Saturday, March 31, 2007

Look Ma, Aren't You Proud

The scary thing is the moms are! This picture is reminiscent of the Hitler Youth.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket


The Flying Imams

Thanks LGF

By-the-by… I did know about this… I am just happy its in a format most my readers can understand… V I D E O !

Rosie O'Donnell 9/11 Conspiracy Comments: Popular Mechanics Responds

I am here posting an article from Popular Mechanics answering Miss O’Donnell and her whacky conspiracy theories that have been made popular by “Loose Change” and other “documentaries”. You can find much of the info from this response in My Blog on Rosie’s craziness, as I used Pop Mech as one of a few resources on the response to other bloggers who wrote in about WTC #7. Enjoy:

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Recently, Rosie O’Donnell, a co-host of ABC talk show The View, made comments on the show that renewed controversy over the collapse of World Trade Center 7.

While saying she didn’t know what to believe about the U.S. government’s involvement in the attacks of Sept. 11, she said, “I do believe that it’s the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel. I do believe that it defies physics that World Trade Center tower 7—building 7, which collapsed in on itself—it is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved. World Trade Center 7. World Trade [Center] 1 and 2 got hit by planes—7, miraculously, the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible.”

She continued: “To say that we don’t know that it imploded, that it was an implosion and a demolition, is beyond ignorant. Look at the films, get a physics expert here [on the show] from Yale, from Harvard, pick the school—[the collapse] defies reason.” (Watch the clip here)

For those interested in what physicist and demolition experts have said regarding WTC 7’s collapse, as detailed in our book Debunking 9/11 Myths, PM offers these notes:

1. Initial reports from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) misunderstood the amount of damage the 47-floor WTC7 sustained from the debris of the falling North Tower—because in early photographs, WTC7 was obscured by smoke and debris.

Towers 1 and 7 were approximately 300 ft. apart, and pictures like the ones here and here offer a clear visual of how small that distance is for structures that large. After further studies, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) told PM that debris from the 110-floor North Tower hit WTC7 with the force of a volcanic eruption. Nearly a quarter of the building was carved away over the bottom 10 stories on its south face, and significant damage was visible up to the 18th floor (see p. 24 of this report).

The unusual design of WTC7 is also crucial to the discussion, in that key columns supported extreme loads—as much as 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor—as the building straddled an electrical substation. “What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors,” NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder told PM, “it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down.” The tower wasn’t hit by a plane, but it was severely wounded by the collapse of the North Tower. Which is when the fires started.

2. The North and South Towers of the World Trade Center weren’t knocked down by planes—they both stood for more than a half-hour after the impacts. But the crashes destroyed support columns and ignited infernos that ultimately weakened—not melted—the steel structures until the towers could no longer support their own weights (NIST offers a primer here). Ms. O’Donnell fundamentally misstates the case with her use of the word “melting”: Evidence currently points to WTC7 also collapsing because fires weakened its ravaged steel structure.

Tower 7 housed the city’s emergency command center, so there were a number of fuel tanks located throughout the building—including two 6000-gal. tanks in the basement that fed some generators in the building by pressurized lines. “Our working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time,” according to Sunder. Steel melts at about 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit—but it loses strength at temperatures as low as 400 F. When temperatures break 1000 degrees F, steel loses nearly 50 percent of its strength. It is unknown what temperatures were reached inside WTC7, but fires in the building raged for seven hours before the collapse.

3. Demolition experts tell PM that wiring a building the size of WTC7 for clandestine demolition would present insurmountable logistical challenges. That issue aside, there’s a clear-cut engineering explanation for why the building fell the way it did. Trusses on the fifth and seventh floors of the building were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another; with the south face heavily damaged, the other columns were likely overtaxed. In engineering terms, the “progressive collapse” began on the eastern side, when weakened columns failed from the damage and fire. The entire building fell in on itself as the slumping east side dragged down the west side in a diagonal pattern. Still, damage to the Verizon Building (see p. 21 of this report), directly west of WTC7, and to Fiterman Hall (see here) directly north, show that it was hardly an orderly collapse.

NIST is currently preparing its final report on the collapse of WTC7, which is expected to be released this spring. In order to address concerns of conspiracy theorists, the organization added “Hypothetical Blast Analysis” to its research, according to a December 2006 progress report. The report also points out that “NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition.”

Friday, March 30, 2007

Belated Tribute

A Belated R.I.P.


Democrats listen up! Cpl Chris Mason sent this video home to his father Mr. Mason who just posted this a few days ago. Cpl Chris Mason was killed in November of 2006 doing what all great men (and women) have done throughout history. Sacrificed their comfort to fight for the comforts of others.

Hot Air asked the right question: “Where do we find such men?”

Hot Air went on to point out that Cpl Mason was a believer in Jesus Christ. His belief mirrors the belief instilled in Lance Cpl. Richard P. Slocum, the first Iraqi death to occur from our home town. Slocum had an instilled belief in Jesus as well, and our church will forever miss his presence.

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Where do we find such men? Indeed. The Answer? In the greatest nation on God’s green earth.

God bless both the Slocum and Mason family’s for allowing such honor and bravery to succeed in their son’s lives.

John Travolta on Global Warming

Scientology really warps the mind, and I think we can see this with Travolta speaking about how to fix Global Warming while owning five planes of his own. He says we should look at other planets and build domed cities. Weird. Following is a photo of Travolta’s home and then a quote or two from the article:

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

Travolta, a Scientologist, claimed the solution to global warming could be found in outer space and blamed his hefty flying mileage on the nature of the movie business.

But his appointment as a "serving ambassador" for the Australian airline Qantas doesn't seem to have much to do with the movies. Nor does a recent, two-month round-the-world flying trip.

"It [global warming] is a very valid issue," Travolta declared. "I'm wondering if we need to think about other planets and dome cities."

"Everyone can do their bit…."

Tearful Surprise

I love our men and woman in the military, they endure so much… its nice to see a family reunited after a tour of service.

Forest Fires and Carbon Absorption

Forest Fires and Carbon Absorption

NASA Goddard Institute Article

The article below has information in it relevant to both Young-Earth Creationists (carbon dating), as well as Global Warming critics. This is for the minuscule amount of young-earth creation scientists that visit my site from time-to-time. Yes, take note this is from the same Institution that Dr. Hansen heads up, and they are pumping out info that throws a “cog” into Hansen’s Global Warming “scare tactic” to get democrats into office.


March 21, 2003

Scientists studying trees ranging from saplings to 130 years old in Canada’s northern forests have discovered that the period since a fire last swept through an area determines how much carbon the forest can store. Twenty to forty year old stands absorb more carbon than those 70 years old and older, despite being smaller and having less biomass or plant material.

Boreal or northern forests account for close to 25 percent of total carbon stored in vegetation and soils in the Earth’s biosphere. Wildfires burn down individual areas every 40 to 250 years and are an important part of this ecosystem. Whether or not these forests are likely to lower or raise levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere depends on how these carbon reserves respond to, and recover from, both climate change and disturbances such as wildfires.

NASA funded part of this study under its Earth Science Enterprise (ESE), whose mission is to understand and protect our home planet. Earth Science in NASA seeks to understand trends in land cover and land use, such as forest fires, that drive global climate. Another Earth Science program objective is to understand the Earth system’s response to natural and human-induced changes, and effects on global carbon cycle.

Marcy Litvak, plant ecologist at the University of Texas at Austin and lead author of the study that appeared in a recent issue of the Journal of Geophysical Research - Atmospheres, said that the ability of tree stands to store carbon changes as they regenerate from fire. Forests will store more or less carbon depending on the dominant tree species, the amount of moss cover, and changes in forest structure due to fire. Those factors determine how much total carbon is exchanged with the atmosphere.

Carbon is transferred from the atmosphere to the forest through the process of photosynthesis. Carbon is returned to the atmosphere through the process of respiration as soil microorganisms decompose dead organic matter, and trees and mosses metabolize the products of photosynthesis. It is the balance between these two processes, taking in carbon during photosynthesis and "exhaling" carbon through respiration, that determines how much carbon is stored in the forest.

Between 1999-2000, Litvak and her colleagues, Scott Miller and Michael Goulden of the University of California, Irvine, and Steve Wofsy of Harvard University, used solar-powered anemometers and infrared gas analyzers mounted on towers to monitor carbon emissions over five black spruce stands in Manitoba, Canada. These stands ranged in age from 11 to 130 years old. Results indicate that the ability to store carbon is almost zero in the 11 year-old stand, increases to a maximum in the 36 year-old stand, then gradually falls back down to zero in the 130-year old stand. They concluded that most of the net carbon absorption appears to take place from 20-50 years after a fire.

"Seedlings of Aspen, Jack Pine, and Black Spruce all regenerate simultaneously following wildfire in areas once dominated by mature black spruce forests in this region of Manitoba. Aspen and Jack Pine tend to dominate in young stands where light is not limited. Black Spruce grow the slowest, but eventually out-compete the Aspen and Jack Pine by blocking the sunlight available to these species. By 70 years following a burn, these forests are dominated by Black Spruce once again," Litvak said.

Stands less than 20 years old store less carbon than older trees because they lack sufficient leaf area for rapid carbon accumulation. Carbon storage is highest in stands 20-50 years old that are dominated by rapidly growing aspen trees that take up carbon at higher rates than black spruce and jack pine trees.

"Stands [of trees] older than 70 years are dominated by black spruce trees and thick moss cover that ‘exhale and inhale’ equal amounts of carbon. That means stands older than 70 years are in near carbon balance with the atmosphere," she said.

Knowing the rate at which trees respire will help scientists to better estimate the trees' contributions to the global carbon cycle. This is especially important because of the changing climate. "Increased fire frequency, as predicted from global warming scenarios, has the potential to significantly impact the contribution boreal forests make to the global carbon cycle," Miller said.

NASA data from the Boreal Ecosystem-Atmosphere Study (BOREAS) was also used in the study. BOREAS was a large-scale international experiment in the northern forests of Canada between 1993 and 1996, whose goal was to improve understanding of interactions between the boreal forest and the atmosphere, and clarify their roles in global change.

This work was supported by NASA, the National Science Foundation, and U.S. Department of Energy.

Liberal Myths about Radical Islam

A great article worth reading by Dinesh…

Liberal Myths about Radical Islam

By Dinesh D'Souza

Monday, March 26, 2007

As the Pelosi Democrats attempt to steer the debate on Iraq and the war on terror away from President Bush's approach, it is useful to examine the premises behind the liberal Democratic understanding of the war on terror. So far the Democrats have been successful in faulting the president's admittedly-flawed approach. But there is no advantage in trading one bad model for another. Here, then, is my critique of some of the major elements of the liberal explanation for "why they hate us."

They're very upset at us for the Crusades: James Carroll’s recent book Crusade, portrays the Crusades as a horrific act of Western aggression that still shapes the military thinking of America's leaders and inspires outrage in the Muslim world.

Is it reasonable to think that Muslims today are genuinely outraged about events that occurred a thousand years ago? Let us remember that before the rise of Islam, the region we call the Middle East was predominantly Christian. Inspired by Islam's call to jihad, Muhammad's armies conquered Jerusalem and the entire Middle East, then pushed south into Africa, East into Asia, and north into Europe.

Rallied by the Pope and the ruling dynasties of Europe, the Christians attempted in the eleventh century to recover the heartland of Christianity and to repel the irredentist forces of Islam. The Crusades were important to Europe because they represented a fight to recover Christianity's holiest sites and also because they were part of a battle for the survival of Europe.

By contrast, the Crusades have never been important to the Muslim world. Muslims were already in control of their own holy places in Mecca and Medina. Not once did the Crusaders threaten the heartland of Islam. From the point of view of Muslim historians, those battles were seen as minor disruptions on the periphery of the Islamic empire.

In summary, the Crusades were a belated, clumsy, and defensive reaction against a much longer, more relentless, and more successful Muslim assault against Christendom. The striking aspect of the liberal critique is that it stresses the horrors of the Crusades while virtually ignoring the Islamic jihad to which the Crusades were a response. Even if liberals detest the Crusades, however, there is no good reason for many of today's Muslims to care about them, and there is no evidence that they think about the subject at all.

They're angry about colonialism: Many on the cultural left, like the late Edward Said, attribute Muslim rage to the still-fresh wounds of Western conquest and subjugation.

But America—the focal point of the anger of radical Muslims—has virtually no history of colonialism in the Middle East. If the Filipinos or American Indians were launching suicide bombers in New York, their actions could perhaps be attributed to a reaction against colonial subjugation. But until the Bush administration ordered the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq in the aftermath of 9/11, America had never occupied a Muslim country. This was not for lack of opportunity. After World War II, America could quite easy have colonized the entire Middle East, but never even considered doing so.

America's record is one of opposing British and French colonial initiatives, and of encouraging the European colonial powers to withdraw from the Middle East. So Muslim hostility to America has to be explained by factors other than colonial occupation in the Middle East, since prior to 9/11 America has no record of colonial occupation in the Middle East.

They're angry because American actions have killed so many Muslims: Actually America has actively fought on the side of Muslims in several recent conflicts. During the 1970s the United States supported the Afghan mujahedin and their Arab allies in driving out the Soviet Union from Afghanistan. In 1991 the United States assembled an international coalition of countries, including many Muslim countries, in order to drive Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait and restore the sovereignty of that small Muslim country. Later in the decade, President Clinton ordered American bombings and intervention to save Muslim lives in Bosnia and Kosovo.

True, many Muslims hold America accountable for Israel’s bulldozing of Palestinian homes and Israeli shooting of stone-throwing Palestinian youths. And Muslims frequently deplore the civilian lives lost in the American invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. These deaths, however, are small in number compared with the devastation that other invading armies, including Muslim armies, have wrought through the centuries right down to the present day.

More recent Muslim wars, such as the Iran-Iraq war, have also produced unbelievable horrors and casualty lists. Over the eight-year period of the Iran-Iraq war, for instance, between 500,000 and 1 million Muslims were killed. Islamic radicals know all this, which is why one cannot find in their literature the kind of indignation over America's killing of Muslim civilians that one routinely finds in liberal magazines, radio shows and websites.

My conclusion is that the main reasons leading liberals give to explain the antagonism of the Islamic radicals toward the United States and the West are false. Consequently we should be skeptical of liberal solutions such blocking additional troops, or squeezing funding, or calling for a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. These "solutions" reflect muddled thinking about radical Islam, and they are likely to produce results far worse than the situation as it is now.

Dinesh D'Souza's new book The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11 has just been published by Doubleday. D’Souza is the Rishwain Fellow at the Hoover Institution.

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