Mark Basile's Study "May" Be Ready This Year
Gotta give the Troofers credit on this one; they have shown the patience of Job for Basile.
I can tell you that Mark will most likely not be giving us regular updates, in the form of little progress reports, as we had initially planned. It just seems as if keeping any kind of schedule is not really an option for Mark, presumably due to time constraints. He did say at some point a few months ago that he was planning to take a little vacation to sort out the study, but that has not happened yet, as far as I know...Let's remember that he raised the $5000 needed for the study over 2 years ago. He's going to make NIST's report on Building 7 look rushed.
It has always been extremely difficult to reach Mark but in recent months he has been even more reclusive than normal, and I suspect that a series of email/phone calling spamming from people I won´t mention is responsible for that.
We will certainly notify our readers whenever we have something...and I would love to be able to give you some sort of a promise for results within a certain time-frame but I will have to refrain given past experience..
Last autumn Mark sounded like he was about to make a big push to get things done but then some things got in the way, and again he indicated to Richard in Boston that he is about to get things done...but still no news.
Personally I am fairly optimistic that he will have results for us this year, but I am not making any promises.
posted by Pat @ 3:07 PM
204 comments
204 Comments:
Maybe he just needs another $5000.
Maybe Brian Good will get "meatball on a fork" published in an engineering journal this year!
Brian, the other thread closed, so I'd like to continue our conversation here:
Ian, I never said I was a failed janitor. I'm not a failed janitor. You are a liar.
Squeal squeal squeal!
I never said Dr. Astaneh agreed with me. I said he complained bitterly about the destruction of evidence at the WTC crime scene. I agree with him. You are a liar.
Squeal squeal squeal!
There is no contradiction between the fact that different kinds of explosives exhibit varying noise profiles and the fact that dozens of first responders reported sounds of explosions. You seem to live in a world where if someone was shot, he couldn't have been poisoned also. It's a good thing you will never have any real responsibility in the world.
Poor Brian, he's hysterical because I'm a smart, successful professional who holds many important responsibilities, while Brian lives with his parents because the responsibility of taking out the trash and mopping floors was too much for him.
Also, I'm glad that the New World Order left unnecessary clues for geniuses like you to notice. I mean, they could have used nothing but invisible silent explosives to bring the towers down, but decided to also use mega-boom explosives for Brian to babble about as well.
"Shamrock, you did not quote any conclusions of Dr. Astaneh-Asl, and I have no reason to think your weblink hosted any such conclusions. Does your alleged "study" appear on Dr. Asteneh's own website? If not, why not?"
Pretending you don't know Dr Asteneh-Asi's position just further verifies that you're a liar. His position has been made clear to you. Playing games about it is the last resort of a loser. Thanks for proving it.
Ian, nothing in your Iananity supports your claims that you are smart. I never babbles anything saying anyone used mega-boom explosives for anything. You are a liar. That's not squealing; that's a fact.
Shamrock, you have moved the goal posts from the fact of Dr. Astaneh-Asl's statements to your opinions about his "position". Recognizing such distinctions is not a game. Moving the goal posts is.
You claimed that Dr. Asteneh (sic) said "he thinks jets and fire did it despite his concerns." Please back up this claim.
Ian, nothing in your Iananity supports your claims that you are smart. I never babbles anything saying anyone used mega-boom explosives for anything. You are a liar. That's not squealing; that's a fact.
Poor Brian, he's hysterical because I pwn3d him again. He's humiliated by the fact that I'm 30 years younger than him but have accomplished far more than he ever has. Hell, by the time I was 22, I had already accomplished more than him by virtue of the fact that I graduated from college, while Brian failed out of San Jose State after sniffing too much glue.
Shamrock, you have moved the goal posts from the fact of Dr. Astaneh-Asl's statements to your opinions about his "position". Recognizing such distinctions is not a game. Moving the goal posts is.
Dr. Astaneh-Asl's position is that the truth movement is a tiny group of unemployed virgins who don't understand the first thing about physics, chemistry, engineering, architecture, history, politics, or the like. This position is the correct one.
Also, Brian, how come you no longer have that photoshopped image of Willie Rodriguez blown up to crazy fat proportions as your avatar? C'mon, we all know that you're a demented homosexual who lusts after Rodriguez. Having one jerk-off photo of him here (out of likely thousands that you have on your computer) isn't admitting anything we don't already know.
Ianinny, your Lyin Ianananity pwns no one but yourself. You give me no reason to think you've accomplished anything. Any fool with enough time and money can get an MBA and imagine that it makes him a bigshot. You're not a bigshot. You're a wannabee liar.
Where do you get the idea that I flunked out of SJSU? Don't say I told you, because I never did. You're a liar.
How do you know what Dr. Astaneh-Asl's position is? What text can you cite? Does it come from a lying propaganda website? You are a liar.
Why anyone would lust over that fat-ass waddling fraud, William Rodriguez, is quite beyond me. Apparently you believe in miracles.
Shamrock, you claimed that Dr. Asteneh (sic) said "he thinks jets and fire did it despite his concerns." Please provide text to back up this claim--and not just links to dodgy websites that surely do not say what you claim they say.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"You claimed that Dr. Asteneh (sic) said "he thinks jets and fire did it despite his concerns." Please back up this claim."
Read the link jack Wad. It's simple reading comprehension. Here's the link once more.
http://www.nistreview.org/WTC-ASTANEH.pdf
Shamrock, you have moved the goal posts from the fact of Dr. Astaneh-Asl's statements to your opinions about his "position". Recognizing such distinctions is not a game. Moving the goal posts is. "
Bullshit you friggin liar. You KNOW what Dr Asteneh-Asi's position is. It's been presented to you on previous blogs. Pretending you need me to paste a quote from him is YOUR game. And it makes you a deuchebag as well
As a liar. But we already knew that.
Shamrock, I have learned not to follow links to dodgy websites. Once I had two computers taken out on the same afternoon.
If you want to cite Dr. Astaneh, please do us the favor of quoting his actual words from a credible source.
I didn't lie about anything, and your claim that I did is somewhat hysterical. Are you unable to support your claim with words that Dr. Astaneh actually said?
I have no problem citing his actual words. I'm just not going to for a lazy SOB like The hysterical part is you claiming it's a dodgy website. Look at the link and explain how it's dodgy. You lie when you claim you don't know what he said. You have been informed in previous blogs. You are pretending you hadn't and that is what makes you a liar.
When you say please do "us" a favor, who are you referring to?
The website is dodgy because we have know way of knowing who is behind it. Dr. Astaneh has said a lot of things and I have no way of knowing to which of them you, who can not even spell Dr. Astaneh-Asl's name correctly, is referring.
"Us" would be me and anyone reading these comments in present or future contexts. Google does crawl these comments so they turn up on Google searches.
You don't think a person willing to google your attitude toward 9/11 couldn't Google Dr Asteneh-Asi or follow my link to read what he has to say? Idiot.
Anyway, as I've said, his words have been presented to you on SLC before. You know what he said and you know he thinks planes and fire did it. You keep playing a moronic game of "show me now". You've been shown and no matter how poorly I spell his name it won't change how wrong you are.
Ianinny, your Lyin Ianananity pwns no one but yourself. You give me no reason to think you've accomplished anything. Any fool with enough time and money can get an MBA and imagine that it makes him a bigshot. You're not a bigshot. You're a wannabee liar.
Squeal squeal squeal!
Where do you get the idea that I flunked out of SJSU? Don't say I told you, because I never did. You're a liar.
You told us you failed out of San Jose State.
How do you know what Dr. Astaneh-Asl's position is?
Uncle Steve knows him and told me.
Why anyone would lust over that fat-ass waddling fraud, William Rodriguez, is quite beyond me.
Thanks for proving my point about how much you lust for him.
Also, I noticed that Brian kept posting dumbspam here during the Superbowl. Of course he did. He has no friends, so of course nobody invited him to a party.
Shamrock, I have good reason to suspect that you are misinterpreting and/or misrepresenting what Dr. Astaneh-Asl had to say, which is why I want you to tell us in his own words (and not in Ronald Wieck's hearsay account) what he said.
Lyin Ianinny, I never said I failed out of SJSU. You are a liar.
Well, seems like Brian is getting more desperate by the minute..
"shamrock, I have good reason to suspect that you are misinterpreting and/or misrepresenting what Dr. Astaneh-Asl had to say, which is why I want you to tell us in his own words (and not in Ronald Wieck's hearsay account) what he said."
Then visit the link and see if I am misrepresenting Dr Asteneh-Asi. And if the website is dubious, prove it bunky. You and I both know you are aware Of his views. The childish game you're playing IS an act of desperation.
Poor Brian. He's hysterical because he knows that he failed out of San Jose State, that he has no friends, and that 9/11 truth is dead.
And speaking of "dodgy websites that surely do not say what you claim they say", Brian STILL hasn't proven that the widows have any questions. I've been asking him to back up his claim for 7 years now.
Well, at least he admitted that the conspiracy theories are without any merit.
Sham, it is for you to back to your own point. You made claims about the statements of Dr. Astaneh-Asl. You refuse to even provide the exact words he used. You demand that we visit a website that may be filthy with viruses to see if what you claim is true. There is no reason to believe you. You seem to have difficulty in interpreting simple declarative text, and thus your ideas about what Dr. Astaneh said are very likely mistaken.
Lyin Ianinny, I never said I failed out of SJSU. You are a liar. The widows' questions (ands their ratings of the responses showing that they only for 27 answers) can be see here:
http://www.justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php
You are a liar. You seem to think telling STOOOOOPIS lies is clever. And not one of your colleagues here at SLC has the integrity to call you out on it.
Ian wrote, "Also, Brian, how come you no longer have that photoshopped image of Willie Rodriguez blown up to crazy fat proportions as your avatar? C'mon, we all know that you're a demented homosexual who lusts after Rodriguez. Having one jerk-off photo of him here (out of likely thousands that you have on your computer) isn't admitting anything we don't already know."
As all sentient human beings know, Brian Good is a compulsive liar and a vacuous cretin who's incapable of learning. After all, how many times have we told him that it's better to watch gay p0rn and be thought of as gay, than to maintain a multi-terabyte Willie Rodriguez video and photo collection and remove all doubt?
:)
This comment has been removed by the author.
"You demand that we visit a website that may be filthy with viruses to see if what you claim is ...
I only demand you visit it. If you are scared of a virus put a condom on
it is for you to back to your own point. You made claims about the statements of Dr. Astaneh-Asl. You refuse to even provide the exact words he used.
I only refuse because you have already been presented with his words. And I know this because, as you said, you can link to previous SLC blogs thru Google and it's all there you liar. And I gave you a link with his study. Someone seeking the truth would visit it and determine its voracity. Surely you would conclude its bogus but that's because you're an idiot
GutterBall, I tend to associate your sexual obsessions with the difficulty of covering up conspiracies. Have you seen "Spotlight"? Why did the victims and their families participate in the massive conspiracy to cover up? Maybe you can provide som insight into that. Maybe if you came clean about your own secrets you wouldn't have to invent lies about others.
Sham, it seems that you are unwilling to back up your claims with an actual quote. Perhaps you have good reason to suspect, as I do, that Dr. Astaneh's words do not say what you claimed. You made claims about Dr. Astaneh. All I said was that you did not back them up. You didn't. My case is proven. Yours is not. You just rely on fortune-telling to give the appearance of having a point.
I am scared of a virus from dodgy, thinly-trafficked websites. I'm not aware of a computer condom. If I'm going to put a condom on, I kind of like to have dinner and see a movie first. I assure you that in the case of your relatives, I would not visit their recesses even with three condoms on and even after a month of dinners and movies.
Brian, you CANNOT be this stupid. Nobody can. I can quote Dr Astaneh-Asi. I gave you two links which contain them. Why would I need to quote him? It's a 15 page doc and contains the study and his conclusions. I, unlike you, choose NOT to quote mine and I'm not going to paste 15 pages. Clearly you are afraid to read it. And I suspect, actually I know that you know what he said as it has been presented to you several times on previous SLC blogs. You think anyone reading this exchange wouldn't visit the link and see just what a tool you are?
"I am scared of a virus from dodgy, thinly-trafficked websites"
Cuz your an idiot and a coward. "
I'm not aware of a computer condom. If I'm going to put a condom on, I kind of like to have dinner and see a movie first. I assure you that in the case of your relatives, I would not visit their recesses even with three condoms on and even after a month of dinners and movies."
Well thank you for that. See you can be civil. I'm glad you don't want to infect my family as well. Though you'd have no shot anyway.
He shoots he scores!!!!!
Lyin Ianinny, I never said I failed out of SJSU. You are a liar.
False.
The widows' questions (ands their ratings of the responses showing that they only for 27 answers) can be see here:
http://www.justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php
Brian, providing links to dodgy websites that surely do not say what you claim they say does not help your case.
You are a liar. You seem to think telling STOOOOOPIS lies is clever. And not one of your colleagues here at SLC has the integrity to call you out on it.
My, such squealing!
Sham, it seems that you are unwilling to back up your claims with an actual quote. Perhaps you have good reason to suspect, as I do, that Dr. Astaneh's words do not say what you claimed. You made claims about Dr. Astaneh. All I said was that you did not back them up. You didn't. My case is proven. Yours is not. You just rely on fortune-telling to give the appearance of having a point.
Brian, you have no point. You're a failed janitor who wears women's underwear. And you still have not provided any quotes to back up your claim that the "widows" have questions.
If I'm going to put a condom on, I kind of like to have dinner and see a movie first. I assure you that in the case of your relatives, I would not visit their recesses even with three condoms on and even after a month of dinners and movies.
It's hilarious when Brian pretends he hasn't been involuntarily celibate for the last 4 decades.
You demand that we visit a website that may be filthy with viruses to see if what you claim is true
Nope, he isnt
He is not pointing at a website, but at a pdf file.
I'm not aware of a computer condom.
You should be if you are so scared of the internet.
A condom is a mean of protection, to keep the bad stuff out.
You can do that on a computer too, by making sure that your software is up to date, that you are using anti virus and anti malware software, that you restrict your user account and use a firewall.
That way you don't need to be scared of the internet.
But we both know that being scared is just an excuse of you for not reading the file.
You don't want to read it because you then have to admit that you were wrong...
TH, he already knows he's wrong. And Dr Astaneh-Asi's position has been presented to him. So he's wrong and he's lying about not knowing his position.
Mr. Sham, do you really needs to ask why would you quote Dr. Astaneh? You'd quote him to back up what you claim he said. Did you never get your GED?
You don't have to quote mine and you don't have to paste 15 pages. Just tell us what he said in his own words.
Ianniny, justicefor911 is hardly a dodgy website. The people behind it are easily identified. The media contact gives his name, email, and telephone number right on the front page.
toothhurts, a pdsf is hosted on a website. News flash! pdf files can be vectors for viruses. I had two computers taken down on the very same afternoon. I'm not scared of the internet, I'm scared of dodgy websites recommended by people of such dubious integrity that they can't be trusted to back up their claims with genuine quotes.
Sham, presenting something and demonstrating it are not the same thing. After all, the Lyin Ianniny presents Lyin Iananity in every post, and demonstrates only his own juvenile and intellectually impoverished nature.
It's no skin off my nose what Dr. Astaneh says. He probably gets a lot of strange and scary phone calls. Does anybody here remember GutterBall's buddy Troy?
I have much reason to doubt that he said what you claim. Obviously reading comprehension is not your strong suit.
Ianniny, justicefor911 is hardly a dodgy website.
False. It's a scam run by gold-digging floozies who want to become rich and famous off of 9/11. Obviously, only simpletons like you fell for it, which is why we don't have the Van Aukens as the next Kardashian family.
Good old Ianinny--we can always count on him to show no class, and to corrupt almost all the other commenteers through their failure to call him out. Thanks for being such a scumbag, Ian. It's what you were born for.
" a pdsf is hosted on a website."
No, it isn't.
" News flash! pdf files can be vectors for viruses."
Sure, but like i said, you can defend yourself against it. For example by using a pdf reader that is not affected by this type of viruses.
As you probably don't know, pdf viruses take advantage of vulnerabilities found in pdf readers like Adobe Reader.
" I had two computers taken down on the very same afternoon."
And now you are scared of the internet...
" I'm scared of dodgy websites recommended by people of such dubious integrity that they can't be trusted to back up their claims with genuine quotes."
The only way you can find out if his claim is genuine is by looking at the source of it.
Being scared of pdf-files is a lame excuse for not looking at the source.
Good old Ianinny--we can always count on him to show no class, and to corrupt almost all the other commenteers through their failure to call him out. Thanks for being such a scumbag, Ian. It's what you were born for.
Poor Brian. He's hysterical because he still hasn't demonstrated that the "widows" have any questions. All he can do is post links to spam sites that do not support his point.
Also, Brian, "Ianinny" is such a lame name. You should go back to calling me "it" or "skidmark" or "beanie head" or a girl. Those were far more amusing, and better demonstrated your hysterical desperation over the fact that everyone knows the widows have no questions.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I guess I was wrong, some people are that stupid. Brian, if I paste a direct quote from the conclusions Dr Astaneh-Asi reached, you will deny he said it. If you're too scared to visit the site, you couldn't verify it anyway. Get it??
Anyway, we all know that the words of the Dr have been presented to you. Your apparent belief it's not authentic requires YOU to prove its not authentic.
First time I heard Brian saying that a link to Dr Astaneh-Asi's links had any kind of "viruses" on them. Why would Dr Astaneh-Asi intentionally put a computer virus on websites Brian if the comments he made were for everyone?
Brian is desperate to disprove Dr Astaneh-Asi by making up a lie about "computer viruses" to links that show Dr Astaneh-Asi's comments. Also Brian's a coward but we all know that.
th, the pdf file is hosted by a website. It says so in the link: http://www.nistreview.org/WTC-ASTANEH.pdf
nistreview.org--what do you think that is if not a website?
I found the report on a website I do trust. https://web.archive.org/web/20110717065421/http://nistreview.org/WTC-ASTANEH.pdf
As I expected, it does not say what Mr. Sham said it said. The quote that Mr. Sham apparently was too lazy to find was in the Abstract at the top of the paper.
"The studies indicated that in the opinion of the author, the main cause of the loss of so many lives was insufficiency of fireproofing and lack of egress routes. The insufficient fire-proofing eventually leading to collapse of the towers and
lack of egress routes resulting in so many people trapped in the floors above the impact area and not being able to escape in time and before perishing in the collapse of towers."
Mr. Sham's claim that Dr. Astaneh said "he thinks planes and fire did it" is inaccurate. He does not say that. Look how he frames the issue in terms "the loss of so many lives". Dr. Astaneh is a PhD structural engineer. Why does he frame his report about life-saving instead of about "the cause of the structural failure"?
Dr. Astaneh provides no evidence to support his speculation that the fireproofing was "insufficient". He only asserts that the plane impact "might have" shaken the building sufficiently to "separate" the spray-on fireproofing, and that the floor joists "may have" lost their fireproofing. No serious analysis has been reported to verify that the fireproofing could have shaken off.
In the "conclusions and lessons" section, Dr. Astaneh provides no emphatic statement that the fireproofing or the jet fuel or even the fires caused the collapse. It's interesting that the Abstract statement makes explicit a statement about fireproofing that the ending conclusion only implies--and only if the Abstract is kept in mind.
Here's from the final conclusion, another statement that Mr. Sham was too lazy to find.
"The collapse was related to loss of strength of structural elements in the floors with intense fire and collapse of the upper portion on the lower portion due to the pull of gravity."
Huh? "Related to" and not "caused by"? "With intense fire" and not "that experienced intense fire"? Dr. Astaneh's statement does not rule out the possibility that incendiaries and/or explosives had something to do with this "loss of strength of structural elements".
Poor Brian. All that spam and nothing changes. The truth movement is dead, the widows have no questions, and Brian is a failed janitor with a hideous homeless mullet who lives with his parents.
I'm sorry my post made your lips tired. Sure, things change. I show that Mr. Sham has embarrassed himself with asinine assumptions about a paper it seems he has not read, I facilitate the understanding of Dr. Astaneh's paper, I clarify the issues, correct errors of fact. Such efforts serve the cause of truth.
Meanwhile your lies serve nothing, Catty Cathy. The widows have 273 pending questions.
No, you just posted hysterical spam to try to keep your delusions about 9/11. Those of us who didn't fail at life are laughing at you.
And you still have not shown a shred of evidence that your "widows" have any questions.
Also, Dr. Astaneh's statement does not rule out the possibility that the collapse was caused by micro-nukes planted by modified attack baboons. Given that the essential mysteries also point to micro-nukes and baboons, I think you really need to read up on 9/11 some more, Brian. Serious truthers like Bill Deagle, David Icke, Webster Tarpley, and Jim Marrs are well ahead of you.
Wow, reading comprehension takes a holiday. Read Bullet 5 and tell me how the Dr isn't saying plane impacts and fire did it. or did you just decide not to read it.
And as I suspected, you'd try and now discredit him. Nice try. There are videos of Dr Astenah -Asi examining the steel members with fire proofing clearly knocked off. I wouldn't think you could thread a couple sources to glean the Dr's investigation so I didn't provide them. But you can clearly search on YouTube using his name and see it. I'm not going to link it. You'll just have to start a new game of denial.
This comment has been removed by the author.
So let's review.
I say dr Astaneh-Asi says plane impacts and fire did it. I provide a lot no to the study you refuse to read. You finally dicide to read the document where the Dr clearly states the plane impacts and fire caused the collapse initiation, PROVING MY ASSERTION CORRECT, And you try to divert attention away by trying to discredit the guy with verifiable credentials (you still haven't told me what yours are-coward)
Brian, you're beyond a rube. You are a proven liar.
Shamrock claim" he thinks planes and fire did it" is inaccurate
Dr Astaneh-Asi
Part 5. Bullett 1
1. The plane reached the tower and started impacting it.
Bullets 2-4 detail what this did to the structure.
Bullet 5
5. As the fire continued, the main structural elements: the exterior tube columns, the floor truss joists and the core columns and beams were subjected to fire due to burning jet fuel and the contents. As the fires burned, the strength of steel and its modulus of elasticity continued to decrease with increasing temperatures. The author believes that the first element to lose enough strength to collapse may have been the floor joists. These joists not only may have lost their fireproofing but also were heavily damaged due to entry and impact of the plane.
Bullett 6&7 detail
How the combination of bullets 1-5 (plane impacts)
And 6 the ensuing fires led to the collapse initiation he talks about in billet 7&8
Again, nobody can be this dumb.
"Here's from the final conclusion, another statement that Mr. Sham was too lazy to find.
"The collapse was related to loss of strength of structural elements in the floors with intense fire and collapse of the upper portion on the lower portion due to the pull of gravity."
Sorry Brian, I gotta know how this section states fire or damage was not a factor. Intense fire is now not an indication that he thinks fire did it??
Stupid beyond comprehension.
Are you suggesting that the dr is saying the loss of structural strength wasn't related to fire??
Here comes a shell game or a Brian Goode lesson on word definitions or an attack on Dr Astaneh-Asi. Go. Idiot.
Shamrock, you take this too seriously. Brian's been here for 7 years. After 2 months, I stopped trying to reason with him and began mocking and taunting him. It's a lot more fun, and he gets much more pissed off about it.
Brian, we're still waiting for evidence that your lying floozy "widows" have questions.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I know. Ian tells me that all the time. Fact is I don't really take it serious. I'm fascinated by the conspiracy cult. This give and take is a perfect example. To dismiss my claim that the Dr said planes and fire did it He actually read an article from the guy who detailed in his opinion how planes entered the building, caused damage and ignited fires and somehow that proves I was wrong. I find that hysterical. So basically this is enjoyable for me.
Mr. Sham, it's obvious that you don't take truth or scholarship or accuracy seriously, and your failure to call out the Lyin Unknowninny for mocking the victims of 9/11 makes you as much of a scumbag as he is.
Here is the list of the widows' 300 questions, of which only 27 were answered.
http://www.justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php
I in no way tried to discredit Dr. Astaneh-Asl. Unlike you and Lyin Unknowninny, I am serving truth, not poorly-supported theories. My purpose was to clarify what he said. You claimed he said "he thinks jets and fire did it despite his concerns." He says no such thing in the paper you cited.
Gosh, how observant it is of you to notice that the steel Dr. Astaneh inspected had the fireproofing knocked off! News flash! The building collapsed! The lightweight concrete floors were turned to dust! Did it not occur to you that the friction of rolling around in a building collapse might have knocked the fireproofing off?
Let's look at bullet 5. Note the title, "Proposed Scenario". Note it says "The author, at this writing, believes that a plausible scenario for the collapse of towers is as shown in Figure 12 and may have occurred in the following steps."
Gosh, could it possibly be more tentative? Proposed. Plausible. As of this writing. May have occurred. YOU seem to be trying to discredit Dr. Astaneh-Asl when you put words in his mouth. Nowhere does that paper support your claim that it says "the plane impacts and fire caused the collapse initiation". It is speaking of a proposed scenario that may have happened.
The conclusion says what it says. It does not say loss of structural strength was due to fire. What it says is ambiguous. Perhaps deliberately so. In any case, as I suspected, the paper does not say what you claim.
Lyin Unknowninny, thanks for once again mocking the victims of 9/11 and showing what you're made of--and tainting your colleagues with your depravity when they fail to call you out.
You guys lie, you bully, you make stuff up--all in the service of ideology. You demonstrate your scholastic incompetence in almost every post, which is why you've driven away the more serious posters (Sackcloth and Ashes, for instance) who had actually read some books and who know how to read without blatantly projecting their confirmation bias all over the text.
"Here is the list of the widows' 300 questions, of which only 27 were answered.
http://www.justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php"
You come with an outdated website as evidence?
seriously?
And yes, this is a website.
The website is not outdated, th. As of 15:55 EST today, the widows' 273 unanswered questions are still unanswered.
The widows have no questions.
Brian has yet to prove that the 9/11 Widows are in fact and truth steel high rise structural engineers.
Also, it's hilarious to watch someone who failed out of college and couldn't hold down a job mopping floors babble about "scholastic incomplence" when he doesn't understand a thing written by Astaneh-Asl.
I think the lying gold-digging bimbo "widows" need a better person to advocate on their behalf. Not someone as clueless as our intrepid unemployed janitor here.
"The website is not outdated"
Yes it is, last update was in 2009, the one before in 2004.
That website qualifies as a dodgy, unmaintained ill trafficked site.
And written in PHP, which is vulnerable for viruses.
"The widows have no questions."
Well, at least we can conclude that there isn't any evidence that they have questions.
Brian constantly fails to provide any.
You see Brian this is where you earn your idiot stripes. You questioned my assertion of what the guy said. I proved he said what I said he said. Now the goal posts are clearly being moved to run away from the fact that I was correct, he said the planes and fire did it. And like the good deluded fool you are, you think questioning his conclusions changes his conclusions. Thanks for proving what a lying a in you are.
"Nowhere does that paper support your claim that it says "the plane impacts and fire caused the collapse initiation". It is speaking of a proposed scenario that may have happened."
Can your brain not see how this sentence confirms what I asserted and proved you were wrong?? It's astonishing it doesn't.
Who proposed the scenario genius??
Are you seriously this stupid?
As far as the widows, I'm friends with a few including a widower . I know they have no questions. But I've seen you be asked to list the questions that haven't been answered. Haven't seen you do that yet.
This is another one of those situations, Shamrock, where I honestly don't know if Brian is trying to convince us of his nonsense, or himself. Either way, we're dealing with someone with serious psychiatric problems.
Undoubtedly. It is a bit sad and yet I can't get enough of it. Lol.
TH- regarding the website.
Yes it is, last update was in 2009, the one before in 2004.
That website qualifies as a dodgy, unmaintained ill trafficked site.
And written in PHP, which is vulnerable for viruses.
Brilliant. Another corner he's backed himself into. Watch the contortions to follow. Go big boy.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I see that we now have four people who acknowledge that the widows clearly have no questions. Myself, Unknown, truth hurts and Shamrock.
We have one person who claims that there are widows with questions: Brian.
By a vote of 4-1, the claim that the widows have questions is proven false.
You lose again, Brian.
I see the anklebighters brigade has come to blow stinky lying smoke over Shamrock's utter pwnage above.
The evidence of the widows' outstanding 273 questions is the same place it's been for over ten years.
http://www.justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php The link lists the 273 questions that haven't been answered.
Ther4e's nothing dodgy about the justicefor911 website. The people behind it, respectable long-term activists, are clearly identified. If it hasn't been updated since 2009 (and that's a big IF, 'cause th just makes stuff up) it's because there is no change; in 2009 the widows' 273 questions had not been answered, and they still haven't been answered today.
Maybe on Planet Ian four misinformed guys huddling together in fear of the truth can vote a fact out of existence, but those of us in the reality-based community will stick with the facts instead of the fraidy-cats.
Shamrock's claim that he knows widows has no credibility whatsoever. If he knows 9/11 widows and allows people to call 9/11 widows "floozies" and "gold-digging bimbo 'widows'" he's no man at all.
I questioned Shamrock's about what DR. Astaneh-Asl said. He cited a multi-page report and thought everyone was to lazy to actually read it and see that it did not say what he claimed.
"I questioned Shamrock's about what DR. Astaneh-Asl said. He cited a multi-page report and thought everyone was to lazy to actually read it and see that it did not say what he claimed."
Hahahahaha. It said EXACTLY what I claimed dumbo. You admitted it when you said " it is speaking of a proposed scenario that may have happened". It's exquisite that you can debunk yourself and yet maintain this infantile "no I dint"
I personally don't know of any floozy widows. But for you to claim there are none simply based on the fact their husbands died on 9/11 is another departure from reality. Must be lonely. Lol.
Brian, as Ian said, 80% of those surveyed said the widows have no questions. That's democracy in action. Typical Bushcist dismissing election results he doesn't like.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I even pasted his exact words in a 7 bullets that 1st talked about plane impacts, then talked about fire, then talked about mounting fire weakening steel and where he believed the imitation began.
Only a complete lying idiot reads the doc and decides Dr Astaneh-Asi is wrong therefore he didn't say what he clearly said.
Hilarity continues.
From the Pdf Brian can't comprehend:
Conclusions and Lessons Learned
Based on the studies done by the author so far following conclusions could be reached and lessons learned:
1. The structures were able to withstand the initial impact of the planes without collapse.
2. The collapse was related to loss of strength of structural elements in the floors with intense fire and collapse of the upper portion on the lower portion due to the pull of gravity.
I won't continue with the other conclusions. It's not as funny.
Oops, sorry, number 5 on the conclusions is pretty friggin funny.
5. There is a need to study and develop new concepts and systems that can tolerate the loss of several load- carrying members without full collapse in a progressive manner.
Seems like that's a direct inference of the plane damage.
Seriously, do you guys think he's stupid or putting me on. I don't usually laugh this hard a stupid people.
Brian is a liar and an idiot, so you're right, Shamrock.
This was fun. Thanks Brian. Look forward to reading more funny shite tonorrow.
Shamrock, it seems that reading comprehension and logical analysis are not your strong suits. It seems you do not understand that a proposed and plausible scenario as of the present writing about what MIGHT or MAY have happened is not a conclusion.
I didn't say that Dr. Astaneh was wrong. I said he did not say what you claimed. He did not. He did not say the planes and the fires did it. I also said that his statement in his conclusion was very ambiguous and perhaps deliberately so.
For you to represent the elements of a speculative scenario as if it were a conclusion is taking thoae statements completely out of context and is thus quote-mining at its worst.
So Brian, illiterate failed janitor that he is, doesn't understand the writings of scientist, and desperately starts babbling about how said scientist is merely speculating about what happened on 9/11, leaving open the possibility that magic thermite elves destroyed the towers.
This is basically the "god of the gaps" argument of creationists, except in even more pathetic, scientifically illiterate form. That Brian doesn't understand how science works is expected, given that he spent his brief time in college sniffing glue and not attending class before he failed out.
Brian, please leave this stuff to people (like Shamrock) who know what they're talking about. You're embarrassing yourself.
Also, you still have not provided any evidence that there are widows with questions.
Lyin Ianinny, I didn't babble about anything. Note the title, "Proposed Scenario". Note it says "The author, at this writing, believes that a plausible scenario for the collapse of towers is as shown in Figure 12 and may have occurred in the following steps."
It's very tentative. Proposed. Plausible. As of this writing. May have occurred. It is speaking of a proposed scenario that may have happened.
Nowhere does that paper support Sham's claim that it says "the plane impacts and fire caused the collapse initiation".
The fact that the abstract attributes the WTC deaths to "insufficiency of fireproofing" shows that the writer of the abstract regarded this as a necessary condition to permit fire to weaken the structure to the point of collapse.
I didn't attribute the collapses to magic or to God or to anything. I merely showed the limits to what Dr. Astaneh said--limits inconsistent with what Mr. Sham claimed that Dr. Astaneh said. Dr. Astaneh's statement left a huge gap. You may stuff that gap with a truckload of your ravished straw dolls if you like, but that has nothing to do with me.
Shamrock does not know what he's talking about. He quote-mined Dr. Astaneh's article shamelessly.
I have dozens of times showed the evidence of widows with questions. You're a liar.
http://www.justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php
" If it hasn't been updated since 2009 (and that's a big IF, 'cause th just makes stuff up) it's because there is no change; in 2009 the widows' 273 questions had not been answered, and they still haven't been answered today"
So according to you, the whole website is dedicated to that list of questions. Nothing more, nothing less...
And because they aren't answered, the site has never been updated, except for the article about the mad man who attacked the holocaust museum, who also signed the petition..
Sure brian, that is how you will get questions answered: by putting them on a website and never look at it again...
Poor brian, failing miserably at explaining everything away, moving goal posts, etc...
th, please don't try to tell me what's "according to" me.
Please try to stick with asking.
Where do you get the idea that a website that was perfect in 2009 is never looked at again because it is not updated? Do we need an updated version of the Mona Lisa? Of Beethoven's 5th?
I utterly pwned the Sham. You can't change that fact.
"Ther4e's nothing dodgy about the justicefor911 website."
Please explain why the site is mentioned on the virustotal website and why there have been abuse complaints about the site.
"Nowhere does that paper support Sham's claim that it says "the plane impacts and fire caused the collapse initiation".
The Dr- the collapse was related to a loss of strength on th floors with intense fire.
This is in the CONCLUSION section of the paper
The dr further concludes
"There is a need to study concepts and systems that can tolerate the loss of several load carrying members without full collapse in a progressive manner"
Now where would a sane person get the idea that the Dr said planes and fire did it? Brian you just aren't that bright.
I want to have more fun today. Brian, Dr Frank Greening and dr Christian Simensen say that the jets are the main culprit for why the towers collapsed. I'm begging you to challenge me on this.
Your bias is strong grasshopper. You are so convinced the Dr didn't conclude that the planes caused structural damage that needs to be addressed and the collapse was related to the loss of strength of the structural elements on the floors with intense fire (he actually uses those words in the conclusion section of the paper) that you eliminate from your brain that he actually said it.
Poster child for confirmation bias and irrationale stupidity.
For instance:
"Shamrock, it seems that reading comprehension and logical analysis are not your strong suits. It seems you do not understand that a proposed and plausible scenario as of the present writing about what MIGHT or MAY have happened is not a conclusion"
The part where he proposed this WAS IN THE CONCLUSION SECTION of the paper.
"Mr. Sham's claim that Dr. Astaneh said "he thinks planes and fire did it" is inaccurate. He does not say that."
Actually he does. I provided the conclusion reached. You did too but don't understand it.
"Look how he frames the issue in terms "the loss of so many lives". Dr. Astaneh is a PhD structural engineer. Why does he frame his report about life-saving instead of about "the cause of the structural failure"?
Gee, I have no idea why a structural engineer who builds stuff would want structures to be safer with more egress routes for tenants.
Seriously, he's putting me on right?
1st sentence of the abstract:
The paper discusses the results of a field reconnaissance, investigation and analysis of the collapse of the World Trade Center.
And you claim I'm quote mining? The 1st sentence is about an analysis of the collapse. Did you not read the thing Brian. Geez.
Seriously, he's putting me on right?
No, he's mentally ill. He's delusional and believes the nonsense that he posts.
Meanwhile, real scientists will continue to do real science, regardless of whether Brian continues spamming this board for another decade or not. I'm not exactly sure what Brian thinks 7 years of spam on this blog has accomplished. or will accomplish.
Anyway, Brian, we're STILL waiting for evidence that there are widows with questions. You STILL have not done anything but link to dodgy websites that do not say what you claim they do.
Please provide real evidence, Brian.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ok. Maybe I'll try it this way. Brian, in Dr Astaneh-Asi's analysis, what conclusions has he reached for why the towers collapsed?
I'm guessing he will say the Dr didn't propose a collapse sequence in the proposed collapse sequence of the paper.
And I'm guessing he will say the Dr didn't reach any conclusions in the conclusions section of the paper. We'll see.
And finally I'm guessing he will say the Dr didn't say what he said in those two sections. Only that he proposed it, or surmised it, or conjectured it, or speculated it. But because he didn't say "I am saying" that plane impacts and fire did it then shamrock is wrong for saying he said it.
I think I've got the logic down now
Mr. Sham, Dr. Astaneh-Asl says that the "collapse was related to loss of strength of structural elements in the floors."
Contrary to your untrue representations, he quite conspicuously does not say what caused the loss of strength. Your inferences about what you believe Dr. Astaneh MEANS are not the same as what he says. But your false claims were about what he said. What he said was not what you said he said.
Contrary to your claims, Dr. Astaneh's speculative proposed plausible scenario about the collapses was not in the "Conclusions" section of rthe paper, (part 6) but in part 5, which was entitled "5. A Proposed Scenario for the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers".
When you fail to call out Ian on his blatant lies, you destroy any benefit of the doubt about your own credibility.
Were you any kind of truth seeker at all you would tell Ian to go away, that his stupid lies are hurting your cause.
You seem to be employing that favorite tactic of self-styled "debunkers", making untrue claims about a document that you know your followers will be too lazy to read.
You also make remarks that imply that I said things I never said--once again making untrue statements to create an impression for your followers who are too lazy to review the record for themselves.
Lying Ianinny, I have dozens of times proved that the widows have questions--several times in this very thread. You and Mr. Sham employ the same tactics of lying about the record in order to fool the lazy-minded.
http://www.justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php
Mr. Sham, the Abstract identifies Dr. Astaneh's conclusion. Have you forgotten our extensive discussion on this already?
Why would I say Dr. Astaneh didn't propose a collapse sequence in the proposed collapse sequence of the paper? It was a very tentative proposal, and it was in no way a conclusion as you have repeatedly and erroneously claimed.
Why would I say Dr. Astaneh didn't reach any conclusions in the conclusions section of the paper? Have you forgotten already our extensive discussion of the conclusion?
Why would I say that Dr. Astaneh didn't say what he said in those two sections? What he said and didn't say is quite clear to honest people who actually review the documents. You are deliberately trying to create confusion. He did not say that plane impacts and fire did it. He quite conspicuosly refrained from doing so.
You guess a whole lot of really silly things that are not true.
More pointless spam from Brian Good. He continues to post spammy links that do not contain any evidence that the widows have questions.
Also, your spam does not change the fact that Dr Astaneh-Asl is correct is acknowledging that airplane impacts and fire destroyed the WTC, not magic spray-on thermite or invisible silent explosives.
I will let what I said stand on its own. It debunks your lunacy. You conveniently left out the part about the fires in the line you pasted. Why Brian, would you do that.
Read the conclusion section again. Here I'll help you.
2. The collapse was related to loss of strength of structural elements in the floors with intense fire and collapse of the upper portion on the lower portion due to the pull of gravity.
See the part you left out? Why would you do that? We all know why.
And number 5 of his conclusions.
5. There is a need to study and develop new concepts and systems that can tolerate the loss of several load- carrying members without full collapse in a progressive manner.
So in his conclusions he talks about the loss of strength on floors WITH INTENSE FIRE and he talks about how future builds should develop ways to overcome the loss of load bearing members.
I'll let anyone reading this decide if this constitutes the Dr opinion that plane impacts and fire did it.
What do you think the Dr is concluding. Let's hear it. The egress issue isn't related to collapse. So bringing it up is irrelevant. What's new. Tell me what you think the dr concluded as far as collapse cause.
It's clear to the sane. he clearly states it in section 5 the proposed collapse sequence and he clearly does in his conclusions.
So Brian, you cut a pasted half the sentence that says the weakening on the floors with the intense fire. We all know why you choose this route. I'm just wondering why you would do this as the champion of truth you claim to be.
In the proposed collapse sequence section:
. As the fire continued, the main structural elements: the exterior tube columns, the floor truss joists and the core columns and beams were subjected to fire due to burning jet fuel and the contents. As the fires burned, the strength of steel and its modulus of elasticity continued to decrease with increasing temperatures. The author believes that the first element to lose enough strength to collapse may have been the floor joists. These joists not only may have lost their fireproofing but also were heavily damaged due to entry and impact of the planE
You're right Brian, the Dr didn't conclude that plane impact and fire did it.
I'm trying to find any other element unrelated to the damage and the fires that was opined regarding the collapse sequence. He also references the knocking off of fire proofing.
" As the fires burned, the strength of steel and its modulus of elasticity continued to decrease with increasing temperatures..."
Is thst last sentence conspicuous enough for you? You really aren't that bright.
I'll put 1+1+1 together for you Brian. Pay attention. It's all in this sentence . "As the fire continued, the main structural elements: the exterior tube columns, the floor truss joists and the core columns and beams were subjected to fire due to burning jet fuel and the contents. As the fires burned, the strength of steel and its modulus of elasticity continued to decrease with increasing temperatures. The author believes that the first element to lose enough strength to collapse may have been the floor joists."
"As the fires burned" is a reference to the fires.
"Th strength of the steel and it's modules of elasticity continued to decrease as the temperature increased"
This is a reference to the effect the fires had on the steel.
"The author believes the 1st element to lose enough strength may have been the floor joists"
This is the author (Astaneh) concluding that fire did it and in his opinion the 1st element to lose enough strength to collapse was the joists. 1+1+1 =????
Now if you want I'll take you step by step of his views of the plane impacts.
Mr. Sham, Dr. Astaneh-Asl says that the "collapse was related to loss of strength of structural elements in the floors."
I left out the part about the fires because it was ambiguous. As I said, it appears that it may have been deliberately ambiguous. For you to speculate on my motivations demonstrates your tendency to jump to confirmation-biased conclusions.
I wanted to reserve discussion of the ambiguity for later, when you've calmed down enough that there's a better chance that you can discuss what Dr. Astaneh says instead of ranting about what you guess he says.
Your continued confusion of a proposed, preliminary, plausible scenario with a conclusion (and your arrogant belief in the validity of your very careless observations) suggests to me that you never went to college.
Also, your failure to call out Lyin Unknowninny and Lyin Ianinny for their lies indicts your crediblity and your honesty.
"Your continued confusion of a proposed, preliminary, plausible scenario with a conclusion (and your arrogant belief in the validity of your very careless observations) suggests to me that you never went to college. "
Nice dodge Brian. I presented his words. You left them out. No honest person can read either the proposed collapse scenario or the conclusions and decide the Dr isn't saying fire did it. Only lying sacks can. That's you.
I left them out because they were ambiguous. The emphatic conclusion was that the steel weakened. He didn't say fire did it. IF he wanted to say fire did it he would have said "The collapse was related to loss of strength of structural elements in the floors CAUSED BY intense fire and collapse of the upper portion on the lower portion due to the pull of gravity."
He didn't say the magic words. WITH is not CAUSED BY. It makes the statement extremely ambiguous--and perhaps deliberately so. It appears that language skills are not your strong suit.
I didn't lie about anything. You did--presenting your opinions and interpretations as if they were fact, presenting Dr. Astaneh's speculative scenario out of context as if it were a conclusion, and implying that there was something dishonest about my presentation.
Also, your failure to call out Lyin Unknowninny and Lyin Ianinny for their lies indicts your crediblity and your honesty.
This sentence is unambiguous.
"As the fire continued, the main structural elements: the exterior tube columns, the floor truss joists and the core columns and beams were subjected to fire due to burning jet fuel and the contents. As the fires burned, the strength of steel and its modulus of elasticity continued to decrease with increasing temperatures. The author believes that the first element to lose enough strength to collapse may have been the floor joists."
AS THE FIRES BURNED THE STRENGTH AANDVITS MODULESOF ELASTICITY CONTINUED TO DECREASE WITH INCREASING TEMPERATURES
It's not very complicated. It's there in black and white
Astaneh-Asi
the fire continued, the main structural elements: the exterior tube columns, the floor truss joists and the core columns and beams were subjected to fire due to burning jet fuel and the contents. As the fires burned, the strength of steel and its modulus of elasticity continued to decrease with increasing temperatures. The author believes that the first element to lose enough strength to collapse may have been the floor joists.
Seriously Brian, you need help.
"I didn't lie about anything. You did--presenting your opinions and interpretations as if they were fact, presenting Dr. Astaneh's speculative scenario out of context as if it were a conclusion, and implying that there was something dishonest about my presentation."
The dishonesty of your presentation is that you are still denying that Astenah says what I said he said.
only a liar or a complete fool can read a section called "proposed collapse scenario" and dismiss that it is indeed a proposed collapse scenario
And your demand that he use the magic words
That would satisfy your sensibilities is only buoyed by the fact your an idiot. Those who aren't idiots can glean his views when he references fires and increasing heat to preface the failure of the joists.
"....to fire due to burning jet fuel and the contents. As the fires burned, the strength of steel and its modulus of elasticity continued to decrease with increasing temperatures"
No ambiguity. Your silly semantical game reeks of desperation.
"I left them out because they were ambiguous. The emphatic conclusion was that the steel weakened. He didn't say fire did it"
No. You left them out because it clear what he is saying. The empathic conclusion was HEAT WEAKENED THE STEEL. in a sentence where he specifically mentions fire.
Mr. Sham, yes, the sentence you cite in the proposed scenario is unambiguous. That's what makes the ambiguity of the sentence in the conclusion all the more notable.
You continue to confuse a speculative scenario with a conclusion even after I have many times pointed out to you the distinction.
When he says in Point 5 of the speculation "As the fires burned, the strength of steel and its modulus of elasticity continued to decrease with increasing temperatures" he is simply telling us a scientific truth. Of course the assumption that the increasing temperatures reduced the steel's strength to the point of collapse is dependent on the assumption that the plane strike caused the fireproofing to experience "separation". Dr. Astaneh only says it "might have" caused separation and that the floor trusses "may have lost their fireproofing". Of course he doesn't know. He wasn't there.
Dr. Astaneh does not say what you claim. You are quote-mining a speculative proposed plausible scenario--taking it out of context to present it as a conclusion.
You tell me "your an idiot". That's a classic quote that many "debunkers" utter. People who know how to parse ambiguous statements (people such as me) don't write things like that. Some of us know the difference between emphatic and empathic.
The distinction between a speculative scenario and a conclusion is a "semantical game" only to someone who is desperately projecting his own desperation on others.
In the conclusions he didn't say that fire weakened the steel. I would like to discuss the ambiguity of that conclusion, but only after you've calmed down enough that we can go through it point by point, without you raving.
My heart bleeds for your frustration. It really sucks, getting pwned. That's why some of us avoid making claims we can't back up.
"You're" continuing failure to call out Lyin Unknowninny and Lyin Ianinny for their lies indicts your credibility and your honesty.
I love the smell of burning bullshitters in the morning.
I'm not confusing anything. It doesn't matter if the dr is speculating. I'm his speculation he's saying fire did it. Proving the claim I made originally correct.
You said his conclusion was that fire did it.
He did not say that.
Your claim was false. It was false because in your confirmation-biased quote-mining rush you missed the difference between a proposed plausible scenario and a conclusion.
I hope you will calm down enough at some point that we can rationally discuss the notable ambiguities in this sentence in the conclusions: "The collapse was related to loss of strength of structural elements in the floors with intense fire and collapse of the upper portion on the lower portion due to the pull of gravity."
But I won't hold my breath.
Your continuing failure to call out Lyin Unknowninny and Lyin Ianinny for their lies indicts your credibility and your honesty.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I'm perfectly calm. I love rendering an idiot a babbling tub of goo trying to parse words. Speculation, conclusion, doesn't matter. He claims in the paper that plane damage and fire caused collapse initiation. You're just not intelligent enough or honest enough to admit it
In his conclusion:
2. The collapse was related to loss of strength of structural elements in the floors with intense fire and collapse of the upper portion on the lower portion due to the pull of gravity.
He makes clear what caused the loss of structural strength in his proposed collapse scenario section when he states:
5. As the fire continued, the main structural elements: the exterior tube columns, the floor truss joists and the core columns and beams were subjected to fire due to burning jet fuel and the contents. As the fires burned, the strength of steel and its modulus of elasticity continued to decrease with increasing temperatures. The author believes that the first element to lose enough strength to collapse may have been the floor joists.
No amount of idiotic gamesmanship you are employing Going to change it. You're just too dumb, ignorant or dishonest to admit it.
"Your claim was false. It was false because in your confirmation-biased quote-mining rush you missed the difference between a proposed plausible scenario and a conclusion."
Brian, if a guy proposes a plausible collapse scenario he is saying what he believes happened. It doesn't matter if it's speculation, I said that he said fire and planes did it and the paper confirms this is what he said.
On msnbc, his words words " the fires weakened the columns of the structure and when the columns buckled. ". You will no doubt parse this as well. Having a rationale discussion with you doesn't seem possible.
"I hope you will calm down enough at some point that we can rationally discuss the notable ambiguities in this sentence in the conclusions: "The collapse was related to loss of strength of structural elements in the floors with intense fire and collapse of the upper portion on the lower portion due to the pull of gravity."
It's not ambiguous at all in his statement in the proposed collapse scenario portion when he said:
As the fire continued, the main structural elements: the exterior tube columns, the floor truss joists and the core columns and beams were subjected to fire due to burning jet fuel and the contents. As the fires burned, the strength of steel and its modulus of elasticity continued to decrease with increasing temperatures
Your stubborn refusal to distinguish between speculations and conclusions and your need to substitute insult for argument shows you to be a poorly educated person with inadequate reasoning skills.
Your belief that he claimed that "plane damage and fire caused collapse initiation" is contrary to reality.
Proposing a plausible scenario is not saying what he believed happened. You said that he said that he said fire and planes did it, and the paper in no way supports your claim.
If he believes that fire and planes did it, why doesn't he say so? What is the risk in that? He doesn't say so. You must pore over his words and deep fry them in biased interpretations just to extract the pretense that he said so.
Since you provide no link for your msnbc cite, there is no reason to believe it exists. If it does exist, there is no reason to believe that your quotation is accurate or honest.
Your continued insistence on confusing the speculations with the conclusions is getting very tiresome.
The statement in the conclusion is extremely ambiguous and perhaps deliberately so. If you can't see that we can chalk it up to your lack of experience in analysis of documents.
"The collapse was related to loss of strength of structural elements in the floors with intense fire and collapse of the upper portion on the lower portion due to the pull of gravity."
Your continuing failure to call out Lyin Unknowninny and Lyin Ianinny for their lies indicts your credibility and your honesty.
Dr. Astaneh-Asl "water is wet"
Brian: Both water and wet can have different meanings, therefor you cannot state that when Dr. Astaneh-Asl says water is wet, he means actually water and that it is actually wet. Nor does he present a fact when he states that water is wet.
th, I never said that Dr. Astaneh said "water is wet". You're bab-bab-babbly-babbling.
Your continuing failure to call out Lyin Unknowninny and Lyin Ianinny for their lies indicts your credibility and your honesty.
It's astonishing you can read the paper and conclude the dr isn't saying plane damage and fire did it. Absolutely astonishing. I know you must hold that line because you so firmly believed it in the 1st place, but when the dr references "as the fires burned the strength of the steel and it's modules of elasticity weakened as the temps rose " is a clear indication of what the dr felt the fire was doing.
I'm not confusing speculations with conclusions. I'm supporting my claim that the dr said fire and damage did it. If he's speculating, so be it. If you want me to say "dr Astaneh speculated that fire and plane damage did it" would that make you feel better? Being that much of what I'm referencing is in the conclusion section of the paper, I think sane people get that this was his conclusion, but whatever.
Dr. Astaneh-Asl quite conspicuously does NOT conclude that plane damage and fire did it. The Abstract blames a lack of fireproofing. Doing so throws doubt on the theory that plane damage and fire did it because it seems to imply that they could not have done it without a lack of fireproofing. And of course, the lack of fireproofing is pure speculation. Dr. Astaneh is always careful to say it "may have" or "might have" separated or been removed.
When Dr. Astaneh references the strength of the steel and its modules of elasticity he is simply reporting a scientific fact. There is no evidence that the steel was weakened to the point of failure, and Dr. Astaneh does not claim that it was. \
In fact, NIST's core steel samples were not heated above 480 F. That's not hot enough weaken them, so the physical evidence is that the fires did not weaken the cores. This may be why Dr. Astaneh refuses to say the magic words that you wrongly ascribe to him.
He did not say that fire and damage did it.
Your continuing failure to call out Lyin Unknowninny and Lyin Ianinny for their lies indicts your credibility and your honesty.
" because it seems to imply that they could not have done it without a lack of fireproofing. And of course, the lack of fireproofing is pure speculation"
This sentence in no way changes the conclusion he reached which is listed in both the proposed collapse scenario and the conclusion section of the paper.
Are you saying the dr concluded the lack of fireproofing caused the collapse and fire had nothing to do with it?? Really Brian?
The mention of lack of fire proofing in no way changes the fact that he's saying fire did it. In fact it supports it as clearly the lack of fire proofing has no effect on the collapse without the presence of fire. Common sense Brian. Try it.
"When Dr. Astaneh references the strength of the steel and its modules of elasticity he is simply reporting a scientific fact. There is no evidence that the steel was weakened to the point of failure, and Dr. Astaneh does not claim that it was."
Actually he does:
The collapse was related to loss of strength of structural elements in the floors with intense fire and collapse of the upper portion on the lower portion due to the pull of gravity.
Coupled with
the fire continued, the main structural elements: the exterior tube columns, the floor truss joists and the core columns and beams were subjected to fire due to burning jet fuel and the contents. As the fires burned, the strength of steel and its modulus of elasticity continued to decrease with increasing temperatures. The author believes that the first element to lose enough strength to collapse may have been the floor joists. These joists not only may have lost their fireproofing but also were heavily damaged due to entry and impact of the plane.
It's Unambiguous what the Dr is saying.
"As the fires burned " is the 1st part of the sentence you ignored. Funny shite.
from th abstract:
"The insufficient fire-proofing eventually leading to collapse of the towers....."
How do you read that and not conclude that the dr is saying fire did it??
Yes, insufficient fire proofing is very dangerous when a bldg isn't on fire!!
Lmfao.
Brian you're just going to have to deal with the fact I'm correct. The Dr says plane damage and fires did it. He offers no other catalyst in his paper. You can dismiss his conclusions all you want but it doesn't change his conclusions. You can pretend he blames only a lack of fireproofing in the abstract as evidence he isn't saying fire did it. But that just makes you a fool.
Brian: ". There is no evidence that the steel was weakened to the point of failure, and Dr. Astaneh does not claim that it was."
Dr Astaneh-Asi:
The collapse was related to loss of strength of structural elements in the floors with intense fire.
You were saying?
This comment has been removed by the author.
I know you will claim "related" is ambiguous Therefore the Dr isn't saying what he clearly is saying.
But you should correct your silly assessment that he doesn't claim the steel weakened to the point of failure. I'm guessing you don't have the courage to even do that.
Dr. Astaneh quite conspicuously does NOT say that plane damage and fires did it. I'm not dismissing his conclusions. I am trying to understand them. You are trying to impose your own version of common sense on Dr. Astaneh's words. That's not how science works.
The paper not only offers another catalyst, but the abstract mentions that catalyst: "insufficient fire-proofing". The text provides no evidence of insufficient fireproofing but only speculations that there "may have" or "might have" been damage to the fireproofing. You are trying to impose your own version of common sense on Dr. Astaneh's words. That's not how science works.
As fires burn, strength of steel and its modulus of elasticity decrease with increasing temperatures. That is a scientific fact. But Dr. Astaneh makes no claim that the strength of the steel was reduced to the point of failure, and NIST's core steel samples show no such reduction in strength. You are trying to impose your own dogmatic version of common sense on Dr. Astaneh's words. That's not how science works.
Dr. Astaneh SPECULATES that floor joists MAY HAVE collapsed first after they MAY HAVE lost their fireproofing. That is hardly a conclusion. Contrary to your claims, he doesn't say that fire did it. You are trying to impose your own dogmatic version of common sense on Dr. Astaneh's words. That's not how science works.
The two sentences in the paper that might be considered the most important sentences are both severely flawed--perhaps deliberately flawed.
If he wanted to opine that fires and impact damage did the job, he could have said so--toeing the government line would be safe. And yet he quite conspicuously DOES NOT say so. You are trying to impose your own dogma on Dr. Astaneh's words. That's not how science works.
You are dishonestly quote-mining my statement about the steel not being weakened. You took it violently out of context. That seems to be a specialty of "your's".
When I said that he doesn't claim the steel weakened to the point of failure it was in the context of discussion of the effects of the fires on the strength of the steel and its modules of elasticity. That was absolutely correct in that context. He does not in that section claim that the steel was weakened, and there is no physical evidence that it was. You are trying to impose your own dogma on Dr. Astaneh's words. That's not how science works.
"Related to" is ambiguous, and very conspicuous when "caused by" could have been used instead. We have not yet begun to discuss the ambiguities in the key conclusion sentence, and will not do so until you calm down enough to stop quote-mining and lathering everything with bogus interpretations. You are trying to impose your own dogma on Dr. Astaneh's words. That's not how science works.
Brian: ". There is no evidence that the steel was weakened to the point of failure, and Dr. Astaneh does not claim that it was."
Dr Astaneh-Asi:
The collapse was related to loss of strength of structural elements in the floors with intense fire.
You were saying?
Very simple. You keep claiming that he doesn't say the steel weakened to the point of collapse and this is completely false. I gave you exactly the line where he claims it did. He further his opinion about which elements failed 1st due to th weakening.
It's beyond rationale thinking to claim otherwise.
"SPECULATES that floor joists MAY HAVE collapsed first after they MAY HAVE lost their fireproofing"
Quote mine alert. Brian is injecting two different elements of the paper to prove a point. Ironically it doesn't prove his point, it solidifies the Dr's opinion that fire did it.
Can you point to the part of the paper where he says "may have lost fireproofing". Liar.
Can you imagine a scenario where dislodged fire proofing doesn't allow FIRE to do it? If not please enlighten me.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Did you care to read or comprehend why the steel lost its fireproofing according to the Dr?
This again confirms his opinion that planes and fire did it. but I'm confusing the issue with facts. Now don't confuse the issue Brian. You can't claim his opinion is wrong to suggest it isn't his opinion. I know that's the game you are trying to play.
You dishonestly taking a statement out of context in order to try to pretend that you have a point.
I already explained to you that he does not say in the section in the plausible scenario about the heating of steel that the heat weakened the steel.
In the section in the conclusion that says the steel was weakened, he does not say that the fires did it.
"Rationale thinking" seems to be a specialty of "you'res".
He says in section 5 of the speculative scenario that the joists "may have lost their fireproofing",
He says in section 2 of the speculative scenario that "the impact of the plane
might have shaken the building, as indicated by the survivors, to cause separation of most of the sprayed-on fireproofing."
I didn't lie about anything. I leave that kind of behavior to you.
"I already explained to you that he does not say in the section in the plausible scenario about the heating of steel that the heat weakened the steel. "
Oh I know what you explained. And I summarily proved you are wrong with a direct quote. That's the thing bri, you explain and say a lot of things. Anyone reading this can see clearly that the Dr said the steel weakened from the heat and he even opines which section weakened to the point of failure. You can't make that go away. I was right, you are wrong.
He says in section 2 of the speculative scenario that "the impact of the plane
might have shaken the building, as indicated by the survivors, to cause separation of most of the sprayed-on fireproofing."
Excellent. Now can you not connect the dots and see how this says planes did it. He says " the impact of the planes" Brian. You don't need a 3rd grade comprehension level to understand
You fell for a clear trap. I got you to admit the Dr says the planes were involved. A win for me. YAY me. Lolololil.
"In the section in the conclusion that says the steel was weakened, he does not say that the fires did it."
1st off, you claimed the dr never claimed the steel
Weakened to the point of failure. That was a lie or an error that you are too consumed with bias to even admit.
Now that you've moved the goalposts, he states:
"As the fires burned, the strength of steel and its modulus of elasticity continued to decrease with increasing temperatures"
Cause and effect.
This sentence isn't ambiguous as to what caused the rise in temps. Only a deluded fool would claim otherwise.
"Rationale thinking" seems to be a specialty of "you'res".
Sucks to be "throughly" pWned by a poor speller doesn't it.
I'm just gonna keep pasting this Brian until you admit you were wrong.
Brian: ". There is no evidence that the steel was weakened to the point of failure, and Dr. Astaneh does not claim that it was."
Dr Astaneh-Asi "The collapse was related to loss of strength of structural elements in the floors with intense fire. "
I get so much joy out of this I can't even explain it.
You did not prove me wrong. You dishonestly took a quote completely out of context.
The conclusion does not say the fire weakened the steel.
"The collapse was related to loss of strength of structural elements in the floors with intense fire and collapse of the upper portion on the lower portion due to the pull of gravity."
If he wanted to say the fires weakened the steel he would have said "The collapse was caused by a loss of strength of structural elements due to fire." The sentence as Dr. Astaneh constructed it is extremely ambiguous. Perhaps deliberately so.
That he attributes the deaths to insufficiency of fireproofing suggests that he did not believe the fires could do the job unless the fireproofing was impaired. Of course he provides only speculation, not evidence, that maybe the fireproofing may have been impaired.
Your statement that I claimed "the dr never claimed the steel Weakened to the point of failure" (sic) is not true. Perhaps you are confused by voices in your head?
It seems that you have difficulty understanding that steel weakening from heat and steel weakening to the point of failure are two different things. I never said that negligible weakening steel from a negligible increase in temperature could not be caused by fires.
I did not write "throughly". You have demonstrated that you don't know the difference between a speculation and a conclusion, between emphatic and empathic; you have no idea what "may have" or "might have" mean, and you don't know the difference between "related to" and "caused by" or between "with" and "caused by".
You haven't a clue as to what is ambiguous about the two key sentences in the report.
You continue to dishonestly take a quote completely out of context, because without doing so you can not even pretend to have a point. Your refusal to call out Ian and Unknown for their blatant lies shows you as someone with no respect for truth.
Since I never denied that the planes hit the buildings, getting me to "admit" it was no victory for you at all.
You're getting your jollies out of savaging a straw doll that exists only in your mind.
The scenario didn't say the fires weakened the steel to the point of failure.
All very entertaining, Brian, but you did not refute the original statement where this amusement came from:
You bring up dr asteneh. He does two things. He proves professionals aren't afraid for their reputations toquestion certain aspects of the investigation AND he thinks jets and fire did it despite his concerns.
"That he attributes the deaths to insufficiency of fireproofing suggests that he did not believe the fires could do the job unless the fireproofing was impaired."
1st off Brian, he said plane impact and fire caused the collapses. What did the Dr attribute the loss of fire proofing. Duh!!
Brian, this is what you said.
". There is no evidence that the steel was weakened to the point of failure, and Dr. Astaneh does not claim that it was."
It's a lie. As proven by:
"The collapse was related to loss of strength of structural elements in the floors with intense fire. "
just admit this was a false statement. Pure a simple. And you don't have any intellectual honesty if you don't admit it. But we already knew that.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"If he wanted to say the fires weakened the steel he would have said "The collapse was caused by a loss of strength of structural elements due to fire." The sentence as Dr. Astaneh constructed it is extremely ambiguous. Perhaps deliberately so. "
How can you pretend to know what the Dr intended? He uses the word related to because it wasn't the sole cause. In that line he is talking about fire. Fire wasn't the only cause of the collapse in his opinion so if he says fire caused the collapse, he's not being accurate.
"Since I never denied that the planes hit the buildings, getting me to "admit" it was no victory for you at all. "
When did I try to get you to admit that?
This comment has been removed by the author.
All very entertaining, Brian, but you did not refute the original statement where this amusement came from:
You bring up dr asteneh. He does two things. He proves professionals aren't afraid for their reputations toquestion certain aspects of the investigation AND he thinks jets and fire did it despite his concerns.
What's so funny about that Th, is he wrangles over words like related to, may have been, etc, but his fall back position is that it's speculation and I don't know what that means. Apparently Brisn doesn't know what "he said" means.
How bout this doozy
"That he attributes the deaths to insufficiency of fireproofing suggests that he did not believe the fires could do the job unless the fireproofing was impaired."
the dr has suggested the fireproofing loss was the result of plane impacts, ( it doesn't matter if it's speculation, he said it therefore my point about what the dr said Is confirmed) Brian, thanks for just admitting that the Dr says fire did the job
I think that about wraps it up.
Brian Goode: " I did not write throughly".
Read carefully Brian
snug.bug06 February, 2016 07:42
Mr. Rock (can I call you Sham?) "no evidence" is not a posture on the destruction of a crime scene. "No evidence" would be a conclusion after a through investigation of a crime scene.
Is your argument going to be you didn't write throughly on this thread therefore you didn't write it? Dope!!
Oh I see, you didn't actually write throughly. You just wrote through. Maintaining your delusional tendencies must take a lot of energy.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I should just delete all my comments and just leave this one:
How bout this doozy
"That he attributes the deaths to insufficiency of fireproofing suggests that he did not believe the fires could do the job unless the fireproofing was impaired."
and what job was that?
Brian your subconscious is smarter then your conscious.
next play, victory formation.
This comment has been removed by the author.
th, where did you get the silly idea that Dr. Astenah-Asl does not fear for his professional reputation? And where does he say he thinks jets and fire did it despite his concerns? He quite conspicuously does NOT say jets and fire did it, and he doesn't say it in very obviously ambiguous terms that allow lazy analysts like you and Mr. Sham to see what you want to see in his words.
I have no investment in Dr. Astaneh's conclusions. No skin off my nose if he thinks jets and fires did it. I am thus able to look at his words objectively and point out that he does NOT say what Mr. Sham claims he says.
Your refusal to call out Ian and Unknown for their blatant lies shows you as someone with no respect for truth.
Mr. Sham, where does Dr. Astaneh-Asl say he thought jets and fires did it? Why does he pass up many opportunities to do so, and instead of saying the magic words of causality like "due to" or "because of" of "caused by" he says "related to" and "with" instead?
Why is his collapse scenario presented as merely "plausible" instead of "primary" or "possible" or "likely" or "proven"? Do you know what "plausible" means?
If he believes that jets and fires caused the collapses, then why doesn't he say so? Why does he instead cite fireproofing that "may have" or "might have" been damaged? Why is a key sentence in the Abstract not even a sentence?
After I have more than once explained to you why taking my quotes out of context is distorting their meaning. You continue to do so. Either you are so intellectually naive that you are not able to understand the bad logic of doing so, or you are deliberately engaging in dishonest weaselry because it's the only way you can give the illusion of having a point.
It was not a false statement in context. Dr. Asteneh did not in the section under discussion about fires say that the steel was heated to weakness.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"That he attributes the deaths to insufficiency of fireproofing suggests that he did not believe the fires could do the job"
What job?
See Brian subconsciously you can see where.
Why would he cite fireproofing if he doesn't think fire did it is the question dumbo.
"It was not a false statement in context. Dr. Asteneh did not in the section under discussion about fires say that the steel was heated to weakness. "
So you're changing where he said it to prove what exactly. This is what he said:
"As the fires burned, the strength of steel and its modulus of elasticity continued to decrease with increasing temperatures. The author believes that the first element to lose enough strength to collapse may have been the floor joists.
No amount of idiotic protest is going to change it. He clearly acknowledges the weakening of the steel. Something you denied. He even offers an opinion about which element lost enough strength 1st. You are maintaining a lie despite a direct quote proving its a lie. That just proves what a dolt you are.
Are you even going to concede you used "through" instead it "thorough".? Doubtful. Your bias is so strong you think you are never wrong. Pathetic.
Brian says:
After I have more than once explained to you why taking my quotes out of context is distorting their meaning. You continue to do so. Either you are so intellectually naive that you are not able to understand the bad logic of doing so, or you are deliberately engaging in dishonest weaselry because it's the only way you can give the illusion of having a point
Everyone hears:
"Wwaaahhhhhhh! Shamrock won't let me win, Wwwaaaahhhhhhhhhh!"
Brian: ". There is no evidence that the steel was weakened to the point of failure, and Dr. Astaneh does not claim that it was."
Dr Astaneh-Asi:
The collapse was related to loss of strength of structural elements in the floors with intense fire.
Using the context argument is desperation Brian. Just admit that the dr said the steel weakened to the point of failure. He clearly thinks it did.
And somewhere in the recesses of your gray matter you see that he does think fire did it when you said:
"That he attributes the deaths to insufficiency of fireproofing suggests that he did not believe the fires could do the job unless the fireproofing was impaired."
Mr. Sham, the discussion would be much improved if you would think more and write less. I don't need you to let me win. Your dishonesty and irrationality are obvious to people of normal intelligence and experience. You only fool the dumb bunnies.
That Dr. Astaneh blames the deaths on fireproofing suggests that he doubts that fires alone (without damaged fireproofing) could do the job of weakening the steel to the point that the towers collapsed.
I didn't change anything. Dr. Astaneh does not in point 5 of section 5 acknowledge that fire weakened the steel to failure. He provides no evidence that the steel was weakened by fire at all, let alone to failure. The NIST core steel samples only showed heating to 480 F. That's only negligible weakening.
I did not write "throughly" in this thread or any thread. Your failure to call out Lyin Unknowninny and Lyin Ianinny for their lies indicts your crediblity and your honesty.
The context argument demonstrates no desperation on my part. It demonstrates incompetence or desperate dishonesty on your part. Your continued taking of my quote out of context shows either that you are so intellectually impaired that you don't know you're being dishonest, or that you don't mind being blatantly dishonest in order to fool the feeble-minded into thinking you have a point.
Since Dr. Astaneh does not SAY that fires did it, and he seems to be going through some linguistic contortions in order to avoid saying it, for you to presume that you know what Dr. Astaneh thinks is very naive or dishonest or both.
That Dr. Astaneh blames the deaths on fireproofing suggests that he doubts that fires alone (without damaged fireproofing) could do the job of weakened to the point that the towers collapsed"
Yes, he doubts fire alone could do it. He believes there was a mechanism that removed the fireproofing. Enter the "planes " part of he thinks planes and fire did it.
Cmon Brian, you're not even trying.
"I didn't change anything. Dr. Astaneh does not in point 5 of section 5 acknowledge that fire weakened the steel to failure."
Oh but you have.
Brian Goode:
"There is no evidence the steel weakened to the "point of failure and Dr Astaneh does not claim that it was.
Can't see the change? Idiocy alert.
"I didn't change anything. Dr. Astaneh does not in point 5 of section 5 acknowledge that fire weakened the steel to failure.
You've already acknowledged that he did when you said:
"That he attributes the loss of life to the insufficiency of fireproofing suggests he doesn't think fire could do the job without compromised fireproofing"
"I did not write "throughly" in this thread or any thread."
No you wrote "through" instead of thorough". Another word game played by a guy whose so desperate he can't even concede something so obvious but irrelevant like a spelling error. It's proof what a tool you are Brian.
Dr Astaneh-Asi
"As the fires burned, the strength of steel and its modulus of elasticity continued to decrease with increasing temperatures. The author believes that the first element to lose enough strength to collapse may have been the floor joists. These joists not only may have lost their fireproofing but also were heavily damaged due to entry and impact of the plane."
You're right Brian. He doesn't say fire and plane damage did it. He was just mentioning the fire as a mere coincidence, happenstance if you will.
The problem for you is you acknowledged that the Dr believed fires dos it when you said:
""That he attributes the deaths to insufficiency of fireproofing suggests that he did not believe the fires could do the job unless the fireproofing was impaired."
What job would that be Brian. C'mon Bri. Your subconscious is betraying your denial.
This comment has been removed by the author.
You really should admit you used "through" and not "thorough".
It probably won't make you feel better. Trying to maintain this freakish "I'm never wrong" nonsense is hard. Admitting the error will alleviate the pressure though.
Mr. Sham, "plane" is not a mechanism. Dr. Astaneh's descriptions of the possible mechanisms of fireproofing removal are couched in terms of "may have" and "might have". He provides no evidence that there was any such removal.
You continue to quote mine. The statement I made was clearly in the context of point 5 of section 5. Your pretense that it wasn't has gone beyond ignorance and now beyond dishonesty to the point of stupidity. Contrary to your untrue claims, Dr. Astaneh does not in point 5 of section 5 acknowledge that fire weakened the steel to failure.
If he believes that fire weakened the steel to failure, why doesn't he simply say so? Is that such a reckless opinion? You are reading a whole lot into statements that are extremely ambiguous--and seemingly deliberately so. I did want to discuss the ambiguous nature of these statements, but there's no point in doing that with someone who can't distinguish between a speculation and a conclusion, between "Caused by" and "with", between "caused by" and "related to", and who has no idea what "may have" or "might have" mean.
He was mentioning the fire as part of the sequence of events. He does not in section 5 point 5 says that fire weakened the steel to failure. He does not in the conclusions say that fire weakened the steel to the point of failure. He makes no effort to provides evidence that the fireproofing was inadequate. His opinion as expressed in the Abstract is thus highly speculative, and the operative sentences are so ambiguous as to be practically meaningless to anyone who actually tries to make an effort to understand what they mean.
He does not say the fires did it. "With fires" is not "caused by fires". The extreme ambiguity of his statements allow the lazy-minded to read what they want into them and they seem to be deliberately ambiguous.
Your refusal to call out Ian and Unknown for their blatant lies shows you as someone with no respect for truth.
"Sham, "plane" is not a mechanism. Dr. Astaneh's descriptions of the possible mechanisms of fireproofing removal are couched in terms of "may have" and "might have". He provides no evidence that there was any such removal."
You just said "plane" is not a mechanism and in the same paragraph you state his discription of the mechanism were couched by "may have". Can you not see how incoherent you are?
Regardless of whether he has proof, he offers it in his paper. He gives no other potential mechanism.
Christ, is Brian still pretending Astaneh-Asl supports his delusions?
"If he believes that fire weakened the steel to failure, why doesn't he simply say so? Is that such a reckless opinion? You are reading a whole lot....."
I'm just saying that based on the paper, the Dr says planes and fire did it. Brian, the purpose of the paper was formulate a collapse scenario that fit the evidence. Not to just repeat an obviously known sequence of events.
He's clear in his opinion, his speculation, his conjecture, what he believes occurred. And in that conclusion he references fire. Are you seriously saying the Dr doesn't think fire was apart of the collapse sequence, merely a coincidence to the increasing temps that he acknowledge and you originally denied caused the steel to fail???
Really Brian. Get help.
So are you going to "maya culpa" on "through". Seriously. The words are "you're correct Sham, I misspelled thorough".
Plus your subconscious already admitted what your conscious cannot bring itself to admit when you inadvertently wrote:
"That Dr. Astaneh blames the deaths on fireproofing suggests that he doubts that fires alone (without damaged fireproofing) could do the job of weakening the steel to the point that the towers collapsed. "
That's clear acknowledgment that the Dr thinks they while the fires alone couldn't do the job, the dislodged fireproofing was also a factor. That's a nice coupling of planes and fire did it. Don't you wish you could take that back?
Brian Goode". Waaaahhhhhhhh, sham won't back off what I said, waaaahhhhhhhhh
This comment has been removed by the author.
"Christ, is Brian still pretending Astaneh-Asl supports his delusions?"
His subconscious doesn't. His subconscious admitted the dr doesn't think fire alone could do the job without dislodged fireproofing. His conscious just hasn't figured out what this means.
He'll grab at any straws he can. He thinks that because Astaneh-Asl places caveats on his statements, that means Brian can ignore it. Sadly, Brian doesn't know that is typical behavior of reputable academics, to admit they cannot know things 100%. This easily confuses him because the cult of truth feigns absolute knowledge on just about anything that is convenient to their delusions.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"The collapse of the towers was most likely due to the intense fire initiated by the jet fuel of the planes and continued due to burning of the building contents. It is also the opinion of the author that had there been better fireproofing installed to delay the steel structure, specially the light weight truss joists and exterior columns from reaching high temperature until the content of the buildings burned out, probably the collapse could be avoided and the victims above the impact area rescued."
http://www.crono911.net/docs/AstanehWTC.pdf
Instead of complaining about context, just say that your sentence that the Dr didn't say the steel weakened to the point of failure was a mistake, and admit he in fact did say the steel weakened to the point of collapse from the heat. What you meant to say was despite the reference to fire in the very sentence he describes the increasing temps effecting many steel components, the Dr didn't assign the increased temps to fire.
I suspect you can't even go there. After all, Brian Goode is never wrong.
Waaahhhhh, sham is mocking me, wwaaahhhhh
I suspect you can't even go there. After all, Brian Goode is never wrong.
Meh, I've always shown Brian how he and the other nutters are no different than creationists. Just like now, he finds little things in what they say to pretend it validates his delusions. AA spends page after page talking about the structure, fire proofing, fire, crashes, etc. but the only parts he sees are the ones he can twist around to pretend he has some basis in reality. Creationists do the same exact thing with studies on fossilization, radiometric dating, etc.
Post a Comment
<< Home