OGCT True Believers Bullshit Excuses, Need help to sink OGCT True Believers BS Excuses Options

[dMz]

After this many circular, evasive, unanswered questions [BTDT], it's time to reach for my [rhetorical/metaphorical] .44 (nice how that worked out, IMHO)... Do ya' feel lucky punk!?

I'll personally add:

44. Are you and some of your "anonymous" associates attempting to turn this research-oriented website into a "troll infested shithole?" [to paraphrase Rob, out of context of course, if he will grant me some leeway here (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) ]

[metaphor]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbGqQmBtdTo
[/metaphor]

FYI-
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/metaphor

[Sanders]

The cause was the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature.

What temperature? There is nothing stated, and nothing to support such a claim of intense heat.

Exactly - these tiring efforts always start out assuming unprecidented temperatures, with no evidence for it.

(IMG:http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/2673/womaninholezy1.jpg)

[nicepants]

Paragraph 1:


What temperature? There is nothing stated, and nothing to support such a claim of intense heat.

The existence of fires would support the claim of intense heat.

I’ll stop there because there are many instances of assumptions throughout this article
Including the closing comments. That link is far from a scientific analysis, it’s pretty sad anyone would call that an analysis.
Nonetheless, his calculations can be proven wrong by several engineers at AE911.org,
As well as video proof that the top sections did not fall as Zdenek P. Bazant calculates.
See the still frame analysis above, and these links:

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2007...seAnalysis2.pdf

http://journalof911studies.com/articles/Ar...TradeCenter.pdf

Essentially we have engineers who disagree, so the proper course of action would be peer review. Bazant's paper was published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, perhaps the authors who disagree with him should submit their papers to the same journal for review.

On another note: Do you still hold to your claim that "fire cannot weaken structural steel"?

[nicepants]

What temperature? There is nothing stated, and nothing to support such a claim of intense heat.


Exactly - these tiring efforts always start out assuming unprecidented temperatures, with no evidence for it.

(IMG:http://img511.imageshack.us/img511/2673/womaninholezy1.jpg)

Obviously it's not extremely hot where she is standing. Does this mean that there was no fire anywhere in the building?

[dMz]

Still with the "anonymity..."

The existence of fires would support the claim of intense heat.

The existence of one's ass would support the claim of a horrible smell, no?... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif)

Essentially we have engineers who disagree, so the proper course of action would be peer review. Bazant's paper was published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, perhaps the authors who disagree with him should submit their papers to the same journal for review.

On another note: Do you still hold to your claim that "fire cannot weaken structural steel"?

So are you going to bring us a unanimous, signed agreement that all engineers no longer disagree anytime soon, nicepants?

[dMz]

Obviously it's not extremely hot where she is standing. Does this mean that there was no fire anywhere in the building?

Ask your favorite band [NIST] for documented heat distribution maps, Chuckles, Jr. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

[Sanders]

What temperature? There is nothing stated, and nothing to support such a claim of intense heat.

The existence of fires would support the claim of intense heat.

Haha!


Numerous full-scale fire tests and actual fire investigations show that building fires do not nominally get anywhere NEAR the kinds of temperatures needed for structural failure. In a couple of fires that burned out of control for a dozen hours or more and totally gutted the building, there is some evidence for temperatures getting above a thousand degrees, but those cases are rare and exceptional. Nominally, open air building fires don't get up near a thousand degrees, and the steel temperatures in all cases, which is the important figure, is usually half of that. (I posted information about lots of fire tests and investigations once for you, Nicepants.)

Point is, "intense heat" here refers to temperatures that can raise the temperature of structural steel beams and columns, all bolted and welded together btw, you have to heat the steel faster than it can conduct the heat away to other parts of the building, to a point where they will fail. We are talking about well over 1200 F, since the towers were built strong enough to at least handle 5:1 loads (more likely 6:1 or greater)... that's STEEL temperatures of 1200, not atmospheric. The temp. of the fires would have had to be in the range of at least 2000 F for that to happen, and this does not ordinarilly happen in an open-air environment, and has NEVER happened in the case of a localized fire that burned for just an hour or so. Your claim that "The existence of fires would support the claim of intense heat" is ...

(IMG:http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/7889/mixednutslx3.jpg)

[dMz]

But Sanders, there exists the remote possibility that:

Your claim that "The existence of fires would support the claim of intense heat" is ...

a horrible smell, no?... (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/dunno.gif)

[nicepants]

The existence of fires would support the claim of intense heat.

Haha!


Numerous full-scale fire tests and actual fire investigations show that building fires do not nominally get anywhere NEAR the kinds of temperatures needed for structural failure.

Then why is steel fireproofed? Are you with Turbofan in claiming that fire cannot weaken structural steel?

[dMz]

Then why is steel fireproofed? Are you with Turbofan in claiming that fire cannot weaken structural steel?

Not exactly, "goalpost" got moved some time ago [in the interests of being truthful/correct]- please do try to keep up:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10741341

P.S. Nicepants- would you please refer to your "late-slacker" answers by number to simplify the "twoofer" accounting, por favor???

P.P.S.- I don't really care for the "Non Believers" part of the OP, FWIW...

[painter]

Then why is steel fireproofed? Are you with Turbofan in claiming that fire cannot weaken structural steel?

Turbofan obviously made an over-reaching and inaccurate statement which delights you to no end. But then again "fire" is rather generic, isn't it? A match ablaze is "fire" but will it weaken structural steel?

We all need to learn to be more precise in our statements. The question is, could an office fire with a duration of about an hour using primarily furnishings as the fuel source sufficiently weaken the WTC structure to cause then sudden onset of symmetrical, rapid and total collapse of the entire structure? NIST's studies are highly suspect as you must know and in any case only support the hypothesis of collapse initiation assuming the fire proofing material was "widely dislodged" -- an assumption that has not been proven. About the rest of it -- the near instantaneous and symmetrical dissolution of the entire structure leading to rapid and catastrophic "collapse", NIST has nothing whatever to say.

You should take a lesson.

[nicepants]

We all need to learn to be more precise in our statements. The question is, could an office fire with a duration of about an hour using primarily furnishings as the fuel source sufficiently weaken the WTC structure to cause then sudden onset of symmetrical, rapid and total collapse of the entire structure?

None of the collapses were symmetrical. Does claiming that they were somehow help your cause?

NIST's studies are highly suspect as you must know and in any case only support the hypothesis of collapse initiation assuming the fire proofing material was "widely dislodged" -- an assumption that has not been proven.

Is it your belief that a 757 hitting the tower as fast as it did would not dislodge fireproofing?

About the rest of it -- the near instantaneous and symmetrical dissolution of the entire structure leading to rapid and catastrophic "collapse", NIST has nothing whatever to say.

More false claims bolded. NIST wasn't tasked with explaining what happened after the collapse began. Doing so wouldn't serve any useful purpose, as buildings aren't designed to arrest a global collapse.

[rob balsamo]

This was posted at the govt loyalist site by James B of SLC...

CODE

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=114839

I replied with...



I forwarded it to Dom to post there if James didnt. Dom posted it in the thread. The govt loyalist site mods deleted it within an hour. That place is nothing but full of deception. lol.

I wonder if James posts it, it will get deleted, and why dont they delete any other of my quotes? Nicepants... why dont they delete any of my quotes you post? I guess they prefer a one sided argument based on quote mining and cherry picking and delete/ban anyone who disagrees. Pathetic hypocrites.

Ron replied to the email... continuation...

Ronald Wieck <xxxxxx@verizon.net> wrote:
Why would "Lisa Simpson" deny anyone's registration, unless that person has been banned?

Ron

Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 18:51:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Pilots For Truth" <pilotsfortruth@yahoo.com> View Contact Details Add Mobile Alert
Subject: Re: Thanks!

I suppose for the same reason none of them will step up to the plate to debate and for the same reason they deleted Dom's post of my email but leave all these other quotes...

James quoted me and posted my full audio. I sent him an email thanking him for posting it. But the mods deleted it as you saw.. (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Unfortunately i dont have access to search on the govt loyalist site...however, I recently ran across many by nicepants in the CIT thread.

http://govtloyalistsite.org/forumlive/show...p;postcount=388

http://govtloyalistsite.org/forumlive/show...p;postcount=377

http://govtloyalistsite.org/forumlive/show...p;postcount=410


Here are some posted by proxy of Craig (many others of Craig and Aldo, isnt it against the govt loyalist site rules to post quotes from members who been banned?)
http://govtloyalistsite.org/forumlive/show...p;postcount=330


Here is one most famous from you Ron posting by proxy for me
http://govtloyalistsite.org/showpost.php?p...p;postcount=105

Ron started that thread on my behalf... (and a few others)
http://govtloyalistsite.org/showthread.php?t=113627

Also remember they reference me four fold on the bottom "tags" of the subforum.

The only quotes that stay are those which are cherry picked. There are tons of my quotes throughout that forum including the very thread James started. But they delete Dom's? Hypocrisy at its best.

[CocaineImportAge...]

CIA, when you talk about squibs do you even know what a squib is? Or do you just repeat anything you read on a conspiracy website?

...errr!... always thought they were one of the smaller devices used in controlled demo` to crack crucial joints to aid the collapse!?!


...whats your real point?

[dMz]

47. [post #181] "Then Why don't you read Mr. Balsamo's report on the FDR, and learn from a pro?"

48. [post #183] "Meanwhile, they spent their whole time during the show behind their screens attempting to debate each point that was mentioned on the show in the comfort of their cohorts and biased mods who delete opposition response. Is it any surprise they refuse?"

49. [post #186] "Troy calls 9//11 victims Families at home and harrasses them. You dont see a difference here? Why would you equate the two?"

50. [p 186 still] "Do you comprehend what he says there? Do you know why he is saying it? Do you know why Ron eventually did step up to the plate yet admitted (the same as you) that he is unable to debate the FDR?"

51. [p 188] "nicepants, you really need to do your homework. Do you really believe that Pilots has not attempted to get a response from the NTSB, and the FBI for that matter?"

52. [p 191] "Nicepants, let's assume for one minute that you had a piece of solid evidence.
What do you do next? Where do you go?"

53. [p 193] "I see Skeptik is here- why don't you join the party, sir?"

54. [p 194] "Why is that when people say the loyalists have scientific proof to debunk our physiscs, math, etc. , we never see that proof?"
-----
I probably missed some, but let me add here:

55. [EDIT: p 212] How many of "you" "nicepants" are there exactly? Do you share your username/password with others [cough * cough * Randiites * cough]? Aren't you growing weary of being "handed your own ass(es)" at this point?

This post has been edited by dMole: May 30 2008, 08:28 AM

[dMz]

More false claims bolded. NIST wasn't tasked with explaining what happened after the collapse began. Doing so wouldn't serve any useful purpose, as buildings aren't designed to arrest a global collapse.

So buildings ARE DESIGNED to globally collapse then nicepants? Well Fuckin' A Thanks For The Tip- I'll never go inside a building again! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/doh1.gif) (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wall.gif)

[dMz]

"It answers the questions, or else it gets the hose again." (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

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

[dMz]

56.[A]....

Sorry folks-- I likely skipped a few Q's-- but someone really needed to show "nicepants" the "strong pimp hand" right about then! (IMG:http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/style_emoticons/default/yes1.gif) [Where's Rob's "Kramer" photo?]

Anyway- 56.A [as requested by TF]:
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index....&p=10742497

Post # 48 "over there..."

"Momentum has very little importance in your poor excuse for a comparison without MASS.

What would happen if the car was moving at a fast rate of speed and hit the train?"

Thank you TF- I've been intending to "breach" this subject. Yes. of course, KE = 1/2*m*v^2, or KE=p^2/2m, or what have you... The whole aluminum wing spars v. WTC "columns" thing...

I've heard plenty o' handwaving here, but where exactly is the evidence for WTC "penetration mechanics???"

My $0.02

EDIT: SHOUT OUT to amazed!- holla!

This post has been edited by dMole: May 30 2008, 03:09 PM

[grizz]

nicepants:

None of the collapses were symmetrical.

Unbelievable! I think there's a rule around here about knowingly posting a falsehood.

I have a theory that nicepants is not a person at all. It's probably an experimental computer program. How it answers this post could be indicative.

[nicepants]

I've heard plenty o' handwaving here, but where exactly is the evidence for WTC "penetration mechanics???"

Is aluminum unable to penetrate a harder or denser material?

None of the collapses were symmetrical

Unbelievable! I think there's a rule around here about knowingly posting a falsehood.

You believe that my claim was false? Do you have any proof that any of the collapses were symmetrical? (Would it make any difference whether they were or not?)

OK then, how does the top section above the impact point of the towers have the ability to crush a more massive
object?

As I stated in the other thread, the top section/bottom section, were not single objects, but systems of objects.

Did the top (falling) section have the ability to crush the top floor of the lower section?

In your train/car analogy, Building B should be the car (the smaller , less massive parameter in the train equation).

The analogy was to demonstrate interaction with regard to momentum, it was not meant to directly represent the top/bottom sections.

This post has been edited by nicepants: May 30 2008, 03:51 PM