Thursday, March 29, 2007

Metastasizing Conspiracy

Rosie O’Donnell & 9/11

Rosie has lost it! Bottom line. But she is merely displaying a metastasizing of the post-modern culture. Putting together stories that have no evidential backing or logic, and deciding they are true merely because they support your current feelings on the administration. Deplorable that someone would build a worldview and filter for truth based solely on feelings. Rosie gets to 9/11 near the end of this five minute video:

I have added something new to my regular response to the 9/11 Truthers that will ad some more weight to my counter-argument. So even for those who have read my stuff in the past, you will enjoy this new 3-minute video from Purdue University. The pillars in the Pentagon were made with steel reinforced concrete. These pillars wouldn’t budge much even with an impact from a plane. Maybe I will add the photo about the pillars as well.

Enjoy the response to both the Pentagon issues raised in “Loose Change” and also the reader questions about Tower number seven.




Debunking 9/11 Myths

My Original Post

from an old post from my MySpace

The following is merely a quick rebuttal to a few items constantly brought up to me by my son's friends to professors I see on TV. Keep in mind that what is below is a conglomeration of multiple responses so the info may not be uniform in context. However, the point is made, and the conspiracy whacko's are proven to be just that, whacko's!

I have heard in debates and theories about the Pentagon that:

    • an A-7 hit the pentagon with a pilot flying;

    • without a pilot (remote control);

    • an A-7 firing a missile just before it hit the Pentagon with a pilot;

    • and an A-7 without a pilot firing a missile just before it hit the Pentagon;

    • a cruise missile, three cruise missiles;

    • and A-10 hitting the pentagon with a pilot;

    • and A-10 hitting the Pentagon without a pilot;

    • and A-10 hitting the Pentagon firing a missile with a pilot;

    • an A-10 hitting the pentagon firing a missile without a pilot;

    • a UAV hitting the Pentagon firing a missile;

    • a remote control Boeing 757 without people on board;

    • a Boeing 757 with pilots and no people;

    • a Boeing 757 without pilots but with sedated passengers

    . . . . etc., etc..

    The problem is I have personally met two people that ACTUALLY saw a 757 fly into the Pentagon. There is also a photo of a large chunk of the [plane in front of the Pentagon, showing that Loose Change merely selected photos that do not show this (for propaganda purposes. . . which makes you ask why . . . maybe because they are connected to many anti-capitalist, anti-American groups that think an Illuminati conspiracy exists). And the other group of 9/11 doubters is headed and founded by a professor of economics. The problem is that his own universities engineering department has not signed on to his crazy theories about the Twin Towers.

    A good book on the matter is:

    Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

    A Friend Once Told Me:

    The building dropped like a building that had been demolished by demolition charges. No other steel framed building in the world has ever fallen from a fire; the steel can withstand 2000 degrees of heat. Also, there is video of firemen saying they heard secondary and third-dary explosions

    First off, no other building was built like the Twin Tower buildings and the rest of the buildings in that grouping. A good documentary on the subject was done by The Learning Channel called World Trade Center: Anatomy of the Collapse. Its design was so different that when the Loose Change guys compared it to other buildings they were lying about it being the same as other buildings. Plain and simple, this is what propagandists do. This building was totally different than any other building before or after it.

    Secondly, the building didn't drop straight down. Parts of the building fell sideways onto the roof and sides of other buildings causing fires, damage, and the like for blocks around. I really noticed this just this past 5-year anniversary with all the footage. I have many documentaries on 9/11, so I went back and watched them. And sure enough, debris from the buildings fell for at least a block in some cases.

    Thirdly, no one has ever said that jet fuel will destroy metal. It was the combination of the impact, multiple fires of metals and other combustible materials in the building, the impact stripping off the fire proofing from the metal, and the like. I will now quote an expert:

    "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

    But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that Popular Mechanics consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

    "The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

    Fourth, there were secondary explosions when the electrical panels and boxes blew. This building was pumping huge amounts of electricity up to main points in the building. These blew. Also, elevators that finally gave way and came crashing down 30-to-forty stories allowing fuel and flames and smoke to the floors where these elevators ended up crashing to.

    Fifth, I have seen the video of the fireman getting word that a bomb was found. This was the initial report. A car bomb was used in the 1993 attack and a police officer or fireman probably found what he thought was suspicious and word spread.

    Just like when someone says he saw a UFO but later finds out it was an SR-71 (which glows green many times as it speeds down), or a meteor skipping across the earths atmosphere. Many times people say they saw X in a car crash, but other witnesses saw B, when the police investigators compile the evidence from all the witnesses a true story emerges. Some people swear their attackers had a mustache, when in fact they didn't. The conspiracy theorists use bits-and-pieces out of context, just like cult leaders.

    (Without critical thinking it is easy to predict that if anyone believes this stuff now, they are a prime target for some cult, or New Age movement to entice them into believing really wild stuff. I study cults and crazy theories for a hobby, I know. . . if a person is this easily swayed without critically rethinking their position, wow!)

    For instance: The Loose Change guys say no plane hit the Pentagon. Take note of the very large piece boxed off in red (below). Hello, McFly. There is a worldwide movement against freedom, and it isn't coming from Bush. It’s coming from Revolutionaries who use propaganda -- like the PROOF I just showed you Loose Change used -- to change a government they do not like.

    Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

    Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

    The Loose Change people show the photo below, making it look like this was the biggest piece of the plane found. The photo they chose to use made it look like the piece was really small.

    Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

    However, compare it to the one below with a truck right next to it. It is a bit bigger than the first photo of it. Why did they choose this photo over the others? They want the viewer to think only one way so they selectively used photos to make sure the viewer agrees with them. This is known as propaganda, and willingly and knowingly telling a lie by deselecting the truth.

    Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

    Loose Change also neglects to show how a semi-truck sized generator was struck (skimmed) by the engine of the plane right before it struck the Pentagon. The photo below shows where the generator was by marking where it should have been with a yellow outline. It was moved 45-degrees by the engine of the 757, which is evidenced by the huge gouge mark in the generator itself (caused by the engine of the plane).

    Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

    Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

    Another photo that irked me was one of the spools just sitting in front of the Pentagon nice and neat. The problem is that some of these spools had been stacked neatly by this fenced area. As you can see, one of the engines hanging closer to the ground ripped through this area and spread the spools you see pictured. I would be interested to know also if the firemen moved the spools out of the way later in the day fighting the fires. One should take note that in the right hand side of this photo is the semi-truck sized generator I have shown (giving more perspective to where it is/was located).

    Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

    And finally, another thing that was so obviously a cover up by Loose Change to make the viewer sympathetic was the bit about the windows not being broken in the Pentagon right near where the wing of the plane hit. First of all, the only real strong part of a plane like the 757 is the underbelly (pictured below), and the structures of the wings can be clearly seen in the following two pictures after that:

    Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

    Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

    Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

    Obviously if this wing hit our house the windows would shatter. But the Pentagon wouldn't have windows like yours or my house. Click on the thumbnail below (you can click once more to zoom even further) and read for yourself about these windows... and then ask yourself: how was I ever duped by such easily falsifiable rhetoric?:

    Click on the thumbnail

    Here I am going to ad (3-29-07) a video produced by Purdue University and it shows why the pices of the plane were so small after impact: Enjoy

    Dayton Responds

    very interesting indeed

    Luke Responds

    Dayton introduced me to this blog of yours, and I gotta say, nice work.

    I Respond

    Thanks Luke.

    For many years I followed the New World Order stuff, reading many, many books on the subject, even going so far as to visit the local John Birch Society meeting once-in-awhile, and after many years I came to realize that if you critically looked into the evidences for this giant conspiracy to fool mankind knowingly, it is shown to be wanting.

    Currently the conspiracy to fool mankind is backed by liberals, however, when Clinton was President, it was backed by conservatives. For a theory or model to explain every possible outcome and have completely different backers depending on who's in office simply means that it is not a true theory or model because it is so elastic. And this is a conclusion that I came to a while back and had solidified by Michael Medved during his monthly Conspiracy Show (around the full moon). elastic.

    Let me point something out though. The difference between the lib/con views of the giant conspiracy to fool mankind is that no leading political figure in the Republican Party accepted these crazy conspiracy myths as real. Today however, you have a huge chunk of the Democratic base accepting many of these wild stories and blame America first mentality, as well as many Democrat senators and representatives mentioning these crazy ideas.

    Its funny, I can show someone proof that "X" didn't happen, but "B" in fact did. They will simply respond that that too was a cover up meant to fool the general public, e.g., me. There is no debating such a person. In fact, this was the original reason for my creating a MySpace, was to challenge a few of my oldest sons friends on this exact matter.

    As for us Christians . . . I use to think that this giant conspiracy would fool mankind into following the Anti-Christ. Now I think the delusion of this theory will drive many people to accept almost anything . . . even a messianic type figure. In other words, it's the conspiracy theory ITSELF that breaks down the critical thinking and road to truth that makes accepting incredible claims without evidence, logic, history, and the like, more common place. Which is why having a healthy eschatology as a Christian is very important.

    Sorry for the rant, again, glad you enjoyed.


    Mark Responds

    You've got me almost convinced. But three words still ring in my ear.




    Building number 7 of the wtc was not hit by a 747, jet fuel or falling debris (aside from the dust that covered most of NYC) but mysteriously caught fire and imploded.

    What - magic?

    I Respond

    Thank you Mark for your interaction here, it is welcomed.

    Actually, building seven was hit by a massive amount of debris from Tower 1 or 2 (I will look into which tower when I get the National Geographic DVD, since that has the best shots of falling debris I have seen yet). What you may not know is that building 7 housed the city's emergency command post. The building was designed to remain operational if power were to be lost. How was this building designed to keep running if power were to go out? This is the part we don't hear too much about:

    ... There were a number of fuel tanks throughout the building that may have supplied fuel to the fires for up to seven hours. In addition to smaller "day tanks" on each floor, two 6,000-gallon tanks in the basement fed most of the generators in the building..... Two generators, located on the fifth floor, were connected to the fuel tanks in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time".... (p. 56)

    ...... WTC 7 was built to straddle a Con Edison electrical substation. That required an unusual design in which a number of columns were engineered to carry exceptionally large loads, roughly 2,000 square feet of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down." (p. 55)

    (Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts)

    Also note that trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed (similarly to WTC 1 and 2) to transfer loads from one set of columns to another.

    (The following is added for my new readers):

    I want the skeptic to look here at the damage caused by debris from the falling Twin Tower to building 7:

    Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

    Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

    After viewing these pictures, listen then to this very short video response to the 9/11 Truthers (i.e., whackos) found at:

    Debunking 911 – World Trade Center 7


    The above video (the first one) was from The Learning Channel documentary "The Anatomy of the Collapse", the second video is Steve Spak's video - for clarity. This site does a bang-up job to refute those who are misled with allegorical stories of conspiracies and dark secret smoke-filled rooms where the Patriot Act is a power grab.


    Ryan Responded

    Do you work for the government? lol...first off just because people have conflicting theories and haven't figured out everything doesn't mean there wrong. Ok I am pretty convinced that 9-11 was an inside job from the videos I have seen and you call people who believe in this wacko...not a very good thing if you want people from the other side to listen to you. I haven't read everything you said yet...I get headaches when I read. Do you have any google videos or something that I could watch that supports your side?

    I respond

    The best bet is to buy The Learning Channel's video "World Trade Center: Anatomy of the Collapse", this is a great resource. Dude, you are talking to a guy that is going to recommend books all-day long... so you may want to find someone else to talk to. Some of the largest demolition companies were approached by the authors of the book I recommend, and they said that it would take two-teams of 75-people (each team) months to plant and strip all the supports columns on three floors. This went unnoticed?

    Also, the "Loose Change" people have strange bedfellows... something the conspiracists always try to make connections to in regards to Bush and the oil companies.... I would say for them to look at the log in their eye first:

    Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

    Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting