he is to believe that 9/11 was an inside job, since WTC 7 is completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of 9/11.

And Brian's not alone here. The other 20 or so truthers left in the US also babble about WTC 7. They also realize they've got nothing else.

 
At 24 December, 2014 07:05, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

GMS, there's a difference between structural design and fire protection design.

Funny enough...we were talking about the fire rating. But you went on to talk about safety factors. Thanks for admitting you conflated the 2.

The quantifiable dangers in structural design are the forces of gravity operating on the structure, on its contents, on snow pack; and wind forces. I never denied that they exist.

No one said you did. Sadly your conflation of safety factor and fire rating ultimately led to proving your inability to discern the 2, and even in your failure proved you wrong in any case.

I never denied that fires represent quantified dangers in steel buildings. It is a fact that no modern steel-frame highrise has ever collapsed before 9/11 or after 9/11.

Yes we know Brian, much like creationists believe in "microevolution", but some magical force prevents "macroevolution", you likewise think some magical force prevents larger steel buildings from being impacted by heat while smaller ones can be. You guys really should get together to pad your numbers Regardless, as has been pointed out the "never before"canard is fallacious, not that logic has ever been relevant to you.

I didn't ask you for the dictionary definition of "fluent". I know that. I asked you for th's definition of "fluent".

Derp...anyone who has the 3rd grade ability of distinguishing context clues would have known what he meant, or anyone familiar with dictionaries would have known to look it up. Thanks for proving you're a dumb ass, again. I love how you pretend we should just take your baseless claims on face value, but fail at basic language skills.


GMS, modern steel-frame highrises do not collapse from fires--except on 9/11.

More baseless claims from, Brian. Sorry Brian, when you can demonstrate the basic skills of a grammar school student, let us know.

Your belief that fire "blazing out of a building" means the fire is not wimpy is silly...

Composition fallacy. We have observed large roaring fires in the building, and massive amounts of smoke coming from the building. Your hand-waving and repeats of mantras is not impressive. In fact, it's laughable.

Your persistent and delusional belief that the WTC7 fires created "a wall of smoke the length of the building" is silly. And the NIST report says so.

LOL! And Brian sherry picks when to believe NIST, again. Cool quote them. Sorry Brian the video evidence and reality in general disagrees with your incessant dancing.

 
At 24 December, 2014 07:11, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Brian, it's fairly simple, your irrelevant opinions, and a collection of a relatively few people in the relevant fields say it couldn't happen.

Sadly, its been almost a decade now and they still haven't established these opinions anywhere in an actual academic forum to validate these claims. You know this, I know this. And like all claims of a scientific nature, this means there is no reason to take it seriously. So run along and let us know when that happens.

Brian's mental backflips to follow.

 
At 24 December, 2014 07:11, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 24 December, 2014 09:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

th, maybe someday you will learn the difference between asserting and explaining, but I doubt you have the mental capacity.

Pat did not back up his claims that free-fall and small fires were "hogwash" nor point out any problem with Dr. Harrit's credentials.

GMS, the quantifiable dangers in structural design are the forces of gravity operating on the structure, on its contents, on snow pack; and wind forces. You claimed that "a safety factor implies a real quantifiable danger, one you derps pretend doesn't exist." I never denied that they exist. I never heard of anyone deny that they exist. You guys love to pork your straw dolls, don't you?

th ignorantly conflated the fire rating and the safety factor when he said "the safety factor according to you was 2-3 hours." The safety factor is not measured in hours and I never said it was. You guys love to pork your straw dolls, don't you?

The safety factor of a building's structure affects the fire resistance rating because if a component is 500% as strong as is needed to carry the load, it can lose 50% of its strength and still be 250% as strong as is needed to carry the load.

I never said any magical forces impact buildings, and I never denied that fires represent quantified dangers in steel buildings. You guys love to pork your straw dolls, don't you?,

It is a fact and not a canard that no modern steel-frame highrise has totally collapsed from fire before 9/11 or after 9/11. A fact is not a canard, no matter how many times you close your eyes and click your heels together. The reason "small" buildings sometimes collapse is because they have lighter steel structures than large ones do, and they do not have fireproofing.

I know the definition of "fluent" and I know what th meant. He meant "fluid" and he wrote "fluent" and then he tried to pretend there was no difference because he is constitutionally unable to admit when he is wrong.

You did not observe massive amounts of smoke exiting WTC7 and the video evidence does not show that. Your persistent assertion of that canard is delusional when NIST has completely debunked it. NIST has no reason to lie to minimize the significance of the smoke, and much reason to exaggerate the significance of the smoke. If you think NIST is wrong, it is up to you to provide some evidence to that effect, as competent critics do. You choose to believe NIST when you want to and ignore them when their findings are inconvenient to your dogmas.







 
At 24 December, 2014 15:41, Blogger truth hurts said...

h, maybe someday you will learn the difference between asserting and explaining, but I doubt you have the mental capacity.

I know that such babbling pleases you, Brian.
That is just about all the pleasure you can get...


Pat did not back up his claims that free-fall and small fires were "hogwash" nor point out any problem with Dr. Harrit's credentials.

Yes he did, but as usual, you decided to ignore it.


th ignorantly conflated the fire rating and the safety factor when he said "the safety factor according to you was 2-3 hours."

i never said that the safety factor is 203 hours according to me, Brian. You are making stuff up...

You guys love to pork your straw dolls, don't you?

Your usual mirror talk, Brian...


The safety factor of a building's structure affects the fire resistance rating because if a component is 500% as strong as is needed to carry the load, it can lose 50% of its strength and still be 250% as strong as is needed to carry the load.

All bladiebla that you digged up from internet.
Digging stuff up doesn't make you an expert, nor does it ensure that you actually know what you have written down.


I never denied that fires represent quantified dangers in steel buildings.

So you acknowledge that fire can severely damage the steel structure of a building.
Then what exactly is your problem, Brian?


It is a fact and not a canard that no modern steel-frame highrise has totally collapsed from fire before 9/11 or after 9/11.

It is a bogus argument, as none of the events that took place on 911 have ever happened to other high rises.
Never in history did someone fly a passenger plane at top speed into a high rise building and never in history did a high rise building suffere severe damage caused by the collapse of another high rise building.


The reason "small" buildings sometimes collapse is because they have lighter steel structures than large ones do, and they do not have fireproofing.

Also the usual bladiebla, Brian.



I know the definition of "fluent" and I know what th meant. He meant "fluid" and he wrote "fluent"

Let me help you a bit more, Brian..

Fluent (flo͞o′ənt) adj. Flowing or capable of flowing; fluid.



You did not observe...

You are not entitled to determine what someone observed or not.


NIST has no reason to lie

Well, there goes our fluent Brian again..
First you stated that NIST was dishonest and that for that reason new investigations were neccessary and now you state that NIST has no reason to lie.....


If you think NIST is wrong, it is up to you to provide some evidence to that effect

Same goes for you, Brian.
If you think NIST is wrong, it is up to you to provide evidence for it.
And you still haven't shown any evidence for it..



as competent critics do.

Indeed, competent critics.
And not the grady bunch of ae911truth...


You choose to believe NIST when you want to and ignore them when their findings are inconvenient to your dogmas.

Nope, i merely point out that you on one hand call NIST dishonest, but when it is convenient for you, only accept NIST findings.

 
At 24 December, 2014 15:58, Blogger Marc Ferris said...

"It is a fact and not a canard that no modern steel-frame highrise has totally collapsed from fire before 9/11 or after 9/11. "

Irrelevant.

It only had to happen once, and it did. The the FDNY at Ground Zero knew WTC7 was coming down. They knew it because they could hear the building begin to give way almost an hour before its final plunge.

This is why not a single fire-fighting expert has ever questioned what happened.

Just the dolts and idiots.

 
At 24 December, 2014 17:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

th, that you think pointing out the difference between "fluent" and "fluid" is "babbling" tells us about all we need to know about your opinions.

Pat did not back up his claims that free-fall and small fires were "hogwash" nor point out any problem with Dr. Harrit's credentials, and your empty assertion to the contrary does not change the fact.

I am entitled to determine that GMS did not observe what did not happen.

Your inability to recognize that an agency can be dishonest and also have no reason to have lied in their specific findings on a specific issue once again reveals the simplicity of your intellect.

Unlike you, I have provided evidence to support my criticisms of NIST. When NIST concedes a point that would have served their case, in the absence of actual contrary evidence I will suppose that they examined the claims of fools like you that 1) there were massive fires, 2) that diesel fuel fed the fires, 3) that there was massive structural damage, and they determined that these claims were not sustainable.
(Of course all competent liars (unlike you) take pains to be absolutely truthful except when it is necessary to lie.)








 
At 24 December, 2014 18:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, the fact that no modern steel-frame highrise has totally collapsed from fire before 9/11 or after 9/11 is hardly made irrelevant by your empty declaration to that effect.

You guys seem to think you can rule reality by mere decree. Maybe that works inside your own head (good luck with that! You can fly!) but it won't fly with competent readers.

The FDNY had no way of knowing that WTC7 was coming down--except that they had corroborated reports of explosions inside the building before noon, and they had evidence of an explosion from the elevator car blown out into the hallway. They had very good reason to SUSPECT that WTC7 was coming down, but they had no way of knowing it.

Since neither NIST nor FEMA seemed to take the FDNY testimony seriously, if you want to make a report based on the testimony of firefighting experts, it will have to be the MGF report. Good luck with that.

Upon what basis do you opine that the 2300 architects and engineers for truth are "dolts and idiots"?

How long will you continue to indulge the fantasy that despite all evidence to the contrary, you are the smartest man in any room you inhabit?


 
At 24 December, 2014 18:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

I mean, I've never claimed to be particularly smart.

But at least unlike most of y'all here I do have the good sense not to make claims I can't back up.

 
At 25 December, 2014 01:26, Blogger truth hurts said...

no modern steel-frame highrise has totally collapsed from fire before 9/11 or after 9/11

Also, no steel frame highrise burning for 7 hours had only wimpy fires. Even the empty ones, liken in Beying and Grozny did not have wimpy fires.



You guys seem to think you can rule reality by mere decree. Maybe that works inside your own head (good luck with that! You can fly!) but it won't fly with competent readers.

Mirrortalk Brian.


The FDNY had no way of knowing that WTC7 was coming down

Yes they had: the structure had movement in it, was leaning, and making noises. Also, debris was coming down on the south side.
They cleared the area hours prior to the collapse because they weren't as stupid as you assuming that a steel structure cannot collapse.



--except that they had corroborated reports of explosions inside the building before noon, and they had evidence of an explosion from the elevator car blown out into the hallway.

Your usual bladiebla, Brian.
Complete utterless nonsense.



They had very good reason to SUSPECT that WTC7 was coming down, but they had no way of knowing it.


And they were right suspecting it.
And you are aware of it, that is why you make up fairytales about how they could have suspected it.


Since neither NIST nor FEMA seemed to take the FDNY testimony seriously

Which is nonsense, the list of events that i posted earlier come from the NIST report and are partially based on statements done by the FDNY


Upon what basis do you opine that the 2300 architects and engineers for truth are "dolts and idiots"?

I have already pointed out to you in september, but you refused to look into it because I was quoting the AE911truth website in stead of a leaflet.

It is fun to see how far you go in your denial..


How long will you continue to indulge the fantasy that despite all evidence to the contrary, you are the smartest man in any room you inhabit?

Well, that is a perfect example of mirrortalk, Brian..

 
At 25 December, 2014 01:27, Blogger truth hurts said...

I do have the good sense not to make claims I can't back up.

You did not back up anything and made unproven assumptions about how FEMA and NIST value the expertise of the FDNY.

 
At 25 December, 2014 01:38, Blogger truth hurts said...

h, that you think pointing out the difference between "fluent" and "fluid" is "babbling" tells us about all we need to know about your opinions.

Nope, this is just another example of your reading problem, Brian.



Pat did not back up his claims that free-fall and small fires were "hogwash"

Yes he did, but you decided to ignore it.


nor point out any problem with Dr. Harrit's
credentials,



He didn't have to, as he was only asking a question about Harrit to you.
But since you are afraid to answer it, you decided to ignore the question and present even more hoghwash.


I am entitled to determine that GMS did not observe what did not happen.

Nope, you are not in any way.


Your inability to recognize that an agency can be dishonest and also have no reason to have lied in their specific findings on a specific issue once again reveals the simplicity of your intellect.

All bogus, Brian.
That an agency can be dishonest is not the issue here.
The issue is that you only accept information coming from an agency that you called dishonest about 911.


Unlike you, I have provided evidence to support my criticisms of NIST.

Nope, you haven't.
You only came with some babbling, wich only proved that you have no idea what you are talking about and are simply parroting what you read on some truther website.

I will suppose that they examined the claims of fools like you that 1) there were massive fires, 2) that diesel fuel fed the fires, 3) that there was massive structural damage, and they determined that these claims were not sustainable

All bogus, Brian.
NIST acknowledged that the fires were massive, that diesel fed the fuel and that there was massive structural damage.
You can read it all in the report.

What you fail to see is the objective of the nist report. It is not about how the building collapsed, it is about if and in what way the structure and used materials played a role in the collapse. And NIST has proven that even without the diesel fuel and damage, the building would have collapsed.

.
(Of course all competent liars (unlike you) take pains to be absolutely truthful except when it is necessary to lie.)

And again, mirrortalk.
You surely love your own image, Brian...

 
At 26 December, 2014 08:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

th, you keep repeating this "burning for 7 hours" canard about WTC7. What evidence have you that it burned for 7 hours? Who says it burned for 7 hours? There are no photos of any fires before noon. There are no photos until 2:00 pm of any fires that persisted.

There are no photos of anything but wimpy fires at WTC7. The highrise fires in Shangai, Dubai, Beijing, Grozny, and Moscow were spectacular. Those buildings did not fall down.

You have no reliable evidence that WTC7 was leaning. NIST does not say it was leaning. FEMA does not say it was leaning.

FDNY had corroborated reports of explosions inside the building before noon (witnesses interviewed on TV), and they had evidence of an explosion from the elevator car blown out into the hallway (as stated in the NIST report).

The fact that NIST and FEMA ignored (and contradicted) the firefighters' statements is an indication that the firefighters' claims were not taken seriously.

Pat did not back up his claims that free-fall and small fires were "hogwash", and your claiom that he did is a bald-faced lie.

Pat made derogatory remarks about Dr. Harrit's "supposed chemistry credentials" and then did not show anything wrong with those credentials. His question to me was a non-sequitur red herring demanding that I mind-read Dr. Harrit, and was nothing more than a rhetorical device to try to give the impression that he had a point--which apparently he did not.













 
At 26 December, 2014 12:52, Blogger truth hurts said...

you keep repeating this "burning for 7 hours" canard about WTC7.


Which you desperatly try to pass off as a canard, but fail to do so.


What evidence have you that it burned for 7 hours? Who says it burned for 7 hours? There are no photos of any fires before noon. There are no photos until 2:00 pm of any fires that persisted.

Well, you are to blame for the 7 hours, Brian.
You insist that we are using NIST as a source of information.
And as i stated earlier, which you obviously ignored. according to NIST, the first recorded info about fire in wtc7 was at 10 AM.
The building collapsed at 17:20, so do the math.

There are no photos of anything but wimpy fires at WTC7.

A bogus argument, Brian.
As you have pointed out and even point out in this reply of yours: fires in high rise buildings aren't wimpy.

The highrise fires in Shangai, Dubai, Beijing, Grozny, and Moscow were spectacular. Those buildings did not fall down.

As pointed out earlier, the images of those fires were taken at night, which of course gives a more spectacular view than in daylight. OF course, you decided to ignore that point.
Same with Beijing and Grozny: those were empty buildings with the facade burning. That gives a spectacular view, but since it is the outside of an empty building burning, you cannot compare the damage caused by fire with a burning high rise that was operational and filled with combustable materials, like wtc7
Also, those buildings were build after 911 and after the recommandations of NIST were published.

You have no reliable evidence that WTC7 was leaning.

I am fully aware that you try the FDNY, who lost over 300 of their people in the wtc collapses, complicit of being behind 911.
Of course, you don't dare to go to any of the FDNY stations and state the same thing.
That is the type of coward you are.

NIST does not say it was leaning. FEMA does not say it was leaning.

Like stated before, you called those organisations dishonest in their reports about 911. Which is why you want a new investigation. But at the same time, you don't accept any evidence that isn't cited in those reports.
Even more, all of the sudden you call both FEMA and NIST reliable.
Which means that there is absolutely no reason for a new investigation and your whole babbling the past few years was meaningless (not that we didn't know that allready of course, but perhaps finally your eyes will open. But i doubt that, because then you would realize that you have no life..


The fact that NIST and FEMA ignored (and contradicted) the firefighters' statements is an indication that the firefighters' claims were not taken seriously.

No, what you mean is that we shouldn't take them seriously because they go against your theories.
That is why you don't accept any evidence coming from the FDNY.


Pat did not back up his claims that free-fall and small fires were "hogwash", and your claiom that he did is a bald-faced lie..

Yes he did, and not only on this thread but for several years now.
You simply decided to ignore it.
You desperatly cling onto that free fall and those wimpy fires because you need the collapse of wtc7 to be impossible.


Pat made derogatory remarks about Dr. Harrit's "supposed chemistry credentials"


Nope, he didn't, he merely asked you a question about it, and since you need your arguments to remain fluent, you are unable to answer that question.

and then did not show anything wrong with those credentials.

I bet you don't dare to state on this blog what his credentials are.


His question to me was a ..

So you do admit that he was asking a question snd wasn't making a derogatory remark.

 
At 26 December, 2014 13:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

th, until you provide a source and support for your claim that WTC7 burned for 7 hours, that claim is by definition a canard.

Where does NIST say the first fire was at 10:00 a.m.? What evidence do they cite? If a fire starts at 10:00 and goes out, and another one starts at 12:00 and goes out, and a third starts at 2:00 can the building be said to be burning for 7 hours?

WTC7's fires were wimpy, as the pictures and videos show. Your claim that there can not be a wimpy fire in a highrise building is ridiculous.

The time of day of the photos is irrelevant to the fact that the nighttime photos show many floors involved and the WTC7 photos show few floors involved. If you actually examined the evidence you would know that you're making up lies.

I never said FDNY was complicit in anything. Your claim that I did is another lie.

I didn't call NIST and FEMA reliable. Your claim that I did is another lie.

Pat did not back up his claims that free-fall and small fires were "hogwash", and your claim that he did is another lie. restating an empty assertion does not back it up--except in the minds of mental defectives.


Pat made remark about Dr. Harrit's "supposed chemistry credentials" is by its nature derogatory, and your denial of that is another lie.

Your apparent belief that because Pat asked a question therefore he did not make a derogatory remark is irrational. He both asked a question and made a derogatory remark. Your failure to check upthread shows your extreme laziness in research.

Your motivation in this enterprise of yours of obsessively lying and making stuff up is a complete mystery to me. You can't be paid to do it, because you're incompetent. Why do you spend your time this way?

My motivations at least are clear--the pursuit of truth and justice.







 
At 26 December, 2014 15:19, Blogger truth hurts said...

until you provide a source and support for your claim that WTC7 burned for 7 hours, that claim is by definition a canard.

I have proven it using the NIST report, which of course, you try to ignore.

Where does NIST say the first fire was at 10:00 a.m.?

Well, you claim to know every detail about NIST so you should be able to look that up for yourself.


If a fire starts at 10:00 and goes out, and another one starts at 12:00 and goes out, and a third starts at 2:00 can the building be said to be burning for 7 hours?

Because that is what fires do? they start at random and go out at random?
Is that your best try?

WTC7's fires were wimpy

Which you haven't proven.


as the pictures and videos show.

Pictures and videos show complete floors on fire, with flames of several feet high coming out of the broken windows.
Calling such fires wimpy proves you incredibly desperate you are, trying to make the collapse look impossible and is one of the best evidence why after 13 years, the truther movement hasn't achieved anything.
There has been less than zero progress, as the movement now admits that planes were used on 911, etc. etc.


Your claim that there can not be a wimpy fire in a highrise building is ridiculous.

It is not my claim, it is yours.
Don't turn things around, Brian.


The time of day of the photos is irrelevant

Nope, it isn't.
You desperatly try to make it irrelevant, because you need the collapse to be impossible.
That is why you came up with nomadic fires (which you now call wimpy, because everyone ridicules you for using a non existing phrase)


If you actually examined the evidence

You didn't provide any evidence.


I never said FDNY was complicit in anything.

Yes you did, you said that the FDNY must have known that they were going to blow up WTC7.


I didn't call NIST and FEMA reliable.

Yes you did:
You have no reliable evidence that WTC7 was leaning. NIST does not say it was leaning. FEMA does not say it was leaning

So, because both NIST and Fema don't say anything about the building leaning, I don't have any reliable evidence.
I did however cite the FDNY as source for this information, but you don't consider them reliable, contrary to Fema and NIST.

 
At 26 December, 2014 15:19, Blogger truth hurts said...



Pat did not back up[..]

Well, like you said yourself:

restating an empty assertion does not back it up--except in the minds of mental defectives.

Very true and a classic example of mirror talk.
You know perfectly well that Pat has explained many times why both are a hoghwash.
But you simply decided to ignore that.


Your apparent belief that because Pat asked a question therefore he did not make a derogatory remark is irrational.

Completely irrelevant.
What relevant is on this subject is the fact that you failed to answer his question.
If Harrit had all the proper credentials, it would not matter if Pat was making a derogratory remark. You could have easily countered that and make him look like a douchebag by showing what does credentials are and why they are significant for the subject of WTC7. But since you can't, you keep on bouncing against the walls.


He both asked a question and made a derogatory remark.

And apperently he had a point, as you still haven't found a way to counter him.

Your motivation in this enterprise of yours of obsessively lying and making stuff up is a complete mystery to me. You can't be paid to do it, because you're incompetent. Why do you spend your time this way?

Again mirrortalk, Brian.
I hope you find the answer.
But if you don't, please spent some time looking at what you have posted on this blog for the past 4 years and try to figure out why you didn't get any step forward.


My motivations at least are clear--the pursuit of truth and justice.

We all know that that is a lie, Brian.
Because you won't get that by pretending to be a knowitall on a debunkers blog that is hostile towards you.
You have been posting on this blog for years now and you haven't achieved the slightest progression towards whatever you call justice.

To the contrary: even your so called exposure of Willy Rodriguez is mocked on this blog, while he has been exposed years ago on this blog by others like Mark Roberts.

Your motivation is a false pretend. The fact that you never bothered to look up what Mark revealed about Rodriguez proves that.

 
At 26 December, 2014 15:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

th, your empty and unsourced assertions about the NIST report can not "prove" anything.

What makes you think I never bothered to look up what Mark revealed about Rodriguez?

You are off your rocker, dude.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home