Saturday, January 31, 2015

The Twelfth Man's Shame

Having grown up in Washington State, I've been a Seahawks fan since I was an infant. Unfortunately we have had to put up with our coach's ill-thought-out comments which have drawn truther interest.


Pete Carroll is a conspiracy theorist, at least that is how the conspiracy theory goes. And it is one that has gained the Seattle Seahawks coach an unlikely following from the "9/11 Truth" movement in the lead-up to his attempt to win back-to-back Super Bowls.
Two years ago, Carroll met with former Army chief of staff and four-star general Peter Chiarelli and, according to Deadspin citing "sources," brought up many popular conspiracy theories concerned with the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, on the World Trade Center and quizzed Chiarelli about their veracity.
Yeah, keep your silly speculation to yourself coach. Leave the super-sekrit-magico-nano-thermite to the Truthers. The only explosions that matter right now concern the Legion of Boom.




Update:

AE911Truth is latching on to this idiotic quote as part of a mailing campaign.  Of course they are missing the obvious difference, that deflating the footballs, if it even happened, would quite simply only require the cooperation of one or two people, quarterback Tom Brady and the equipment manager. Various permutations of Truther fantasies however require the complicity of the military, several intelligence agencies, the FBI, the NYPD, the Secret Service, dozens of explosives technicians, much of the media, NIST, Congress, various members of two presidential administrations and the terrorists themselves. In fact entire sections of the University of Phoenix stadium itself could be filled to capacity with the conspirators.


186 Comments:

At 31 January, 2015 17:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

What "ill-thought-out comments" exactly are you referring to, James?

All I see is his statement "I will always be interested in the truth, yeah." What's ill-thought-out or speculative about that?

Do you consider Deadspin.com to be a reliable source? Why?

 
At 31 January, 2015 18:36, Blogger Marc Ferris said...

Come to think of it, the second 767 did look under-inflated...INSIDE JOB!

 
At 31 January, 2015 18:47, Blogger Marc Ferris said...

"undicisettembre" has a new interview with FDNY firefighter, Frank Papalia, about WTC-7.

Sure, he's just a fireman and not an NFL coach, but he might know something:

http://undicisettembre.blogspot.dk/

 
At 01 February, 2015 05:06, Blogger truth hurts said...

Meanwhile, in The Netherlands, a 19 year old 911 conspiracy theorist assaulted the Dutch news station NOS.
Experts said that he was experiencing a psychosis and believed that he was part of a hacker scene that was about to reveal the NWO to the outside world. He demanded to be brought to Studio 8, where the live news broadcast was about to start. But the doorman brought him a an empty studio where others were about to do a rehearsal. This is a recording of the whole event in the studio:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh4QDSyJOU0

It is not the first assault in Holland by a conspiracy theorist. In 2002, there was a hostage by a middle aged man in the Rembrandt Tower, where TV maker Philips had its office. The man believed that the new wide screen televisions were equipped by spying technology implanted by some NWO. And he wanted to demand Philips to admit. Unfortunately, Philips had moved to another building a week earlier. After several hours, he committed suicide in the washroom.

 
At 01 February, 2015 08:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

What makes you think the 19-year-old was a 9/11 conspiracy theorist? Who says so? Where?

 
At 01 February, 2015 09:01, Blogger James B. said...

It is ill thought out because it gets idiots like you all excited because you think a celebrity supports you, and detracts from what is important, namely beating the Patriots.

 
At 01 February, 2015 09:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

Where did you get the impression that I'm excited about what some football coach thinks?

What makes beating the Patriots more important than answering the many questions about 9/11?

What"ill thought comments" exactly are you referring to? You didn't answer the question.

Do you consider Deadspin.com to be a reliable source? Why?









 
At 01 February, 2015 10:12, Blogger James B. said...

Why do you ask so many stupid questions?

 
At 01 February, 2015 10:17, Blogger truth hurts said...

Because that is all he has left: stupid questions....

 
At 01 February, 2015 10:23, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

well he wasn't demonstrably a debunker, therefore he must be a conspiracy theorist. What, that logic doesn't follow anymore.

Papilia talks of the extent of the "wimpy" fires in #7. You probably don't want to ask him any questions regarding those fires. It'd ruin the delusion.

 
At 01 February, 2015 10:45, Blogger truth hurts said...

Every fireman says that the wtc7 was fully engulfed in flames.
Brian decided to ignore that, because he needs the fires to be wimpy (FKA Nomadic, but he does not dare to use that phrase on this blog anymore)in order to give his demolition theory more credit.

 
At 01 February, 2015 11:38, Blogger Ian said...

What makes beating the Patriots more important than answering the many questions about 9/11?

Well, since there are no questions about 9/11, the Superbowl is by default more important.

SATSQ.

Do you consider Deadspin.com to be a reliable source? Why?

I don't want to speak for James, but I definitely consider Deadspin a reliable source. It's probably the best sports media source out there today, and it has gotten the scoop on many stories that other sports media completely missed (like Manti Te'o's nonexistent girlfriend).

Brian decided to ignore that, because he needs the fires to be wimpy (FKA Nomadic, but he does not dare to use that phrase on this blog anymore)in order to give his demolition theory more credit.

Yes, I humiliated Brian by asking him questions about whether the nomadic fires ride camels and live in yurts, which left him squealing and crying and calling me "skidmark" or "she" or "beanie head" or the like.

 
At 01 February, 2015 11:42, Blogger Ian said...

So Brian, are you going to a Superbowl party tonight? Oh right, you would need to have friends to be invited to one, so I guess that answers my question.

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

 
At 01 February, 2015 12:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

James, what's stupid about asking you to back up your claims? I'm supposed to know without asking that you won't do it?

Who said that the NSA was involved in deflating footballs?

th, you make stuff up. Where does every fireman say that "wtc7 was fully engulfed in flames"? What do you mean by "every fireman?" Every fireman in the world? Every fireman in the USA? Every fireman in NYC? Why doesn't NIST quote these firemen? Why does NIST contradict what you claim they say?

Do you honestly expect people to believe the stupid things you say?

Ian, you don't have the power to humiliate me, and you're such a dullard y9ou don't even recognize that humiliate yourself.





 
At 01 February, 2015 12:48, Blogger truth hurts said...

th, you make stuff up.

Of course you say that, because you cannot deal with those facts.
You need them to be untrue.
Thanks for backing that up.


Where does every fireman say that "wtc7 was fully engulfed in flames"?

On the internet. Where else? We are communicating through the internet and you already implied that you only accept evidence that is available on the internet.


What do you mean by "every fireman?"

Sorry for that, i did not consider your IQ when i stated that.


Every fireman in the world?

And what would be the point in that?

Every fireman in the USA?

Same as above, what would be the point?

Every fireman in NYC?

And as above.

It is odd to see that for a native english speaking person, you know so little about your language and don't understand what i was stating...


Why doesn't NIST quote these firemen?

You called NIST dishonest, so why does it matter who nist did or did not quote?

Why does NIST contradict what you claim they say?

Same as above: according to you, NIST was dishonest in their findings and investigation. So your whole smoke screen using NIST is bogus.

Face it Brian, you have lost. All that you have left is denial, just like holocaust deniers.

 
At 01 February, 2015 13:43, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

I've looked and looked and looked. Can't find a single FDNY saying the fires in 7 were wimpy. Find plenty who describe it as anything but wimpy. Well your logic that murderers who aren't demonstrably truthers must be non truthers is all anyone needs to know about your thinking skills.

 
At 01 February, 2015 14:39, Blogger truth hurts said...

[b] Find plenty who describe it as anything but wimpy[/b]

Indeed, that is why Brian decided to ignore the firemen and to fixate on pictures and what he believes NIST has written about the fires...
And although he declared NIST to be dishonest about what happened to the buildings, he does require confirmation by NIST on this subject.

 
At 01 February, 2015 15:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

th, I don't ignore the firemen. Unlike you, I know what they said and what they didn't say, and I don't make up stuff about them.

I point out that either NIST is wrong or the firemen are wrong. Either way you're wrong.

You didn't back up your claim that the Dutch guy was a truther. You made it up.

 
At 01 February, 2015 20:51, Blogger Marc Ferris said...

Undicisettembre: I would like to go into details about WTC7. You saw it burning, can you confirm it was burning out of control?


Frank Papalia: Oh, absolutely! There was an incredible amount of fire, and plus the whole bottom was ripped out. That building was severely damaged on the bottom. If you destroy some of the columns in a building you put more stress on the ones that are still there and if you also start heating them up with 100 to 200 feet of fire from one side of the building to the other the weight of the building is on fewer supports and weaker supports. There's no way that building could have stood up.

And it fell the way it was supposed to, even if folks say “Oh, it fell like buildings fall when there are explosive charges.”

Read the rest here:
http://undicisettembre.blogspot.dk/

An actual FDNY firefighter discussing actual first-hand accounts of WTC-7.

 
At 01 February, 2015 23:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

Either he's wrong or NIST is wrong--and either way, you are wrong.

 
At 02 February, 2015 01:45, Blogger truth hurts said...

Brian, you called NIST dishonest.
So why do you continue to ramble about what they said?

 
At 02 February, 2015 01:47, Blogger truth hurts said...

You didn't back up your claim that the Dutch guy was a truther. You made it up.

Of course you say that.
You would even state that if Tarik himself told about his trutherism on this blog.
As soon as you can't handle something, you dismiss it as being a fantasy....

 
At 02 February, 2015 04:57, Blogger Ian said...

Either he's wrong or NIST is wrong--and either way, you are wrong.

Poor Brian. He's hysterical and repeating the same spam over and over again.

Then again, if I were unemployed and living with my parents and had spent the last 6 years posting spam at this blog without accomplishing anything, I'd be hysterical too.

 
At 02 February, 2015 04:59, Blogger Ian said...

Hey Brian, I notice you don't post too much spam about "widows" with "questions" anymore. Is it because I've completely humiliated you every time you've brought them up?

I mean, you don't babble about smoldering carpets or pyroclastic flows or call us "girls" anymore, after I completely humiliated you on that stuff too.

 
At 02 February, 2015 07:40, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

So you are saying NIST called the fires wimpy? Where?

I get why you won't address your moronic logic that all murders not demonstrably committed by truthers must have been committed by non truthers, a little intellectual "honesty" would be nice is all.

 
At 02 February, 2015 07:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

th, I very much doubt I said that NIST institution-wide was dishonest.
I said that their report does some dishonest things.

The "fruit of the poison tree" argument is very popular among you primitives because you imagine that if I criticize some aspect of NIST's investigation that I therefore can not cite their investigation--not even in criticisms of their investigation.

By your ridiculous logic a defense attorney would argue for the inadmissibility of a defendant's confession to a crime on this basis: "The prosecutor claims that my client is a criminal, and yet he presents my client's statement as if the word of a criminal can be trusted." Are you unable to see how silly that is?

You didn't back up your claim that the Dutch guy was a truther. You made it up. When I called you on it, all you could do was engage in fortune-telling about what I would do under speculative circumstances. Your fantasies do not back up your claims. Your confusion in these matters explains why you are so confused about 9/11.

Ian, is is not "spam" to repeat the same dispositive argument for those who did not get it the first time. Either NIST is wrong, or the firefighters are wrong. Deal with it.

Ian, you only humiliate yourself. I don't babble about anything. "Babble" is a word you apply to any writing that includes three-syllable words that make your lips tired.

The reason I rarely bring up the widows' 273 unanswered questions is because you rarely make the stupid claim that there are no widows and they have no questions.

I didn't call you girls. I pointed out that your posture of thinking it was cute to be willfully and aggressively ignorant was a tactic much employed by 8-year-old girls.

You didn't humiliate me about smoldering carpets? and pyroclastoc flows. Do you deny that smoldering carpets create a lot of black smoke? Do you deny that a Cambridge University professor of geophysics and the Columbia University geology department described the WTC dust clouds by comparing them to pyroclastic flows?








 
At 02 February, 2015 07:43, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

The Dutch guy is NOT demonstrably a non truther, therefore he IS a truther. Simple logic.

 
At 02 February, 2015 07:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 02 February, 2015 08:01, Blogger snug.bug said...


No, Shamrock, I am not saying that NIST called the fires "wimpy". Do you think I did, or are you just engaging in a straw man argument? "Wimpy" is a layman's term that you would not expect to find in a multi-million dollar government report.


NIST said that the fires persisted on only 6 floors of WTC7, and their own diagrams show that they believe that only a very small portion of the floor was involved in the fire at any given time.

I didn't say that all murders not demonstrably committed by truthers must have been committed by non truthers. I pointed out the intellectual dishonesty of those who catalog every murder by an alleged truther with the obvious implication that truthers murder more than do the general population by pointing out that the statistics do not support their claim. The burden of proof is on them.

It's impossible to prove a negative, so for you to expect proof that the Dutch guy is a non-truther is irrational. I asked th to back up his claim that the Dutch guy was a truther. He has failed to do that. If you guys would rely on credible sources for your claims instead of indulging in fantasy all the time, you would embarrass yourselves less often.

 
At 02 February, 2015 08:05, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

You said NIST contradicted the FDNY as to the extent of the fires. You have stated the fires were wimpy, the FDNY have been clear the fires were anything but wimpy. Ergo, I concluded you think nist thinks the fires were wimpy. Sorry for my jump to try and ascertain what lunacy you are suggesting.

 
At 02 February, 2015 08:13, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

Persistent fires on 6 floors across a structure in NOT a suggestion of "wimpy" fires by any measure, laymen or otherwise. You have decided that characterization of the fires contradicts the FDNY. Given your view that "demonstrably a truther" includes every single truther ever shows logic ain't your bag.

 
At 02 February, 2015 08:18, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

And now you are lying about what you said (shockeroo). You specifically said, with typed words, that only 14 murders were demonstrably committed by truthers therefore all others murders were comitted by non truthers. It doesn't take a man to say he was wrong. You were wrong. You realize it but just can't commit to admitting it.

 
At 02 February, 2015 08:20, Blogger Ian said...

There are no widows and there are no questions, Brian. You fail again.

Also, you called us "girls" many, many times because you're mentally ill. Eventually, you stopped after I taunted and humiliated you about it.

Also, smoldering carpets do not create black smoke. They create bright green smoke, with pink polka dots. You fail again, Brian.

 
At 02 February, 2015 08:23, Blogger Ian said...

Shamrock, there's no point in arguing with Brian because the rules of logic or evidence don't apply with someone like Brian. He's too mentally ill to understand them.

Instead, just taunt him. Remind him that he's been spamming this blog for six years and has not accomplished anything. Also, remind him that he's unemployed and lives with his parents and can't afford a decent haircut.

 
At 02 February, 2015 08:38, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

A criminal admitting Guilt has no motive to lie about being guilty. Nice incredibly moronic comparison.

 
At 02 February, 2015 08:46, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

Understood Ian. It's just fun to watch him contort into Un winnable positions with absurd analogies.

 
At 02 February, 2015 08:53, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

As of 2006, ..... Perhaps a dozen murders have been demonstrably committed by these 30 million people over ten years. In the same time period, 270 million non-truthers have committed 160,000 murders--13,000 times as many as the truthers."

And now you are saying you never said that.

Logic and honesty taking a big hit.

 
At 02 February, 2015 09:38, Blogger truth hurts said...

I very much doubt I said that NIST institution-wide was dishonest.

You declared their reports on 911 dishonest to such an extent that it must have had a criminal intent to do so.

I said that their report does some dishonest things.

In your case, meaning that you like to cherry pick from the reports the parts that do fit in youw inside job believes, while declaring everything else that doesn't fit as dishonest.

you imagine that if I criticize some aspect of NIST's investigation

You aren't critisizing some aspects of the investigation, you are accusing NIST of being dishonest about the investigation.
You cannot use dishonest sources, Brian.
So you cannot use NIST as a source of information to debunk the firemen if you find their investigation dishonest.



By your ridiculous logic a defense attorney would argue for the inadmissibility of a defendant's confession to a crime on this basis: "The prosecutor claims that my client is a criminal, and yet he presents my client's statement as if the word of a criminal can be trusted." Are you unable to see how silly that is?

In my country, the confession of a crime is not enough evidence to convict that person for that crime.

By your logic, if a criminal says that he is innocent, he is free to go, dispite of eye witnesses who are stating the opposite.
See how silly that is?

You didn't back up your claim that the Dutch guy was a truther.

Correct, because i don't care wether you believe me or not. I even wonder why you believe that i would care about that. As i already pointed out: there is no point in providing proof to you that he is a truther. You will simply deny it. Just like you denied every quote of ae911truth that i posted here, just because those quotes weren't on some leaflet that you had of ae911truth.
If you really wanted to know if Tarik was a truther or not, you would have googled for the evidence yourself. Just like you expect me to do when you are stating something on this blog.

Your confusion in these matters explains why you are so confused about 9/11.

Mirrortalk, Brian..

Either NIST is wrong

You called NIST dishonest, Brian..


or the firefighters are wrong.

Are they dishonest too, Brian?


I don't babble about anything.

Uusualy, you squeel, but babbling is also one of your favorite habbits on this blog.



You didn't humiliate me about smoldering carpets?
]
He didn't?
He should have.
Smoldering carpets is allmost as rediculous as nomadic or wimpy fires..

It shows how desperate you are.

and pyroclastoc flows.

There wasn't anything pyro nor clastic about those dust clouds.

Do you deny that smoldering carpets create a lot of black smoke?

Completely besides the point.
Burning oil platforms also create a lot of black smoke.

Do you deny that a Cambridge University professor of geophysics and the Columbia University geology department described the WTC dust clouds by comparing them to pyroclastic flows?

Nope, but as usual, you failed to understand what he meant.
You actually believed that the clouds were pyroclastic.

 
At 02 February, 2015 11:03, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 02 February, 2015 11:04, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Dutch news quotes him claiming that 9/11 was an inside job. See that Brian? All it takes is 5 seconds of Google.

http://www.telegraaf.nl/binnenland/23624669/___Het_ging_slecht_met_Tarik_Z.___.html

 
At 02 February, 2015 11:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 02 February, 2015 11:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

I'm not finding it on Google. You must have a channel with special links.

 
At 02 February, 2015 11:43, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

I posted the URL for you. You expect us to believe you went to college?

 
At 02 February, 2015 11:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

Many times when "debunkers" post urls the pages they cite do not contain the information they claim.

You said I could find it on Google. I couldn't. You lied.

 
At 02 February, 2015 12:18, Blogger Ian said...

Of course Brian couldn't find it. He doesn't know how to use Google, which is why he's so confused about 9/11.

Also, he did attend college briefly, but he failed out after sniffing too much glue. That is why he's spent the last 4 decades living with his parents while occasionally being employed as a janitor or a security guard.

 
At 02 February, 2015 12:51, Blogger truth hurts said...

I'm not finding it on Google

Of course you cannot find it.
You also could not find any source for the pictures of Willy that Pat posted on this blog.
So you declared the pictures to be fake.
Later on, you admitted that they had to be real, but Pat was the only source, thus nobody was interested in Willy anymore (fun is that the pictures were taken at the 911 memorial, with him as special guest).
And when i revealed another source of the pictures, you simply stated that i made that up.
You kept saying that for weeks, until i showed the other pictures taken at the event.
You then decided to ignore the whole thing...

Now we see the same thing: you are unable to find anything on Google (while others can with a few mouse clicks), so it does not exist..

 
At 02 February, 2015 12:57, Blogger truth hurts said...

You said I could find it on Google. I couldn't. You lied.

No, he made the error by expecting that your IQ was slightly higher than it actually is.
Or in your language: he knows that any moron knows how to google for information, but forgot that even a moron is smarter than you are..

 
At 02 February, 2015 17:34, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Many times when "debunkers" post urls the pages they cite do not contain the information they claim.

Bare assertion. I am not sure which is sadder, not knowing what do do with the link or not knowing how to find the relevant information in it.

Makes no difference. Keep embarrassing yourself, Brian.

You said I could find it on Google. I couldn't. You lied.

It's not my fault you couldn't do what a middle school child can.

 
At 02 February, 2015 17:39, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

I love how Brian thinks we should all take his incoherent babbling seriously while be easily flummoxed by the most rudimentary forms of research.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=tarik%20z%209%2F11

 
At 02 February, 2015 19:27, Blogger Marc Ferris said...

"Either he's wrong or NIST is wrong--and either way, you are wrong."

This is the depth of Brian's intellect.

I post a link to an interview with a decorated FDNY firefighter who was at Ground Zero on 9-11, 2001, and saw the damage at WTC7, and Brain - who was not there, is not a fire fighter, says he's wrong.

He spams this page with never ending rants against NIST, yet uses them as the gold standard up to the point where they explain the collapse, at which point NIST becomes the devil.

Bottom line: Brian is a rube, a dolt, a fool-s fool.

 
At 02 February, 2015 19:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

I didn't say the firefighter was wrong, MGF. Where would you get such a silly idea?

You guys are so busy hallucinating that you don't have time for reality.

 
At 03 February, 2015 00:30, Blogger truth hurts said...

I didn't say the firefighter was wrong, MGF

yes you did, you called the fires wimpy.

 
At 03 February, 2015 03:37, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

Does he think the things he says on previous threads don't count on this one?

 
At 03 February, 2015 05:05, Blogger Ian said...

Does he think the things he says on previous threads don't count on this one?

Yes, that's been his MO for a long time. He denied calling us "girls" many times above, even though that used to be his go-to insult whenever people here humiliated him. Of course it was, he has the mind of a six-year-old on the playground.

The fact that he can contradict what he wrote earlier allows him to argue whatever needs to be argued at that particular moment. So sometimes the Bush administration was responsible for 9/11, and sometimes it was Osama bin Laden. Sometimes the towers were destroyed by thermite, and sometimes by explosives. Sometimes the explosives were loud, sometimes, they were silent. Sometimes, the fires were wimpy, and sometimes, they were hot enough to create molten steel.

That's why I always tell people that taking him seriously and arguing with him is a waste of time. He gets really upset when you mock his beliefs and taunt him instead.

So Brian, you still haven't addressed the fact that smoldering carpets do not make black smoke. They make green smoke with pink polka dots, so once again, you fail on a basic question of 9/11.

 
At 03 February, 2015 15:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

Context matters, fools. You take things out of context because it's the only way you can pretend to have a point.

Either NIST is wrong or the firefighters you quote are wrong. You can't have it both ways.

Either way, you're wrong.

 
At 03 February, 2015 15:40, Blogger truth hurts said...

Neither NIST nor the firefighters said that the fires were wimpy, brian.

So in either case, you are wrong.

That is the whole point.

All you are doing is setting up smoke screens, created by your imagination that the firemen contradict what NIST said about the fires.
While in fact, you are the one with your wimpy nomadic fires who is contradicting them both.

 
At 03 February, 2015 16:11, Blogger Ian said...

Either NIST is wrong or the firefighters you quote are wrong. You can't have it both ways.

Nobody cares what you think NIST said. You're an illiterate liar who lives with his parents because he can't hold down a job mopping floors.

Also, I see you don't even address my above points about you. That's admitting that I've pwn3d you again, as usual.

 
At 03 February, 2015 17:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

Neither NIST nor FEMA believed the firefighters' tales, th. The government reports flatly contradict what the firemen you quote said. There is nothing imaginary about that. You seem to have difficulty distinguishing reality from imagination.

NIST said the fires only persisted on six floors. You don't expect to see vernacular language like "wimpy" in a million-dollar government report.

The fires in WTC7 were wimpy. And on the 12th floor, which was the fire that allegedly brought the building down the photo evidence indicates that the fire burned out an hour before the collapse.

Ian, you pwn only yourself and you lack the wit to recognize it.

 
At 03 February, 2015 18:36, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

When did the FDNY say the fires persisted on more floors then NIST claimed? Do you know what persisted means? Apparently not.

 
At 03 February, 2015 18:43, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

So are you saying the firefighter is wrong or not. On this very thread you have made various incongruent assertions. You lie about what you actually have already claimed. Clear sign of mental incompetence. . You say the fires were wimpy. The FDNY says the weren't. Are they lying? now be a coward and refuse to answer. Go!

 
At 03 February, 2015 18:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

I'm sorry, do you have a point? When did Micky Mouse ever claim to an astronaut? Do you know?

 
At 03 February, 2015 18:44, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

All murders not demonstrably committed by truthers were comitted by non truthers. THATS YOUR CLAIM! you typed words to that effect dumb bell. Now lie about it. Go!!

 
At 03 February, 2015 18:46, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

My point is you lie about things you previously claimed. You did it on this very thread. It makes you pathological.

 
At 03 February, 2015 18:48, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

My other point is you are a feckin coward who won't actuslky say the FDNY are lying whilst clearly implying you think they are. That makes you a complete disgrace.

 
At 03 February, 2015 19:08, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Either he's wrong or NIST is wrong--and either way, you are wrong.

Anyone remember this bit where Jason Dumbass, excuse me, Bermas said to Jason Meigs: "I'm not calling anybody a liar. I'm calling you a liar."

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/09/bermas-im-not-calling-anybody-liar-im.html

Great, now Brian's ripping off Jason Dunmbass, I mean Bermas. Fuck he's a dumbass anyways.

 
At 03 February, 2015 23:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

You clowns can't decide if you believe NIST or believe the confused firefighters you like to quote.

And you try to blame your confusion on me.

 
At 04 February, 2015 00:47, Blogger truth hurts said...

No, Brian: you try to make them contradict with each other, while they don't.
And you do that in order to hide the fact that your wimpy fires contradict both with what nist said and what the firemen said.

Nice try, but no cigar, Brian..

 
At 04 February, 2015 00:54, Blogger truth hurts said...

Neither NIST nor FEMA believed the firefighters' tales,

Can you quote the line in the NIST or FEMA reports where they state that they don't believe the tales of the firefighters, Brian..

By saying that they were tales, you again aknowledge that you don't believe the firemen, Brian.
Meaning that you call them liars, telling tales...

The government reports flatly contradict what the firemen you quote said. There is nothing imaginary about that.

Yet you fail to quote the government on that, Brian.
You fail to quote the reports stating that they don't believe what the firemen said.


You seem to have difficulty distinguishing reality from imagination.

mirrortalk.


NIST said the fires only persisted on six floors.

And you don't know the meaning of the word 'persisted', brian....


You don't expect to see vernacular language like "wimpy" in a million-dollar government report.

So you admit that the phrase 'wimpy' is made up by you


The fires in WTC7 were wimpy.

Yet you admit that none of the reports, nor the firefighters said they were.

So it is nothing more than your fantasy, which you need to have in order to make it look like the collapse of the building was impossible.
Of you admit to what NIST and the firefighters said about the fires, you can no longer hold on to that thought.


And on the 12th floor, which was the fire that allegedly brought the building down the photo evidence indicates that the fire burned out an hour before the collapse.

And you believe that once a structure is no longer on fire, it cannot collapse..



you pwn only yourself and you lack the wit to recognize it.

also mirrortak, brian...

 
At 04 February, 2015 03:09, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

Th, you didn't realize that once a fire apparently burns itself out a building reverts to its pre fire condition??

 
At 04 February, 2015 03:11, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

Now let's watch the contortionist make some incredibly lame analogy or he implied any such thing. Go!!

 
At 04 February, 2015 06:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

Th, the firefighters' reports not only contradict NIST--they contradict each other. If you knew anything about WTC7 you would know this.

NIST and FEMA don't say they don't believe the firefighters that you quote, silly. That would be as goofy as using the word "wimpy". The fact that they ignore the reports of the firefighters that you quote shows that they don't believe them.

For instance, the tale of Fireman "Miller" that the building was leaning is not mentioned by either agency. FEMA mentions that the firefighters reported that "approximately floors 8-18 were damaged to some degree" but they do not quote these statements or try to resolve their discrepancies, and FEMA says the "extent and severity" of the damage "are currently unknown."

FEMA reports that one firefighter walked the south side of the 9th floor and found it to be in good condition except at the SW corner. NIST reports that a FDNY scouting crew found an elevator car blown 20 feet down the hall. Apparently they found that report credible.

Instead of trying to determine the facts, you invent fantasies that make sense to you. That is the way to create myths, not the way to find truth.

Shamrock, you seem to be operating without the benefit of an understanding of NIST's alleged collapse mechanism when you talk about reverting to a "pre-fire condition". In NIST's telling, a girder fell, causing a chain reaction that brought the entire building down. The girder can't unfall.

A fire causing thermal expansion should have pushed the girder off its seat before the fire burned out. Perhaps you or th can invent some explanation how thermal expansion can cause the girder to fall an hour after the fire burns out?



 
At 04 February, 2015 06:47, Blogger Ian said...

I love how an unemployed janitor who lives with his parents because he lacks the mental competence to mop floors is calling the firefighters "confused".

Brian is a walking demonstration of Dunning-Kruger. After all, we first learned of him after he posted a bunch of crayon scribbles that he called "meatball on a fork" at Democratic Underground and claimed that they would appear in a journal of engineering. Needless to say, the ridicule was swift and merciless, and Brian was left squealing and crying, as always.

 
At 04 February, 2015 07:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, your silly fantasies about me can not change the truth about the silly fantasies of th and Sham.

 
At 04 February, 2015 07:21, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

So a girder 3/4 pushed off its seat as other elements around it are also compromised (as proven by FDNY testimonials) can't in its dynamic condition eventually go the rest of the way, got it. I guess in fantasy land the compromised girder would have regained its pre fire integrity. But that's for your delusion.

 
At 04 February, 2015 07:28, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

A fire causing thermal expansion should have pushed the girder off its seat before the fire burned out.

Oh a declarative statement. Now back that up with a explanation why. you think the cooling of the girder has no effect on its placement? You think the girder connection was designed to hold in perpetuity in its compromised condition. Please provide the science for this lunacy.

 
At 04 February, 2015 07:31, Blogger Ian said...

As expected, my reminder of one of the many, many times Brian has humiliated himself has left Brian squealing and crying. Also, what "fantasies"? Your "meatball on a fork" scribbles are available for anyone too see. Well, anyone who knows how to Google, which excludes you.

 
At 04 February, 2015 07:46, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

Brian you honestly don't see a scenario where a compromised connection fails after the fire burns out? You really need me to "invent" an explanation? Really?

 
At 04 February, 2015 21:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

Sham, if you think a cooling and contracting girder would shorten itself several inches beyond its pre-fire length such that it would pull itself off its seat, you are free to provide calculations to support that thesis. I don't believe I've ever seen any.

Fire-induced thermal expansion pushing the girder off its seat should have ceased when fire ceased adding heat to the system.

You need to specify what you think was "compromised" about the "connection" and define what you think a "connection" is. In NIST's telling, the connection was compromised as soon as the bolts were broken. But the girder had to walk several inches laterally before it could fall off its seat.


Cue Skidmark to ask me what kind of shoes the girder wears when it's walking off its seat.

Ian, your Ianane fantasies about my writings, my living situation, and my career are based only on your own imaginings.

 
At 05 February, 2015 01:52, Blogger truth hurts said...

Th, the firefighters' reports not only contradict NIST--they contradict each other.

Nope, they don't.
Nor do they contradict with any of the reports.
You only imagine that they contradict, because you cannot use them in your CD fantasy.


If you knew anything about WTC7 you would know this.


As we have witnessed, you lack every type of research skills, so i doubt if you know anything about wtc7, besides what you fantasize..


NIST and FEMA don't say they don't believe the firefighters

Then why did you say that they didn't believe them?>


that you quote, silly. That would be as goofy as using the word "wimpy".


So you do realize that you come with silly and goofy arguments.


The fact that they ignore the reports of the firefighters that you quote shows that they don't believe them.

nope, it is simply your imagination that they ignore the firemen.


For instance, the tale of Fireman "Miller" that the building was leaning is not mentioned by either agency.

And why should it have been mentioned?
And again you are saying that the firemen were lying, Brian...


FEMA mentions that the firefighters reported that "approximately floors 8-18 were damaged to some degree"

So you now admit that FEMA did not ignore the firemen, like you previously stated.
That is what you get when you make stuff up: you start to contradict yourself.

but they do not quote these statements or try to resolve their discrepancies, and FEMA says the "extent and severity" of the damage "are currently unknown."


You don't show any discrepancies, Brian.


FEMA reports that one firefighter

Yet you claimed that FEMA ignored the firefighters...


walked the south side of the 9th floor and found it to be in good condition except at the SW corner. NIST reports that a FDNY scouting crew found an elevator car blown 20 feet down the hall. Apparently they found that report credible.

And still, you hold on to your tale that NIST and FEMA ignored the statements of the firefighters, Brian...



Instead of trying to determine the facts, you invent fantasies that make sense to you. That is the way to create myths, not the way to find truth.

The usual mirrortalk.
If you know yourself this well, then why do you continue to spread farytales?


In NIST's telling, a girder fell, causing a chain reaction that brought the entire building down. The girder can't unfall.

The point is that you imagine that a girder that was displaced by thermal expansion would find its way back to its original state when it cools

A fire causing thermal expansion should have pushed the girder off its seat before the fire burned out.

So you admit that the explanation of NIST is correct.
Yet you claimed that their explanation is a lie...


Perhaps you or th can invent some explanation how thermal expansion can cause the girder to fall an hour after the fire burns out

A girder can fall by first expanding and then contracting.

Only in your own mickey mouse world, a girder would contract back to its original state, Brian.

 
At 05 February, 2015 01:54, Blogger truth hurts said...

if you think a cooling and contracting girder would shorten itself several inches beyond its pre-fire length such that it would pull itself off its seat, you are free to provide calculations to support that thesis.

As if a failed janitor living in an attick would know anything about this subject....


I don't believe I've ever seen any.

precisely.
You are unable to find anything on the internet, not to do any investigation by yourself.
Thanks for proving that point.

 
At 05 February, 2015 02:48, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

Fire indices thermal expansion should have ceased when the fire ceased...

As usual you don't get it. Thermal expansion DID cease dopey when the fire ceased. The point is would the girder hold its position in perpetuity once its compromised by the fire. You are free to do the calculations that prove it would. Are you up for it?

 
At 05 February, 2015 03:05, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

But then again, you think any murder not demonstrably comitted by truthers must have been committed by non truthers, so expecting you to provide a calculation showing a compromised girder need hold forever once the fire ceases is the height of optimism for me.

 
At 05 February, 2015 03:12, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

And anyone who says he never called the FDNY "tales" lies is a liar. So verified by this thread alone, you lie, your statistics capability is laughable, and you are too cowardly to call people liars even though you imply they are all the time. So don't enlist yourself as a rebuttal witness. Your credibility as such wouldn't get you to the witness stand. No wonder the truth movement is dead.

 
At 05 February, 2015 05:15, Blogger Ian said...

Cue Skidmark to ask me what kind of shoes the girder wears when it's walking off its seat.

Squeal squeal squeal!

Poor Brian. He's so hysterical, he expects that I will humiliate him as soon as he posts something.

He's right, of course. Brian, I don't care what kind of shoes the girder wears. I care what kind of shoes I wear. I, for instance, wear Cole Haans to work, because I'm smart and successful. You can't afford those because you're a failed janitor living on disability. You can't even afford a decent haircut!

Ian, your Ianane fantasies about my writings, my living situation, and my career are based only on your own imaginings.

Squeal squeal squeal!

 
At 05 February, 2015 09:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

th, you make stuff up. The firefighters' reports contradict each other, as anyone can see who actually reads them.

NIST clearly doesn't believe the firefighters' reports because they don't quote them, and they exclude them from their analysis.

Your fantasy ad hominems make a fool of you.

Sham, I don't think I need to apologize for not knowing what know what "fire indices" are.

Your definition of "liar"
includes 99.999% of the people on the planet. You are very confused.

Skidmark (Ian), any fool can get an MBA and buy expensive shoes. And anyone who thinks $150 shoes are something to brag about is just pathetic.







 
At 05 February, 2015 10:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

Skidmark, pimps wear $300 shoes. By your metric, pimps are more successful than you are.

 
At 05 February, 2015 10:26, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

Fire induced. Nice dodge.

 
At 05 February, 2015 10:28, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

99.99% of the population is smart enough not to lie about what they have previously claimed. You do it with such regularity its evidence of mental defect.

 
At 05 February, 2015 10:31, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

So you won't tackle the issue of why thermal expansion could stop but the bldg could later feel the full effect of its occurrence. Instead going for the far easier attack of an erroneous auto correct. Speaks volumes of your cowardice.

 
At 05 February, 2015 10:36, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

not to mention the mind numbingly moronic assertion that because only 12 murders were demontrably committed by truthers, all other murders were committed by non truthers. The device to measure the stupidity of such a claim has yet to be invented.

 
At 05 February, 2015 10:46, Blogger Ian said...

Poor Brian. He's hysterical because I'm smart and successful and have a great business career while he can't hold down a job mopping floors so he has to live with his parents on disability.

Also, it's hilarious to be told that "anyone" can get an MBA from someone who failed out of an undergraduate program.

Go on, Brian. Demonstrate that anyone can get an MBA. Go into Stanford Business School's office and demand entry into the program. Make sure you wear your finest Goodwill attire and have your hideous homeless mullet disheveled as always.

 
At 05 February, 2015 10:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

It's not my fault that you guys lack the intellectual chops to recognize that your micharacterizations of what you think I implied in a particular context are not legitimate.

When you drag out the stories about the leaning building and the massive damage and the raging fires, I simply point out that neither NIST nor FEMA gave any credence to these stories. You guys seem to have no interest in resolving the discrepancies between the selected tales you quote and the official reports. I am interested in resolving the discrepancies. I am interested in a new investigation. I am interested in the truth. You are not. You just want to try to play gotcha so you can go on making up your facts.




 
At 05 February, 2015 11:01, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

I have no interest in your descrepencies. You think persistent fires on 6 floors is wimpy. Of course you think the accounts are contradicted.

But a guy who lies about what he previously claimed, dodges obvious faults in his argument that cooling fires would allow a bldg to revert to its previous integrity and thinks murders not attributed to known truthers must have been comitted by non truthers deserves ridicule and mockery. It's just a shame his ignorance is only outpaced by his stupidity.

 
At 05 February, 2015 11:04, Blogger truth hurts said...

The firefighters' reports contradict each other, as anyone can see who actually reads them.

Which excludes you, as you haven't shown even one of your imaginary contradictions.


NIST clearly doesn't believe the firefighters' reports

Tell me Brian, on which page of the report does NIST clearly state that they don't believe the firefighters?


because they don't quote them, and they exclude them from their analysis.

So you admit that you made it up.
It is just some biased conclusion of you, which you need in order to dismiss the firefighters.


Your fantasy ad hominems make a fool of you.

Mirrortalk.
You sure like your own image...


I don't think



Your definition of "liar"

Nope, that is your distorted version of his definition.

You are very confused.

and some more mirror talk.

any fool can get an MBA and buy expensive shoes.


Anyone, except you, Brian.
That is why you call them fools...

 
At 05 February, 2015 11:11, Blogger truth hurts said...

I simply point out that neither NIST nor FEMA gave any credence to these stories.

You haven't proved in any way that they didn't gave any credence to the testimonies of the firemen.
You also did not dare to call them liars or dare to say that you don't believe them.
That is the type of coward you are.



You guys seem to have no interest in resolving the discrepancies between the selected tales you quote and the official reports.

Of course we aren't interested in your fairytales.


I am interested in resolving the discrepancies.

Nope, you are not.


I am interested in a new investigation.

You havent even revealed a single genuine reason why a new investigation is neccesary.


I am interested in the truth.

Nope, you aren't
Stop pretending, brian, nobody is bying.

You just want to try to play gotcha so you can go on making up your facts.

i must admit, your mirrortalk is quite good.

 
At 05 February, 2015 11:18, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

"Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern it would collapse". FDNY chief cruthers.

NIST and fema didn't contradict the chief.

 
At 05 February, 2015 11:20, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

I could go on with all the testimonials that are perfectly in sync NIST and fema, but why bother. Your an idiot who will continue to dodge or lie about it.

 
At 05 February, 2015 11:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

Sham, you have no interest in discrepancies because you have no interest in truth.

You could go on and on about FDNY statements that are in synch with what the official reports say, but those moderate statements are not the wild tales about raging infernos and massive structural damage that you guys like to quote in other contexts.

Chief Cruthers' concern about a collapse was quite reasonable. The towers had just collapsed unexpectedly, credible witnesses had reported an explosion inside WTC7, and a recon team had found an elevator car blown 20 feet down the hall from its track.

th, you lie. I have shown the contradictions between the firefighters' tales and the NIST report.

Your lies are a waste of time to read, let alone to respond to.

 
At 05 February, 2015 11:54, Blogger Ian said...

Let's just note that Brian began spamming this blog in February of 2009. So despite us being a "waste of time", he's been babbling hysterically to us for SIX YEARS!

Later today, I'm going to celebrate Brian's 6th anniversary by posting some of his greatest hits. His humiliated squealing will be epic as we go through things like "meatball on a fork", his getting banned by many truther groups, and his cowardly refusal to debate Willie Rodriguez.

I hope you're as excited as I am about this, Brian!

 
At 05 February, 2015 11:57, Blogger snug.bug said...

No matter what the topic is, Ian always wants to talk about me. He seems to know nothing about 9/11, but only wants to brag about his clothes and his haircuts.

 
At 05 February, 2015 12:00, Blogger truth hurts said...

Chief Cruthers' concern about a collapse was quite reasonable.

But still, you argue that the collapse was impossible...

The towers had just collapsed unexpectedly

Nope, they were announced.


credible witnesses had reported an explosion inside WTC7, and a recon team had found an elevator car blown 20 feet down the hall from its track.

And still you argue that there was hardly any damage caused by the tower collapse...

you continue to contradict yourself, brian.
But that is to be expected as you make everything up as you go.

 
At 05 February, 2015 12:04, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

I said I have no interest in YOUR descrepencies. Being that you claimed NIST and fema contradict the FDNY and then are proven wrong by clear statements made by many personel is further proof of mental incompetence. The FDNY's position on building 7 was that it could collapse based on their assessment of it. they were proven correct. You choose to focus on what you think are exaggerated statements as to the extent of the fire whilst ignoring the majority of the statements that offer nothing more than what ultimately occurred is further proof of a lying coward.

 
At 05 February, 2015 12:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

th, I didn't say a collapse was impossible. You guys are incompetent.

How would flying debris from WTC1 blow a WTC7 elevator car out into the hall?

It seems that you don't even know that you make no sense at all.

 
At 05 February, 2015 12:17, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

And your refusal to explain how or why a compromised girder previously subjected to thermal expansion would retain its pre fire integrity (an assertion you clearly made) after the fire ceases is proof you have nothing, no reason to reopen its investigation.

Can you explain why every murder not committed by the 12 proven truthers was committed by non truthers. Still waiting for some clarity. Coward!!

 
At 05 February, 2015 12:19, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

"How would flying debris from WTC1 blow a WTC7 elevator car out into the hall? "

Whaaaaa? Really? No wonder you are so confused.

 
At 05 February, 2015 12:27, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

Chief cruthers makes no mention of any of the things you mention. Nice absurd search for confirmation dopey. He does make mention of fires on several floors however. Completely and factually in line with NIST and FEMA. There are many more testimonials that confirm and support what cruthers said. Again, perfectly in sync with NIST and FEMA. how do you think NIST came to the conclusion about the extent of the fires? You have stated the FDNY testimonials were ignored? Were they? How did NIST determine the fire persisted on six floors? They asked Brian Goode? Lol.

 
At 05 February, 2015 12:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

Sham, you obviously know nothing about the girder A-2001 controversy, and you should do your homework before making silly conclusions.

My analysis of the statistics of murders in America was intended only to refute the implicit claim that truthers murder people at a higher rate than the general populace does. I refuted that silly proposition very well.

How would flying debris from WTC1 blow a WTC7 elevator car out into the hall? Do you consider your giggling about the question to be an explanation? Are you easily swayed by silly arguments? Is that why you're so confused?

Chief Cruthers doesn't need to mention the fact that the towers collapsed. Everybody knows that they collapsed. Under the circumstances the suspicion that WTC7 was dangerous was entirely reasonable and completely uncontroversial.

I don't know how NIST determined that fire persisted on only 6 floors. Probably they looked at the photographs. Obviously they rejected claims of infernos on every floor, of massive structural damage, and they claims that the building was leaning and bulging.











 
At 05 February, 2015 13:14, Blogger truth hurts said...

How would flying debris from WTC1 blow a WTC7 elevator car out into the hall?

Debris does not fly, Brian..


It seems that you don't even know that you make no sense at all.


Also a perfect example of mirrortalk.
You indeed make no sense with your flying debris, Brian..

 
At 05 February, 2015 13:17, Blogger truth hurts said...


I don't know how NIST determined that fire persisted on only 6 floors


Yet you claim all kinds of things about the determination of NIST...

So you finally admit that you are just making it all up.

 
At 05 February, 2015 13:20, Blogger truth hurts said...

Under the circumstances the suspicion that WTC7 was dangerous was entirely reasonable and completely uncontroversial.

meaning that the collapse wasn't impossible, like you are trying to say for about 6 years on this blog...

Case closed, Brian.
You loose...

 
At 05 February, 2015 13:21, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

I have made no conclusion. Nice try. I want to know how you conclude a compromised girder would revert to its pre fire condition of structural soundness once the fire goes out. Its YOUR conclusion and as such requires clarity.

 
At 05 February, 2015 13:22, Blogger truth hurts said...

What Brian tries to hide is that neither NIST, nor Fema, nor the FDNY said that the fires were wimpy.

Meaning that Brian made that up all by himself.

 
At 05 February, 2015 13:23, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

Your analysis of the murder rate concluded all murders not demonstrably committed by truthers were committed by non truthers. More bare assertions requiring clarity. In this case it's such a preposterous notion you would be better to just admit it's lunacy and move on.

 
At 05 February, 2015 13:27, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

My giggling is a reflex that's usually reserved for when a child makes a precious, yet childlike error in common sense. Tons of debris falling and gashing a building cannot knock an elevator out of its shaft and move it 20 feet down a hall way??? 20 feet???

 
At 05 February, 2015 13:31, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

Man you just aren't that bright. The point about cruthers was he dismisses your view that the FDNY are contradicted by NIST and FEMA. And there are plenty of other testimonials that are further supported by what cruthers, NIST and FEMA said. So your changing the point about cruthers is another example of a liar changing his argument on the fly. Cruthers (and plenty of others) is corroborated by NIST and FEMA.

You don't know how NIST concluded the fires persisted on 6 floors? That's because you are an idiot.

 
At 05 February, 2015 20:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

Debris flies, th, when it has sufficient lateral acceleration. That's why they call it a "fly ball" in baseball.

That WTC7 was reasonably considered dangerous has nothing to do with whether the collapse was impossible. I never said collapse was impossible. Try to sharpen your mind.

Sham, according to NIST the girder failed by falling off its seat. I never concluded that the girder was rise up and reaffix itself to its seat when the fire went out.

There's no need to say that the fires were wimpy. Any fool can see they were wimpy.

The firefighters did not say the elevator was "knocked" out of its shaft. If it were knocked, the evidence of knocking should be clear enough that they wouldn't say it was "blown". They said it was blown out.

Chief Cruthers is corroborated by me. Nothing you quoted from him is unreasonable--as opposed
to the tales that 'bunkers cite about massive fires, massive structural damage, a leaning building, and a bulge. Those tales were ignored by the official reports.














 
At 05 February, 2015 22:39, Blogger Justin Credible said...

Chief Cruthers is corroborated by me. Nothing you quoted from him is unreasonable--as opposed
to the tales that 'bunkers cite about massive fires, massive structural damage, a leaning building, and a bulge. Those tales were ignored by the official reports.


The NIST report did cite "massive structural damage, a leaning building, and a bulge". This drawing is from the NIST Report on WTC 7.

http://rememberbuilding7.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/NIST-collapse-model-building-7.jpg

See the massive structural damage? See the leaning building? See the bulge?

Either you've never seen the NIST Report on WTC 7, or you're a liar. Take your pick, liar.

 
At 05 February, 2015 23:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

Justin, your false dichotomy (aka "fool's dilemma") is irrational.

We were talking about predictions hours before WTC7 collapsed.

You're talking about NIST's models of what should have happened during the collapse.

Thanks for bringing up those models, though. Anyone who has seen the collapse videos (which you probably have not seen) knows that what actually happened bears no resemblance to NIST's models of what should have happened in a natural collapse.

 
At 06 February, 2015 00:31, Blogger truth hurts said...

That's why they call it a "fly ball" in baseball.

So now you are suggesting that on 911, baseballers were trowing debris against WTC7?
You are very confused.


That WTC7 was reasonably considered dangerous has nothing to do with whether the collapse was impossible.

You argued many times that wtc7 was the only building that ever collapsed due to fire, implying that it is impossible for a high rise building to collapse due to fire alone.
So if that is the case, then why could there ever been worry that wtc7 would collapse?


I never said collapse was impossible. Try to sharpen your mind.

as others have pointed out, you always lie about your previous statements.


There's no need to say that the fires were wimpy. Any fool can see they were wimpy.

Indeed any fool would say that they were wimpy.
Which is why neither fema, nor nist, nor the fdny said that they were wimpy.
Only our fool brian says so, and also acknowledges that it is goofy to call the fires were wimpy...

The firefighters did not say the elevator was "knocked" out of its shaft.

Then why did you say that they said knocked?


If it were knocked, the evidence of knocking should be clear enough that they wouldn't say it was "blown".

the usual mumbo jumbo speculation of Brian...

They said it was blown out.

and you never heard of the term simile...


-as opposed
to the tales that 'bunkers cite about massive fires, massive structural damage, a leaning building, and a bulge.



So you are saying that those firemen were lying...


Those tales were ignored by the official reports.

Nope, you only hope that they ignored it.
But to be on the safe side, you also called the reports dishonest with a criminal intend....

 
At 06 February, 2015 00:37, Blogger truth hurts said...

Anyone who has seen the collapse videos (which you probably have not seen) knows that what actually happened bears no resemblance to NIST's models of what should have happened in a natural collapse.

And what you cleverly hide is the fact that the simulation wasn't meant to be an exact copy of the collapse of wtc7. The simulation was only to reveal what it would take to make the building collapse completely.
That was also the objective of NIST: finding out if and in whatway the structure of the building and the used materials played a role in the global collapse.
The objective wasnt't to recreate the collapse in every detail...

 
At 06 February, 2015 01:29, Blogger Justin Credible said...

Justin, your false dichotomy (aka "fool's dilemma") is irrational.

What were you saying, liar?

Here's what you said: Either he's wrong or NIST is wrong--and either way, you are wrong.

Hypocrite much, liar? Your rebuttal, as always, is a false dilemma.


We were talking about predictions hours before WTC7 collapsed

So am I, liar. Listen to firefighter Miller:

"See where the white smoke is? You see this thing leaning like this? It's definitely coming down. There's no way to stop it, 'cause you have to go up in there to put it out and it's already, the structural integrity is not there in the building."

Here's the video that proves you're lying about the firefighters' prediction of eminent collapse of the structure...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XImQ6a-VrnA

Now contradict yourself again, lying neo-fascist scum...

 
At 06 February, 2015 02:06, Blogger Justin Credible said...

No, Shamrock, I am not saying that NIST called the fires "wimpy"....The fires in WTC7 were wimpy.

More doubletalk from the neo-fascist liar, Brian "Good"...

Of course, the fires were "wimpy".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D18CNfWVVcs

Fuck you, liar...

 
At 06 February, 2015 03:09, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

Chief Cruthers is corroborated by me. Nothing you quoted from him is unreasonable--as opposed
to the tales that 'bunkers cite about massive fires, massive structural damage, a leaning building, and a bulge. Those reports were ignored by the official report."

Bullshit you feckin liar. You claimed NIST and FEMA contradicted the FDNY, not NIST and FEMA contradicted the reports of a fully involved building or massive fires. It's more evidence that you lie and change your premise as it suits you. That you think the NIST didn't ascertain the condition of the bldg in part based on the FDNY proves your also an idiot. But we already knew that.

 
At 06 February, 2015 03:20, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

I see, you think it was an explosion caused the car to be where it was because the crew said it was "blown" there. They don't mention bombs or explosions but that word is the key. Got it. You also claim NIST apparently believed that report credible and yet they make no mention of it being caused by a bomb. See how another assertion of yours is proven false. Probably not.

 
At 06 February, 2015 03:21, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

Wimpy fires don't persist on 6 floors. Only an idiot would make such a claim. That's you!!

 
At 06 February, 2015 03:28, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

"I never concluded that the girder was rise up and reaffix itself to its seat when the fire went out."

But you did when you claimed that once the fire ceased thermal expansion would halt. This was a clear attempt to state the NIST collapse scenario is wrong. The ONLY inference is once the fire ceased the collapse scenario of thermal expansion induced progressive collapse is false. Unless you have an alternative contortionist implication at the ready. I'm all ears.

 
At 06 February, 2015 03:40, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

Justin, I'm sure you noticed his avoidance Ol the link you provided. He thinks we don't notice. You can add deluded to liar, coward and statistical moron to his resume.

 
At 06 February, 2015 07:15, Blogger Ian said...

Guys, you have to remember, without "wimpy" fires, Brian would have to accept reality about 9/11. He's never going to do that, so he's going to keep babbling about "wimpy" fires despite the ironclad evidence of the opposite.

Brian has nothing else going for him. He lives with his parents, he has no job, no friends, no family. Giving up on 9/11 conspiracy fantasies would be admitting that his life is a total waste. He's not going to do that.

Better to just taunt and ridicule him than to make logical arguments. He gets far more hysterical if you, say, mock his hideous haircut or his homosexual obsession with Willie Rodriguez.

 
At 06 February, 2015 08:23, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...


"A fire causing thermal expansion should have pushed the girder off its seat before the fire burned out"

This is the lame brained quote of yours Brian. The ONLY interpretation of this quote is that you believe the girder would go back to its pre fire condition of integrity once the fire ceased. DOH! contort away.

Chief cruthers is corroborated by you who claim NIST and FEMA ignored him??? Classic circular stupidity.

 
At 06 February, 2015 15:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

th, the fires were wimpy. You can't show me any picturs of fires in WTC7 that were not wimpy.

The firefighters did not say the elevator was knocked off its tracks. They said it was blown out 20 feet into the hall.

I didn't say the firefighters you clowns like to cite were lying. I said the official investigations ignored them, and so apparently did not believe them.

The simulation contradicts the actual collapse, because in the simulation the unsupported perimeter walls folded up like a wet paper bag--and in reality the perimeter walls held their shape, which leads to much doubt that the perimeter walls in real life had lost their lateral support.

 
At 06 February, 2015 15:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

Justincred, there is nothing false about the dichotomy that either the firefighters with the gaudy tales are wrong or NIST is wrong. That is a true dichotomy.

Fireman Miller's claim that WTC7 was leaning was ignored by FEMA and NIST. You guys see contradictions where there are none. That speaks poorly for your intellectual prowess.

You are very confused about the fires. There is no fire in WTC7 in your video that is anything other than wimpy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D18CNfWVVcs

NIST explains where the smoke came from. Not from WTC7.









 
At 06 February, 2015 15:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

Sham, when people claim "the fireman said massive damage and th3ey said massive fires" I say the official report ignored them. I'm not always going to qualify and say they ignored the ones with the gaudy tales that the bunkers like to cite. Life is too short. When you take stuff out of context you make yourself look bad, not me.

I don't know what blew the elevator car out into the hallway. I know that two separate witnesses reported an explosion at about that place, both of them NYC employees. One was the Corporation Counsel of NYC, Michael Hess. I never said it was caused by a bomb. You make stuff up.

Wimpy fires persist on six floors when no effort is made to fight them. You're silly.

I claimed that once the fire stopped that thermal expansion would halt. Yes. Thermal expansion is directly proportional to the temperature of the steel.

It seems that you lack the curiosity to find out what NIST's version of the cause of the lack of integrity in A2001 girder is. If you would only find out, then maybe you would stop making yourself look foolish.

I didn't claim that FEMA and NIST ignored Chief Cruthers. Why would I say such a stupid thing?

 
At 06 February, 2015 15:46, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

Wrong, liar. You said NIST and FEMA ignored the FDNY. It's clear the opposite is true. The determined the extent of the fires in large part by interviewing witnesses.

 
At 06 February, 2015 15:49, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

U agreed that fires persisted on 6 floors. Nobody of any common sense would charecterize that as wimpy. Well an idiot would but nobody gives credence to idiots.

 
At 06 February, 2015 15:51, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

A witness described the train crash this week in mount pleasant as "the front car just exploded" to 911. Therefore a bomb must have detonated. You are demonstrably dumb Brian.

 
At 06 February, 2015 15:54, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

Of course the didn't say the car was knocked out of its tracks by falling debris. They couldn't have known how it got there. Their charectization of how it is no different then the woman who said the train car exploded. Did the firemen say the car was clearly the result of a bomb. Ummmmm, NOPE. Idiot.

 
At 06 February, 2015 15:58, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

Justin, he previously claimed the NIST and FEMA ignored the FDNY. NOW he is qualifying it to be those FDNY who talked of gaudy tales. I'm sure you noticed his moving to an irrelevant position from his previous one, which is clearly a lie. Too bad he hasn't noticed.

 
At 06 February, 2015 16:01, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

No, you claimed the bldg would not have collapsed BECAUSE thermal expansion ceased. THAT WAS YOUR POINT JACKWAD. why are you backing away from it? Coward.

 
At 06 February, 2015 16:08, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

So you don't think the car was knocked their by a violent collision with elements of tower 1, but you aren't saying a bomb did it?? Got. I know truther tactic 101 is never make a declarative statement, but when the implication is clear, you HAVE asserted a position. Only an idiot would imply bomb did it but be too cowardly to state so. You are an idiot and a coward.

 
At 06 February, 2015 16:10, Blogger truth hurts said...

th, the fires were wimpy.

You admitted that it is goofy to call the fires Wimpy, Brian..

Neither the FDNY, nor NIST, nor FEMA calls the fires wimpy.
In fact, you are the only one who does that, dispite the fact that you yourself admit that calling the fires wimpy is goofy.


You can't show me any picturs of fires in WTC7 that were not wimpy.

A bogus statement, Brian...



The firefighters did not say the elevator was knocked off its tracks. They said it was blown out 20 feet into the hall.

As usual, you change what you said earlier...
And of course, you won't admit that you did.



I didn't say the firefighters you clowns like to cite were lying.

Yes you did, you said that their statements were merely tales and you insist that the fires were wimpy, while none of the firefighters ever said that.

I said the official investigations ignored them, and so apparently did not believe them.

Nice try, but no cigar, Brian.
Everyone is aware that you are a coward. You don't have to emphasize that.



The simulation contradicts the actual collapse, because in the simulation the unsupported perimeter walls folded up like a wet paper bag

Nope, the perimeter walls were excluded from the simulation.

And the rest of what you say is merely mumbo jumbo, as you cannot prove in any way how the perimeter walls behaved during the collapse.

 
At 06 February, 2015 16:13, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

You said NIST and FEMA ignored the FDNY. Chief cruthers is a leader in the FDNY. Another example of your cowardice thinking you haven't made an ass of yourself.

 
At 06 February, 2015 16:14, Blogger truth hurts said...

@sham:
The beauty of lying is that there is no limit to it
that is what brian is showing: he blatantly lies about every single detail and continues to do so. He doesn't care that he constantly contradicts himself, he will cover that by lying about it.

Look for example at the video he links to.
Anyone who sees the video can see that the fires weren't wimpy.
But Brian doesnt care, he wil continue to call the fires wimpy.

 
At 06 February, 2015 16:21, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

"I didn't claim that FEMA and NIST ignored Chief Cruthers. Why would I say such a thing"

"I said the official investigation ignored them (FDNY)."

Stunned disbelief!!

 
At 06 February, 2015 16:36, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

TH, Ian isn't using hyperbole to describe Brian's mental status. It hysterically obvious he lacks virtually any competence. I can see (and do all the time) truthers lying about the facts of 9/11. But as you point out, this deuche contradicts previous held positions. Truthers are taught to not make a position statement. They know it forces them to provide proof. But this moron breaks that rule, has to reposition himself but doesn't see the inconsistency and continues to lie about what he previously said.

Implication is no barrier in the mind of lunatic. The problem for Brian is he doesn't just imply. He emphatically states and lies about it. No wonder the truth movement kicked him out.

A clear example. NIST and FEMA ignored the FDNY. He clearly made the position clear.

He then says "I didnt claim NIST and fema ignored chief cruthers." Cruthers is an FDNY chief.

Only mental defect explains it. I initially thought it was a put on. Brian is just goofing. Sadly I was wrong.

 
At 06 February, 2015 16:51, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

He employed perfect truther tactic regarding the elevator car. He used the word "blown" to imply what occurred to the car. But it's only an implication. In his feeble mind, it's perfectly reasonable to assert "I never mentioned bomb" regarding the car. He forgets that he said it's not possible that the car was impacted by falling debris that knocked it there. Oh he will still assert (why I have no idea) that since the firemen didn't say it was knocked there that it couldn't have been knocked there. But this doesn't leave much room for any alternative position other then a bomb "blew" it there.

 
At 06 February, 2015 17:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

Sham, I said NIST and FEMA ignored the reports of the firefighters about WTC7's alleged massive damage, leaning, and massive fires. And they did.

Wimpy fires on 6 floors out of 47 is wimpy fires. By contrast, highrise fires before and after 9/11 have been conflagrations--and none of those other highrises fell down.

I never said a bomb detonated. You are demonstrably incompetent, Sham.

Sure they could have known how the car got out to the hall. If they saw dents in the back and they saw a multi-ton piece of WTC tower debris in the elevator shaft, they could surmise that the debris knocked the car out there. They did not say "knocked". They said "blown". Presumably simple curiosity would motivate them to examine the elevator shaft for evidence of the mechanism of ejection.

The context of FEMA and NIST ignoring the firefighters was a discussion of the gaudy tales that fools like th and WAQo like to cite. FEMA and NIST ignored those tales. If you think the firefighters participated substantially in the official WTC7 reports, you are free to provide some evidence. I won't hold my breath. I haven't seen it.

I never said the building wouldn't have collapsed because thermal expansion ceased.
I claimed that once the fire stopped that thermal expansion would halt. You are mischaracterizing what I said and then criticizing your own very goofy misinterpretations. You're ravaging a straw doll of your own invention.










 
At 06 February, 2015 17:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

th, please don't try to tell me what I admit. It's obvious that in the time it takes you to shift from the text of what I said to the text of what you're writing, you forget what I said.

The fires are wimpy. There is no need to call them wimpy, they're so wimpy.

You can't show me any picturs of fires in WTC7 that were not wimpy.

The firefighters said the elevator was blown 20 feet out into the hall.

I never said any firefighters were lying. I said NIST did not believe some of them.

The perimeter walls were not excluded from the simulation. You have really goofy ideas. The perimeter walls are the ones that fold up like a wet paper bag in the sims.

Any fool can look in the video and see how the perimeter walls behaved in the collapse--they maintained most of their their planar morphology and they fell straight down for half of the collapse and then leaned slightly to the south at the end.

 
At 06 February, 2015 17:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

th, I didn't lie about anything, Anyone who looks at the video can see that the fires in WTC7 are wimpy. The smoke that seems to be coming from WTC7 is not coming from WTC7. NIST admits it's not coming from WTC7. They explain where it is coming from.

Your ignorance is very persistent. And now you're down to making up fake quotes to try to pretend you have a point.

 
At 06 February, 2015 17:49, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

No, you said the ignored the FDNY. No ambiguity. A position you have now moved off of, and it's clear NIST not only did not ignore the FDNY, the utilized their observations.

 
At 06 February, 2015 17:50, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

Persistent fires on 6 floors ain't wimpy. Unless your an idiot.

 
At 06 February, 2015 17:51, Blogger truth hurts said...

please don't try to...

You are not entitled to tell me what to do and what not, Brian...

The fires are wimpy.

You can repeat that all you want, Brian, but that does not make it true.
Facts:
NIST doesn't say they are wimpuy
FEMA doesn't say they are wimpy
FDNY dowsn't say they are wimpy
Video evidence doesn't show they are wimpy
Photo evidence doesn't show they are wimpy


There is no need to call them wimpy

Yet you continue to call them wimpy...

You can't show me any picturs of fires in WTC7 that were not wimpy.

Typical liar logic: you don't have to prove anything, others need to prove you wrong.
And of course, you won't accept any evidence that others will bring to the discussion...

But that is not how it works.
You called the fires wimpy, yuu need to prove that they were.
And you know that you cannot prove it, that is why you say that there is no need to call them wimpy.


The firefighters said the elevator was blown 20 feet out into the hall.


That is the fun with you: you don't believe a word of what the firemen said about the fires, the damage and the state of the construction, yet you take their word literatly if they say an elevator car was blown out..

That is precisely why truthers like you haven't achieved anything the past 13 years.


I never said any firefighters were lying.

You said it multiple times, Brian.
But you are too much of a coward to admit that.

I said NIST did not believe some of them.

That is what kind of coward you are, Brian. Trying to hide behind NIST...


The perimeter walls were not excluded from the simulation.

Yes they were, but you cannot use that in your controlled demolition fantasy, which is why you decided to ignore that.


The perimeter walls are the ones that fold up like a wet paper bag in the sims.

Nope, all you can see in the simulation is the steel structure inside the building. Not the perimeter walls.


Any fool can look in the video and see how the perimeter walls behaved in the collapse-

Besides the point, Brian.
The simulation does not show the perimeter walls.

But you got one thing right: only a fool believes your mumbo jumbo about wtc7.
Anyone else sees richt throug your lies.

 
At 06 February, 2015 17:52, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

No you were careful not too. You just noted the charectization of "blown". A man would say it was blown there by a bomb if that's what he believed. You clearly believe it wasn't there as a result of tower 1. Hence......

 
At 06 February, 2015 17:54, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

The discussion of NIST and FEMA and the FDNY was brought on by YOUR ASSERTION that NIST and FEMA ignored the FDNY. A point you are cowardly backing awY from now.

 
At 06 February, 2015 17:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

Sham, I don't contradict myself. You take what I said out of context to try to give the impression that I do. That's dishonest.

I never claimed that NIST ignored Chief Cruthers. Why would they ignore him? On the other hand, you provide no evidence that they paid any attention to him.

I said that the FDNY recon team said the elevator car was blown out into the hall. That's from the NIST report. According to NIST, that's what they said.

It is perfectly reasonable to assert that that I didn't say anything about bombs. It happens to be true.

I didn't say the car couldn't have been knocked there. I said the firemen did not say it was.

You are just wrestling a blow-up doll into submission.

 
At 06 February, 2015 17:56, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

You claim wimpy fires to counter FDNY "tales" of gaudy fires is not calling members liars. Alex jones must love you.

 
At 06 February, 2015 17:57, Blogger truth hurts said...

I didn't lie about anything

Mash has pointed out many lies in this thread alone, Brian...
Wich shows what a bad liar you really are, Brian..

Anyone who looks at the video can see that the fires in WTC7 are wimpy.

Nope and this thread proves it: only call them wimpy.
Nobody else does.

The smoke that seems to be coming from WTC7 is not coming from WTC7.

The video shows how smoke comes out of the broken windows of wtc7, Brian...


NIST admits it's not coming from WTC7.

No they don't.
That is what you are making up, as usual.

They explain where it is coming from.

Like Ian said: you use NIST as a gold standard until the point of the collapse itself, at which point you call them dishonest..

That is quite typical for a liar.
You can twist around a lot of what NIST said, and that is why you use them as a gold standard.
But you cannot lie about the conclusions of the report, so you can only dismiss them as being dishonest.


Your ignorance is very persistent. And now you're down to making up fake quotes to try to pretend you have a point.

Your usual mirrortalk, Brian.
Nothing more, nothing less...

 
At 06 February, 2015 18:02, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

"How come none of the FDNY witnesses' claims about the fires were quoted in the FEMA"- Brian Goode

"I never said NIST and FEMA ignored chief cruthers"

You just stink at this.


 
At 06 February, 2015 18:03, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...


"I never said any firefighters were lying. I said NIST did not believe some of them."

See above.

 
At 06 February, 2015 18:04, Blogger truth hurts said...

I don't contradict myself.

you are not entitled to determine that about yourself.


You take what I said out of context to try to give the impression that I do. That's dishonest.

mirrortalk, brian.


I never claimed that NIST ignored Chief Cruthers.

Yes you did.


Why would they ignore him?

according to yourself, because they didn't believe the gaudy tales of the firemen.



On the other hand, you provide no evidence that they paid any attention to him.

He doesn't have to.
You are the one claiming they didn't. So you need to prove that they didn't .
And you can't, because you lied about it.

I said that the FDNY recon team said the elevator car was blown out into the hall. That's from the NIST report.

But at the same time, you claim that NIST ignored the damage described by the firemen...


According to NIST, that's what they said.

So you admit that you lied about NIST not including it.


It is perfectly reasonable to assert that that I didn't say anything about bombs. It happens to be true.

I didn't say the car couldn't have been knocked there. I said the firemen did not say it was.


Typical liar tricks...


You are just wrestling a blow-up doll into submission.

mirrortalk, brian.

 
At 06 February, 2015 18:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

Sham, you're going to have to start quoting me directly if you want to maintain any illusion that you're not just making stuff up. When did I say that NIST and FEMA ignored the FDNY? I said they ignored the extreme tales that ignorant people like th and MGF find compelling.

Wimpy fires can, and do, persist when no one fights them. The fires in WTC7 were wimpy. You can't show me any pictures of fires in WTC7 that are not wimpy. There aren't any.

How do you know what the recon team said and did not say about the blown out elevator cars?

 
At 06 February, 2015 18:09, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

"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."

But you never implied a bomb blew the elevator from its hoistway.

You see Brian, once you type it, it stays typed.

 
At 06 February, 2015 18:11, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

"I never said the building wouldn't have collapsed because thermal expansion ceased. "

Then your point. About the fire ceasing 1 hour before collapse is irrelevant. Glad we cleared that up.

 
At 06 February, 2015 18:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

Sham, I have never called firefighters liars.

If they looked at the smoke on the south side of the building and assumed (as you do) that the smoke was coming from WTC7, they could have believed the entire building was on fire.

NIST tells us that the smoke did not come from WTC7. The firefighters were wrong. That doesn't make them liars. That makes them tired, and stressed, and human.

 
At 06 February, 2015 18:14, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

"Sham, I don't contradict myself. You take what I said out of context to try to give the impression that I do. That's dishonest. "

Not at all. You said The NIST and FEMA ignored the FDNY but you never said they ignored cruthers (and a bunch of others). Typical mental defect.

 
At 06 February, 2015 18:18, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

"I never claimed that NIST ignored Chief Cruthers".

No, you said they ignored the FDNY. Chief cruthers is FDNY idiot.

 
At 06 February, 2015 18:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

th, I wouldn't trey to tell you what to do. I can't think of anything you can do competently.

I ASK you to please not try to tell me what I admit. It's obvious that in the time it takes you to shift from the text of what I said to the text of what you're writing, you forget what I said.

You have never shown me any pictures of WTC7 fires that are not wimpy. The evidence of the photos is that the fires were wimpy. Do you think photographers for some reason declined to photograph the big fires?

I never said I don't believe what the firemen said. I said NIST and FEMA don't believe them.

I don't take their word literally that the elevator car was blown out. I don't know if it was blown out. I said they said it 3was blown out.

Please don't try to tell me what I believe or what I take literally. You don't have the intellectual chops to do it.

I never said the firefighters were lying. YOU are lying.

The perimeter walls were NOT excluded from the sims. You don't know what you're talking about.







 
At 06 February, 2015 18:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

Sham, you'll need to have to start quoting me directly, and naming the time stamp for the quote. Otherwise people are likely to think (with great justification) that you're lying.

 
At 06 February, 2015 18:21, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

"Sham, you're going to have to start quoting me directly if you want to maintain any illusion that you're not just making stuff up"

Brian, when I put them in quotes, that me quoting you directly. See the quotes? Duh.

 
At 06 February, 2015 18:23, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

"I didn't claim that FEMA and NIST ignored Chief Cruthers. Why would I say such a thing"

"I said the official investigation ignored them" (FDNY).

See the quotes.? Dope.

 
At 06 February, 2015 18:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

Sham, the tactic of lying about what I said and then accusing me of lying and cowardice in refusing to validate your claims--that's only going to work on dummies like Ian and th.

Is that the audience you're playing to?

 
At 06 February, 2015 18:27, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

"Wimpy fires can, and do, persist when no one fights them. The fires in WTC7 were wimpy!"

Really? Been a FF for 20+ years now,dumbest uneducated statement ever.

 
At 06 February, 2015 18:29, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

"Sham, the tactic of lying about what I said and then accusing me of lying and cowardice in refusing to validate your claims--that's only going to work on dummies like Ian and Th"

Except I'm quoting you numb nuts. Once you type it, it stays typed.

 
At 06 February, 2015 18:33, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

"I don't take their word literally that the elevator car was blown out. I don't know if it was blown out. I said they said it 3was blown out."

But you scoffed at the idea it was knocked there by impacting elements from the tower becaus the FF said "blown". You aren't leaving yourself much wiggle room dopey. Saying you don't know how it got there but it couldn't have been knocked there implies something. You suck at this.

 
At 06 February, 2015 18:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

Sham, thanks for busting yourself so blatantly. You're a liar.

You claim I said "'I said the official investigation ignored them' (FDNY)."

That's a lie, as anyone can see. I said (at 15:20) something completely different:

"I didn't say the firefighters you clowns like to cite were lying. I said the official investigations ignored them, and so apparently did not believe them."

You lie. You lie like an Ian, like a th, like an MGF. Why do you guys lie so much?

 
At 06 February, 2015 18:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

I've gotta go. Have a nice Friday night wrestling your blow-up doll.

 
At 06 February, 2015 19:14, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

Here's another gem.

"A fire causing thermal expansion should have pushed the girder off its seat before the fire burned out."

"I never said the bldg wouldn't have collapsed once the thermal expansion ceased. I claimed that once the fire stopped thermal expansion would stop"

Ah well. Just another self inflicted wound.

 
At 06 February, 2015 19:38, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

I will concede and apologize for using that particular quote as you did qualify it.

This from a previous quote of yours.

"th, you make stuff up. The firefighters' reports contradict each other, as anyone can see who actually reads them.

NIST clearly doesn't believe the firefighters' reports because they don't quote them, and they exclude them from their analysis."

Which fire fighters? Cruthers? Hayden, Nigro, Boyle, etc. Did NIST use FDNY at all in their analysis of the condition of 7? Chance to clear things up.

The difference between you and me is I admit my error. You troll on and get caught in lies and change your story to just like you did in the quote above.

 
At 07 February, 2015 07:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

Sham, your inadequate analytical skills cause you to perceive contradictions where there are none.

You take quotes out of context to make them appear to mean something they do not. When I said "A fire causing thermal expansion should have pushed the girder off its seat before the fire burned out" this was in the context of a discussion of NIST's hypothesized collapse mechanism.
It seems you don't even know what NIST's hypothesis is--so no surprise that you easily confused yourself.

I never said that the building wouldn't have collapsed once the thermal expansion ceased. That would be a very silly thing to say, because that would reject all other collapse mechanisms other than NIST's. Since there hasn't been a full and honest investigation, there are many collapse hypotheses that need to be considered.

If you knew anything about the litany of firefighters' quotes that describe massive fires and massive damage, you would know that they contradict each other.
Please familiarize yourself with the statements of Chief Fellini, Captain Boyle, Chief Hayden, Chief Nigro, Chief Meyers, Chief McCarthy, and Chief Norman before shooting your mouth off about something you know nothing about.








 
At 07 February, 2015 08:16, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

Brian, when you say thermal expansion should have pushed the girder off its seat before the fire ceased, and the girder fail IS the cause of collapse initiation, you are clearly saying the cooling girder shouldn't have failed. The imocation is obvious. I know you operate under the assumption implications don't count. But that's why your an idiot.

 
At 07 February, 2015 08:19, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

"If you knew anything about the litany of firefighters' quotes that describe massive fires and massive damage, you would know that they contradict each other"

being that you charecterize the fires as whimpy, and NIST never mentions any such thing in their vernacular or yours, it's clear NIST contradicts YOU!!

 
At 07 February, 2015 08:27, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

I am quite familiar with the testimonials. More than you can possibly comprehend. How bout you give me the quote from them that NIST contradicts.

 
At 07 February, 2015 08:37, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

"Implication" is the word from 3 posts earlier.

 
At 07 February, 2015 08:50, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

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."

Except nigro and company never reference the explosion or the elevator car as their reason for creating the collapse zone, clearly contradicting that evidence.

 
At 07 February, 2015 08:56, Blogger Shamrock3939 said...

To clarify, employing Goode logic, not using the alleged explosion or elevator car in their assessment of 7's integrity, nigro contradicts that report.

NIST too does not reference the alleged explosion and elevator car in the collapse scenario. Rendering everything Brian implies but is too cowardly to state as moot.

Game, set, match.

 
At 07 February, 2015 09:02, Blogger truth hurts said...


th, I wouldn't trey to tell you what to do.


Well, than that is settled.


I can't think of anything you can do competently.

Indeed, as you have now idea about who i am and what my background is.
So stop pretending that you know.



I ASK you to please not try to tell me what I admit.

I'm merely repeating what you admitted.
If you don't want me to, stop admitting things..



You have never shown me any pictures of WTC7 fires that are not wimpy.

There is no point in doing that.
You yourself admitted that it would be goofy for anyone to call the fires wimpy.

The evidence of the photos is that the fires were wimpy.

Nope, you haven't shown a single picture of wimpy fires in wtc7.


Do you think photographers for some reason declined to photograph the big fires?

A bogus statement.
Care to show me any pictures of wimpy fires taken inside wtc7 and taken at the north, east, south and west face of the building?
You know damn well that you can't



I never said I don't believe what the firemen said. I said NIST and FEMA don't believe them.

While you try to make Sham believe that you never said NIST ignored the firemen...

You continue to contradict yourself.


I don't take their word literally that the elevator car was blown out.

You emphasize the fact that they said 'blown out'.



I don't know if it was blown out. I said they said it 3was blown out.

Your usual cowardly hiding behind others, brian..



Please don't try to tell me what I believe or what I take literally.

You are not entitled to ask me that, Brian.


You don't have the intellectual chops to do it.

First you admit that you don't know what my competence is, and now you already forgot that and pretend to know it.

You are not entitled to determine what my intellectual chops are, Brian..


I never said the firefighters were lying.

You are too much of a coward to admit that you did.

The perimeter walls were NOT excluded from the sims.

Yes they were, as anyone can see on the sims.


You don't know what you're talking about.

mirrortalk.

 
At 07 February, 2015 09:20, Blogger truth hurts said...

You take quotes out of context to make them appear to mean something they do not.

Mirrortalk brian..
Just another smoke screen to hide that you are lying..


When I said "A fire causing thermal expansion should have pushed the girder off its seat before the fire burned out" this was in the context of a discussion of NIST's hypothesized collapse mechanism.


Nope, it is merely your distorted version of the collapse mechanism that NIST described.
You are also still having the illusion that NIST tried to determine exactly what happened with WTC7, while their objective was only to investigate if and in what way the construction and the used materials played a role in the global collapse.


It seems you don't even know what NIST's hypothesis is--so no surprise that you easily confused yourself.

And some more mirror talk...

I never said that the building wouldn't have collapsed once the thermal expansion ceased.

So you admit that a new investigation has no merit..

That would be a very silly thing to say,

Indeed.

because that would reject all other collapse mechanisms other than NIST's.

Meaning that you are aware that not only it is possible that wtc7 would collapse due to fire alone, it is also possible that other failures occured in the structure, leading into a global collapse.

So your whole mumbo jumbo about other high rises that didn't collapse was m00t, Brian, as you now admit.


Since there hasn't been a full and honest investigation, there are many collapse hypotheses that need to be considered.

Nope, not the case.
NIST pointed out the flaws in the structure, leading to the global collapse.



If you knew anything about the litany of firefighters' quotes that describe massive fires and massive damage, you would know that they contradict each other.

You have not even shown 1 contradiction, Brian..


Please familiarize yourself with the statements of Chief Fellini, Captain Boyle, Chief Hayden, Chief Nigro, Chief Meyers, Chief McCarthy, and Chief Norman before shooting your mouth off about something you know nothing about.

They don't contradict each other, nor do they contradict the NIST report.

You made that all up.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home