Right Wing Nut House

8/21/2007

377 Comments

1. It won’t matter to the true believers. They think dylan avery is a structural engineer. And most of them will refuse to watch because the’re too busy attacking the History Channel on 9/11troof forums. Did goebbels or goering read anything Albert Einstein wrote? Probably as much as 9/11cultists read anything that disagrees with their religious convictions about 9/11.

   Comment by Bored to tears by 9/11Truth — 8/21/2007 @ 8:01 am

2. Agreed. But I think the target audience were the agnostics or perhaps those don’t know any better.

   Compelling TV at any rate.

   Comment by Rick Moran — 8/21/2007 @ 8:03 am

3. Excellent. Looney theories deserve a good debunking.

   Speaking as one who used to obsessively partake of evolution / creationism debates, I doubt that people who are completely emotionally invested in the conspiracy will change their minds but you never know.

   What always struck me as amusing (in a black sort of way) was the idea that Bush et al were capable of conducting this fakery. The awesome level of competence, planning and secrecy is beyond almost anyone but the Bush crew? Pah!

   That and the way that people could even carry on with the nonsense after the Popular Mechanics article and the obvious fact that demolishing buldings is not something that can be done covertly.

   Comment by Drongo — 8/21/2007 @ 10:39 am

4. I always thought the stuff about America doing this to herself was silly.
   But I haven’t yet seen the rebuttal on the building 7 argument. I missed the History channel’s airing, but aren’t they still owned by the New York Times? Not exactly an unbiased source!
   The building 7 questions remain. Instead of blaming our President, we should ask the Israeli Mossad what they knew and when they knew it. They WERE following Mohomhed Atta and another of the hijackers here in America prior to 9/11. Their agents were seen cheering and giving “thumbs up” as the towers were burning. Some media referres to the 5 agents as “Israeli Dancers.”

   Comment by seejay — 8/21/2007 @ 11:05 am

5. Actually, as the “biased” History Channel reported, ASCE has not completed its review of the evidence as to why #7 fell.

   And Winston Churchill reportedly toasted the attack on Pearl Harbor. Did he have a hand in that disaster? Or was he happy that the US would be joining England in her war against Hitler?

   As for the Mossad following Atta - first I’ve heard of it. Which means you probably got it from a truther site.

   And you call the History Channel biased?

   Comment by Rick Moran — 8/21/2007 @ 11:09 am

6. Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 08/21/2007
   A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.

   Comment by David M — 8/21/2007 @ 12:21 pm

7. If the Bush administration is so sophisticated and intelligent that they put this conspiracy to murder thousands of people; said conspiracy involving thousands of people and hundreds of man-hours; and then put it together in their eight months in office; then why are they unable to shut the mouths of a couple of you-Tube geeks and miscreants that are “exposing the truth” to the administrations detriment. Doesn’t the fact these people exist prove the non-existance of the conspirators?

   Comment by Eno — 8/21/2007 @ 12:29 pm

8. The piece was not even close to a mouth punch. Everything the ‘truthers’ were telling us were valid questions to ask. The actual debunking involved more suspension of disbelief than the conspiracy theorists.

   Instead of tackling serious, almost non-debunkable 9/11 questions like the ISI money link, the war games that morning that simulated planes attacking buildings, the cover-up of the 9/11 report, the Able Danger program, the near-20 nations whose intellegence warned the U.S. of an attack, etc.

   It’s easy to attempt to debunk physics when there is NO evidence to back it up; but try to debunk the actual paper trail next time.

   Comment by Ray — 8/21/2007 @ 12:51 pm

9. [...] Aug 21st, 2007 by Michael van der Galiën Rick Moran has a marvelous post up, about a documentary that aired recently on the History Channel. Of course, yours truly could not watch it (I do not have this channel), but I would like to spend some attention to it nonetheless. Rick writes: In what will surely be seen as a defining moment for the 9/11 truther movement, the History Channel has delivered a blow for sanity and rationalism by airing a superior documentary entitled 9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction. [...]

   Pingback by Where my Truthers at? « The Van Der Galiën Gazette — 8/21/2007 @ 1:23 pm

10. There’s only one important question concerning the attacks, did the US gov’t allow/participate in 9/11?

    The answer to that query would explain the illegal wire-taps, suspension of habeas corpus, banning of books like “America Deceived” from Amazon, detaining of dissenters in fences miles away from events, and multiple wars based on lies.

    How can the gov’t be innocent in 9/11 when we have caught it lying so many times (WACO, Ruby Ridge, no WMDs, USS Liberty, Operation Northwoods, Gulf of Tonkin, Pearl Harbor, ETC.)?

    In law, if you determine a person lies ONCE during his testimony, it can be assumed that he lied in the remainder of his testimony. How come we do not hold the gov’t to the same standard as it holds us to?

    The gov’t lied to us about Iraq and more Americans have died there than in 9/11. If the gov’t lied about Iraq then why is everyone so reluctant to believe that the gov’t lied about 9/11?

    Final link (before Google Books bends to pressure and drops the title):
    http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-38523-0

    Comment by Jack D — 8/21/2007 @ 1:37 pm

11. Jack D, I only have one thing to say to you…

    BWAAAAAAAA HAHAHAHAHAHA!

    Comment by Rick Moran — 8/21/2007 @ 1:38 pm

12. I hate Bush.

    I hate the Truthers.

    Many, many lefties would agree with me on both of the statements above.

    Comment by Steve M. — 8/21/2007 @ 1:45 pm

13. Can you personally explain anything that happened on 9/11, Mr. Rick Moron? Could you even hold a discussion about the physics of the towers’ collapse? You are an elementary schoolyard bully who made his living kissing the prick of the establishment. Suck it whore!

    Comment by matt — 8/21/2007 @ 1:46 pm

14. By the way, Rick, you might want to check out “What Part of ‘Bomb” Don’t You Understand?” from the August 10 edition of This American Life, which talks about the idiots who belong to the 7/7 “Truth” movement in England and how they harassed a survivor of the bombings who blogged about them. This American Life certainly leans left (as does the survivor), but the 7/7 Truthers are absolutely the villains of the piece.

    Comment by Steve M. — 8/21/2007 @ 1:52 pm

15. What freaking whack-jobs these losers be….

    Comment by nikkolai — 8/21/2007 @ 2:03 pm

16. I honestly think that some people just refuse to believe that a big event (Pearl Harbor, Kennedy’s assassination, 9/11 etc.) could be carried out without government complicity. It seems to threaten their universe to think that some nut with an Italian rifle can change history.
    There isn’t an event in recent history that doesn’t have its share of conspiracy theorists. There’s even a group who believe that John Wilkes Booth was not really killed in 1865.

    Comment by gregdn — 8/21/2007 @ 2:17 pm

17. So Mr Moran
    You suggest that this History Channel report “reamed” the Truthers, but then say that information on building 7 wasn’t included. It wasnt included? In the report that “REAMED” the truthers? Why wouldnt this end-all-discussion-report include information on Building 7?
    How thorough could it be?
    IMHO, the Truthers are nuts! But your automatic dismissal of all questions re. WTC/9/11 seems questionable in itself.
    And since you’ve never heard that the Mossad trailed Atta, you conclude it’s bad information. How arrogant! Then you defend the integrity of the New York Times and their MSM buddies, the History Chanel. Puleasee!
    And please show proof Churchill actually toasted 12/07.
    With whom did he toast? When and where did this happen?
    Or do you simply throw out stories as “reported” to suit your arguments in hopes no one will call you on it?

    Comment by seejay — 8/21/2007 @ 2:25 pm

18. I am sorry I missed the History Channel show. It is long overdue. I hold a number of Environmental licenses with thew State of New York and I was at Ground Zero the day after The President was there. I was taking samples on thew roof of 120 Greenwich and found numerous parts of the plane on that roof. The FBI and Cia had already been there to pick up the large (the size of cars)pieces what I found were smaller but numerous. I watched the second plane hit the building on TV and was stunned when the buildings started to collapse. I can only say that these sick morons claiming the government did this are bringing unmercifully bad Kharma on themselves and I for one would not want to be them. God bless America

    Comment by John Griffin — 8/21/2007 @ 2:43 pm

19. Read my lips. 911 was instigated, propagated, conspired, inspired, planned and executed by our renowned murdering leaders and the leaders from whom they take their queue. Period. No questions, no answers. The game is over. Goodnight.

    Comment by ghosttown — 8/21/2007 @ 2:46 pm

20. [...] Right Wing Nut House reviewed the documentary so well that I really don’t have anything else to add except to say that it’s re-airing on Saturday at 8 PM Eastern and again at midnight. [...]

    Pingback by Truthers Take One in the Nads! : The Sundries Shack — 8/21/2007 @ 2:47 pm

21. “Hiroshima For Truthers,”…

    calls Pat Curley the History Channel 9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction special (Screw Loose Change). “The truthers got reamed. They got reamed to the point that the truthers who produced the internet video Loose Change are scrambling to alter the……

    Trackback by Pajamas Media — 8/21/2007 @ 3:15 pm

22. Great post, Rick. Thanks for the summary. The husband and I, avid History Channel viewers, saw this in last night’s programming and were too skeptical to watch, I am sorry to admit. We thought the History Channel had fallen off its pedestal. Nice to know when it re-runs tomorrow night I can watch without being disappointed.

    Comment by Karen — 8/21/2007 @ 3:16 pm

23. “WACO, Ruby Ridge, no WMDs, USS Liberty, Operation Northwoods, Gulf of Tonkin, Pearl Harbor, ETC.”

    Operation Northwoods - the plan dreamed up by a single man, rejected, and called for no civilian deaths.

    You morons really need to do your research.

    Comment by Shawn — 8/21/2007 @ 3:37 pm

24. As a liberal, I agree with almost nothing on this entire website. But I doff my lefty hat and bow to Rick Moran, who has been all over these morons for a while. I’m not sure Bush hatred is at the heart of it (I tend to think it is generealized anti-government sentiment run amok, coupled with faaaar too much free time and a lack of girlfriends), but that’s a small point of disagreement.

    I mean, how do you reason with a person who writes this:

    “In law, if you determine a person lies ONCE during his testimony, it can be assumed that he lied in the remainder of his testimony.”

    Really? Even his name?

    That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard. EVERYBODY has lied at some point in their lives, but that doesn’t mean EVERYTHING they say is a lie.

    “How come we do not hold the gov’t to the same standard as it holds us to?”

    Tell you what. Why don’t we hold you TRUTHERS to that standard? Meaning, if any ONE of your allegations is proven to be a falsehood, then the whole thing fails…

    Comment by Kman — 8/21/2007 @ 4:03 pm

25. It’s kind of sad and depressing to see that the Discovery channel had to create a documentary proving that our government had nothing to do with 911.

    I can’t imagine how someone could become as partisan, pathological, and obscenely offensive as a ‘truther.’

    Comment by TonyR — 8/21/2007 @ 4:28 pm

26. Good article Mr. Moran (as usual).

    I didn’t get to see the special, but hopefully they’ll re-broadcast it. I’ve never respected the Truthers, but the only point they raised that I couldn’t flatly reject with certitude was the apparent lack of plane wreckage at the Pentagon. I look forward to seeing the show and finally putting the Truthers in the same circular filing cabinet with the Flat Earthers (although to be fair, the Flat Earthers are far more humorous).

    Comment by busboy33 — 8/21/2007 @ 4:33 pm

27. I watched the documentary and it was not an impartial look at 9/11, but a deliberate attempt to resuscitate the government’s story, which continues to come apart at the seams. First, the format of the documentary was specious: it mentioned a “conspiracy theory” and then the “expert.” But what is an “expert?” An “expert” is just someone who supports the government story and doesn’t countenance any other alternative explanation. The “expert” rebuttal was often frightfully silly.

    For instance Davin Coburn made the preposterous statement that in 2001 cell phone technology would work at 50,000 feet. His evidence? Nil.

    David Coburn also suggested that Mineta’s testimony might have been a reference to United 93, even though Mineta’s own testimony makes it clear the flight in question is the one approaching the Pentagon.

    But that wasn’t enough. In regards to what caused the circular hole in the C ring at the Pentagon, the official story is now that it was a vortex of hot swirling dust pushed forward by the plane. First it was the nose cone, but that was implausible since that it made of aluminum. So Popular Mechanics then told us it was the landing gear. That story worked for awhile but the gear was found before the C ring impact, so now they’ve concocted a new explanation.

    An “expert” is simply someone who defends the official explanation, not someone who objectively looks at the the evidence and makes a conclusion. That is why all the defenders of government propaganda would have said that it nose cone punched a hole in the C-ring. But later would’ve told you it was the landing gear. Now it’s a swirling field of hot dust and debris. But if the official explanation keeps changing, why should we assume the government’s story at all?

    Comment by Eric Wilds — 8/21/2007 @ 4:50 pm

28. If you all are so unwaivering in your opinions towards “Truthers”..I CHALLENGE you to listen to this mp3 and not come out of it without questions about the History Channel’s intentions and integrity. It is Alex Jones explaining how blatant and disgusting this propaganda hit-piece was. I DARE you to listen to this. It is only fair to have Alex’s position be heard.

    http://prisonplanet.com/audio/210807show.mp3

    Comment by Roger Smith — 8/21/2007 @ 4:51 pm

29. A synopsis of a conversation I had a few years back.

    Truther: “….it was obviously a hoax. The evidence shows that the Pentagon was hit by a cruise missle, not a plane. You can tell by just looking at the pictures of the crash-site, once you know what to look for. Furthermore….blah blah blah”
    Me: “Well, you make a convincing case. There is only one problem with it”
    Him: “Yeah, what?”
    Me: “I saw the plane crash into the building with my own eyes. ”
    Him: “Really? Oh.”

    He didn’t “recant” but I got the feeling that actually meeting someone who

    Comment by r4d20 — 8/21/2007 @ 5:48 pm

30. cont…

    He didn’t “recant” but I got the feeling that, having met each other face-to-face, he couldn’t bring himself to just write me off as a liar as he probably would have done had the exchange taken place over the internet or in another, less personal, way.

    Comment by r4d20 — 8/21/2007 @ 5:55 pm

31. By the way, it is Jones’ brief reaction the day after and simply highlights certain points of the program. Detailed rebuttal’s are on their way.

    Quick note: Bill Doyle heads the http://www.coalitionof911families.org/..the largest 9/11 Families group. Over HALF of them are demanding a new investigation and believe the government is complicit in a cover-up. The argument “ohh bringing up 9/11 conspiracies is hurtful to the victims families” is a bogus argument and a disgrace to those that are demanding a new investigation.

    So when the media labels “Truthers” as crazies and nuts, they’re putting many of the 9/11 family members that don’t believe the official story into the same category and should be ashamed of themselves. Only the scum of the earth would use and manipulate the names of the family members to propel their propaganda.

    Comment by Roger Smith — 8/21/2007 @ 6:02 pm

32. I messed up the link above, correction: http://www.coalitionof911families.org/

    Comment by Roger Smith — 8/21/2007 @ 6:06 pm

33. “The documentary took no prisoners as it destroyed almost all of the major conspiracy theories associated with 9/11…”

    Dear Moron, In your dreams. This “documentary” did no such thing. In fact, it is equally being laughed at (and shredded) by the Truth movement as your sad attempt of redeeming this farcically silly production by the History Channel — 9/11: fact of Fiction. Not once did the producers of this program talk about the smoking-gun molten steel under the buildings (1, 2, & 7) some 8 weeks after the buildings came down, even though Stephen E. Jones had wanted them to include this information in the piece. Is that what you call “truth by omission”? Also, there was such obvious bias by the producers in calling the people that supported the government story “experts” but those that didn’t, like the emminently-more-qualified-than-their-experts expert, Robert Bowman, just a “conspiracy theorist.” Also, we saw the same pull-the-heartstrings, emotional, rhetorical tactics that good propagandists use like “how dare they (the conspiracy theorists) hurt the families members of 9/11 victims BS” ad nauseum. Using these tactics was just designed to get people from speaking up about the obvious inside job of 9/11. But, it’s not working because more and more families of 9/11 victims are coming around to the TRUTH and supporting the Truth movement

    Believe whatever you wish, but this did not harm the truth movement one iota. You can continue to believe in fairy tales if you want, but the rest of us are grown up enough to see the real nightmare the inhabits our daytime reality.

    Comment by redpill8 — 8/21/2007 @ 6:14 pm

34. [...] Last but not least, unrelated but it amused me so I am gonna show it here, go read Right Wing Nut House and see how the Truthers Got reamed by the History Channel. In what will surely be seen as a defining moment for the 9/11 truther movement, the History Channel has delivered a blow for sanity and rationalism by airing a superior documentary entitled 9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction. [...]

    Pingback by Fred Thompson on Guns, Iraq and Mitt Romney on Sanctuary Cities at Conservative Times--Republican GOP news source. — 8/21/2007 @ 6:41 pm

35. 911 was instigated, propagated, conspired, inspired, planned and executed by our renowned murdering leaders and the leaders from whom they take their queue.

    Unless they’re forming an actual line, I think you mean cue. Also, you are koo-koo-nutty.

    Comment by Jim Treacher — 8/21/2007 @ 6:44 pm

36. Two quick comments.

    “…and the disturbing poll numbers showing that 46% of the country believing the whole truth about 9/11 is being hidden by the government…”

    If I recall correctly, it was 42%, but the major point is the wording of the question (something about the government revealing “the whole truth” about 9/11) could be interpreted in many ways. The producers seemed to pass off the number as the number who believe in a conspiracy–even a partial one. I suspect they got a lot of people who thought the government was merely withholding information for strategic reasons, or perhaps covering up its own botched response.

    Second, this is not a fatal blow to the truthers. They have never let factual presentations influence their beliefs before. They’ll simply retreat from the weakest of their arguments and dig in again. But it was fun to watch.

    Comment by Boris — 8/21/2007 @ 7:31 pm

37. If anything this sorry excuse of a “documentary” that the Hysterical channel broadcast last night will only help the 9/11 movement.

    Imagine all the people who will actually take the time now to watch Loose Change… Thank you History Chanel! I’d say your little plan will backfire big time!

    Comment by James — 8/21/2007 @ 7:59 pm

38. [...] In truth, I like few things better than a good debunking, and when the debunking is aimed at the morons in the 9/11 ‘Truth’ movement, so much the better: In what will surely be seen as a defining moment for the 9/11 truther movement, the History Channel has delivered a blow for sanity and rationalism by airing a superior documentary entitled 9/11 Conspiracies: Fact or Fiction. [...]

    Pingback by Decision ‘08 » Blog Archive » Put THAT In Your Pipe And Smoke It — 8/21/2007 @ 8:03 pm

39. Troofers need to get their stories straight. Either the fire wasn’t hot enough to weaken/melt steel, or there was a discovery of molten steel weeks later. The Loose Changers apply simplistic peanutbutter-sandwich-construction logic to very sophisticated mechanical engineering failure scenarios, then claim victory and post a video. In it’s third revision. Of a series of about a hundred, as more of their nonsense gets pickled.

    Geez, we sure give a lot of attention to about 500 (very loud and persistent) nutbags on the intertubes.

    And as for the crowds that show up for these Truther rallies - I go to the monkey house at the Brookfield Zoo, but that doesn’t mean I aspire to be a chimp. I’d go to a rally if one was in my hood, just to poke a stick through the bars.

    Comment by Doc56 — 8/21/2007 @ 8:23 pm

40. History Channel = Propaganda Channel

    The “Propaganda Channel” goons have been busy spamming every negative comment about them at Google Video the last 24 hours. They’re censoring…lmfao…WEAK. They couldn’t even debunk the home-made video of a 20yr. old.

    They addressed none of the physics or mathmatics evidence, let alone the EYEWITNESSES IN THE BASEMENT !

    They are now part of the problem America.

    Comment by Kish — 8/21/2007 @ 9:10 pm

41. I don’t necessarily buy the Bush bashing charge as the motivation behind the truthers, there is a lot of money to be made selling people like Eric and redpill8 these types of “theories”.

    Comment by grognard — 8/21/2007 @ 9:22 pm

42. Thanks for the heads-up, Rick. Will be sure and catch the replay. These truthers are truly deranged. Hope you’re correct in your assessment that this will put the issue to rest for all but the blind or willfully ignorant. Based on some of the comments here, I’m not so sure.

    Comment by Chris — 8/21/2007 @ 10:32 pm

43. Matt, you ignorant sl… Oops. Sorry.

    Matt, the physics associated with the collapse of the buildings is the extraordinarily difficult to grasp concept sometimes known as gravity.

    The engineering associated with the collapse of the buildings includes statics, kinetics, thermodynamics, strength of materials, combustion, crack propogation, and on and on.

    Concrete decomposes in hydrocarbon pool fires. You would know this if you had ever paid attention to the condition of a concrete road subjected to a car fire. Decomposed concrete is bad for the structural integrity of concrete buildings.

    Steel loses significant amounts of its strength with increasing temperature. At 930 deg F, structural steel has down to 49% of its nominal yield strength. At 1100 deg F, it is down to 28% of its nominal yield strength. (Machinery’s Handbook, 25th)

    Compare that to the maximum allowable design bending stress of steel, for example. That allowable stress is 66% of the nominal yield strength (AISC Manual of Steel Construction, 8th).

    Estimates of the interior temperature generated by the fires in the WTC vary, but are nearly all above 1000 deg F. Which leads to steel strengths below 49% of yield. Which is a problem for a steel structure designed assuming stresses equal to as much as 66% of yield.

    At the same time that the steel is becoming weaker, it is also expanding by approximately 0.00001 inches per inch per deg F. A nominal temperature rise of 1000 deg F results in an expansion of 0.01 inches per inch. Which is about 1/8th inch per foot. Or 1/2 foot expansion for a 50-foot-long beam or truss joist.

    The beams and joists in buildings are generally fixed at both ends. They certainly are not designed with 6 inches of longitudinal expansion in mind.

    So either the beams expand causing the columns to which they are attached to bow outwards and collapse, or the columns resist the expansion causing the heat weakened beams to buckle longitudinally and themselves collapse.

    Onto the fire-rotted concrete.

    Hmm….what structural elements remain to support the steel and concrete buildings? Too bad gravity’s all I’m coming up with for “physics.” I bet there’s something else in there that could explain it all.

    Comment by Troll feeder — 8/21/2007 @ 10:40 pm

44. Oh yeah, they totally “dedunked” the 9/11 truth movement. Yet I wonder why they ignored, especially since theyre so “trustworthy”

    1. The Molten Metal From Thermate found and tested under ALL THREE WTC Tower
    2. The Norad Neutralization of NORAD by Cheney because of 15 SIMULATNIOUS DRILLS that day.
    3. The FUNDING for 9/11, which came form CIA controlled pakistani ISI
    4. THE FOREKNOWLEDGE of the attack, which cannot be “explained away” (Jeb Bush Declared MARTIAL LAW in Florida just before the attack. Now WHY did he do that? Cause he KNEW IT WAS COMING.)

    Comment by Brad — 8/21/2007 @ 11:20 pm

45. I had alot of typos, I typed it quickly. But my point is simple. The History Channel was a total hit piece with no actual important information. History Channel and Popular Mechanics are Shill organizations owned by HURST PUBLISHING- yellow journalism 100%.

    But of course it doesnt matter what facts I bring up, because this site is pathetic and you maniac prefer to live in your TV reality where the loving Fed takes care of you and never lies, and Fox news is “fair and balanced” haha. Youll all wake up some day..

    http://www.myspace.com/wethesheeple

    Comment by Brad — 8/21/2007 @ 11:27 pm

46. [...] Right Wing Nuthouse has the definitive take on this definitive takedown. Here’s a sample: The implosion theory was debunked several times over. First, by the best forensic structural engineer in the country who, with the help of some excellent graphics and animation, showed exactly how the planes caused the towers to fall. An explosives expert (a young guy who was flabbergasted at the ignorance of the truthers regarding demolition) pointed out it would have taken weeks to rig the buildings for implosion and would have involved stripping drywall and ripping out walls. The nail in the coffin was supplied by one of the engineers who prepared the final report (working for the independent American Society of Civil Engineers) who showed how the collapse of the towers accounted for such things as the puffs of smoke seen in lower floors as the collapse was occurring as well as the speed of the collapse. [...]

    Pingback by 9/11 truthers take a body blow : thought cops — 8/22/2007 @ 12:18 am

47. @r4d20:
    “Me: ‘I saw the plane crash into the building with my own eyes. ‘”

    I’m sorry you had to be there to see that, but thank you for providing me with the first credible (to me) eye witness account of the Pentagon strike. Just based on your comments at this site, if you say you saw it, I believe you, and I can quit thinking about it.

    Comment by busboy33 — 8/22/2007 @ 12:38 am

48. More than anything, I resent right-wingers implications that all liberals are so-called “truthers.” I am a well-educated, white, middle-class, gay Democrat who does in fact, hate George Bush and his out-dated, offensive and hateful policies (blood for oil is a horrible reason to go war and attempting to deny civil rights to any minorty group is simply criminal). I do not however, subscribe to the conspiracy theories concerning 9/11, nor do any of the people with whom I associate (or they keep it pretty secret, if they do). Any rational person, regardless of his or her political inclinations, knows that the villains behind the events of 9/11 are Bin Laden and the members of al Qaeda, and no one else. The Bush administartion certainly dropped the ball in preventing the attacks, but they quite obviuously had nothing to with their orchestration and/or execution.

    Comment by Brian — 8/22/2007 @ 8:44 am

49. Teatime with the Truthers…

    Teatime with the Truthers…

    Trackback by discarded lies - hyperlinkopotamus — 8/22/2007 @ 9:00 am

50. Jesus, Brian (Brasta1@aol.com), guess I hit a nerve there eh old buddy?

    Too bad no one else will see your obscenely unhinged explosion. You are the epitome of a truther - rank, stupid, and emotionally unstable.

    Comment by Rick Moran — 8/22/2007 @ 9:06 am

51. Yeah and deep down you know your a worthless spineless fraud! Just remember a coward dies a thousand deaths a solder just one! To quote leonitus in three hundred “I hope you live for ever!” See you in NYC on the 11th wait your beleifs are as shallow as your nerve!

    Comment by Brian — 8/22/2007 @ 9:12 am

52. The rest of us are grown up enough to see the real nightmare the inhabits our daytime reality.

    They have medications for that, now.

    Comment by V the K — 8/22/2007 @ 9:14 am

53. “Jeb Bush declared Martial Law”?

    Are you for real, Brad?

    Comment by Frank IBC — 8/22/2007 @ 9:18 am

54. It was a good piece of work. My wife and I were quite impressed.

    Sadly, for those who want to believe, it won’t help. As I told a friend of my in-laws (who persisted in telling me 9/11 “truths I know are not possible):

    “When you
    (a) get an engineering degree, or
    (b) research Air Traffic Control to the point where you and I can have a serious discussion, or
    (c) research US Air Defense to the point where you and I can have a serious discussion, or
    (d) research demolitions to the point where you and I can have a serious discussion,

    we can talk. Until then, find someone else to talk to about 9/11.

    Comment by 1charlie2 — 8/22/2007 @ 9:19 am

55. [...] 9/11 Truthers Get Gut Punched by the History Channel The History Channel debunks theories like the one htat all the communications from passengers on the doomed planes were faked. (tags: 9/11 conspiracy-theory) [...]

    Pingback by Ft. Hard Knox » links for 2007-08-22 — 8/22/2007 @ 9:22 am

56. Keep your medications you Nazi!

    Comment by Brian — 8/22/2007 @ 9:23 am

57. Rick Moran:
    Why didn’t you answer seejay’s valid question to you?
    Where and when did Winston Churchill toast the attack at Pearl Harbor? With whom was he “toasting?”
    You threw this up as fact, even though you used a MSM propaganda trick; using the word, “reported.”
    After using MSM tricks like that,and then ignoring seejay’s rational question to you, can you really still wonder why some question YOUR credibility?
    Please answer seejay’s question.

    Comment by Spike — 8/22/2007 @ 9:35 am

58. How long before Busboy says, “who are you going to believe - me or your own lying eyes?”

    And how many here doubt that this is the “first” witness account that he has heard… and dismissed?

    Comment by Frank IBC — 8/22/2007 @ 9:36 am

59. The comments could have stopped at #24. High Fives to Kman.

    Comment by Boyd — 8/22/2007 @ 9:36 am

60. First of all, it’s “you’re a spineless fraud” not “your a spineless fraud.” And “leonitus” is capitalized and spelled “Leonidas.”

    And this sentence makes no sense: “See you in NYC on the 11th wait your beleifs are as shallow as your nerve!”

    Sheesh! If you’re going to threaten me, at least be coherent about it.

    Comment by Rick Moran — 8/22/2007 @ 10:13 am

61. This blog is a JOKE!
    Now it’s spelling and grammar corrections!
    Another commenter asked Rick Moran why he won’t answer my question about his claim that Winston Churchill toasted the attacks on Pearl Harbor.
    Rick Moran deleted the question.
    This is like dealing with the AP!

    Comment by seejay — 8/22/2007 @ 10:19 am

62. “grognard Said:

    I don’t necessarily buy the Bush bashing charge as the motivation behind the truthers, there is a lot of money to be made selling people like Eric and redpill8 these types of “theories”.”

    Dear Grognard. I had to laugh when I saw this. You think that we in the 9/11 Truth movement are in it only for the money. Come on. I don’t make one penny from my website, nor am I interested in making any money from it. It fact, I quit my job so I can write and spend more time as a truth activist, and, believe it or not, nobody is paying me shit. I am just living off my savings.

    Also, I think you have a serious misunderstanding about Americans. Not all of us are chasing the buck. Some of us, like most 9/11 Truth activists I know, actually care about people, American and Iraqi alike, and want the insanity that this administration has foisted on the world to stop.

    There is a picture of a Iraqi young girl you may or not have seen, who was unfortunate to be on the receiving side of a U.S. bomb. If you can look at this picture and not see the insanity of this war and why it must be stopped you are truly hopeless. (http://www.lysistrataproject.org/withdrawing_our_consent.htm). This the only motivation I need, but it not the only reason I am a Truther. the evidence is solidly there. See, 911truth.org.

    Comment by redpill8 — 8/22/2007 @ 10:20 am

63. Now Spike’s question is back. I retract my statement about the deletion, but I’m still waiting for the info on Churchill toasting Japan’s attack on the USA.

    Comment by seejay — 8/22/2007 @ 10:22 am

64. Yeah and we all know James Meigs and Davin Coburn are engineers too….cough cough BULLS&^@!!!!!! And for all the other people on the documentary, they are all on government payroll…..The History Channel is owed by General Electric which makes bombs for the Military Industrial Complex…..what on earth would they have to gain by exposing any cover-up??? Wake up sheeple!!!!! We are doing this for YOUR future too…..don’t wait till it’s too late….and it’s not a LEFT vs. RIGHT thing….I am a STRONG conservative….actually voted for Bush twice!!!!! So don’t pull that BS!!!!

    Some of you guys are NEO-CON filth…..why would you want to help the government cover up their lies???? WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    read this article!
    http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2007/210807_dirty_tricks.htm

    Comment by David — 8/22/2007 @ 10:52 am

65. Scientific/Technical background of the “Loose Change” crew:

    Dylan Avery, 22 (writer) - Filmmaker, no college education

    Corey Rowe, 22 (producer) - “Producer”, “some” college education

    Jason Bermas, 26 (producer) - Graphics designer, “some” college education.

    From Wikipedia:

    Bermas believes that the Apollo moon landings were faked and that there have been missions to the moon using secret technology other than rocket propulsion

    Comment by Frank IBC — 8/22/2007 @ 10:58 am

66. Tuned in late, but having just been out to Shankesville two weeks ago, it was interesting.

    Obviously, these guys don’t agree, but they’re always good to a laugh.

    Comment by Neo — 8/22/2007 @ 11:23 am

67. Brian, grow the heck up. If Bush were as evil and callous as you make him out to be, you and all the other twoofers would be locked up detention camps, not sitting in your parent’s basement pretending to be brave rebels in your role-playing fantasy that America is some sort of fascist state.

    No one’s ever explained how Bush could be evil and dishonest enough to mastermind 9-11 so he could invade Iraq for oil, but not evil and dishonest enough to definitively connect Saddam to the plot or stash WMD’s in-country for our troops to find.

    Comment by V the K — 8/22/2007 @ 11:37 am

68. JackD: “How can the gov’t be innocent in 9/11 when we have caught it lying so many times (WACO, Ruby Ridge, no WMDs, USS Liberty, Operation Northwoods, Gulf of Tonkin, Pearl Harbor, ETC.)?”

    I’m glad you brought this up because it speaks to a larger issue.

    If Bush and Co. was smart and devious enough to plan, execute and cover-up 9-11, how is it that they were so utterly stupid as to forget to plant WMDs in Iraq in order to justify the invasion?

    Comment by TomB — 8/22/2007 @ 11:39 am

69. 9/11 was an inside job, it’s clear to anyone with an open mind. Skyscrapers don’t spontaneously explode; jet fuel doesn’t melt steel; those buildings were designed to be hit by planes; everything was reduced to dust, not “pancaked”; eyewitnesses and news reports speak of numerous secondary explosions, all the way to the basement. The truth is painful, yes, but we have to acknowledge it and deal with it constructively.

    Comment by Hans — 8/22/2007 @ 12:27 pm

70. Any of you silly buggers going to address post #43? The rest of your garbage is just the internet version of the telephone game.

    I know that 43 includes references and math and percents and stuff, but it is all verifiable by independent, third parties. Even you folks could confirm it with a minimum of research and calculation.

    Unless the scientists and engineers have all been in on it for the last 100 years, falsifying all their data and chart publications so that the Mossad and Cheney with his evil, death-ray eyes and Halliburton with their money-grubbing, space alien contacts could invade Iraq and Afghanistan for ____ (fill in your reason du jour).

    So put up, shut up, or admit that you are really only interested in demonstrating Swift’s contention that one cannot reason a man out of something that he did not reason his way into.

    Comment by Troll feeder — 8/22/2007 @ 12:47 pm

71. Someone please explain how NIST can’t even bring the towers down with 16 of their own models…

    “NIST created 16 separate physics programs to simulate the WTC 1 & 2 collapses and only got 1 to collapse partially. Torin adds, “When they did, [in the computer model] they removed 40% of the structural support.” The cross trusses that the towers received a significant amount of their strength from had to be removed to have a collapse in the computer simulation.”

    http://nationalwriterssyndicate.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=128&Itemid=2

    Comment by Roger Smith — 8/22/2007 @ 1:15 pm

72. Not too handy with the HTML, are you, David?

    The History Channel is owed [sic] by General Electric which makes bombs for [sic] the Military Industrial Complex

    Not sure where you got these crazy notions, David. GE owns barely 20% of the History Channel, and doesn’t make “bombs”, just jet engines for civilian and military aircraft.

    Also, by your use of the preposition “for”, it appears that you misunderstand the meaning of the phrase “military industrial complex”.

    Comment by Frank IBC — 8/22/2007 @ 1:19 pm

73. Roger -

    Torin Wolf cites absolutely zero sources on his claim regarding the NIST. So he has absolutely zero credibility, like all the other Troofer wackos.

    Comment by Frank IBC — 8/22/2007 @ 1:30 pm

74. As a staunch anti-bush, anti-war libertarian, I severely dislike Bush and doubt his leadership capabilities. That being said, the arguments and logic of the so called “truthers” is astonishing. They support an argument and once its debunked they attack the source and move on to another theory that has not yet been debunked.

    Religious Neocons and “truthers” are two peas in a pod, using horrible logic to come to unreasonable conclusions.

    Comment by Nick — 8/22/2007 @ 1:32 pm

75. Torin Wolf’s credentials:

    Since he received his GED at age 14, saying he is a smart guy is putting it lightly.

    Comment by Frank IBC — 8/22/2007 @ 1:34 pm

76. Also, could someone please explain why you can’t see an airliner in the Pentagon video? In the first frame I see a small contrail that looks like that of one that a missle would leave. Some say the plane is traveling too fast to see it. Well if you can see a contrail in the first frame, you should also see building damage in the first frame (because it’s supposedly traveling too fast for the camera)..which there is none of.

    All this could be cleared up if they would just release the other videos that supposedly show the plane hitting the Pentagon. Why won’t they?

    Instead of arguing back and forth, let’s answer this simple question. Why can’t I see a plane in the video and why won’t they release a video showing one?

    Comment by Roger Smith — 8/22/2007 @ 1:37 pm

77. Frank you are an A*&HOLE!!!!! Your one of those types that think your soooo smart. Correcting my grammer or spelling isn’t going to make you right on your false theories of 911. You are obviously in denial or an agent.

    As far as my comments on GE, I know that they own only around 20% of the History Channel along with A&E and Disney. Also, what differance does it make wether they make bombs or aircraft for the military??? My point was that they are biased to uncover anything that could lead to a military cover-up.

    I’m sure you’ll find a way to insult me again since your smarter than anyone….

    and I find it funny that my post was taken down with the links to Davin Coburn getting his A%& kicked verbally on the FACTS of 911. Wouldn’t want your little neo-con traitor friends getting a dose of reality. I’m sure they will get deleted again.

    Comment by David — 8/22/2007 @ 1:40 pm

78. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2007/210807_dirty_tricks.htm

    Comment by David — 8/22/2007 @ 1:46 pm

79. I do not publish anyone’s phone number at any time. Your posts will be deleted if you insist on trying to use my blog to harass people.

    Comment by Rick Moran — 8/22/2007 @ 1:54 pm

80. Ok let’s try this!

    Comment by David — 8/22/2007 @ 1:57 pm

81. Davin Coburn gets owned on the radio after History Channel hit piece

    Part 1:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLx5GATh_z0

    Part 2:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb49MfDrwOo

    follow up:
    http://www.youtube.com/v/t0uVwS544Rg

    Comment by David — 8/22/2007 @ 1:58 pm

82. I don’t think that I’m unusually smart, David, I just think that you are an incoherent moron.

    Comment by Frank IBC — 8/22/2007 @ 2:03 pm

83. Name calling is very mature.

    Comment by David — 8/22/2007 @ 2:10 pm

84. #65

    It’s been apparent the “Loose Change” scammers are idiots. Now we have some evidence they may be uneducated idiots as well.

    Granted, the ubiquitous nature of the internet has made it much easier for the various anti-American whackjobs and cultists to “find” each other and reinforce their dysfunctional views on right, wrong, progress, justice, war, peace and love, but it’s still quite disturbing to think there is enough willful ignorance, fear, loathing and paranoia in our country (and the free world) to make these conspiracy scams into profitable ventures.

    Comment by Chip — 8/22/2007 @ 2:19 pm

85. “Instead of arguing back and forth, let’s answer this simple question. Why can’t I see a plane in the video and why won’t they release a video showing one?”

    Simple. The frame rate of the security camera was around one frame per second, and the plane was moving at over 700 feet per second. So the camera would have had to have taken a frame at the exact moment the plane was in front of it to get a useable shot, but it unfortunatly didn’t.

    They aren’t releasing a video showing one because one doesn’t exist. The only reason we have so many of the second WTC is because so many cameras were already shooting the other tower.

    Comment by TomB — 8/22/2007 @ 2:46 pm

86. Rip this Nazi Trator a new One , I look forward to seeing all the Real Americans, Real Patriots and Real Revolutionaries in NYC Ground Zero for the 6th anniversary were winning and we will over come!

    Comment by Brian — 8/22/2007 @ 2:54 pm

87. Hans 69: Steel does not have to melt to become structurally useless. It only has to be heated to a temperature where its remaining strength falls below the loads applied to it.

    The WTC towers had airplanes slam through them breaking or deforming some of the structural elements helping support the weight of the buildings above the impact sites.

    The fuel and flammable materials of the buildings and airplanes burned across large sections of the buildings reaching temperatures estimated to be 1000 deg F at a minimum. 1000 deg F is well above the temperature necessary to reduce the strength of the remaining steel support members to levels below the UNDAMAGED design loading for the buildings, much less the damaged loading.

    In addition, heated concrete dehydrates. In non-technical terms, water molecules in the form of steam are driven out of the matrix formed during the concrete curing reaction. The released steam expands inside the solid concrete causing the concrete to crack and spall. Thus, the concrete structural elements fail under extended fire exposure, too.

    So, you have a loss of steel and concrete structural elements due to the initial impact, a partial loss of strength in the remaining steel elements due to heat “softening” — NOT MELTING, and a near total loss of strength in any high-temperature concrete elements due to cracking and spalling.

    The impacts were not enough to fell the buildings, but the impact damage combined with the hour of uncombated heating across wide swaths of the buildings was. No bombs required; no space lasers; no alien death rays; no melted steel. Just eight evil men and a pair of airplanes.

    Comment by Troll feeder — 8/22/2007 @ 3:10 pm

88. There is only 1 explanation. The truthers are actually a Rovian conspiracy to undermine Democratic dissent in the US. By offering up such stupid and insane emotional outbursts, founded on obviously schizophrenic fantasies, Rove discredits the sane voices calling for the withdrawal of troops and the slaughter of millions of Iraqis. Clever, clever man that Rove.

    Comment by Mike Force — 8/22/2007 @ 3:36 pm

89. Reply to 43 (and 87)

    Okay first off you’re assuming that because the fire burned above 1000 deg F, the steel heated to 1000 deg F, and over a significant area. Most of the jet fuel burned off in the first minutes - the first couple seconds, really, and mostly outside the building. The fires that remained were pretty small and localized, and couldn’t have heated very much steel.

    Let me see if I understand what you’re saying. The towers collapsed because the beams and joists expanded from the heat, buckling themselves or the columns, and eventually causing the 47 core columns to give way. All the way down a thousand feet. In ten seconds.

    The core columns were designed to stay standing, and hold immense weight. Buckling joists and beams wouldn’t have much effect on the much bigger columns. Even if all the beams and floors and exterior columns fell away, the core would remain.

    Even if all the columns were cut at one level, ask an engineer what would happen. The top would either topple off, or fall a couple floors and get lodged in the core columns. The core columns wouldn’t spontaneously fall apart. They were heated on, at most, a couple floors.

    As for the “fire-rotted concrete” - the concrete wasn’t structural, in the sense of holding up the building. It could be pulverized (as it was) and the steel structure should still remain.

    Comment by Hans — 8/22/2007 @ 3:40 pm

90. The fires that remained were pretty small and localized, and couldn’t have heated very much steel.
    

    Hans, where did you get this information?

    Comment by TomB — 8/22/2007 @ 3:53 pm

91. Rick, you are just another poor brainwashed fool. You and many others will watch this thing, and accept it as gospel, ignoring obvious problems with the ‘documentary’ such as the use of hoax websites and claiming they are ‘truth’ websites, and also ignoring evidence such as the dust analysis that shows at the time of the collapse there was something hot enough to melt (NOT WEAKEN) steel. Oh, and what happened to #7? Who cares, cause anyone who doesn’t accept the government’s official story must be crazy, right? I guess the website name is true, this place is a nuthouse.

    Comment by Ben — 8/22/2007 @ 4:03 pm

92. #83 David - Wow, did you forget your #77 that quickly?

    *89 Hans -

    The fires that remained were pretty small and localized, and couldn’t have heated very much steel.

    How did you arrive at that conclusion?

    The towers collapsed because the beams and joists expanded from the heat, buckling themselves or the columns, and eventually causing the 47 core columns to give way. All the way down a thousand feet. In ten seconds.

    Like all “Truthers”, you’re selectively hearing and misrepresenting how the collapse occurred.

    To make a long story short, the heat only weakened the support structure in the immediate area of the fire. It had no effect on the rest of the building below it until the support structure in the immediate area of the crash and fire began to fail and upper floors started to move down. Once the building started moving down (from gravity), the support structure could no longer stand in the way of the millions of tons of steel and concrete coming from above, moving at the speed* of gravity.

    *Or to be more precise, the acceleration of gravity, 9.81 m/sec(2).

    Regarding the concrete - it actually did serve a structural purpose - it stabilized the columns in the horizontal plane, much like the wooden beams of a brick building. And once the concrete of each successive floor shattered, it added to the weight crashing down on the rest of the building.

    Comment by Frank IBC — 8/22/2007 @ 4:04 pm

93. Clarification to my previous post - everything following the word “acceleration” should NOT be italicized.

    Comment by Frank IBC — 8/22/2007 @ 4:06 pm

94. “Simple. The frame rate of the security camera was around one frame per second, and the plane was moving at over 700 feet per second. So the camera would have had to have taken a frame at the exact moment the plane was in front of it to get a useable shot, but it unfortunatly didn’t.

    They aren’t releasing a video showing one because one doesn’t exist. The only reason we have so many of the second WTC is because so many cameras were already shooting the other tower.”

    Do honestly believe that the defense headquarters of the greatest superpower in the world only had one camera capture a plane crashing into it? Honestly? Moreover, they had no real time/normal frame rate cameras anywhere to record anything? Your local retailers have real time cameras.

    I keep watching the video, and in the first frame the object looks nothing like a 757. If the plane was moving as fast as it did, why did it create such a small hole (not the ensuing collapse of the area)? And how did the “landing gear” penetrate two more of the rings around the Pentagon and burst out the other side when the plane didn’t even penetrate through the whole first ring?

    Why are WE the conspiracy theorists when these basic mysteries don’t add up?

    Comment by Roger Smith — 8/22/2007 @ 4:13 pm

95. Ha haaaa! David actally used the word “sheeple” - the true test of the complete blinkered truther wingnut.

    Excellent piece, Rick

    Comment by Zimbot — 8/22/2007 @ 4:25 pm

96. You know what?The only people I personally know who believe that Dubya was behind 9/11 can only be described as Far Right.Real Far Right.

    Just thought I’d let ya know that.

    Comment by Fred — 8/22/2007 @ 4:37 pm

97. Hey, could you hype that article up for me a little? The language is way too unbiased the way it is. Hardly any overblown sycophantic panting at all.

    Comment by Niali — 8/22/2007 @ 4:38 pm

98. Trollfeeder:

    In regards to messages 43 and 70 all I have to say is good f’ing luck, mate.

    The “evidence” this “truth” movement provides has to be as vague and open to interpretation as possible in order to give them the wiggle room required to escape being pinned down by one (or more) of their statements. They’ll back it all up with bluster and hope it’ll fly.

    Numbers just aren’t conducive to this.

    Well done, by the way!

    Comment by Tyras — 8/22/2007 @ 4:43 pm

99. “Bermas believes that the Apollo moon landings were faked and that there have been missions to the moon using secret technology other than rocket propulsion”

    lol.
    1. Fake moon landing
    2. Conduct secret real moon landing.
    3. ???
    4. Profit

    Comment by Boris — 8/22/2007 @ 4:46 pm

100. It may well be ridiculous to think that the government faked the whole thing. But what about the more disturbing question of whether or not they had fore-knowledge of the attacks and let them happen for political reasons. Sure no-one wants to believe that (well not most people) but there is precedence for this sort of thing; just never on this scale. Countries have allowed attacks on them in order to justify a war they want, but always before against military targets. Maybe they just under estimated the attackers, maybe not. That is worth looking into…

     Comment by NH — 8/22/2007 @ 4:51 pm

101. Regardless, the camera issues are well documented here http://www.infowars.net/articles/may2006/170506Pentagon_videos.htm

     - 84 tapes were seized by the FBI

     - 13 only had footage of the crash site

     - 12 only show footage AFTER the crash (strangely convenient)

     - The gas station across the street had cameras pointing at the Pentagon and the supposed plane flew over the gas station.

     These are legitimate questions and concerns.

     Comment by Roger Smith — 8/22/2007 @ 5:12 pm

102. Hans?

     Where’d you go?

     Comment by TomB — 8/22/2007 @ 5:46 pm

103. The Bush administration lied about the environmental damage and cost of 9/11. If you think they’re being completely honest about everything else you need your head examined.

     Comment by et al — 8/22/2007 @ 6:16 pm

104. Do honestly believe that the defense headquarters of the greatest superpower in the world only had one camera capture a plane crashing into it? Honestly?

     Yes, why in the world would they have video cameras pointing at a wall?

     Moreover, they had no real time/normal frame rate cameras anywhere to record anything? Your local retailers have real time cameras.

     I’m sure they have video cameras all throughout the Pentagon, pointing at, you know, actual THINGS. Not just blank walls.

     I keep watching the video, and in the first frame the object looks nothing like a 757.

     I doesn’t to me either. But then again, it was moving at over 500 mile per hour and that camera wasn’t made to capture something moving that fast.

     Let’s move back for a moment, you initally wrote this:

     “Instead of arguing back and forth, let’s answer this simple question. Why can’t I see a plane in the video and why won’t they release a video showing one?”

     I gave a very simple, straightforward answer to that question. Yet you completely ignore it and move on to why they didn’t have more cameras pointing at a blank wall, and why the hole isn’t bigger.

     You competely ignore the original question and instead start “arguing back and forth” by asking questions that have been answered over and over again.

     Which is it?

     As an aside, I have a good friend who was working in the area at the time and watched the plane hit the building. If you would like I could ask him if he would mind getting in touch with you and telling you EXACTLY what he saw.

     Comment by TomB — 8/22/2007 @ 6:27 pm

105. for any of you who are on the verge of being a 9/11 CT wacko. think about this. is there more evidence it was a conspiracy or that it wasn’t a conspiracy. CT’s need to think about this. Also, do u know that there is no proof at all bush went to iraq for oil, he is a sub-par president but not horiible and i dont hate him. im also going to shed some light on ignorant truthers. Q’s that they want answered. sane people spread the word.

     All bodies were identified on the AA 93 crash site, except one of baby girl.

     All bodies were identified at the pentagon.

     both sites had belongings of passengers and were returned to their families.

     the video at the pentagon, the white stuff u see is not the plane, it is smoke from the engine after hitting the light pole. in the video u can actually see the back wing sticking up, but most of plane is covered by one of the the things sticking up right outside the booth.

     truthers zsay no buildings have ever collapsed from fire, true, but were those buildings hit with JUMBO JETS

     Comment by noconspiracy — 8/22/2007 @ 7:17 pm

106. also the missile that hit the pentagon theory is unbeleivably weak. no1, i mean no1, saw a missile. no missile debris, only flight 77 debris, missiles dont carry thousands of gallons of jet fuel. missiles dont carry passengers, all witnesses report seeing a plane.

     Comment by noconspiracy — 8/22/2007 @ 7:22 pm

107. To TrollFeeder:

     Regarding 43 & 70, its amazing there are actually people out there in the world that know how to read a book, and understand the values used in Structural Enginnering Calculations.

     This same logic should be applied to the lunatics that say the Bush Administration dynamited the levy’s in NOLA so there would be floods.

     I myself having working in both the Civil Engineering and Aviation industries can and have spoke to some of these nut-jobs who read infowars and watch loose-change, these are the same kind of people that attend college in the ‘Peoples Replublic of Boulder’ studying under the powerful theologians such as Ward Churchill.

     And to all the truthers out there… As to why there were no WMDs found in Iraq, I would love to see your security clearance to have the right to see it and discuss it.

     And as for the reasons to go into Iraq to begin with? Try the number of non-binding UN resolutions to enforce compliance after the Desert Storm? People tend to forget or only focus on there little perspectives that they don’t see the bigger picture.

     Comment by Dav~ — 8/22/2007 @ 7:42 pm

108. Look, twoofers, here’s the truth about 9-11.

     1. 19 Islamic fanatics hijacked 4 airplanes and flew 2 into the WTC and 1 into the Pentagon.

     2. Airport security prior to 9-11 was a joke, and still is.

     3. The CIA and the FBI didn’t catch the hijackers because under the Clinton admin, they had been forbidden to share information with each other. Both of them are also basically incompetent bureaucracies where internal turf wars and office politics are far larger priorities than protecting American citizens.

     4. There was no conspiracy, America is not a fascist state, and your lives are still meaningless and pathetic. Claiming secret knowledge of a hidden conspiracy has not changed any of that.

     Comment by V the K — 8/22/2007 @ 7:50 pm

109. The fires that remained were pretty small and localized, and couldn’t have heated very much steel.
     How did you arrive at that conclusion?
     - Well, there are pictures of people leaning out of the jagged gash in the side. There’s a firefighter saying there are small fires he thinks could be put out with two (water) lines. After the bulk of the jet fuel burned off in the first fireball, the only fuel left was office furniture, carpets, and a small amount of jet fuel. There was dense black smoke, indicating low temperature and lack of oxygen.

     Like all “Truthers”, you’re selectively hearing and misrepresenting how the collapse occurred.
     - Sorry, I was just trying to paraphrase the explanation Troll feeder gave. I’d like to hear a coherent explanation that doesn’t involve something like NIST’s “and then global collapse occurred.”

     Regarding the concrete – it actually did serve a structural purpose – it stabilized the columns in the horizontal plane, much like the wooden beams of a brick building. And once the concrete of each successive floor shattered, it added to the weight crashing down on the rest of the building.
     - Okay, but a weight-driven collapse would take more than ten seconds. And it would have left a huge pile of rubble and some of the core steel structure, not neatly cut steel and dust. And it wouldn’t have blown massive pieces of steel hundreds of feet sideways to lodge in adjacent skyscrapers. And there’s no mechanism for it starting suddenly after an hour of diminishing fires.

     Comment by Hans — 8/22/2007 @ 8:00 pm

110. 96

     Though historically the far right has been where conspiracy theorists swell their ranks, a majority of Truthers come from the left side of the spectrum (though the higher ups/leaders of the “movement” are almost all far-right cranks). It’s an odd meeting, to say the least.

     Comment by Shawn — 8/22/2007 @ 8:05 pm

111. “Estimates of the interior temperature generated by the fires in the WTC vary, but are nearly all above 1000 deg F. Which leads to steel strengths below 49% of yield. Which is a problem for a steel structure designed assuming stresses equal to as much as 66% of yield.”

     This confuses the temperature of the fire with the temperature of the steel. Just because the fire reached temperatures around 1000 deg. doesn’t suggest the steel also reached that temperature. It’s a totally separate issue, but this kind of deception — pretending that the temperature of the fire is the same as the temperature of the steel — is typical of the government shills.

     Comment by Eric Wilds — 8/22/2007 @ 8:12 pm

112. And here you go. Former Chief of NIST’s Fire Science Division Calls for Independent Review of World Trade Center Investigation:
     http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070820_former_chief_of_nist.htm

     This real “expert” from NIST, the agency who was assigned to study the WTC collapses, has come out and said that the way the investigation was ran broke standard protocols and had interference from interagency lawyers who were blocking request for evidence and subpoeneas. He asks for people to become “conspiracy theorist,” but in a proper way.

     “Dr. Quintiere made his plea during his presentation, “Questions on the WTC Investigations” at the 2007 World Fire Safety Conference. “I wish that there would be a peer review of this,” he said, referring to the NIST investigation. “I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view.

     Dr. Quintiere said he originally “had high hopes” that NIST would do a good job with the investigation. “They’re the central government lab for fire. There are good people there and they can do a good job. But what I also thought they would do is to enlist the service of the ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], which has an investigation force and a laboratory of their own for fire. And I thought they would put people out on the street and get gumshoe-type information. What prevented all of this? I think it’s the legal structure that cloaks the Commerce Department and therefore NIST. And so, instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything.”

     Comment by redpill — 8/22/2007 @ 10:05 pm

113. Hans 89: You have no way of knowing that the jet fuel burned off in a few seconds. Really. Regardless, the jet fuel accelerated the ignition of the combustible material inside the building, which did continue to burn.

     I conclude that the fire heated significant portions of the building structure to significant temperatures because the towers were on fire across multiple floors from the time the planes hit them until they collapsed. You have seen the video, haven’t you? The fires were quite clearly not localized to any appreciable extent. Even assuming that they were, the buildings were integrated structural entities; a significant, local failure could easily have initiated a progressive, general failure.

     The planes traveled through the buildings. It is not particularly rational to claim that they managed to do this without to some extent damaging the core columns that they had to get past. Nor is it rational to claim without caveat that core columns could withstand the failure of the structural members attached to them. Particularly the eccentric failure of such members.

     Sure the columns were designed to support a lot of weight. The were called upon to resist the impact of a 15-story-building-sized hammer. These are not equivalent load cases.

     You suggest that I ask an engineer….hmmm. OK. “Troll feeder, would the top of the building topple sideways?” Only if there were an inclined plane or horizontal force pushing it to the side, because gravity mostly acts in a downwards-type direction.

     “Troll feeder, would the top of the building fall a few floors and then become stuck in the core columns?” How should I know? What’s the design of the columns? What’s the load coming at them? I’ll stand by an answer following modeling and testing, not before. Opinion-wise, though, sure, it’s possible that the columns might have survived the impact from the top 15-plus stories avalanching down around them. Probably about as possible as the piece of straw getting rammed through the telephone pole by a tornado, but possible is possible.

     Frank IBC 92’s comments regarding concrete pretty much cover that topic.

     So, Hans 89, let’s recap your apparent reasoning for why the “impact and resulting fire initiated progressive structural failure” explanation is wrong:

     You claim that the fires were small and irrelevant.

     You claim that the failure of the non-core-column steel and concrete is insignificant to the structural integrity of the building.

     You imply that the core columns were made of unobtainium and, thus, capable of resisting any level of impact loading.

     To paraphrase Eddie Murphy, some of you who don’t know much about engineering will continue to say, “I disagree.”

     Fair enough. I wouldn’t presume to lecture Rosie O on how to run a TV show. I would suggest that she and you could learn something from that example, though.

     And, thanks, Tyras 98.

     Comment by Troll feeder — 8/22/2007 @ 10:14 pm

114. Eric Wilds 112: My bad. I’m just so used to materials taking on the temperature of their surroundings that I simply assumed that steel hanging out in a 1000 deg F fire for an hour would approach that temperature itself.

     Silly of me.

     Furthermore, I work for the oil industry, not the government. We’re 238% more evil, and we demand full credit for it.

     Hans 110: 49% of yield strength material cannot support 66% of yield strength loads. How much more elementary of an explanation do you need?

     Comment by Troll feeder — 8/22/2007 @ 10:34 pm

115. Hans:

     And it would have left a huge pile of rubble and some of the core steel structure, not neatly cut steel and dust

     How idiotic can you be that you think that the debris from the towers was “neatly cut steel and dust”? Unlike you, I actually saw Ground Zero, eleven days after the tragedy. I can assure you it was an absolutely huge pile of jagged rubble, like nothing I had seen before or will ever see again.

     Shawn -

     Alex -

     Alex Jones, proprietor of the conspiracy nut sites prisonplanet and infowars, is a John Bircher.

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/22/2007 @ 10:40 pm

116. Right Wing Nut House indeed, you have your heads up your asses.

     9/11 was inside, get an education, learn the truth.

     The evidence for controlled demolitions goes beyond any doubt.

     This video proves it: http://blip.tv/file/306082/

     Comment by bofors — 8/22/2007 @ 11:08 pm

117. Hans 110: Sorry for the previous snarkiness.

     From a standing start, an object will fall about 1600 feet in ten seconds. The towers were about 1350 feet tall, ignoring the spires. The collapse of the buildings in about ten seconds does not, therefore, seem unreasonable.

     The collapse starting an hour after the initial impact is explained by accumulation of damage due to the fires.

     Structures don’t collapse when they are set on fire. Rather, they collapse after the fire has inflicted enough damage that the building can’t support itself anymore. Or part of the building cannot support itself anymore, and the failure of that part destabilizes other parts until the entire structure collapses. The straw that breaks the camel’s back, as it were. Why should this be true for all other structures, but not for the Towers?

     Yours is the first claim I have ever seen of neatly cut pieces of steel. The massive rubble pile I saw included dust, rubble, and twisted steel. Are you looking at a different set of collapse pictures than everyone else?

     Why would the collapse of the buildings not have resulted in projectiles flying all around? If the buildings fell in 10 seconds, parts of them were moving at over 100 mph. It would be unbelievable had debris not sprayed all over the place.

     Comment by Troll feeder — 8/22/2007 @ 11:14 pm

118. a weight-driven collapse would take more than ten seconds

     Not really. The time it takes an object to fall the height of the WTC towers would be 9 seconds.

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/22/2007 @ 11:15 pm

119. http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/history_channel_hit_piece_dirty_tricks_malicious_lies_journalistic_fraud.htm

     watch 9/11 mysteries.

     you guys are the crazy ones who believe someone like HEARST PUBLICATIONS who are known for their YELLOW JOURNALISM

     There was MOLTEN STEEL found underneath all THREE buildings in NYC that fell that day. Just search “foundy wtc” on you tube to hear the firefighters themselves describing that there was so much it looked like a FOUNDRY, like LAVA they said.

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X5F5PttzJY

     The rest of the world knows about 9/11 is an inside job and are laughing at you dumb Americans who look to the mainstream media for all your answers.

     Keep denying it. Just like how your US dollar is so devalued and the TV still tells you the Economy is ok.

     Baa Baaaaa Baa baaaaaa

     Comment by Jonny Blaze — 8/23/2007 @ 12:43 am

120. My Friends

     We are all human beings…..we are all looking for love and acceptance as we wonder along this life trying to deal with ourselves.

     The key to this debate is to have pure intention.Whatever you do have pure intention in your motives.This will eventually put you on a path to your own personal truth.Your truth may be different from others but compassion can transcend the way we view the world and others.

     We are all entire universes seeking understanding of ourselves with an illusional matrix.The final answer is complete deattachment of this matrix of dualism which keeps us trapped in opinionated truths,half truths and lies - to become the third observer and eminate compassion to all beings.

     Rememeber this is not a story,its a place.

     Comment by Mike — 8/23/2007 @ 4:27 am

121. Correcting spelling mistakes in debates such as these only makes your argument look weaker .. politicians use that sort of tactic every day. Are you a politician Mr. Moran? ..

     Comment by Not Impressed UK — 8/23/2007 @ 6:31 am

122. Well, there are pictures of people leaning out of the jagged gash in the side. There’s a firefighter saying there are small fires he thinks could be put out with two (water) lines.

     Neither of these two points mean there weren’t hot fires burning where these people weren’t, but I’d like a link to those please.

     Ah, legitimate links, not truther sites.

     Comment by TomB — 8/23/2007 @ 6:32 am

123. UK:

     When faced with such utter stupidity and incoherence, there is no better tactic than to show the basic ignorance of the commenter than correcting his grammar and spelling.

     Comment by Rick Moran — 8/23/2007 @ 6:35 am

124. Fair comment mate, thats your opinion . One last dig, it’s not very nice to put up peoples e-mail addresses as you did in an earlier post, that doesn’t give you much credibility.

     Mail (will not be published) (required)

     NIUK

     Comment by Not Impressed UK — 8/23/2007 @ 6:55 am

125. Mr. Redpill put his own email address up there by mistake. He sent me an email asking me to edit it which I gladly did.

     Perhaps before you accuse someone of dastardly behavior, you make sure you have your facts straight next time.

     Comment by Rick Moran — 8/23/2007 @ 6:59 am

126. Hi, Lol that’s only just been edited within the last ten minutes. So you can’t accuse me of accusing you of ‘dastardly’ things when I was speaking the truth, was I not?

     Comment by Not Impressed UK — 8/23/2007 @ 7:16 am

127. You accused me of deliberately publishing his email address. That was a false statement and caused by your rush to judgement on my motives.

     Comment by Rick Moran — 8/23/2007 @ 7:18 am

128. You accused me of deliberately publishing his email address. That was a false statement and caused by your rush to judgement on my motives.

     Comment by Rick Moran — 8/23/2007 @ 7:18 am

129. The very implication that an American President (with either a R or a D behing his ir her name) could be involved in the willfull slaughter of innocent Americans is comepletey disgusting.
     Almost as deplorable as the further victimization of the families of lost loved ones on 9/11.
     I’m tired of these nuts, thank you History Channel for making them look like the dlabbering lunatics that they are. Now I want it one step further, this documentary was objective and “nice”, The next time I hear from these conspiracy theory freaks I want their pants pulled down and given the spanking they deserve.

     Comment by Breck — 8/23/2007 @ 7:21 am

130. Here’s a gem from Alex Jones, the proprietor of prisonplanet and infowars - the favorite of our Troofer wacko visitors:

     He told the History Channel that Galileo got persecuted when he told people that the Earth was round instead of flat. “I’m telling people the world is round!” he exclaimed.

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/23/2007 @ 7:51 am

131. Frank:

     The real idiocy about Jones remark is that Galileo never said anything about a round earth or flat earth! He was tried and imprisoned (briefly and not, as Jones said, for the rest of his life) for being the first to advance the theory of a heliocentric solar system - that the planets orbited the sun rather than the earth being the center of the universe and having the sun and planets rotate around it.

     What a dolt!

     Comment by Rick Moran — 8/23/2007 @ 7:55 am

132. Wow. You are a twat and I hope you hit a pole on New Years Eve. Keep ignoring the facts and believing the retards you retard.

     Comment by Hogan — 8/23/2007 @ 8:16 am

133. I think Hogan just elevated the discussion here to true “Troofer” levels.

     Comment by Rick Moran — 8/23/2007 @ 8:18 am

134. I think the “cleanly cut steel” that Hans and others are babbling about are the thousands and thousands of steel beams that were in the pile of rubble.

     During the collapse, these beams were separated from the rest of the structure when the bolts/welds/etc. which joined them to the structure failed during the progressive collapse, as they were weaker than the beams themselves. The beams were in one piece, not “cleanly cut”.

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/23/2007 @ 8:36 am

135. Wow. It’s not propaganda. Excessive marijuana use does kill brain cells and make you paranoid.

     Comment by V the K — 8/23/2007 @ 9:20 am

136. The comments made show the inherent problem with any sort of rational review of anything in the modern USA. Everything is reduced ab absurdo, it is either one or the other and can never be a part of both. The over simplistic acceptance of either sides views leaves a great deal to be desired. On the one side we have the ‘conspiracy truthers’, everything to them is a dark malevolent process of some shadow organization and any attempt to show otherwise just proves ‘you are part of it’. On the other side of the coin are the ‘neocons’ who accept without any question the official storyline associated with 9/11 and anything else. If you disagree with the neocon line then you are just another ‘conspiracy nut’ to be dismissed. In between any two points of view one will generally find the truth. Now coincidental occurrences are always suspect. For one odd thing to happen is an anomaly, for several is a distinct curiosity and for more is questionable that deserves investigation. There are a great many coincidences and occurrences both before, during and after the attacks. There are a great many questions that need answered and yet, any attempt to find answers leads to the determination of ‘conspiracy nut’.
     Here is one issue that I have never been able to have resolved, perhaps someone can help me with this. In all the reports of the burning fuel melting the building everyone reported the maximum fuel capacity of the aircraft. Now we all know that commercial aircraft do not fly ‘topped up’. It does not make sense to transport fuel so they carry what they need and a safety margin. So if we take that amount of fuel, subtract from it the amount used in flight we are left with an actual amount that could have burned within the towers. Now at the moment of impact we see, as expected, a rather huge fireball that extends several hundred feet outside of the building. This fireball is generated by the exploding fuel from the ruptured tanks and can be calculated as an approximate value to a ratio of consumed fuel in that fireball. If we take available fuel, subtract the estimated amount that would have been consumed in flight and deduct and approximation of how much was consumed in the initial explosion, we seem to have very little available liquid fuel left over. The residual fuel at the burning rate, and including evaporation constants modified also by heating of the liquid fuel, does not seem to allow a long enough or hot enough burn time to do all it seems to have done. If anyone can show me math to the contrary I would appreciate it. You see, I am not in search of a position but in search of rational truths. Once I know those truths then I can define a position based on the facts, not feelings.
     And to salve any hurt ‘neocon’ feelings one must also understand that the collapse of the towers as ‘straight down’ is not unusual or indicative of anything. The centre of gravity on a horizontally aligned monolithic slab means that it would take a massive amount of energy to move that slab laterally causing a sideways fall.
     Now from a terrorism standpoint there are other issues that have never been addressed. Osama Bin Laden was best known as a glorified car bomber. Very little planning or intellectual energy is required to fill a vehicle with explosives, drive it up to something and have the driver press a switch. His greatest success was the attack against the USS Cole in which he organized a car bombing, but with a boat. Same methodology, same effect, same amount of intellectual planning required. Suddenly we have him as a mastermind organizing an international, multi-month (or year), nationwide process of false identification, training, surveillance, deep-cover operatives, combined with the ability to defeat the efforts of the entire US government. This is akin to the kid who steals candy bars suddenly knocking over Fort Knox and making a clean getaway. It does not make sense and the answers given are pithy and repetitive.

     These are just two items that I find questionable that I cannot find reasonable and logical answers for. There are a great many more but of course they end up in the two moronic categories we began with. The dissenters who are obviously nuts or the accepters who are obviously sheep.

     Is there no one left who can debate or review a topic without reducing it as such?

     CMM

     Comment by CMM — 8/23/2007 @ 9:25 am

137. Firstly, to the pompous,fool lambasting Alex Jones, and commenting upon Galileo as only being imprisoned for a short period he was,in fact, held under house arrest for the last nine years of his life. That is almost prison. And, to the rest of you ignoramouses, wilful, or otherwise- including the writer if the article- 911 WAS an inside job. Whether you like the idea or not.

     Comment by ColinB — 8/23/2007 @ 9:38 am

138. Galileo was forced to recant his theory about the heliocentric nature of the solar system. He was then released from prison and allowed to return to his home.

     To equate prison with house arrest is loony.

     Comment by Rick Moran — 8/23/2007 @ 9:42 am

139. CMM -

     Apparently you’ve never heard of the Bojinka plot, which was involved hijacking several planes at the same time, and then blowing them up over the Pacific? Had the plot not been busted, this would have happened in early summer 1995, six years and three months before 9/11. So your notion that al-Qa’idah had no prior experience in planning hijackings of airliners is rubbish.

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/23/2007 @ 9:54 am

140. Colin B -

     So you have no problem with Alex Jones’ claim that “Galileo said that the earth was round”?

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/23/2007 @ 9:57 am

141. One more question for CMM -

     How did YOU determine that there was “very little available liquid fuel left over” after the fireball, not enough “to do all it seems to have done”?

     YOUR calculations, please?

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/23/2007 @ 10:01 am

142. Firstly, to the pompous,fool lambasting Alex Jones, and commenting upon Galileo as only being imprisoned for a short period he was,in fact, held under house arrest for the last nine years of his life. That is almost prison.

     Colin, what about the other part of that quote? Do you want to correct us on the “flat earth” theory that Jones put forth?

     Do that major screw up make Jones an “ignoramous”?

     Comment by TomB — 8/23/2007 @ 10:06 am

143. Suddenly we have him as a mastermind organizing an international, multi-month (or year), nationwide process of false identification, training, surveillance, deep-cover operatives…

     Have you also forgotten the first attack on the WTC, in February 1993?

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/23/2007 @ 10:31 am

144. If Mr. Moran you believe that not being allowed to leave the house, not even to get food,-which his convent daughter could only send to him until she died- then rely upon the good auspices of papal ‘friends’ to only provide meagre sustinance isn’t a form of prison then you’re a very sad person.

     Comment by ColinB — 8/23/2007 @ 10:32 am

145. I notice that Colin is still ignoring Alex Brown’s idiotic claim that Galileo was persecuted because he said “the earth was round”.

     And I also wonder if he has even the slightest notion of what actual PRISONS during Galileo’s time were like.

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/23/2007 @ 10:50 am

146. Newsflash: You 9/11 conspiracy theorists aren’t enlightened. You’re idiots….

     Normally it’s best to just ignore the most sinister of conspiracy theories, because those that advance them usually have enough of a body odor to keep the average joe away from them in the first place, but in the case of September 11th the absenc…

     Trackback by Neocon News — 8/23/2007 @ 12:07 pm

147. We all should thank Colin.

     I think he has framed the truther mindset and methodology perfectly here. He takes an amazingly stupid comment by Alex Jones, and completely ignores the main point of it (Galileo said the Earth revolves around the sun, not that it was flat). Only to obsess over a relatively minor side point on whether house arrest counts as “prison”.

     Abandoning a position without even a mention and then moving on to another is also common in Moon Hoax believers.

     “WTC collapse, fire can’t melt steel!!!”

     Yes it can.

     “WTC 7: Silverstein says ‘Pull it’!!!”

     We now see why “Loose Change” needs so many “new versions”.

     Comment by TomB — 8/23/2007 @ 12:10 pm

148. CMM 137: you make unsupported claims regarding the amount and use of the fuel in the aircraft to bolster your conclusion that there was not enough fuel to cause significant fire damage. And then you demand that others provide “math to the contrary.”

     That is not how argument works. You have made a chain of assertions for which you provide no hard evidence, no legitimate references, and no actual calculations, though you claim to present valid results. No one on the other side of the argument has a duty to expend any effort to disprove such an unsupported claims.

     You have the duty to prove your arguments correct; I have no duty to prove them incorrect. That I occasionally do so merely shows my good-natured committment to public service.

     As Frank IBC 142 wrote, “YOUR calculations, please?”

     Also, reference for instance, _The Looming Tower_, by Lawrence Wright, to learn more about bin Laden. He was first and foremost a fund raiser and conduit for jihadi operations.

     Comment by Troll feeder — 8/23/2007 @ 12:15 pm

149. Several of the Troofers have noted second-hand reports of “molten steel” at the site days/weeks later, and cite this as proof of the “demolition” and or “thermite” scenarios.

     There are several problems with these claims:

     -In many cases, it is claimed that these quotes come from experts, rather than workmen on the site, who did not necessarily have a scientific background.
     -The word “steel” is not used in the original quotes, just “metal”. Many other metals have lower melting points than steel.
     -The word “molten” is used somewhat sloppily - in most cases, it is used to describe metal that is glowing red, but still in a solid rather than a liquid state.
     -Troofers make the unwarranted assumption that the materials in the pile of debris could not have continued to become hotter as they burned in the pile of rubble following the collapse.
     -Thermite is comprised of iron oxide and aluminum. Troofers make the unwarranted assumption that the presence of iron and aluminum (both used extensively in the towers) is somehow proof of the use of “thermite”.

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/23/2007 @ 12:58 pm

150. If Alex Jones said that,quoting Galileo G. “the earth is round” and that was the cause of his incarceration then that is nonsense, for whatever reason. I was pointing out that the prison term wasn’t ’short’. HOWEVER, and this is the important bit as an architect and having studied the drawings of the WTC1 and 2 there is NO, and I repeat NO way that they could possibly have collapsed due to them being hit by 757’s. You can bring on any accademic you like to support your cause and will produce better ones to slay them.

     Comment by ColinB — 8/23/2007 @ 1:08 pm

151. What’s really ironic is that the notion that Columbus “proved that the earth was round” is itself an urban legend. The roundness of the earth was known since the time of Aristotle.

     What Columbus did prove, however, was that one could navigate across the globe without getting burnt up in the “torrid zone” or falling off on the “underside” of the earth. (The earth’s roundness was clearly understood, but the concept of uniform gravity wasn’t.)

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/23/2007 @ 1:29 pm

152. To the Truthers:

     As someone who passionately hates our current administration in the US, I have no problem believing that they are amoral enough to do such a thing as kill Americans (Righties feel free to accuse me of Treason). The Truthers miss the one glaring problem with the CT — the Administration are idiots.

     I find it incredible (as in “not credible”) to think they were so ninja-like in their planning to pull off such a fantastic plot, presumably to drive America into war, but then apparently didn’t plan 5 minutes past 9/11. You Truthers have been following the war, haven’t you? What have you seen since 9/11 that leads you to believe the Administration is competent enough to tie their shoes, let alone secretly plan and run the most complex controlled demolition / hijacking / false identity ring in the history of the world?

     btw, “controlled demolition” — why? If the “plot” was to murder and outrage, why worry about how it collapsed? Why not just topple the towers? They were willing to murder 3,000 people, but the extra 200-300 in the neighboring building would have been overkill?

     WTC — why? why not hit Miss Liberty? Easier to destroy, more symbolic, and keeps the Admins business buddies rolling along. Doesn’t make sense to target WTC if you’re a conspiracy theorist.

     Pentagon — why? why attack the one building you’re gonna need after you pull off the conspiracy? No other targets in D.C. would suffice?

     The Truthers can debate how many degrees Kelvin it takes to collapse the towers, but if you can’t give me a coherent, believable plan you just sound like paranoid nimrods, and undermine legitimate criticism of The W Crew.

     Comment by busboy33 — 8/23/2007 @ 3:02 pm

153. I wonder why no truther who has commented here has mentioned that the ignoramouses who made “Loose Change” are taking out the idea that the towers fell as a result of an implosion in their next version of the video.

     Does that mean that those truthers are wrong and the ones commenting here are right?

     Comment by Rick Moran — 8/23/2007 @ 3:07 pm

154. No its mor prooff of teh bushitler regemes mindcontrol skemes. Tex Avery is jus teh lates victim

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/23/2007 @ 3:13 pm

155. I like to consider myself a liberal but these “truthists” are pretty annoying. I hate how everything has to be turned into something anti-Bush or anti-governmen. I don’t understand why people can’t accept the fact that 9/11 was an incredibly tragic day carried out by fanatics.

     Perhaps he future versions of Loose Change will tie up the “faked” Lunar Landing and Roswell into the grand scheme of 9/11.

     Comment by Sheaby — 8/23/2007 @ 3:49 pm

156. The towers fell due to an unusual method of internal explosions, felling them top down. With most normal collapse there is a middling at the top to bring the structure inwards then a verical collapse. With the two towers they exploded out from the top down. Only WTC7 had implosive and explosive devises. Had 1 and 2 merely collapsed due to structural fatigue as NIST suggests you wouldn’t have debris thrown up and out to the distances recorded. It doesn’t matter how many times the ‘anti-truthers’ baulk at the idea of this being pre-planned by others than 19 supposed hijackers,- many of whom seem to be still alive according to the BBC,- THEY ARE WRONG. FULL STOP

     Comment by ColinB — 8/23/2007 @ 3:51 pm

157. The towers fell due to an unusual method of internal explosions, felling them top down.

     What, exactly, does this mean?

     With most normal collapse there is a middling at the top to bring the structure inwards then a verical collapse.

     middling?

     Only WTC7 had implosive and explosive devises.

     Could you give an example of both devices as were used that day?

     Had 1 and 2 merely collapsed due to structural fatigue as NIST suggests you wouldn’t have debris thrown up and out to the distances recorded.

     How far is that?

     ,- many of whom seem to be still alive according to the BBC,

     Heh. Link please?

     Exit question: How did all these devices come to be planted in all three towers? Who did it and how was this accomplished?

     Comment by TomB — 8/23/2007 @ 4:17 pm

158. Christiano:

     Buy a billboard. Don’t leave that crap on my site.

     Comment by Rick Moran — 8/23/2007 @ 4:24 pm

159. Rick:
     I am very impressed at the way you’re handling this.
     You’re apparently more patient than I am… I can’t believe this thread has gone on for as long as it has… and the vitriol! I wouldn’t have the patience to read through all of the nonsense that’s being spouted as “troof”.
     >sigh>
     People, eh?
     Anyway… Kudos.

     Comment by Great Humungous — 8/23/2007 @ 4:44 pm

160. TomB -

     Buildings that are imploded conventionally fall up.

     ColinB -

     “Fatigue”? Who TF has said anything about “fatigue”? Keep bringing in your army of little straw men, and we will keep shooting them down.

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/23/2007 @ 4:47 pm

161. an architect and having studied the drawings of the WTC1 and 2 there is NO, and I repeat NO way that they could possibly have collapsed due to them being hit by 757’s.

     How many buildings have you designed in your career as an “architect”, Colin? And what were these “drawings” (an unprofessional term if I ever saw one) and how exactly did you “study them?

     You can bring on any accademic you like to support your cause and will produce better ones to slay them.

     Oh boy! We’re about to be assaulted by Colin’s Army of Android Academics!

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/23/2007 @ 4:51 pm

162. Hahahahaha, it is funny to watch stupid people try and use engineering terms. What makes it even better is the self contradictions.

     “The towers fell due to an unusual method of internal explosions… Only WTC7 had implosive and explosive devises.”

     Is it more likely that an incompetent administration failed to prevent 9/11 or that a brilliant administration planned 9/11 and then smoked A LOT of crack in order to plan and do everything else that it has done since. Anybody?

     Do you know how amazing it is that all the building right around the towers didn’t fall down? Does anyone realize exactly how much force that much falling concrete has? Do you know how much a block of concrete weighs? Now drop it from almost a quarter mile up. Truthers, I want you to pick up a freshmen engineering physics book and look it up before you say another stupid thing. And please don’t insult everyone else’s intelligence by trying to claim Newton was in on 9/11 by creating those calculations.

     The fact that the administration has screwed us royally with relationship to our bill of rights is the nature of politicians in this country.

     Comment by John — 8/23/2007 @ 5:39 pm

163. busboy33 153: I disagree with the degree of your assessment of the current Administration, but full on props for presenting a cogent argument. It was a pleasure to read.

     Comment by Troll feeder — 8/23/2007 @ 5:56 pm

164. Frank, what I find fascinating is that not only did the government rig the 3 towers for demolition, but they went to the troble of setting them up differently:

     Colin’s fevered mind: “With the two towers they exploded out from the top down. Only WTC7 had implosive and explosive devises.”

     WHY?!

     Comment by TomB — 8/23/2007 @ 6:40 pm

165. I have a question for Troll feeder and any other engineers: let’s say one whole floor vaporized. The 80th, say, so the top 30 suddenly fell 11 feet onto the lower 79. What would happen?

     You’d have the weight, of course, plus whatever kinetic energy it would have picked up falling 11 feet.

     The remaining 79-story structure is built to hold much more than the static weight of 31 top floors - twice as much? four? eight times as much? I don’t know. Engineers, what’s your estimate?

     Here’s what I picture: the joists and beams and concrete of the 79th and 81st collide and pulverize. The 47 core columns and their diagonal braces, meanwhile, are meshing and tangling, slowing things down. After a few floors of pancaking, there’d be be a huge knot of twisted metal in the core, stopping things up.

     But it all just disappeared. How did that happen?

     Who had the motive, who had the means? Please everyone, let’s have open minds.

     Comment by Hans — 8/23/2007 @ 6:45 pm

166. The 19 9/11 Conspirators:

     -Mohammed Atta
     -Waleed al-Shehri
     -Wail al-Shehri
     -Abdulaziz al-Omari
     -Satam al-Suqami
     -Marwan al-Shehhi
     -Fayez Banihammad
     -Mohand al-Shehri
     -Hamza al-Ghamdi
     -Ahmed al-Ghamdi
     -Hani Hanjour
     -Khalid al-Mihdhar
     -Majed Moqed
     -Nawaf al-Hazmi
     -Salem al-Hazmi
     -Ziad Jarrah
     -Ahmed al-Haznawi
     -Ahmed al-Nami
     -Saeed al-Ghamdi

     Which of these 19 is/are “still alive, according to the BBC”, Colin?

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/23/2007 @ 7:07 pm

167. Heh… that’s weird… for some reason this site, or my Firefox, is formatting text between two hyphens as “strike”. It’s a conspiracy!!

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/23/2007 @ 7:09 pm

168. After a few floors of pancaking, there’d be be a huge knot of twisted metal in the core, stopping things up.

     Why do you assume that, Hans?

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/23/2007 @ 7:11 pm

169. Well, the core was massive metal columns and their braces. The falling structure would start occupying the same space as the top of the 79-story building. The columns wouldn’t just slide past each other.

     Comment by Hans — 8/23/2007 @ 7:25 pm

170. Why do you assume that “sliding past each other” is the only way in which the columns could fail? Once again, you set up a single scenario without examining other, much more likely scenarios - such as the columns buckling outward and snapping, either at the top or at some lower point.

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/23/2007 @ 7:36 pm

171. Aha… I think I see the problem here. You’re seeing each support column as a single rod that goes from the foundation up to the top, rather than a series of beams that are bolted or welded together, and which will tend to fail first at those bolts or welds under extreme stress.

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/23/2007 @ 7:48 pm

172. Hans 170: The majority of the Towers was empty space. There would have been plenty of room for components to move around and past one another.

     The second sentence is an opinion, of course. I have not modeled the collapse, so I do not _know_ this to be the case.

     Comment by Troll feeder — 8/23/2007 @ 8:02 pm

173. I think Hans’ image of the structure of the twin towers looks something like this…

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/23/2007 @ 8:24 pm

174. Troll feeder, so with all that empty space the top 31 floors of latticed steel columns just moved around and past the steel structure below? It wouldn’t hang up at all?

     Frank IBC, yes of course the columns were composed of smaller pieces joined together.
     And some of them would undoubtedly buckle outward and snap. But wouldn’t they be restrained to a large degree by the pancaking layers of concrete and steel around them?

     Comment by Hans — 8/23/2007 @ 8:34 pm

175. I think Hans’ image of the structure of the twin towers looks something like this…

     LMAO. One of the finest posts ever at DU! If there is anything that encapsulates their thinking well, its that.

     The best part is that nobody over there is smart enough to realize how bad it makes them look, so nobody deleted the thread.

     Mind. Numbingly. Stupid.

     Comment by TomB — 8/23/2007 @ 8:34 pm

176. But wouldn’t they be restrained to a large degree by the pancaking layers of concrete and steel around them?

     Could you explain exactly what you mean by the term “pancaking”?

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/23/2007 @ 8:38 pm

177. Hans, you seem to be confused by static loads vs. dynamic loads.

     Just because a certain floor in the building was engineered to support all those floors above it at rest doesn’t mean the forces are the same when those floors are in motion. Once those floors started in motion, there was nothing to stop them. As the video plainly shows, when the collapse started, some debris blew out the sides and some went straight down.

     Comment by TomB — 8/23/2007 @ 8:40 pm

178. Ah, I think I figured out Han’s scenario in #175. He has assumed (again) that the horizontal concrete elements would fall in the vertical plane, while remaining completely intact in the horizontal plane, surrounding the support columns which are remaining intact in the vertical plane. He has overlooked the possibility that both the concrete floors and steel support columns are capable of snapping/shattering in any direction, depending on the forces that are exerted upon them.

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/23/2007 @ 9:02 pm

179. TomB, yes I know static and dynamic loads. My point is that the the steel structure was designed to hold many times the static load. And “Once the floors started in motion, there was nothing to stop them” - well yes, there was the rest of the building below.

     Frank IBC, I’m not assuming the concrete and steel stayed intact. I’m saying after five or ten scrunched floors you should have a significant mass of it, constraining to some degree the core column area.

     “pancaking” - seems to be a big part of the official story, maybe a defender of the official story can explain it better. As I understand it, it’s the floors crashing down, the 81st taking out the 80th, which both then take out the 79th, etc.

     Yes some columns would be snapping/shattering in any direction. They would also to some degree be standing stiffly like they were designed to do.

     And we still don’t have an explanation of how this action all starts suddenly. What on a plane is dense enough to take out a core column? Engines and landing gear that I know of. How many of the 47 could they have cut?

     A mesh of steel and concrete falls on a mesh of steel and concrete. Does the whole thing spontaneously crumble?

     Comment by Hans — 8/23/2007 @ 9:47 pm

180. And “Once the floors started in motion, there was nothing to stop them” – well yes, there was the rest of the building below.

     I still get the impression that you’re thinking of the building and the columns as a single solid mass, like the dogcage in the DU thread, rather than a series of thousands of individual parts held together by bolts and welds (for the steel) and cement and aggregate (for the concrete). When the debris crashes into the part of the building that is still intact, the strength of the latter to resist the downward force is not the sum total of the parts of the remaining structure - but only that of the topmost steel beams, concrete slabs, and the elements securing them to the rest of the structure.

     I’m saying after five or ten scrunched floors you should have a significant mass of it, constraining to some degree the core column area.

     Again, I fail to understand why you think that the collapsing material will somehow act as a vise on the core columns, rather than a hammer.

     The reason

     What on a plane is dense enough to take out a core column?

     It’s not just mass or density that matters.. It’s momentum, i.e., mass times velocity. The plane that hit the North Tower was traveling at 400 miles per hour; the one that hit the South Tower was flying at over 500 mph.

     Here’s an analogy - flesh is much softer/less dense than steel or glass. Yet a collision between a car and a pedestrian or animal at even just 30 mph will leave huge dents on the car and a broken windshield.

     Re “pancaking” - you’re seeing the collapsing floors only as a solid mass - like a low-rise building after an earthquake - one floor collapsed, then the floor below, each in a discrete, instantaneous process. The reality was that the concrete in each floor shattered into thousands/millions of pieces, and fell apart and down faster than the steel elements. The steel elements in turn did not just crumble on a floor-by-floor basis, but tore themselves apart in all directions. By the time the towers had collapsed just several floors, the collapsing portion of the building was not a coherent whole but a mass of loose steel beams and concrete chunks.

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/23/2007 @ 10:21 pm

181. Frank IBC

     In response,

     I asked if anyone could help me with the calculations. All available information only provides maximum capacities not actual capacities. If you ask anyone about actualities you get the typical vitriolic witless response of those who will brook no dissidence.

     The earlier attack on the wtc was what? A car bomb. You have not diminished my argument but buttressed it. These masterminds in their greatest were able to pack a van with explosives and drive it under a building. Their lack of planning ability resulted in them not placing it close to any locations that would cause significant structural damage.

     The Bojinka plots of 95 were the most complicated plots undertaken by these lunatics. That it failed can either be placed to coincidence or through their inherent lack of ability to organize anything that large.

     CMM

     Comment by CMM — 8/23/2007 @ 10:58 pm

182. “The steel elements tore themselves apart in all directions?” You can believe what you want. The towers were designed to take multiple hits from planes that size. And what happened to building 7? This is a fun discussion, but frustrating. Our government had the motive - war, trillions in defense contracts, oil, military presence in the Middle East - and were the only ones with the means to stand down our air defense system. And Bush’s brother and cousin were in charge of security at WTC. And there’s the Sept. 2000 PNAC report calling for a “new Pearl Harbor.” Please people pull your heads out of the sand, our government is not benign.

     Comment by Hans — 8/23/2007 @ 11:06 pm

183. Hans 180: You do have an explanation of delayed collapse due to accumulation of fire damage. See 118.

     What, exactly, do you think the core columns were made out of? Adamantium? They were as capable of failure as anything else.

     The core columns did not directly support the mass of the collapsing upper stories. This avalanche landed in large part on the truss-supported, concrete slab floors which — and I’m making a (pretty well-educated, see below) guess here again — were not designed to support even the static weight of all the floors from above, much less the falling weight.

     Non-specialized concrete weighs approximately 137 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) (Machinery’s Handbook, 25th). According to the Wikipedia entry, the WTC floors were 4-inch concrete slabs on corrugated steel, supported by 35 or 60 foot long truss joists on 80-inch centers.

     Ignore all of the steel; ignore the motion; assume only 15 floors worth of concrete evenly distributing their weight over the floor underneath. 15 floors times 4 inches is five feet of concrete thickness resting on the supporting floor. At 137 pcf, that equals 685 pounds per square foot (psf) on a floor that _might_ have been designed for 120 psf.

     This only gets worse when you add in the structural steel, and the desks, and the copiers, and the partition walls, and the water coolers, and the localized loading, and the 10-plus feet of acceleration.

     The trusses supporting the floors connected the perimeter wall to the core columns. The trusses failed with the floors and in doing so would have applied spectacular, localized, horizontal loads to the core columns. Columns don’t like horizontal loads. Makes them unstable. Nothing really likes hanging out in a concrete and steel landslide, either, for that matter.

     No disrespect intended, and I could go on with data on the allowable loads for steel truss joists, for instance, but at some point you need to demonstrate why the core columns should have been indestructible defenders against collapse rather than constantly demanding that someone explain why they would not have been.

     Comment by Troll feeder — 8/23/2007 @ 11:08 pm

184. No, the reason Bojinka failed is that people who were peripherally involved, but directly involved in an assassination attempt on the Pope, made the mistake of starting a fire in an apartment in Manila in the spring of 1995. They were interogated by the Philippine police, leading to the Ramzi Ahmed Yousef and the other masterminds of Bojinka.

     For your question regarding the first WTC attack, I refer you back to your original question:

     Suddenly we have him as a mastermind organizing an international, multi-month (or year), nationwide process of false identification, training, surveillance, deep-cover operatives…

     In spite of their lack of success (due to lack of knowledge of the strength of the support columns at the lowest levels of the Tower), there was a tremendous amount of planning involved - smuggling the operatives into the USA, training them, making the explosives, etc. And also the hit on the CIA headquarters six weeks earlier which killed 3, which was a dry run for the attack.

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/23/2007 @ 11:11 pm

185. Jeez, do these people have some sort of timer that indicates what point of the tirade they should bring up Building 7?

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/23/2007 @ 11:13 pm

186. Building 7:

     -Millions of tons of burning debris from the fallen towers. A good chunk of the lower part of the north face of the building was wiped out by the falling debris, and the fire had burned for seven hours.
     -Transfer truss (a “bridge”) over ConEd facility, which created a vulnerable point in the structure.
     -Thousands of gallons of diesel fuel, for Mayor’s Emergency Command Center, stored in that building.

     Is this REALLY the first time you’re seeing this, Hans?

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/23/2007 @ 11:17 pm

187. Hans 183: Aah.

     Actually, I believe that they were designed to survive an impact from a 707. Whatever that means.

     And two, why are you arguing if none of this makes any difference? If the government did it regardless of any evidence to the contrary, what exactly is your point in complaining about specifics?

     As with CMM, this is not a legitimate way to argue. Good faith requires the admission of the possibility, however slight, that evidence might prove you mistaken.

     It appears that good faith you ain’t got. I’d wish you good luck with that, but I wouldn’t really mean it.

     Comment by Troll feeder — 8/23/2007 @ 11:21 pm

188. And Bush’s brother and cousin were in charge of security at WTC

     Wow, your canards are getting more and more tired, Hans. Marvin Bush, George W.’s brother, was on the board of directors of Stratestec, formerly known as Securacom, the publically-owned firm which had a contract to provide security for the WTC. He did NOT manage the day-to-day operations of the firm. He left the board in June 2000. Which last I checked, was 7 months before his brother assumed the Presidency and 15 months before 9/11. Marvin was no longer even a shareholder at the end of 2000. And I don’t know who is this “cousin” of whom you speak.

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/23/2007 @ 11:31 pm

189. Also, Hans ignores the fact that the normal speed for a plane flying at the altitude of the top of the towers is 200 or less, and the design of the towers was based on that.

     The planes that crashed into the towers were flying at 400 mph and over 500 mph, respectively.

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/23/2007 @ 11:36 pm

190. #189

     But…but…but…Prescott Bush helped finance Hitler’s rise to power…and…and…and…Jeb Bush helped get George W. appointed to the presidency…they’re all part of the Bush Crime Family.

     Cheney and Bush. The two corrupt insane men who chose their path to seek their fortune as oilmen. 75% of the country agrees with me.

     /sarcasm

     Comment by Chip — 8/24/2007 @ 8:53 am

191. Actually it was Elian Gonzalez that helped Bush win in Florida, not his the Supremes or his brother Jeb.

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/24/2007 @ 9:01 am

192. Wirth Walker is the cousin.

     “Good faith requires the admission of the possibility, however slight, that evidence might prove you mistaken.” Good point.

     Here’s a good summary of why it looks like explosives were used:
     1. Extremely rapid onset of “collapse”
     2. Sounds of explosions at plane impact zone — a full second prior to collapse (heard by 118 first responders as well as by media reporters)
     3. Observations of flashes (seen by numerous professionals)
     4. Squibs, or “mistimed” explosions, 40 floors below the “collapsing” building seen in all the videos
     5. Mid-air pulverization of all the 90,000 tons of concrete and steel decking, filing cabinets & 1000 people – mostly to dust
     6. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
     7. Vertical progression of full building perimeter demolition waves
     8. Symmetrical collapse – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance
     9. 1,400 foot diameter field of equally distributed debris – outside of building footprint
     10. Blast waves blew out windows in buildings 400 feet away
     11. Lateral ejection of thousands of individual 20 - 50 ton steel beams up to 500 feet
     12. Total destruction of the building down to individual structural steel elements – obliterating the steel core structure.
     13. Tons of molten metal found by FDNY under all 3 high-rises (no other possible source other than an incendiary cutting charge such as Thermate)
     14. Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
     15. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
     16. More than 1000 Bodies are unaccounted for — 700 tiny bone fragments found on top of nearby buildings

     And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
     1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
     2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
     3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
     4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”

     Comment by Hans — 8/24/2007 @ 9:22 am

193. 1) How slow would the onset have to have been, for it to have not been a “demolition”? Again, please refer to the acceleration of gravity from my previous posts.

     2) Lots of loud abrupt sounds sound like explosions, to non-professional witnesses. That doesn’t make them such.

     3) Lots of things “flash”. That doesn’t make them “explosions”.

     4) Gravity

     5) Gravity

     6) Gravity

     7) Gravity

     Gravity

     9) Gravity

     10) Gravity

     11) Gravity

     12) Gravity

     13) Please refer to my post #150. Did you bother to read it previously?

     14) Iron and aluminum were used throughout the towers, extensively.

     15) See 13.

     16) And this proves exactly what?

     second list

     1) Are you sure?

     2) These past six years, you’ve never looked at the photos and images of the first seconds of the collapse of the south tower?

     3) This has been covered in many posts above, which you have ignored.

     4) Name one of these. And name one of these that also had substantial damage to the structure from a plane crashing into it at 400-550 mph.

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/24/2007 @ 9:55 am

194. Hans, I asked this of another poster, but he never came back. Maybe you can answer it:

     How did all these devices come to be planted in all three towers? Who did it and how was this accomplished?

     Comment by TomB — 8/24/2007 @ 9:57 am

195. Hans -

     Have you watched the video of the collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis? That had an “extremely rapid onset of collapse”, too. Does that mean it was diabolically imploded, too?

     They’re asking me to believe that, for the first time in history, pigeon guano melted steel…

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/24/2007 @ 10:22 am

196. The Twin Towers were evacuated for a FULL WEEKEND prior to 9/11.

     this video mainly discusses the fact that previous to 9/11, there have been strange evacuations and powerdowns in the top halves of the towers. in my opinion, this would be an excellent opportunity for explosives or thermite to be planted. otherwise, the towers couldnt have collapsed without the requirements for a demolition.

     just think, a powerdown and evacuation.
     100’s, if not 1000’s of workers come in.
     and they could have done anything, because the powerdown cut off the security cams, and the evacuation made it so that there were no witnesses. hmmm, seems like a perfect opportunity to rig a building for demolition.

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsb1R42XzMU

     All these questions are answered.
     Just Watch 9/11 Mysteries on google video and wake up, people!

     “Your countrymen have been murdered and the more you delve into it the more it looks as though they were murdered by our government, who used it as an excuse to murder other people thousands of miles away. If you ridicule others who have sincere doubts and who know factual information that directly contradicts the official report and who want explanations from those who hold the keys to our government, and have motive, means, and opportunity to pull off a 9/11, but you are too lazy or fearful, or … to check into the facts yourself, what does that make you?”
     Full Statement of Lt. Col. Shelton F. Lankford, US Marine Corps (ret) February 20, 2007

     Comment by Jonny Blaze — 8/24/2007 @ 10:24 am

197. What is it about you Troofers and your obsession with videos? Can’t you actually write anything in your own words?

     Hans -

     I find no mention of any “Wirth Walker”, anywhere on the Internet. He seems to be yet another figment of your imagination.

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/24/2007 @ 10:35 am

198. Frank IBC, “The planes that crashed into the towers were flying at 400 mph and over 500 mph, respectively.” How do you know how fast the planes were going? The second one was going thru a curve, so we’d expect it to be slower. Also, it hit the corner of the tower, largely missing the core columns.

     Gravity throws steel beams 500 feet sideways?

     About the molten metal in the rubble: maybe it wasn’t “molten” but what would explain it even being red-hot?

     Bone fragments on adjacent skyscrapers isn’t suspicious to you? It’s hard to believe a gravity-driven collapse would do that.

     TomB, no I can’t definitively answer it, but I have some clues: in the days and weeks before 9/11, there were numerous security drills, including an unprecedented “powerdown”. Bomb-sniffing dogs were removed. If you’re “security” then you’d have full clearance to go wherever you want.

     What’s your evidence of fires capable of weakening steel? Would not 90% or more of the jet fuel burn off in the initial seconds-long fireball?

     Comment by Hans — 8/24/2007 @ 10:47 am

199. The Twin Towers were evacuated for a FULL WEEKEND prior to 9/11

     The top half of one of the towers was “powered down” the weekend before (actually from Sat. afternoon to Sunday afternoon). It was not completely evacuated.

     Anyway, a normal building implosion takes MONTHS to properly set and wire the explosives.

     Try again.

     Comment by TomB — 8/24/2007 @ 10:48 am

200. What’s your evidence of fires capable of weakening steel?

     Here ya go, Rosie:

     http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/29/BAGVOPHQU46.DTL

     Would not 90% or more of the jet fuel burn off in the initial seconds-long fireball?

     How do you get your 90% in seconds number. What are your calculations?

     Comment by TomB — 8/24/2007 @ 10:52 am

201. TomB, no I can’t definitively answer it, but I have some clues: in the days and weeks before 9/11, there were numerous security drills, including an unprecedented “powerdown”. Bomb-sniffing dogs were removed. If you’re “security” then you’d have full clearance to go wherever you want.

     Have you ever seen a building wire for controlled demolition? Do you know exactly what it takes to get to that point?

     Comment by TomB — 8/24/2007 @ 10:53 am

202. Sorry I got Wirth Walker’s name wrong. It’s Wirt D. Walker III. Google him and securacom.

     Comment by Hans — 8/24/2007 @ 10:54 am

203. What’s your evidence of fires capable of weakening steel? Would not 90% or more of the jet fuel burn off in the initial seconds-long fireball?

     Can you show your calculations on how you got to 90%? I’d be interested to see some of your assumptions.

     Comment by TomB — 8/24/2007 @ 10:56 am

204. The towers had 110 floors and 47 central support columns.

     At an absolute minimum, “implosion” of this structure would have required 2 charges (”shaped charges”) per column per floor, or a total of almost 100,000 individual charges. And that’s only for the central support columns, and does not account for the outer frame or the horizontal trusses under each floor.

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/24/2007 @ 10:57 am

205. Sorry for all the posts, my replies are being eaten.

     What’s your evidence of fires capable of weakening steel?

     Seriously?!

     http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/29/BAGVOPHQU46.DTL

     “Huge leaping flames from an exploding gasoline tanker melted the steel underbelly of a highway overpass in the East Bay’s MacArthur Maze early this morning, causing it to collapse onto the roadway below and virtually ensuring major traffic problems for weeks to come.”

     “Engineers said the green steel frame of the I-580 overpass and the bolts holding the frame together began to melt and bend in the intense heat”

     Comment by TomB — 8/24/2007 @ 10:59 am

206. It’s Wirt D. Walker III. Google him and securacom.

     If you’re the one that’s making the claim, shouldn’t you be the one doing the Google search?

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/24/2007 @ 11:00 am

207. And assuming that they actually could have secretly installed all 100,000 charges, there is no way they could have hidden all the necessary wiring from the public.

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/24/2007 @ 11:02 am

208. Sorry for all the replies, my comments keep getting eaten

     What’s your evidence of fires capable of weakening steel?

     Are you serious?!

     “Tank fire destroys portion of MacArthur Maze (4/29)

     (04-29) 18:03 PDT OAKLAND — Huge leaping flames from an exploding gasoline tanker melted the steel underbelly of a highway overpass in the East Bay’s MacArthur Maze early this morning, causing it to collapse onto the roadway below and virtually ensuring major traffic problems for weeks to come.

     The elevated roadway that fell carried eastbound traffic from the Bay Bridge onto Interstates 580 and 980 and state Highway 24. It draped like a blanket over a roadway below, a connector from southbound I-80 to I-880 that also was severely damaged.

     The single-vehicle crash occurred on the lower roadway when the tanker, loaded with 8,600 gallons of unleaded gasoline and heading from a refinery in Benicia to a gas station on Hegenberger Road in Oakland, hit a guardrail at 3:41 a.m.

     Engineers said the green steel frame of the I-580 overpass and the bolts holding the frame together began to melt and bend in the intense heat “

     Comment by TomB — 8/24/2007 @ 11:02 am

209. Preparation for implosion of a typical 10-15 story high rise building takes about six weeks, IIRC.

     And it doesn’t just include installation of the charges. It includes clearing out the floors and strategically weakening some or even all of the columns. And it also includes detonating individual charges to test the strength of the columns.

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/24/2007 @ 11:05 am

210. If fire couldn’t melt steel, then there would be no way to manufacture steel.

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/24/2007 @ 11:05 am

211. Sorry for all the replies, my comments keep getting eaten

     Are you using Tab, Enter? That will just take you back to the homepage, it won’t post the comment.

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/24/2007 @ 11:15 am

212. No, I’m clicking on “post comments”

     It seems to only happen when I put html code (I tried a link to that newspaper article) in the post.

     Comment by TomB — 8/24/2007 @ 11:16 am

213. Must be a conspiracy.

     Comment by TomB — 8/24/2007 @ 11:17 am

214. Some of you are leaving so many comments that my spam catcher now identifies them as spam.

     Try changing your email address or alter your username.

     Comment by Rick Moran — 8/24/2007 @ 11:23 am

215. Thanks Rick but, ummm, shouldn’t you be in a boat right about now?

     Comment by TomB — 8/24/2007 @ 11:28 am

216. #211

     Frank, an uncontrolled fire alone doesn’t melt steel…wouldn’t you feel a little uncomfortable to know that if a building you were in caught fire it would melt to the ground and pulverize to dust in less than 10 seconds?..It’s called a “Blast Furnace”….or a controlled type burn….google it you will be amazed what you can learn by doing a little research instead of repeating the talking heads on Fox News ect….

     Comment by David — 8/24/2007 @ 11:31 am

217. Frank IBC, “The planes that crashed into the towers were flying at 400 mph and over 500 mph, respectively.” How do you know how fast the planes were going?

     Ha ha… this is hilarious.

     The second one was going thru a curve, so we’d expect it to be slower.

     “Slower”? Slower than what? Why would it be “expected to be slower”?

     Also, it hit the corner of the tower, largely missing the core columns.

     Gravity throws steel beams 500 feet sideways?

     Yes, if said beam is deflected by any other object (including air), when falling in excess of 100 mph.

     About the molten metal in the rubble: maybe it wasn’t “molten” but what would explain it even being red-hot?

     Again, you are assuming that the fire reached its peak temperature shortly after the fireball, rather than continuing to rise in the hours, days, and weeks after the collapse. What is the basis for your assumption? And following your assumption, for the sake of argument, how would the (supposed) presence of thermite, and nothing else, account for this?

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/24/2007 @ 11:34 am

218. “Frank, an uncontrolled fire alone doesn’t melt steel…”

     David, see post 209.

     “Engineers said the green steel frame of the I-580 overpass and the bolts holding the frame together began to melt and bend in the intense heat”

     Comment by TomB — 8/24/2007 @ 11:35 am

219. Sorry, bad formatting on my previous - in the third blockquote, the first paragraph (my words) should be outside of it.

     if a building you were in caught fire it would melt to the ground and pulverize to dust in less than 10 seconds?

     You folks really do seem to have trouble holding multiple concepts in your minds simultaneously. I’ll recap…

     1) Collision with building at 400-550 mph, seriously weakening support structure
     2) Thousands of gallons of kerosene ignited instantaneously and burning (along with various and sundry building materials, furniture, etc.) for an hour to an hour and a half
     3) Millions of tons of concrete and steel, subject to gravity

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/24/2007 @ 11:42 am

220. It seems to me that about half the people are convinced that there is a case to answer for the government being complicit in instigating or having foreknowledge of 911 and the other half are still in soft slumber: simply denying all the facts just because the alternative (at least to them) is unthinkable.

     I say it again: WAKE UP oh sleepy one and go do some independent research. It is not easy in this day and age to fool such a vast number of people who are already awake and realise what is going on.

     I understand it is difficult to believe, I understand that. But history has shown many examples of governments doing this sort of thing. Why should the present leaders be any different? Does anyone seriously think that goverment leaders are “good” people? How can anyone be so blind to all that is going on? It is one thing to be skeptical but to deny truth, well that is a completely different ball game and the consequences are even worse.

     PS: Jim Treacher pointed out that I should have used “cue” instead of “queue” in my last post (no. 19). Thank you Jim. However, ending by saying that I’m, koo-koo-nutty in your post (no. 35) only goes to prove that people who think they’re intelligent are really just a little sad. Carry on being a pedant until you wake up.

     Comment by ghosttown — 8/24/2007 @ 11:44 am

221. And one more thing, David. As has been pointed out repeatedly, the fire was NOT hot enough to MELT steel prior to the collapse, just hot enough to weaken it enough such that it could no longer support the weight above it.

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/24/2007 @ 11:46 am

222. I say it again: WAKE UP oh sleepy one and go do some independent research. It is not easy in this day and age to fool such a vast number of people who are already awake and realise what is going on.

     ghosttown, your post is ironic given we’ve had two of your fellow travelers just deny that fire can melt steel. After Rosie making an ass out of herself and the San Fran bridge collapse, for the “fact-based” to make such an insanely stupid comment is beyond parody.

     Comment by TomB — 8/24/2007 @ 11:48 am

223. Ghosttown is about the `15th of these truthers to put WAKE UP in all caps.

     Maybe they should stop drinking so much coffee…

     Comment by Rick Moran — 8/24/2007 @ 11:50 am

224. ghosttown -

     Your argument is as follows:

     1) Past governments have been very very bad.

     2) #1 is proof that our present government is very very bad.

     3) #2 is proof that the WTC was brought down in a controlled-implosion conspiracy, an inside job by the Bu$hitler administration.

     Sorry, but your understanding of logic is extremely faulty.

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/24/2007 @ 11:53 am

225. A friend of mine once said…

     “Whenever I hear someone utter the magic phrase ‘wake up’, I take the phone off the hook, roll over and go back to sleep.”

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/24/2007 @ 11:55 am

226. Thank you Frank and Rick. Very nice of you to reply. Frank had taken the trouble to count the number of “wake ups” and Rick has trouble understanding English.

     Let’s try again. I did not say that past ills are proof for present tragedies. What I was trying to convey is that it takes a long time for the truth to spread to the majority. Did everyone realise what was going on when Hitler was doing what he was doing? No, of course they didn’t. Did everyone rise up in arms when Stalin was doing what he was doing? No they didn’t. But now, with the luxury of hindsight, who would argue that some of those things were possibly the worst in our miserable history of human politics.

     People who keep having a go at the so called “truthers” do it for the following set of logical reasons.

     Fact 1. 911 was a deliberate act. (No one denies this)
     Fact 2. Whoever did this is considered to be evil and thinks nothing of murdering innocent people and causing misery and mayhem.

     Route 1: The goverment did. If this is the case, tradegy for all of us because it means government leaders are evil and despicable and therefore we’re all doomed.

     Route 2. Terrorists did it. Tradegy for those who died and their families. But for those who reject route 1, what a relief, our government is ok after all.

     Can it get any simpler than that.

     Comment by ghosttown — 8/24/2007 @ 12:16 pm

227. People who keep having a go at the so called “truthers” do it for the following set of logical reasons.

     No. We “have a go” at truthers becuase they are wrong.

     I point again to the example above. The statement was made by one of your fellow travelers that fire cannot weaken steel. That is completely, demonstrably wrong.

     Simple.

     Now, many of the other points are not as easy to explain. But to someone who has experience with buildings and materials, the points that the truthers are trying to make here are equally wrong.

     Comment by TomB — 8/24/2007 @ 12:26 pm

228. What I was trying to convey is that it takes a long time for the truth to spread to the majority.

     Apparently to you “truth” and “evidence and logic” are somehow independent of each other. To you, “truth” is a religious belief that is spread through emotional appeals, rather than something that is arrived at after careful study.

     The reason that “the majority” does not believe the Troofers’ babblings is because they are so obviously bats##t crazy.

     what a relief, our government is ok after all.

     I do not decide on what to believe based on whether I will feel “relieved that our government is OK after all”. I decide what to believe based on evidence and logic. Both of which are sorely lacking in the Troofers’ Bu$hitler-inside job-controlled demolition scenario. And that’s all it is, just a scenario, totally lacking in evidence, pushed by a bunch of wackos who couldn’t form a coherent, persuasive argument if you held a gun to their heads.

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/24/2007 @ 12:37 pm

229. From Wiki -
     Yellow journalism is a pejorative reference to journalism that features scandal-mongering, sensationalism, jingoism or other unethical or unprofessional practices by news media organizations or journalistsThe New York Press coined the term “Yellow Journalism” in early 1897 to describe the papers of Pulitzer and Hearst.

     The History Channel and Popular Mechanics are both owned by Hearst, who invented “yellow journalism”

     Davin Coburn gets owned on the radio after History Channel hit piece

     Part 1:
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLx5GATh_z0

     Part 2:
     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pb49MfDrwOo

     follow up:
     http://www.youtube.com/v/t0uVwS544Rg

     RUN DAVI RUN !!!!!!
     hahhahahaa

     Comment by Jonny Blaze — 8/24/2007 @ 12:38 pm

230. Let’s approach this from another point of view. Fire can weaken steel. This is true. But can it weaken it sufficiently to cause two 100+ storey buildings to collapse in 10 seconds? I don’t see why one has to be an expert engineer to see the obvious flaw in this argument not to mentions that it is completely unprecedented. But let us say for the sake of argument that the twin towers fell directly as a result of the planes hitting them.

     Why did building 7 fall in much the same way? Why did Silvertein say on television that the decision was made to “pull it”? How can you pull a building of that size in that situation, in such a short time? What does he mean by, “pull it”? If they did pull it, who did it? I haven’t heard of any one who was on site say “yes it was us, we pulled it”. Please enlighten me. Who pulled building 7? If it wasn’t pulled, why did Silvertein say it was?

     It really doesn’t need a lot of expertise to realise the absurdity of it all. What kind of a coincidence is it to run exercises with the exact same situation being played out at exactly the same time? What kind of a coincidence is it that Silverstein owns all three buildings? What kind of a coincidence is it that he takes out insurance shortly before the event for exactly the sort of attack we all witnessed?

     The point I’m trying to make is that we are not talking about just one or two anomalies here. We are saying there is a whole raft of unaswered questions which nobody at government level seems to be bothered by? I would be more than happy if all the issues are investigated by independent people who are given the freedom to ask whoever, whatever is necessary to get at the truth. The very fact that this has absolutely no chance of happening should bring home to the deniers that at the very least, something is amiss. We ask nothing more than the right to know. That’s all.

     Comment by ghosttown — 8/24/2007 @ 12:52 pm

231. Fire can weaken steel. This is true. But can it weaken it sufficiently to cause two 100+ storey buildings to collapse in 10 seconds?

     In addition to the thousands of gallons of kerosene which were ignited and dispersed upon the crash of the plane, you need two other ingredients:

     1) Heavy structural damage, and
     2) Gravity.

     And if you say that you have never been told this before, you’re lying.

     “Pull it”, in the actual context in which that remark was made means “pull the firemen out of the building”.

     And if you say that you have never been told this before, you’re lying, again.

     (repeat of my post #187)

     Building 7:

     -Millions of tons of burning debris from the fallen towers. A good chunk of the lower part of the north face of the building was wiped out by the falling debris, and the fire had burned for seven hours.
     -Transfer truss (a “bridge”) over ConEd facility, which created a vulnerable point in the structure.
     -Thousands of gallons of diesel fuel, for Mayor’s Emergency Command Center, stored in that building.

     And if you say that you have never, ever had this explained to you before, you are lying, yet again.

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/24/2007 @ 1:00 pm

232. At best, the arguments about how or why the buildings fell are contentious. That is why an independent commission is required. However, much like the recent documentaries, you and many others insist on leaving out the things that cannot possibly be explained by mere observation of the events.

     What about the coincidental exercises?
     What about the insurance taken out on the buildings?
     What about the 11-fold increase in put options leading up to the day relating to airline companies involved?
     What about Bush’s brother being in charge of security until the final day when the contract ended?
     Where is the plane parts from the plane hitting the Pentagon or the one that crashed?
     Why was all the steel from the towers shipped off to China without the chance for forensic examination?
     Why can’t we see the videos of the plane hitting the Pentagon?
     Why were all such videos confisgated by the FBI and still not released?
     What about the explosions heard by many witnesses inside the towers before they fell?
     What can possibly be so secretive about a plane hitting the Pentagon?
     Why was Bin Laden’s plane allowed to fly during the no fly restrictions following 911 when nobody else could?
     Why would anyone calling his mother by mobile phone from the stricken plane introduce himself as “Mark Bingham”?
     Why are at least 6 of the hijackers still known to be alive and well?

     The list goes on and on and none of it is either addressed or adequately explained by the official report. Considering the nature of the attack and the horrific impact it has had on many people, not least of all those directly involved, I think it deserves a little more than us picking holes in each other’s arguments on a blog. The official report leaves a very great deal to be desired and I don’t know of many people who deny even that.

     Comment by ghosttown — 8/24/2007 @ 1:35 pm

233. What about Bush’s brother being in charge of security until the final day when the contract ended?

     Hahaha idiot…

     Marvin Bush, George W.’s brother, was on the board of directors of Stratestec, formerly known as Securacom, the publically-owned firm which had a contract to provide security for the WTC. He did NOT manage the day-to-day operations of the firm, let alone its operations at the WTC. He left the board in June 2000. Which last I checked, was 7 months before his brother assumed the Presidency and 15 months before 9/11. Marvin was no longer even a shareholder at the end of 2000.

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/24/2007 @ 1:39 pm

234. The heretical aspect of the 9/11 Truthers “faith” is made quite apparent by their constant insistence they posses knowledge/understanding which has been kept hidden from others, due to a government conspiracy to conceal evidence and deceive the masses with propaganda. Ironically it’s the Truthers who are propagandizing various conspiracy theories which do not stand up to fundamental evidentiary and logical tests.

     Truthers are the ones steeped in denial here, and it’s rather sad to watch them attempt to play the victim because the vast, vast majority of people don’t buy into the insane claims and theories they’ve been suckered into believing themselves. Worse yet, some are literally buying into it with purchases of DVDs, books, tapes, etc., and by driving internet traffic to these nutty conspiracy sites which sell advertising space, further empowering those who are taking advantage of them. It’s really no different than what happens when people are taken in by “faith healers” and other charlatans who prey on people’s most intimate needs, wants and insecurities.

     As I’ve been saying for some time now, everyone has faith in something. The key is to not waste spiritual energy on things which are self-destructive, harmful to others, or empowering to those who gratuitously exploit people.

     Comment by Chip — 8/24/2007 @ 1:42 pm

235. Why are at least 6 of the hijackers still known to be alive and well?

     Of the 19 listed in post #167, to which six are you referring?

     What can possibly be so secretive about a plane hitting the Pentagon?

     I don’t know, what was so secretive about a plane hitting the Pentagon?

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/24/2007 @ 1:42 pm

236. Gentle reminder that only those who think they’ve lost the argument resort to insults.

     However, let me continue to humour you by saying that since you’ve satisfied yourself of having explained ONE of the things on the list, you now have about TWELVE to go plus all the others I’ve not even mentioned. Good luck.

     Comment by ghosttown — 8/24/2007 @ 1:47 pm

237. Thanks to Chip also for giving us an insight into exploitation by charlatans. Thank goodness for our leaders who are nothing of the sort.

     Comment by ghosttown — 8/24/2007 @ 1:53 pm

238. So who are the six hijackers that are still alive and well?

     And what is so secretive about a plane hitting the Pentagon?

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/24/2007 @ 1:56 pm

239. Thank goodness for our leaders who are nothing of the sort.

     And that is supposed to defend your jibberish… exactly how?

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/24/2007 @ 1:58 pm

240. There are many websites and some even official one’s which would give you the names of the suspects still alive. The fact is that even if ONE of them is still alive, the whole thing becomes a farce. There are also many unofficial sites who provide listings. You have access to the same sources as I have so google it an look.

     As for what is so secretive about the plane hitting the Pentagon, you have already satisfactorily answered it by saying you don’t know in your post 235. But aren’t your asking the wrong person? If there is nothing secretive about it, let us go to the nice people of the FBI and kindly ask them to hand over the videos they confisgated. We wouldn’t need to ask then, would we.

     Comment by ghosttown — 8/24/2007 @ 2:06 pm

241. The fact that you can’t be bothered to list even one of the allegedly “alive-and-well hijackers” shows that your argument is a farce. It’s the height of intellectual laziness.

     I repeated your question on the Pentagon, because it makes no sense as you wrote it. Could you please try to translate what you said into coeherent English? What on earth does “What can possibly be so secretive about a plane hitting the Pentagon” actually mean? What are you asking me to prove or disprove?

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/24/2007 @ 2:11 pm

242. #232

     A condensed version:

     Oh me, oh my, I have unanswered questions, so I’ll just conclude the absolute worst, make stuff up to “prove” it, and obsess over random circumstantial evidence until my head is about to explode.

     Ghost town…hmmm…must be describing the place between his/her ears.

     #236

     Gentle reminder that only those who think they’ve lost the argument resort to insults.

     Or it could be those who are winning the argument are trying to give the 9/11 “troofer” trolls a long overdue shock treatment to bring them out of their self-imposed stupor.

     Comment by Chip — 8/24/2007 @ 2:17 pm

243. Sorry I was busy replying to 238 before seeing 239. Your comments make me smile. Jibberish you say. This implies that you actually trust the people in congress and the president? You have no reservations about any of the insane laws and wars and perpetual degredation of liberties they have imposed both before and since 911?

     If this is true, you are not asleep but positively comatosed.

     Comment by ghosttown — 8/24/2007 @ 2:17 pm

244. Chip, sorry, did I wake you again. You seem to drift in and out. You seem a lot happier asleep.

     Comment by ghosttown — 8/24/2007 @ 2:19 pm

245. Now replying to 241. I’ll try to make it simple for you. I am not asking you or anyone else for that matter, to prove or disprove anything. What I am asking is that you pay attention to the fact that the official report is inadequate and leaves a lot of unaswered questions, some of which were outlined in 232.

     WE ourselves can’t prove or disprove anything because we don’t have the power or the means to ask the right people. However, collectively as people who are supposed to live in a free country should have the right to know the truth.

     What you seem to be saying is that everything is explained and there is nothing further to add so we should all shut up and move on. Well you move on if you want to.

     As for the Pentagon question, it was rhetorical, I’m hoping that you know what that means.

     Comment by ghosttown — 8/24/2007 @ 2:32 pm

246. ghosttown -

     Where exactly did you see me state my opinion of the US government, and how is it relevant to the discussion the extremely poor quality of the Troofers arguments and total lack of evidence?

     And what are the names of the six allegedly “alive-and-well” 9/11 hijackers?

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/24/2007 @ 2:35 pm

247. Um, so how is the attack on the pentagon “secretive”? (in your words)

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/24/2007 @ 2:36 pm

248. #243

     Aside from the self-imposed loss of freedom and liberty caused by your debilitating levels of paranoia and manically obsessing over things you cannot directly control, how has your life been changed in tangible ways since 9/11? Please be specific.

     Comment by Chip — 8/24/2007 @ 2:37 pm

249. Hey, take a number, Chip.

     I’m still waiting for her to document the six alive-and-well 9/11 hijackers.

     And explain what she means about the “secretive attack on the Pentagon”. I, like most Americans, lerned about it just minutes after it happened.

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/24/2007 @ 2:45 pm

250. Oh excellent Frank. How is it relevant? If someone produces a report that is full off holes, inconsistencies and unanswered questions, there can only be two possible reasons. The first is that such a person is very stupid and should not have been picked for the job or two that person was picked intentionnaly in order to help cover something up. What ever that something is, we need to know about it. It may be benign or it may be sinister, but we won’t know that will we.

     As for the hijackers, look it up. If you know of an official explanation anywhere that can prove that all 19 hijackers were actual people living prior to 911 and are now all dead, lead the way.

     Comment by ghosttown — 8/24/2007 @ 2:46 pm

251. Why couldn’t you have just saved all the verbiage, Miss Poison Thang, and admitted that you don’t have a leg to stand on with your claim re the 6 hijackers?

     If someone produces a report that is full off holes, inconsistencies and unanswered questions, there can only be two possible reasons. The first is that such a person is very stupid and should not have been picked for the job

     I couldn’t have written a better description of the Troofers myself, Miss Poison Thang.

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/24/2007 @ 2:51 pm

252. I’m a mechanical engineer and there’s one specific thought that eventually came to mind while watching TV on the morning of 9/11/2001 - “Why haven’t these buildings collapsed yet?” I recall trying to remember the the thermal coefficient of expansion for steel, the Euler buckling formula, the annealing temperature for cold rolled steel, wondering how the beam to column attachments were designed in terms of extreme horizontal loads from the thermal expansion, etc. … and then the first tower came down. I had been waiting for that to happen for at least ten minutes.

     Before learning of these ‘truthers’ I had no idea that there could be so many stupid people. It’s almost more scary than al Qaida.

     Comment by Mike M. — 8/24/2007 @ 2:52 pm

253. I can’t seem to reply fast enough. What is it you don’t understand now Chip.

     My words were “What can possibly be so secretive about a plane hitting the Pentagon?” The answer is NOTHING. So why confisgate the videos?

     Comment by ghosttown — 8/24/2007 @ 2:53 pm

254. Oh, my… another one who thinks that there were thousands of tourists walking the grounds of the Pentagon with cameras and videocams waiting eagerly for the plane to hit.

     And who thinks that the DoD would have had a reason to have security cameras face toward the walls of the Pentagon.

     And who thinks that all security camera videos must have the same resolution and frame speed as movies.

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/24/2007 @ 2:58 pm

255. Thanks for joining in Mike. Reply to 253. I’m afraid like all the others, you take one thing and cling on to it like a limpet. It isn’t just about the buildings, it isn’t just about the planes or al queda.

     There are a great many other things which apparently are too many even for a mechanical engineer to grasp. I don’t think anyone should rest until ALL questions are adequatly answered, not least of all those posed in post 232.

     Comment by ghosttown — 8/24/2007 @ 2:58 pm

256. Reply to 254. Never mind thousands of cameras Frank. Just one set of frames that actually shows a plane going into the building would have been enough. A tail fin would have been enough. The right kind of engine or fan blade would have been enough. A part of a wing would have been enough.

     Comment by ghosttown — 8/24/2007 @ 3:09 pm

257. As far as bldg. 7 goes………

     I was watching Glenn Beck a few weeks back and Denis Leary was on. He has done a ton of charity work for firefighters in general and NY firefighters specifically.

     Glenn asked and he stated that he had talked to a few of the guys who survived 9/11 and that they stated the portion of bldg. 7 underground was over 25% destroyed and it was only a matter of time before it came down.

     Comment by VoR — 8/24/2007 @ 3:12 pm

258. Ghost .. (255) If I debunk just one of them will you leave me alone? The FAA lifted the flight ban on THURSDAY September 13. I explicitly reecall seeing a few planes come into Boston that day. Fair enough?

     Comment by Mike M. — 8/24/2007 @ 3:13 pm

259. Here’s what the BBC has to say about the six 9/11 hijackers who are “still alive.”

     Just more proof these Troofers who parrot conspiracy theories all over the blogosphere aren’t doing any real investigative work, much less engaging in critical thinking.

     Comment by Chip — 8/24/2007 @ 3:14 pm

260. Why do you assume that such a picture/video exists, Miss Thang? The security camera was not designed to film planes flying at 400-500 mph, and it was aimed away from the pentagon, not towards it.

     In the case of the north tower of the WTC, there is only one video of the impact - from at least a mile away. The only reason there are so many images of the plane hitting the south tower is because there were thousands of spectators watching the fire in the north tower at that time.

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/24/2007 @ 3:19 pm

261. At best, the arguments about how or why the buildings fell are contentious. That is why an independent commission is required. However, much like the recent documentaries, you and many others insist on leaving out the things that cannot possibly be explained by mere observation of the events.

     And with that ghosttown falls back on a favorite truther tactic; Change the subject.

     Perhaps that is why the “new” version of Loose Change is giving up on the conrolled explosion of WTC 1&2 and concentrating instead on WTC 7.

     Before we go any further ghost, perhaps we can get some admissions from you:

     -fire can weaken steel

     -there wasn’t the time nor the ability to wire both 110 storey buildings properly with demolition charges.

     -Marvin Bush was NEVER in charge of security for the WTC.

     -There really aren’t six allegedly “alive-and-well” 9/11 hijackers.

     How about you admit you were wrong about those points, and then we continue?

     Comment by TomB — 8/24/2007 @ 3:19 pm

262. Also, you’re presuming a bit of clairvoyance, in that people would somehow be expecting the plane to hit the Pentagon, and also know exactly where it would hit.

     But if that happened, it would be more proof of the conspiracy, wouldn’t it, Miss Poison Thang?

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/24/2007 @ 3:21 pm

263. Er, I guess I should thank you, Chip, but the comments on the BBC article are even more idiotic than the Troofers here.

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/24/2007 @ 3:24 pm

264. If there is any ‘conspiracy’ to consider it is how John Kerry, while a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, managed to miss all four public hearings they had in 1994 when several people testified about the 1st attack on the WTC that happened late 1993. I know that all the hijackers are dead but I still do not know where Kerry was for those hearings? What is he hiding from us?

     Comment by Mike M. — 8/24/2007 @ 3:24 pm

265. People. Please come to your senses. Nobody seems to want to hear what I am actually saying. It should not be up to US to sort this out on a blog. If you agree that the official report is inadequate, and I haven’t heard anyone say anything to the contrary, all I am saying is that we have the right to ask for a report that explains everything properly, without bias and goes much deeper into the issues than hitherto been the case.

     As long as the status quo remains, so will the “Troofers”. If people want the Troofers on this issue to go away, (and I’m not saying every person that believes in every conspiracy is right), isn’t it high time for more people to join together and demanded reopening the investigation? The longer it goes on the harder it will be to convince the neutrals that all is well.

     And if you really do think that the official 911 report explains everything and leaves no doubt, that is something I just do not agree with.

     Comment by ghosttown — 8/24/2007 @ 3:24 pm

266. No ghosttown, it is NOT worth reopening the investigation. It is as complete as it should be and was conducted with adequate care. Why don’t you call for reopening the investigations of the first WTC attack in 1993, or the embassy bombings in Africa, or the Bali bombing, or the attack on the USS Cole, or the apartment complex in SA, or how about all the way back to Munich in 1976? Were all the investigations of those a bunch of conspiracies as well?

     Comment by Mike M. — 8/24/2007 @ 3:35 pm

267. #263

     The scary thing is these whacked-out Troofers make your typical BDS sufferer appear almost sane in comparison.

     Comment by Chip — 8/24/2007 @ 3:44 pm

268. HA! I’m outta here; good luck with the ‘klingon’!

     Comment by Mike M. — 8/24/2007 @ 3:45 pm

269. Good. Thanks Mike. I have stated my opinion and you have stated yours. You say that the report is as complete as it could be. I think that it is not as complete as it SHOULD be. I also think 911 on its own is sufficiently large without bringing any other issue into it whatever it might be.

     I will say one thing and that is that a very substantial number of people (about 30% of US population) believe that the government was involved in some way. That is a very large number of people.

     I guess time will tell because things like this always come out in the end, one way or the other.

     Comment by ghosttown — 8/24/2007 @ 3:45 pm

270. ghost, are you going to address those points, or are you going to pretend you never said them?

     Comment by TomB — 8/24/2007 @ 3:49 pm

271. TomB. Why not focus your fervent energies on getting the truth from those who know what it is i.e. the government. All I’m doing is asking the questions and refusing to accept the half-baked answers people on this blog insist on coming up with in defense of some well-meaning idiosyncrasy that all is well. Neither will I accept a report that leaves more questions than it answers.

     Comment by ghosttown — 8/24/2007 @ 3:57 pm

272. #269

     I will say one thing and that is that a very substantial number of people (about 30% of US population) believe that the government was involved in some way. That is a very large number of people.

     Time to check the facts (again). Please point us to a scientific survey, conducted by a credible pollster, not an open internet survey, which cites this ~30% number.

     By the way, even if a majority of people believe the U.S. government was complicit in 9/11 (LIHOP or MIHOP, it matters not), that doesn’t make it true. An “appeal to consensus” is one of the more common logical fallacies which people get caught up in.

     Oh, and still waiting for your reply to #248.

     Comment by Chip — 8/24/2007 @ 3:57 pm

273. Chip. You’re awake again. You keep dosing off, miss a lot and come back saying, what happened. Don’t worry, go back to sleep, nothing to worry about.

     Comment by ghosttown — 8/24/2007 @ 4:00 pm

274. Miss Poison Thang -

     Why do you keep asking questions if your mind is already made up and you’re not going to listen to the answers?

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/24/2007 @ 4:07 pm

275. #274

     Sure, when one can’t back up their assertions with facts, just keep resorting to the same diversionary tactics and hope nobody notices.

     Comment by Chip — 8/24/2007 @ 4:11 pm

276. Frankie. You’ve come back also. Why do I keep asking questions? Now that is a question. You should try it, perhaps it is what you have been lacking.

     By the way, are you saying that your mind is not made up? Mine is made up to the extent that I don’t agree that the 911 official report is adequate. What do you think? Mike was clear. He bought the whole thing and even went for the T-Shirt. How about you?

     Comment by ghosttown — 8/24/2007 @ 4:11 pm

277. Oh come come now Chip. Where is your sense of sport. Obviously my diversionary tactics were not as good as thought they were. You’ve caught me out.

     Anyway people. It might be 4:11pm where you are but it’s 22:14 where I am and as such it is way passed my bed time.

     So I bid you good night and I would like to sign off by saying that I hope people were not too offended or angered by my posts.

     Wish you all well on your travels.

     Comment by ghosttown — 8/24/2007 @ 4:16 pm

278. OK, I’ll repeat the questions that I have asked and that you have evaded, Miss Poison Thang:

     1) What are the names of the alleged living 9/11 hijackers?

     2) Why do you assume that a high-resolution image or video for the plane hitting the Pentagon is in existence?

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/24/2007 @ 4:17 pm

279. Zzzzzzzzz

     Comment by ghosttown — 8/24/2007 @ 4:17 pm

280. TomB. Why not focus your fervent energies on getting the truth from those who know what it is i.e. the government. All I’m doing is asking the questions and refusing to accept the half-baked answers people on this blog insist on coming up with in defense of some well-meaning idiosyncrasy that all is well.

     You are posting completely false statements as fact in the guise of “asking questions”.

     You said:

     What about Bush’s brother being in charge of security until the final day when the contract ended?

     Are you saying that is a factual statement?

     Comment by TomB — 8/24/2007 @ 4:20 pm

281. #278

     Hardly feeling offended at all here; pity is more like it.

     Game, set, match.

     Comment by Chip — 8/24/2007 @ 4:23 pm

282. A new record for the number of comments on a RWNH post.

     Comment by Chip — 8/24/2007 @ 4:26 pm

283. ghosttown pick a number:

     Frank IBC, TomB, Mike M., many others, and I have all provided detailed, referenced, math-based explanations as to why it is entirely reasonable to conclude that the impact of the planes was sufficient to cause the collapse of the Towers. An understanding of engineering and building design standards are all that is necessary to deduce that.

     You and others have asked a few not utterly unreasonable questions (e.g. why did they fall down in 10 seconds once they collapse began?) if one assumes that you have not even the most basic understanding of some fundamental physical concepts.

     Fair enough, not everyone is smart enough or industrious enough or interested enough to complete the multiple years of education and training necessary to make an informed assessment of an engineering question. Not fair enough is that you who know so very little except dismiss educated responses out of hand without making any attempt to address the reasoning behind the responses. That is bad enough.

     Much worse is that your “argument” for why the “plane impacts followed by progressive collapse initiated by accumulated fire damage” explanation is inadequate eventually boils down to speculation, innuendo, and gossipy bumpf about individual and governmental motives.

     Motives have nothing to do with whether the plane impact explanation is feasible.

     You can fling opinion and assertion and obfuscation and misdirection all the live long day, but none of you can hold up your end in a fact and evidence based debate. The best you seem to be able to hope for is that your opponents become bored enough with your bad faith that they leave the field.

     The planes did hit the Towers. The Towers did burn. In the calculation of independent people educated and trained in the disciplines necessary to comprehend the mechanics of the collapse, these two things are sufficient to result in that collapse.

     In the opinion of your hero, an 18-year old high school graduate, the collapse seems suspect.

     Perhaps you can get him to design your next home given your faith in his knowledge and abilities.

     So that I don’t leave without addressing at least one of your group’s physical claims I provide the following two experiments:

     Obtain a pixie stik. Hold it in a vertical orientation (i.e. like an “l” not like a “-”) a few inches above a flat table. Cut the bottom off so that the pixie dust falls out. Is the diameter of the pile of pixie dust on the table smaller, the same, or larger than the diameter of the original pixie stik?

     Obtain a rock and a folding ladder (as opposed to an extension ladder). The rock should be small enough to hold comfortably. Install the ladder on a driveway (the ladder should look “A”-ish from the side). Climb the ladder with your rock. WITHOUT INJURING YOUR FOOL SELF (if you can manage that), hurl the rock at the driveway. What happens to the rock? Repeat with a comfortably sized piece of steel.

     Comment by Troll feeder — 8/24/2007 @ 5:12 pm

284. We all need to take a deep breath, I think.

     First of all, the 911 Commission Report is every bit as much a “conspiracy theory”, so all of comments on History Channel about the psychological problems of people who believe in “conspiracy theories” apply to government too, by definition.

     Secondly, an investigation of WHAT EXACTLY CAUSED the towers to fall on their own footprints has NOT been done. It is perfectly valid, sane, and patriotic to ask HOW DID A FIRE CAUSE THE ENTIRE BUILDIDNG TO COLLAPSE IN LESS THAN 10 SECONDS ON IT’S OWN FOOTPRINT.

     If can’t stand the gaul of people who dare to ask valid questions, if all you can do in response is “ad hominem” attacks, maybe you have fallen prey to the “my country right or wrong” mentality. If so, then you wouldn’t believe our government was involved even if it were proven.

     The towers fell at the rate of about 10 floors per second, collapsing on their own footprints… but you can’t believe your lying eyes, can you?

     Comment by DJ — 8/24/2007 @ 8:21 pm

285. I almost forgot…a leading firefighters’ trade publication ‘Fire Engineering’ said this:

     “Clearly, there are burning questions that need answers. Based on the incident’s magnitude alone, a full-throttle, fully resourced, forensic investigation is imperative. More important, from a moral standpoint, for the safety of present and future generations who live and work in tall buildings-and for firefighters, always first in and last out-the lessons about the buildings’ design and behavior in this extraordinary event must be learned and applied in the real world.

     To treat the September 11 incident any differently would be the height of stupidity and ignorance.”

     “Firefighters, this is your call to action. Visit WTC “Investigation”?: A Call to Action, then contact your representatives in Congress and officials in Washington and help us correct this problem immediately.”

     Comment by DJ — 8/24/2007 @ 8:46 pm

286. p.s., the editors at Fire Engineering can’t be dismissed as 18-year-olds. But even if they were 18, that wouldn’t automatically make their arguments wrong, would it?

     Stop attacking straw men and shooting the messengers… it’s not working.

     Comment by DJ — 8/24/2007 @ 8:54 pm

287. We all need to take a deep breath, I think.

     I’m breathing fine, thank you.

     First of all, the 911 Commission Report is every bit as much a “conspiracy theory”,

     You are correct. I delineates a conspiracy of a few dozen men, in multiple countries getting together to plan and execute an attack on the US. The difference between this conspiracy and the “other” one is that we have ample proof of this one. Video of planes hitting the WTCs, documents left behind from the hijackers, debris, human remains, and, of course, a confession from OBL.

     Secondly, an investigation of WHAT EXACTLY CAUSED the towers to fall on their own footprints has NOT been done.

     I read the report, and found it easy to read and understand. If you cannot wrap your mind around a fully fueled airliner hitting a tower, ripping into multiple floors, exposing the structural steel, causing an inferno that weakened the steel, and then causing the area to fail; I can’t help you.

     It is perfectly valid, sane, and patriotic to ask HOW DID A FIRE CAUSE THE ENTIRE BUILDIDNG TO COLLAPSE IN LESS THAN 10 SECONDS ON IT’S OWN FOOTPRINT.

     Can we go easy on the CAPS? It just makes you look silly.

     If it collapsed “in its own footprint”, what hit WTC7?

     If can’t stand the gaul of people who dare to ask valid questions, if all you can do in response is “ad hominem” attacks, maybe you have fallen prey to the “my country right or wrong” mentality. If so, then you wouldn’t believe our government was involved even if it were proven.

     Are these an example of “valid” questions/statements?

     1.The Twin Towers were evacuated for a FULL WEEKEND prior to 9/11.

     2.And Bush’s brother and cousin were in charge of security at WTC.

     3.an uncontrolled fire alone doesn’t melt steel

     4.What’s your evidence of fires capable of weakening steel?

     5.Why are at least 6 of the hijackers still known to be alive and well?

     6.What can possibly be so secretive about a plane hitting the Pentagon?

     ___________________________

     I can post more if you want when I get up tomorrow morning, but that pretty much makes my case. The statements are all demonstrably false, and do absolutely nothing to futher inquiry.

     The towers fell at the rate of about 10 floors per second, collapsing on their own footprints… but you can’t believe your lying eyes, can you?

     Now it sounds like you need to take a breath.

     Comment by TomB — 8/24/2007 @ 9:03 pm

288. I almost forgot…a leading firefighters’ trade publication ‘Fire Engineering’ said this:

     Could you tell me what issue this is from please?

     Comment by TomB — 8/24/2007 @ 9:09 pm

289. From your post:

     always first in and last out-the lessons about the buildings’ design and behavior in this extraordinary event must be learned and applied in the real world.

     Sounds like they accept what they saw and want to know exactly it was with the building’s design that caused it to collapse. Nowhere do I see anthing remotely suggesting a conspiracy in that comment.

     Comment by TomB — 8/24/2007 @ 9:17 pm

290. http://www.fireengineering.com/articles/article_display.html?id=131225

     Here are a few sober minded scholars writing peer-reviewed articles:
     http://www.journalof911studies.com/

     I hope you don’t reply with a barrage of ad hominem attacks… that won’t bring you any closer to the truth… that’s all I have to say.

     Comment by DJ — 8/24/2007 @ 10:19 pm

291. DJ, I read the two articles, and there is absolutely nothing in them that has anything to do with your conspiracy theory. They were urging (the articles were written on 4 months after the attacks) an investigation into the construction of the buildings and their fireproofing:

     The frequency of published and unpublished reports raising questions about the steel fireproofing and other fire protection elements in the buildings, as well as their design and construction, is on the rise. The builders and owners of the World Trade Center property, the Port Authority of New York-New Jersey, a governmental agency that operates in an accountability vacuum beyond the reach of local fire and building codes, has denied charges that the buildings’ fire protection or construction components were substandard but has refused to cooperate with requests for documentation supporting its contentions.

     Pretty cut-and-dried.

     Now, will you please answer my question?

     Comment by TomB — 8/25/2007 @ 5:24 am

292. BTW, how do you know the people in the link you provided are “sober minded scholars”?

     Comment by TomB — 8/25/2007 @ 5:27 am

293. Well, now that I’ve had a chance to peruse the Fire Engineering website, I cannot find even one mention of a 9-11 conspiracy. I read numerous articles about 9-11 and the WTC, and they mostly all discuss problems with building design, fireproofing, firefighting protocols, etc.

     Absolutely no mention of a conspiracy, yet you posted the link as some sort of proof. Are you being disingenuous, or did you just parrot the link from some other site with reading the entire article?

     Comment by TomB — 8/25/2007 @ 10:05 am

294. Hah… the Fire Engineering article is dated January 2002, just 4 months after 9/11.

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/25/2007 @ 1:08 pm

295. What a great discussion we’re having. To everyone who thinks there’s nothing suspicious about 9/11, who thinks the official conspiracy theory is true, just remember: you don’t want to be the last one shouting, “the world is flat!” I’ve heard that 30% figure all over, I think Newsweak even said 30% is a lot of Americans. And the number seems to be growing.

     I think about half the people haven’t even heard about the controversy. I’m doing my part to spread the word.

     In the small town I’m in, most of my friends say, of course the government had a hand in it. The redneck religious other half seems reluctant to think about it. The grocery store/ movie rental place owner didn’t want any 9/11 DVDs when I offered, but the library now has them. I wrote a letter to the editor, opened a few minds I think.

     To all you engineers, take a look at ae911truth.org - Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth. They have a great program where they take architects to lunch with an hour-long powerpoint presentation on the towers’ demolition. Afterwards, about 90% agree that they were controlled demolitions, and 70%-80% sign their petition calling for an independent investigation.

     Let’s think about this with open minds, look at the big picture. I tried to convince people from a technical point of view, which is futile I see. But consider all the events of that day, all the parts of the story that are wrong, inconsistent, violate physics, are covered up. Why did Cheney stop our air defense? Why was it running so many exercises of hijacked planes and buildings? Why was there no plane in PA? Why did Silverstein “pull it”? - not the firefighters, there were never any firefighters in bldg7. Why were gas station and hotel security cameras at the Pentagon confiscated within minutes? Why were there no large airplane parts there? Why does that hole look like a missle hit? Why would buildings explode? Why do so many survivors speak of explosions?

     I’ve heard many people insist that our government wouldn’t kill its own people. People are expendable when you’re at the top of the money/power pyramid. 9/11 served so many purposes: they needed a war, they needed to scare us, they needed oil, they needed legitimacy. (Why do a president’s ratings go up after an attack? He failed us, shouldn’t they go down?)

     A big part of the reason I try to educate people is that another one is coming. It may be soon, it may be years, but let’s recognize it when it happens. It’d be great to get a full independent review of 9/11, until then let’s spread the word however we can.

     Comment by Hans — 8/25/2007 @ 2:25 pm

296. Troll feeder says “I’m just so used to materials taking on the temperature of their surroundings that I simply assumed that steel hanging out in a 1000 deg F fire for an hour would approach that temperature itself.”

     Sorry, but you keep digging a hole. The temperature of the steel was tested by NIST and only 2 percent reached temperatures over 250 degrees. Moreover, there is no reason to conclude that the fires in the towers reached 1100 degrees, much less that steel components that are protected with fireproofing.

     Comment by Eric Wilds — 8/25/2007 @ 9:37 pm

297. Aug 21 - James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of NIST, has called for an independent review of NIST’s investigation into the collapses of the World Trade Center Towers on 9/11.

     “I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,” explained Dr. Quintiere. “Let’s look at real alternatives that might have been the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Towers and how that relates to the official cause and what’s the significance of one cause versus another.”

     Also a question I forgot in my list above: Why were none of the hijackers on the airline passenger lists?

     Comment by Hans — 8/25/2007 @ 11:32 pm

298. Hans, you’ve lied about so many things on this thread (i.e. Marvin Bush was in charge of security for the WTC, fire can’t weaken steel, fires that remained after the impact were pretty small and localized, our air defense system was ordered to stand down) why should anybody believe anything you write?

     Comment by TomB — 8/26/2007 @ 12:57 pm

299. Isn’t it amazing how they can ask the same questions, repeatedly, over the course of six years, and pretend like they’ve never even once been informed of the answers? Even on a thread such as this where they are answered MULTIPLE TIMES IN A SINGLE DAY?

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/26/2007 @ 1:48 pm

300. Frank, I spent many hours debating Moon Hoax believers (call me a masochist), and the tactics of the two are almost identical. Ask a question (usually under the guise of “just asking” or “keeping an open mind), have it answered, and then, instead of replying, they just change the subject and ask other questions or make other statements. If you look, that is exactly what is done on this thread.

     What really makes me mad is the stuff like “Bush’s brother was head of security etc.” Now that is a complete lie, and one that has been answered many times, yet Hans mentions it like it was handed to him by God. What kind of person would read a fact like that, and then NOT further reseach the subject before parroting it elsewhere? If for no other reason than to not look like a complete horses’s ass.

     Comment by TomB — 8/26/2007 @ 2:06 pm

301. #286, #291

     In no way, shape or form does the Fire Engineering article “prove” the WTC buildings were taken down by controlled demolition. At least Bill Manning remains credible by detailing his questions, but does not use answers he finds unsatisfactory as a basis for asserting wild conspiracy theories.

     There’s nothing sober minded about so-called scholars who begin with the conclusion and then summarily go about the task of cherry-picking, misconstruing and outright fabricating evidence, fallaciously making use of innuendo and playing to people’s emotions (instead of their intellect) every step of the way.

     Besides, if these Troofers can’t even present their relevant facts and circumstantial evidence accurately/truthfully, then how can they be relied upon to make a cogent and credible analysis?

     If the likes of Griffin and the two Jones have to make a living off such scams, thankfully they’re selling books, tapes and DVDs to their gullible minions instead of their professional services in the arenas of academia, engineering/design/constrcution and public policy.

     Comment by Chip — 8/26/2007 @ 2:13 pm

302. Here’s another stupefying example. Hans quotes a expert as somehow supporting the conspiracy:

     “I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable,” explained Dr. Quintiere.

     Notice how he doesn’t go any further explaining exactly what the Doctor found “questionable”? That’s because it has absolutely nothing to do with a conspiracy. Here Dr. Quintiere elaborates:

     But some experts remain unconvinced by the study’s conclusions. James Quintiere, of the University of Maryland, US, says he does not understand how fireproof insulation could have been dislodged from the buildings’ floors and columns.

     “Everything I see points to the fact that there may not have been enough insulation,” he told New Scientist, adding that the fuel loads used in the report’s calculations may have been too low.

     Hans, did you really thing we wouldn’t check? How many more things are you going to make up? Or, alternatively, you better find another conspiracy website from which to take your “facts”.

     Comment by TomB — 8/26/2007 @ 2:14 pm

303. #301

     It’s incomprehensible these people can quietly accept this LIHOP/MIHOP garbage, much less parrot it all over the internet seemingly without a thought, but then again we have seen many examples over the years (Jones, Bakker, Applewhite, Robertson) of how a deep desire to believe and belong can be very easily manipulated by clever, convincing, charismatic people who claim to have the best interests of others at heart.

     If not for the easy accessibility and visual power of the internet, which enabled a small cottage industry to be developed around a highly cynical and disaffected niche market, the Troofers would be nothing more than an insignificant handful of hysterical cultists.

     Comment by Chip — 8/26/2007 @ 2:39 pm

304. It’s incomprehensible these people can quietly accept this LIHOP/MIHOP garbage, much less parrot it all over the internet seemingly without a thought,

     As I was spending my 2 minutes “researching” the Dr. Quintiere quote, I came across numerous websites that had the exact wording, some even used the same title. In another case, a person posted the entire article, including the part where he states his questions come not from conspiracy, but from fireproofing, and he doesn’t even notice.

     I don’t think it’s willful ignorance, I think they’re intellectually lazy. But at some point it must become willful.

     Comment by TomB — 8/26/2007 @ 2:51 pm

305. Another nail in Hans’ coffin:

     “Although Dr. Quintiere was strongly critical of NIST’s conclusions and its investigatory process, he made it clear he was not a supporter of theories that the Twin Towers were brought down by pre-planted explosives. “If you go to World Trade Center One, nine minutes before its collapse, there was a line of smoke that puffed out. This is one of the basis of the ‘conspiracy theories’ that says the smoke puffing out all around the building is due to somebody setting off an explosive charge. Well, I think, more likely, it’s one of the floors falling down.”

     So Hans, are you going to change your mind about explosives bringing down the towers now that your expert tells you so?

     Comment by TomB — 8/26/2007 @ 2:57 pm

306. As far as secrets go, didn’t they build a complete functional city to test the A-Bomb on? I think I saw that on the history channel. And that involved thousands of people. Way more people knew about that, which indefinitely happened, than the paltry amount of people involved in the alleged 9/11 conspiracy. Both sides need to look at the incident objectively and try and attack things from the other group’s point of view to create a convincing argument.

     The “truthers” seem too passionate and come up with theories that seem easy to debunk; however, the “experts” would rather say that their conspiracies are completely nonsense, even when addressing the theories.

     Watergate, Deep Throat, the Manhattan Project and numerous other things were kept secret until someone eventually talked or simply slipped up. Think about it, what if just 1 goverment employee said their was one ounce of validity in this? How would you react?

     Comment by Jimmy — 8/26/2007 @ 3:13 pm

307. As far as secrets go, didn’t they build a complete functional city to test the A-Bomb on? I think I saw that on the history channel.

     No Jimmy, that would be Los Alamos, the “city” where they built the bomb.

     Watergate, Deep Throat, the Manhattan Project and numerous other things were kept secret until someone eventually talked or simply slipped up.

     Deep Throat was Watergate, he was the one who talked. And it broke not long after it happened.

     And as far as the Manhattan Project goes, when Truman was at Potsdam, he was informed of the successful Trinity test. As a courtesy, he told both Churchill and Stalin. Stalin did not react. He had been informed of the successful test by his spies before Truman!

     So much for government secrets in a (relatively) free society.

     Comment by TomB — 8/26/2007 @ 3:31 pm

308. I am torn by the showing of the documentary on the History Channel.

     First of all, I think 2 hours in prime time was WAY too much time to devote to a fringe group in order to give their side of an event that is devoid of any real evidence and is fueled instead by government distrust and borderline delusion.

     A lot of incidences by the conspirasts were described as being “impossible”, “improbable”, “not likely”, but with absolutely no evidence to support these claims.

     On the other hand, it was extremely humorous to me to see the facts of that horrible day being discussed by these people. On one hand you had the conspiracy theorists who were credited on the show as being:

     -Three 20-something college students with no apparent experience in structural engineering, demoliton, aviation, crash science, NORAD, air defense, etc.

     -A former religion professor

     -A radio talk show host

     -A truck driver

     -A nurse

     -Several people whose credentials were never shown.

     On the other hand, you had people refuting the claims that included:

     -A demolition expert

     -Two structural engineers, some of the best in the coutnry

     -Air National Guard pilot

     -Air traffic controller

     WITNESSES including emergency workers and ordinary citizens who were there and saw what happened.

     Who would YOU believe???

     To the conspiracy buffs, does this make ME part of the conspiracy?

     I would like, instead, for you 9/11 conspiracy theorists to instead focus on the nefarious government agencies that are conspiring to keep the Cardinals from ever getting to a Super Bowl.

     My two cents worth. Let the attacks begin. Goodbye, everyone.

     Comment by Steve from Phoenix — 8/26/2007 @ 8:22 pm

309. War is peace in many peoples eyes, ignorance is strength, Freedom is slavery. Stop been blind 2 da facts stop been hoodwinked! Wake up b4 it’s 2 late.
     How sad that most men, by their cowardly silence, become secret collaborators, acquiescing in their own enslavement.
     Those who do not examine the different aspects of the conspiracy will remain incapable of understanding the world… Our rulers want us to believe that a lack of historical knowledge and ignorance about the secrets of nature constitutes true knowledge.
     Ignorance, while not the inventors of evil things, nevertheless are accomplices and contributors to evil. “Not been aware of these facts, is in itself an evil because ignorance serves evil.”

     Comment by LiQuiDuRaNiuM — 8/26/2007 @ 11:10 pm

310. War is peace in many peoples eyes, ignorance is strength, Freedom is slavery.

     Fire can’t weaken steel.

     We’ve already heard it.

     Comment by TomB — 8/27/2007 @ 5:21 am

311. #310

     Troofers are the ones who have been hoodwinked. Every one of these 9/11 conspiracy web sites has something to sell, and there are lots of things for sale at the 9/11 “truth” conventions and conferences, where the authors/producers also openly and shamelessly shill for themselves and the latest repackaging of their book, DVD or tape. Ignorance stemming from a lack of curiosity, perceptiveness, objectivity and critical thinking is one thing, but knowingly/willingly financing the sources of it has to be the pinnacle.

     Comment by Chip — 8/27/2007 @ 7:52 am

312. Stop been blind 2 da facts stop been hoodwinked! Wake up b4 it’s 2 late

     Grow up already, and get an education.

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/27/2007 @ 8:18 am

313. Eric Wilds 297:

     “blah blah…temperature of the steel was tested and only 2% reached temperatures over 250 degrees …. blah blah”

     Reference, perhaps?

     How, exactly, does one test steel to determine that it has been heated to 250 degrees? Are you talking, perhaps, of 250 deg C, so that some tempering color might just barely be detectable?

     Aside from the time-traveling steel temperature testing device, how, exactly, did they determine where the steel they tested had come from? 2% of the structural steel in the building is grossly all the structural steel in two floors, by the by. How much steel do you think needed to fail in order to initiate a progressive collapse? All of it in the entire building? Or maybe just some of it on one floor?

     Fire proofing coatings reduce the rate of heat gain, they do not eliminate it. Most of the current ones are applied like thick paint and are fairly brittle (i.e. subject to impact damage). I don’t know what was used in the construction of the Towers back in the early 70’s, but I would expect it to be generally less effective than what is available today. Though the environmentalists have made some significant in-roads in their on-going drive to regress our technical capabilities, so, who knows?

     The impact of the planes would have caused some damage to the coatings, exposing some steel to the ambient temperatures. However, even assuming that the impacts did no damage whatsoever, one would expect a level of heat gain by perfectly coated steel members exposed to fire to be in the range shown on page six of this file http://www.unitherm-online.com/produkte/pdfs/unitherm2003_en.pdf, a flyer for a modern fire protection coating sold by DuPont.

     After one hour of exposure, steel sporting an undamaged coating of DuPont’s modern fire proofing material hits 350 deg C (662 deg F) in a cold-start, 1650 deg F oven.

     I suppose that I am expected to believe that perfect laboratory conditions held for the steel coatings after the Towers were hit by 400+ mph, 200,000+ lb aircraft-shaped hammers.

     The reason to conclude that the fires reached temperatures in excess of 1100 deg F is that room fires regularly exceed those temperatures. Regardless, In my original post on this topic, I stated that the fire temperature estimates I used were from others, and all were above 1000 deg F. Most estimates have been between 1200 deg F and 1800 deg F. You might note that the temperature cases used in App M of the NIST report are between 1230 and 1273 deg K (1754 and 1832 deg F).

     Comment by Troll feeder — 8/27/2007 @ 1:38 pm

314. The prison planet article you linked to in this article was written BEFORE the program aired… that’s why it didn’t attack the program based on its facts. There is now an article on the site that DOES attack the errors and distortions from the program itself, and it is demonstrative and undeniable.

     You people here really do belong in a nuthouse. Enjoy your police state…

     Comment by Sean — 8/27/2007 @ 4:39 pm

315. There is now an article on the site that DOES attack the errors and distortions from the program itself, and it is demonstrative and undeniable.
     

     Yep, just like all the CT “evidence” on this thread.

     Which version of Loose Change are they up to now? I recall people telling me their first version was “demonstrative and undeniable”.

     Heh.

     Guess not.

     You people here really do belong in a nuthouse. Enjoy your police state…

     I don’t live in Canada.

     Comment by TomB — 8/27/2007 @ 6:28 pm

316. You people here really do belong in a nuthouse. Enjoy your police state…

     Says the person whose debilitating levels of paranoia preclude them from thinking clearly/rationally/logically.

     Comment by Chip — 8/27/2007 @ 6:34 pm

317. The same arguments, the same positions and no one listening or even considering anyone else’s point of view.

     There are aspects to the truthers point of view that is pointless and paranoid. There is a blindness and refusal to think of anything but the ‘party line’ in the right-wingers point of view.

     That there has never been a truly useful or complete investigation into all the aspects of the 9/11 events is the biggest problem. Anyone who disagrees with the official line is a ‘truther’ or a conspiracy nut. As time progresses more and more questions have been raised that have never been asked or truly answered.

     Instead of stifling debate why not try answering each part of this puzzle intelligently and as completely as possible.

     I am an architect, I have worked on large multi-story buildings in steel. The tallest was only 67 stories so I cannot compare to the twin towers, but 67 is still tall enough to know the math. I have extensive experience in the curtain-wall construction methodologies and I have questions. Unlike the mechanical engineer of a previous post, I was very surprised when both buildings collapsed. Modern structures are not supposed to do that.

     Until both ’sides’ start and maintain a rational discourse on what happened and the many issues as yet unresolved, nothing will be accomplished.

     Comment by CMM — 8/28/2007 @ 5:27 pm

318. The same arguments, the same positions and no one listening or even considering anyone else’s point of view.

     Oh, I’ve listened to the “other” point of view, and I categorically reject it. There is absolutely no way that it would be possible to wire three skyscrapers, two of them 110 stories, to collapse as they did. It would also be impossible for the charges immediately below the site of impact, if they had been able to place them, to survive the intital explosion and properly detonate. It would further be impossible to know where to detonate the charges starting at the floor below the impact, because they didn’t know exactly where the planes were going to crash.

     The theory is completely and utterly impossible. And I have yet to see one person even try to put all the pieces together. All I get is what I got in this thread, lies. “Bush’s brother was head of security!” “They closed down and evacuated both towers the weekend before!”

     Instead of stifling debate why not try answering each part of this puzzle intelligently and as completely as possible.

     Which “part of the puzzle” do you think needs answering?

     Comment by TomB — 8/28/2007 @ 7:23 pm

319. With time, temperature and force you can eventually destroy a diamond, and there’s the rub. With the WTC collapse we had all three effects in place but none in sufficient ratios to effect what had occurred as quickly as it occurred. Now the steel alone did not hold up the towers, they are an intrinsic part of the structure but not the only part. We have 3 major elements in large buildings of this style. A solid central core, normally the elevator/stairwell centers. Extending from this core are the concrete floor slabs. these reinforced slabs are tied into this central column (and yes I am simplifying the column concept for all the non-structural types) with reinforcing rods buried within the concrete. Below these slabs are the steel joists, either solid or open web steel joists. These are connected to each other and to the concrete core. Now as for welds failing I am sure it would take little effort for the most dogmatic amongst you to find a welder who will tell you how often a weld fails before the surrounding steel fails. The answer is rarely. Except for especially poor welds you have multiple layers of steel joined together as a cohesive whole that tends to be stronger than the surrounding steel. Now the core, the slabs and the joists are given an additional stiffness in the case of the WTC by the vertical reinforcing stiffeners, those silver bars that ran vertically up the faces. Each part of the building works in conjunction with the other to form a structurally sound building.

     All the discussions on the failure of the structures focuses only on one aspect of the structure while ignoring the cohesive nature of a building. If I drive a truck through one wall of your house it does not collapse the whole structure. You will need extensive restoration but, and finding pics of this on the net is easy enough, that gaping hole will exist while your house still stands. The reason for this is the cohesive nature of a structure. No one part is responsible for the support of the entirety.

     That some joists failed does not explain why the slab, slab reinforcing, core, stiffeners and remaining joists also failed and all at the same time. If there is another architect, structural engineer or physicist who can correct me then I would be most willing to hear it.

     To collapse a building in a precise and exact way requires weeks or months of planning and weeks of installation. However, if you are not quite so interested in the exact nature of a drop it can be done much more quickly and easily. If I was to drop a large building that was already under stress I would simply place a very large amount of high explosives in an elevator shaft and shatter the core. It is inelegant, clumsy and poorly done but it would cause a massive failure. The shattering of the core would allow the floors to drop and, as someone said before, gravity, gravity, gravity.

     Without shattering the core what we should have seen were two giant columns left standing once the floors sheared off, the stiffeners failed and the whole thing dropped.

     Sadly I do not see some great international conspiracy, some collection of genius that embodies true evil. I see something far more banal, basic and in that, depressing. I see a series of actions taken for nothing more than the accumulation of wealth and power. I see people making decisions ‘for our own good’ whether they are or not only history shall prove. And before you dismiss my reasoning please consider. Every day we hear of some poor soul killed for the sad contents of his wallet. $10, $20, hell 50 cents isn’t just a vague nickname. If we know people will kill for so little why would we doubt they will do it for billions.

     The part of the puzzle that needs answering is how, in direct contradiction to all modern structural concepts did three buildings collapse with such rapidity when we know from the design of them that they should not have. Why are there so many discrepancies in all the stories on all the parts of this horror. Why is no one willing to really listen or consider.

     Comment by CMM — 8/29/2007 @ 12:15 am

320. If I drive a truck through one wall of your house it does not collapse the whole structure.

     Once again, we’re back to unwarranted assumptions.

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/29/2007 @ 11:03 am

321. To collapse a building in a precise and exact way requires weeks or months of planning and weeks of installation. However, if you are not quite so interested in the exact nature of a drop it can be done much more quickly and easily. If I was to drop a large building that was already under stress I would simply place a very large amount of high explosives in an elevator shaft and shatter the core. It is inelegant, clumsy and poorly done but it would cause a massive failure. The shattering of the core would allow the floors to drop and, as someone said before, gravity, gravity, gravity.

     Uh, I hate to break it to you, but you just argued against a conspiracy and for what actually happened. Those planes, travelling at 500 mph packed with tons of fuel, are exactly what you described. A bomb shattering the core of the buinding.

     Comment by TomB — 8/29/2007 @ 11:04 am

322. If we know people will kill for so little why would we doubt they will do it for billions.

     This same stupid argument has occured dozens of times throughout this thread. Saying “people are bad” or “leaders are power-hungry” is not the same as providing evidence to support the Troofers’ wacky theories.

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/29/2007 @ 11:06 am

323. CMM 318 and 320: The Towers were not of curtain wall construction. The perimeter walls were integral, structural, load-carrying components of the buildings.

     The core columns of the Towers were steel, not concrete, and they did not form a solid, 80 x 130 foot stick running up the center of the buildings. The core columns were each composed of 47 separate but connected steel box members and hot rolled sections. Like Hans, you seem to think that the core columns were somehow indestructible even though they were made of materials without mystical properties. Neither one of you has explained why this should be.

     The total, safe, uniformly distributed, ASD load for a 60-foot LH-series steel joists range from 232 plf to over 800 plf. I don’t know what joists were used in the Towers, nor what the safe load was for those joists, but it would be unlikely for the number to be outside that range.

     The joists were on 80-inch centers. An 80-inch wide, 4-inch thick section of concrete weighs 200+ pounds per linear foot (plf), exclusive of the steel floor pan. One joist failing doubles the load on the adjacent joists, with the added load coming in eccentrically. At some point, after relatively few joists have failed, the adjacent joists fail as well.

     See 184 for additional discussion of a feasible, mathematically-supported explanation of floor, joist, and column failure.

     That explanation makes sense, and fits the existing evidence.

     Of course, explosives that not only are located at exactly the floors where the airplanes crashed, but that also managed to survive those crashes could also be to blame. You have neither shown that such explosives would have been required, nor any testable evidence that they existed.

     You might as well claim that Dick Cheney and his undocumented space immigrant friends knocked the buildings down with their evil-eye death rays.

     We have provided an engineering-based, generally testable explanation of the failures that is reasonable, logical, and in compliance with the known facts (building construction, material strengths, airplane impacts).

     You keep ignoring nearly all such explanations, and instead insist on logic similar to the following:

     1. I think Johnny is a cheater.
     2. Johnny made an A on the science test
     3. Therefore, Johnny cheated on the science test! Wake up, sheeple! It’s staring you right in the face!!!

     To spell it out for you, substitute “government” for “Johnny,” “building failures” for “science test,” and “blew them up theyownselves” for “cheat,” and you arrive at your argument. Oh, and “engaged in blind, hate-filled, fact-deficient partisanship” for “think.”

     This is an example of begging the question. Among other things.

     Great example of how, if you know the answer before you do the “research,” the final report is really a lot easier to write.

     Comment by Troll feeder — 8/29/2007 @ 11:14 am

324. If I drive a truck through one wall of your house it does not collapse the whole structure.

     The typical house these days is a one story frame house The WTC was 110 stories. The weight of a 1-story frame house will not trigger collapse in the same way that it will happen in a high-rise. Also, the wooden structure will tend to flex and absorb some of the energy without shattering - although the structure will likely be horribly distorted afterwards. On the other hand, the typical 3 to 6 story masonry and wood urban townhouse would likely shatter and collapse as a result of being hit by a truck.

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/29/2007 @ 11:17 am

325. On the other hand, both a 1 story wood frame house and a 3 to 6 story masonry and wood townhouse would very quickly burn to the ground if diesel fuel from the truck spilled and ignited.

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/29/2007 @ 11:21 am

326. Many witnesses described the sound of the collapse as “thunder”.

     Therefore the towers were destroyed by a thunderbolt from God, punishing the USA for its wicked ways.

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/29/2007 @ 11:23 am

327. OK, but this is way too many posts in a row, but maybe the “architect” CMM can explain why 1-story houses are usually built of wood, but skyscrapers never are?

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/29/2007 @ 11:25 am

328. CMM 320: Oops. Forgot one. The proper analogy would be ramming a truck half the width of your house all the way through your house at triple-digit speeds, making sure to ignite a bunch of fuel inside the house at the same time.

     Despite this, I expect that you will continue lamely claiming that no one is listening to or considering your point of view. The rest of us are just responding to questions and claims we made up on our own. Echo chamber and all that.

     Comment by Troll feeder — 8/29/2007 @ 11:28 am

329. I was looking up the fallacy of “argument by scenario” and found a whole necklace of fallacies that apply to the troofers here:

     Least Plausible Hypothesis:
     ignoring all of the most reasonable explanations. This makes the desired explanation into the only one. For example: “I left a saucer of milk outside overnight. In the morning, the milk was gone. Clearly, my yard was visited by fairies.”

     There is an old rule for deciding which explanation is the most plausible. It is most often called “Occam’s Razor”, and it basically says that the simplest is the best. The current phrase among scientists is that an explanation should be “the most parsimonious”, meaning that it should not introduce new concepts (like fairies) when old concepts (like neighborhood cats) will do.

     Argument By Scenario:
     telling a story which ties together unrelated material, and then using the story as proof they are related.

     Affirming The Consequent:
     logic reversal. A correct statement of the form “if P then Q” gets turned into “Q therefore P”.
     For example, “All people whose surname begins with Mac are of Scottish ancestry. Dougal is of Scottish ancestry. Therefore his surname begins with Mac.” But actually his name is Campbell.

     Another example: “If space creatures were kidnapping people and examining them, the space creatures would probably hypnotically erase the memories of the people they examined. These people would thus suffer from amnesia. But in fact many people do suffer from amnesia. This tends to prove they were kidnapped and examined by space creatures.” This is also a Least Plausible Hypothesis explanation.

     Moving The Goalposts (Raising The Bar, Argument By Demanding Impossible Perfection):
     if your opponent successfully addresses some point, then say he must also address some further point. If you can make these points more and more difficult (or diverse) then eventually your opponent must fail. If nothing else, you will eventually find a subject that your opponent isn’t up on.
     This is related to Argument By Question. Asking questions is easy: it’s answering them that’s hard.

     It is also possible to lower the bar, reducing the burden on an argument. For example, a person who takes Vitamin C might claim that it prevents colds. When they do get a cold, then they move the goalposts, by saying that the cold would have been much worse if not for the Vitamin C.

     Appeal To Complexity:
     if the arguer doesn’t understand the topic, he concludes that nobody understands it. So, his opinions are as good as anybody’s.

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/29/2007 @ 11:37 am

330. I don’t really care if the truth is ignored by the truthers. This documentary is very important because it addresses, or rather, undresses the truthers in front of everyone else. Whether or not they believe they are naked is of no consequence.

     My favorite exchage from “Thank You For Smoking” is the one between Nick Naylor and his son as he tries to explain the importance of argument and persuasion.

     Joey Naylor: But you still didn’t convince me.
     Nick Naylor: It’s that I’m not after you. I’m after them.

     At that, Nick points to the mob of people milling around his son.

     You expose the Truthers, not to convince them, but to convince their target audience. The fact of it is that the same skeptic who could naively be persuaded by a Truther is a thousand times less likely to fall for it if they see this intriguing documentary.

     And that is what matters.

     Comment by Dan — 8/29/2007 @ 2:23 pm

331. I don’t really care if the truth is ignored by the truthers. This documentary is very important because it addresses, or rather, undresses the truthers in front of everyone else. Whether or not they believe they are naked is of no consequence.

     Dan, if I may shorten that for you, taking into consideration the microsecond attention span of the average truther:

     “Truthers, we aren’t laughing with you, we’re laughing at you.”

     Comment by TomB — 8/29/2007 @ 8:36 pm

332. I should be surprised by the immediacy of the moronic responses containing such things as fairies, magic, death-rays or my personal favourite, spilled diesel fuel spontaneously igniting, but I am not.

     i started my comments by saying how the two sides were incapable of listening or rational discussion. I will end it by maintaining that stance. The responses from the witless only buttress the rest of the worlds view that Americans are more able to focus on this weeks Idol episode than anything else.

     You are right Frank. Your government can do no evil, think no evil etc etc. Everything is rosey and Brownie’s doing a helluva job. There were weapons of mass destruction, Cheney, I mean Haliburton is not stuffing its pockets with public funds and Iran is a threat to world peace. Thank god you have all the answers, if only the rest of us were as assured as you.

     You remind me of Voltaire’s story about the Brahman and the washer woman. He is tormented by questions where she hasn’t a care in the world. He is amazed at her ability to be so free of thought and wonders if that freedom is worth the intellectual cost.

     don’t forget your soap boys

     Comment by CMM — 8/29/2007 @ 11:37 pm

333. CMM, you are purposely ignoring my questions while you play the martyr. Every post you make is exactly the same, a plea for civility while spouting your own conspiracy. There have been specific comments that, if you were an architect, you would have no problem answering.

     Why not start with troll feeder’s post #324

     Comment by TomB — 8/30/2007 @ 5:30 am

334. Are you saying that trucks never ever spill fuel and catch fire when they crash into houses, CMM? And don’t you think that this is relevant to your drawing an analogy between the crash of planes into the WTC, and a truck crashing into a house?

     You are right Frank. Your government can do no evil, think no evil etc etc. Everything is rosey

     Ah, a classic case of the fallacy of false alternatives (aka Excluded Middle, False Dichotomy, Faulty Dilemma, Bifurcation)

     assuming there are only two alternatives when in fact there are more. For example, assuming Atheism is the only alternative to Fundamentalism, or being a traitor is the only alternative to being a loud patriot.

     In your (and also Ghosttown’s) planet, you have assumed that only the two following alternatives:

     1) Believing in the Troofer’s idiotic “demolition & missiles” scenario

     2) Believing that government “can do no evil”, in ANY OTHER SITUATION.

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/30/2007 @ 8:07 am

335. You remind me of Voltaire’s story about the Brahman and the washer woman. He is tormented by questions where she hasn’t a care in the world. He is amazed at her ability to be so free of thought and wonders if that freedom is worth the intellectual cost.

     Isn’t it funny how he thinks that “thought” and “logic” are two different things?

     Comment by Frank IBC — 8/30/2007 @ 8:25 am

336. This is to TomB and others on this page:

     Save your breath. You will never be able to get through to people who are delusional.

     This conspiracy movement will die with time. Remember the 70s? The big “mysteries” then were the ancient astronauts (from “author” Eric van Daniken) and the Bermuda Triangle (most notably author Charles Berlitz). The government was covering up “the real stories”.

     They are hard to find, but NOVA did two excellent specials that completely exposed the fraud and fakery of these subjects. People chased these non-existant boogie-men until they either tired of it, or realized that it was imaginary.

     Author Lawrence Kusche dealt a death blow to the movements with several excellent books de-bunking the Triangle “mysteries”.

     When was the last time you heard of the ancient astronaut theory or the Bermuda Triangle? Even the media began to take a skeptical look at the subjects, as recent documentaries on Roswell have started to take a more skeptical approach.

     The History Channel show on the 9/11 conspiracy movement was excellent. I believe more will follow. Then watch the tide turn as it will be more “hip” to be on the side of reason.

     So TomB, I share your frustrations. Believe me, I do. But give this time and it will go the way of the aliens who helped build the pyramids and the lost power source from the lost continent of Atlantis sucking us into the depths.

     Comment by Steve-O — 8/30/2007 @ 10:35 am

337. So TomB, I share your frustrations. Believe me, I do. But give this time and it will go the way of the aliens who helped build the pyramids and the lost power source from the lost continent of Atlantis sucking us into the depths.

     Thanks Steve, but as someone pointed out above, we do this not so much for the benefit of the CTer, but for the others reading the thread (if there is anybody left) who may have doubts. And IMHO, after reading this thread, I’m pretty sure that anybody with legit questions will come down firmly on our side.

     Yes, it will fade, but it will linger. I post to some sites that are still debating the Apollo landings, believe it or not. The only way to keep silly conspiracy theories at the fringe is to continue to swat them away as they arise.

     Comment by TomB — 8/30/2007 @ 10:47 am

338. CMM 333: Of course the government can do evil. Capability is not the same as actual doing. You understand that, right?

     Did someone (other than yourself) equate the ignition of the fuel from the planes when they rammed the Towers to “spilled diesel fuel spontaneously igniting[?]”

     We are responding to your specific points. You just don’t like the answers. That is poor reason to attempt to insult us with your silly name calling.

     Also, it completely gives the lie to your claim that we aren’t listening. We are listening; we are thinking about the points you raise; and we are systematically and thoroughly demolishing your claims with references and logic and stuff like that.

     Like Dan and Steve-O and TomB and others have said or implied, we do this not for you, who are so willfully lost, but for the children. Doesn’t anybody care about the children?!?!

     Why, yes. Yes, indeed. _We_ do.

     Comment by Troll feeder — 8/30/2007 @ 4:53 pm

339. I must admit this is almost a compulsion, rather like having to turn your head as you pass an accident.

     A few things only because I would hate to leave without responding and seeming as if I am unable to.

     A single story house, lets focus on typical 2×4@16″ stud framing on sill plate, anchors @24″, double cap plate and a preengineered wooden truss system (we can even skip the additional structural elements of hurricane straps etc as req’d in many us states).

     a vehicle less than the height of the top plate (8′ +/-) crashing through the wall would be expected to destroy the studs it impacts, the drywall and of course the face brick. the loss of integrity of the 1 story house makes it more likely to suffer a massive failure than a multi story wooden dwelling for a rather basic reason. the forces are distributed through a wider grid on a higher building. each floors framing distributes the load evenly (assuming proper design and the selection of appropriately sized lintels) over the floor below it.

     basically and to use terms not too technical. if a vehicle goes through a 1 level residence then there is nothing above to hold up the roof other than the cap plates (worst case scenario of the vehicle hitting the wall perpendicular to the joists/roof truss) Now good design would expect that the trusses are supported over a median point (beam across width of structure or load bearing wall) when this happens the trusses are now supported at the undamaged end and the middle but not the damaged end. again, to give worst case the bearing median wall is insufficient and the joists begin to sag and eventually collapse over the damaged area. this still does not account or allow for undamaged trusses to collapse.

     in the multi level structure the joists loads are still distributed as are the upper floor loads over the undamaged sections. for the upper floors to sag will require a loss of structural cohesion. you see, the entire structure is nailed/screwed together and this forms a building unit.

     i suggest you experiment with scaled down models. take some balsa, glue a basic frame together and apply a load, if you have any books choose a heavy one (as yet unread or uncoloured) and sit it on top. now shear studs until you have failure. Now balsa is by far weaker than structurally graded spf or whatever is used in your region but it will do for a basic experiment. what you will find if you have displayed the barest amount of technical ability is that the more complex the structure the more distributable the loads are.

     my comment about the fuel was in response to frankibc stating something to the effect of
     ‘the crashing truck spills diesel fuel which catches fire’

     get a small can of diesel fuel and with adult supervision toss lighted matches into it. feel free to tell me how many lighted matches it takes to light the diesel fuel. if the matches keep going out in the diesel fuel don’t be dismayed, you don’t have defective fuel.

     frank also made 2 different statements.
     1. the wooden structure will flex and absorb more of the energy
     2. they don’t build skyscrapers out of wood for a reason

     wood will not flex more than steel nor will it support more of a load than steel (lets not go on about glue laminated structures because even a neophyte will quickly accept the limitations compared to steel)

     steel is used because it will flex and bend and tolerate a load better than wood will.

     continuing franks diehard inability to understand anything he does not agree with he states that i believe there are only 2 options, to agree with truthers or to agree with good government. i started and maintain that the problem is that you are so busy defining sides you can look no longer than the end of your nose. the problem is that no one dares consider the views of the other side without scorn or ridicule.

     you also state that you find it funny i see thought and logic as separate. they are you simple little man.
     asimov writes science fiction. he has spaceships that cannot exist. he has thought about them but they are not logical.
     so therefore logic and thought exist as two parts of the same process. the mind generates all these things and in that is the cohesion of self, but, all thought is not logical.

     steve-o drops everyone in the same bucket as delusional. agree with what you are told or you are delusional. accept or you are delusional. how simplistic and monochromatic.

     and for the last post from troll feeder

     –”Of course the government can do evil. Capability is not the same as actual doing. You understand that, right?”

     yes i do. you can wrap your head around the fact that people in power can and will do evil cant you? i am not even saying they have, i am saying that the rose coloured glasses of total acceptance need taken off.

     –”Did someone (other than yourself) equate the ignition of the fuel from the planes when they rammed the Towers to “spilled diesel fuel spontaneously igniting[?]””

     yes it was frank who said diesel would combust

     –”We are responding to your specific points. You just don’t like the answers. That is poor reason to attempt to insult us with your silly name calling.”

     i do not see specific points. i have asked questions and received belittling or pointless responses because i dare to disagree with certain (not all) facets of the official story.

     –”Also, it completely gives the lie to your claim that we aren’t listening. We are listening; we are thinking about the points you raise; and we are systematically and thoroughly demolishing your claims with references and logic and stuff like that.”

     nothing has been demolished. certainly none of the basic structural allegations regarding time failure. i do admit i was mistaken when i first spoke of the central concrete core when in fact it was a series of massive columns

     i started by asking a question that no one has been able to answer. this would probably resolve a lot of questions.
     -what is the expected fuel amount to hit the buildings

     from there a great deal can be calculated and i would have expected that such self-professed experts on everything would have been able to answer that without a moments hesitation.

     this is my one big question that i came here with

     the plane left with ‘a’ liters of fuel
     it expended ‘b’ liters on the flight.
     ‘c’ liters would have been consumed in the initial fireball
     ‘d’ liters of burning fuel would have remained and been distributed across the available floor space evenly to allow for uniform failure as seen in the entire floor falling at once.

     I cannot find a single person who can give a reasonable answer to what ‘d’ was. this would define if there was sufficient fuel for the damage as described to occur. if there was then case closed. if not then what happened? ignoring any conspiracy issues is this a structural design issue that will exist in other large buildings and needs to be reviewed?

     my question at the conclusion as at the start seems quite reasonable. excluding some of the more moronic responses that included such things as ‘death rays’ and other pointless hyperbole i never did even get a glimpse at a rational response other than ‘figure it out on your own’ from one of the obviously more enlightened repliers.

     –”Like Dan and Steve-O and TomB and others have said or implied, we do this not for you, who are so willfully lost, but for the children. Doesn’t anybody care about the children?
     Why, yes. Yes, indeed. We do”

     and here at your conclusion is the sort of response i have grown accustomed to on this anti-intellectual bastion. i have answered any question i have been asked without death-rays or children. the responders cannot say the same.

     here are the basics.

     large buildings are not supposed to fall like that ever or at all, period. if you think otherwise you are speaking from a total lack of structural knowledge regarding building design in the latter part of the century.

     firemen rushed into the buildings and not a single one was capable of making a determination of the immediacy of the danger regardless of how many years experience they had in dealing with burning buildings. you may say that there is no way they could have known exactly what was happening and that is true. that said they did know what the rest of us knew. 2 commuter planes with fuel and passengers had hit the buildings.

     at a rough guess and dealing with insufficient and fragmentary data there would not appear to be enough time or temperature for a catastrophic failure of 2 buildings in the exact same way in the exact same pattern and in an incredibly similar time frame.

     so thats that. now i await the delusional comments and the death rays etc etc

     Comment by CMM — 9/4/2007 @ 11:30 pm

340. Well i am not sure that they “wiped the floor” to be honest. How a couple of journalists from popular mechanics can be considered “experts” against physics professors from the truth movement seems strange.
     While it is pointless to debate detail on a blog such as this, it must be said that they did not explain how the entire plane that allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania disappeared with no visible wreckage , how the heat from diesel fuel could make WTC7 collapse, or where is the footage of the actual plane hitting the Pentagon has been hidden and why. There are other glaring ommisions, but the above are the main points.

     If you look at the results from the highly regarded Zogby poll run in the U.S,
     http://www.zogby.com/features/features.dbm?ID=231
     you will find that roughly half of Americans believe it was an inside job. That is just the U.S. In Europe, Canada and down here in Australia, the mark is closer to 70%.
     Make no bones about it, the whole world fears the U.S now as much as the world did Hitler in the 1940’s. And the actions of the U.S political elite will burden American’s children and grandchildren with the same war guilt that the Germans carry now due to Hitlers actions.
     My grandad fought as a U.S Marine in WWII and instilled in me a strong loathing of fascist militarism. How he would be turning in his grave to see the U.S become the very thing he fought against all those years ago.
     Americans are by and large good people, and just wish to live their lives peacefully like every other person in this planet. They don’t deserve the fate that is coming to them. God bless the American people. God curse the murderers that control them

     Comment by Friend from Oz — 9/10/2007 @ 7:58 am

341. CMM 339: You are basing your argument on the premise that diesel (and, by analogy, jet fuel) are not flammable? And also that nothing else in the towers was flammable?

     Whoop-dee-doo that you can safely throw matches into a bucket of diesel all day long when the diesel is below its 60 deg C flash point and not vaporized. You yourself acknowledge that there was a fireball. The conditions existed for the combustion of the fuel carried on the airplanes and for the flammable elements in the buildings

     FrankIBC did not claim that the fuel would “spontaneously ignite[.]” FrankIBC 325 stated, “On the other hand, both a 1 story wood frame house and a 3 to 6 story masonry and wood townhouse would very quickly burn to the ground if diesel fuel from the truck spilled and ignited.”

     The “spontaneous” ignition and your outrage against it is entirely of your own fabrication. Please don’t attribute to any of us nonsense of your own making. Particularly given your own statements claiming that ignition did, in fact, occur.

     Refer back to 328. The ability of the structure of floors above the impact and fire site to redistribute loads is COMPLETELY irrelevant to the ability of the structure of the floors that suffered the impact and fire damage to sustain the weight of the floors above. Your entire argument based on redistribution of loads is nonsense.

     Redistribution does come into play to answer this argument of yours: “again, to give worst case the bearing median wall is insufficient and the joists begin to sag and eventually collapse over the damaged area. this [sic] still does not account or allow for undamaged trusses to collapse.” The failure of some trusses REDISTRIBUTES the load that they once carried to the trusses adjacent to them. Potentially causing them to fail themselves, in turn. Pretty much the exact opposite of your argument about redistribution being a helpful thing in this situation. Again, refer to 323.

     Once again, the above is a specific response to questions that you have raised. Raised multiple times without bothering to read the responses, apparently. You don’t like the answers; you cannot (have not attempted to, at least) directly respond to the answers; so, you claim that you have not been answered. I say again, you have been answered, you just don’t like that the answers undermine your position.

     As FrankIBC and I have both commented previously, do your own math and provide your own research and references instead of making unsupported claims based on nothing and demanding that someone else provide the technical back up to prove what you have asserted. You have the duty to “figure it out on your own.” I have no duty to figure it out for you. If you are incapable of supporting your argument, that you are acting dishonestly by advancing it, and are acting the knave by accusing us of bad faith for not doing your work for you.

     Finally, in 319 you specifically attribute the collapse of the Towers to “a series of actions taken for nothing more than the accumulation of wealth and power.” You make strong implications in other posts that the perpetrators of these actions are governmental and corporate interests in the United States and that Americans are, in general too stupid and Idol-obsessed to care. You rely on insinuation, innuendo, purposeful ignorance, and a vast array of truly stupid analogies and assertions without providing the slightest shred of proof or evidence or testable hypothesis. We only assert that their involvement is entirely unnecessary for events to have transpired as they did.

     Again, we and others with significantly more data and detail have shown that the plane impacts plus subsequent fire were testably believably sufficient to cause the Towers to collapse.

     You and your ilk have neither provided any valid points to show that the impact and fire theory is insufficient nor that any of your hypotheses are even practicably possible.

     What you have and continue to do is lazy, dishonest, and tiresome. We respond in order that the kiddies know that there is an alternative to your mendacity.

     Comment by Troll feeder — 9/11/2007 @ 1:43 pm

342. Just a question where was the noise of the controlled explosions?
     with all the explosives needed there would have to been a very large boom.
     Perhaps they were using hushaboom, but wait that was all used up by the Bullwinkle show.

     Comment by John Wolf — 9/11/2007 @ 1:52 pm

343. Troll feeder 341:

     “Refer to 328″ should read “Refer to 323.”

     Not that there is anything wrong with 328.

     Apologies for the error.

     Comment by Troll feeder — 9/11/2007 @ 2:37 pm

344. I think that one fundamental problem these folks have is they can’t grasp the possibility that disasters like this were caused by a series of events or states that were a necessary condition for the disaster to occur, but that none of those alone was a SUFFICIENT condition for the disaster. They can only visualize a single event or condition that is both a necessary AND a sufficient condition for such a disaster.

     On a much less serious note:

     The REAL Truth Behind 9/11!

     Nicholas Borrillo — Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) on 23rd floor of North Tower:
     Then we heard a rumble. We heard it and we felt the whole building shake. It was like being on a train, being in an earthquake. A train is more like it, because with the train you hear the rumbling, and it kind of like moved you around in the hall.

     Paul Curran — Fire Patrolman (F.D.N.Y.) North Tower:
     I went back and stood right in front of Eight World Trade Center right by the customs house, and the north tower was set right next to it. Not that much time went by, and all of a sudden the ground just started shaking. It felt like a train was running under my feet.

     Joseph Fortis — E.M.T. (E.M.S.) T]he ground started shaking like a train was coming…

     Keith Murphy — (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 47] I hear someone say oh, s___, that was just for the lights out. I would say about 3, 4 seconds, all of a sudden this tremendous roar. It sounded like being in a tunnel with the train coming at you.

     Timothy Julian — Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 118] You know, and I just heard like an explosion and then cracking type of noise, and then it sounded like a freight train, rumbling and picking up speed, and I remember I looked up, and I saw it coming down.

     The smoke from the towers was described as “being like the smoke from the smokestake of a locomotive”.

     Comment by Frank IBC — 9/12/2007 @ 3:05 pm

345. CMM 339: Sorry. This one was just too pathetic to leave alone.

     “here are the basics.

     large buildings are not supposed to fall like that ever or at all, period. if you think otherwise you are speaking from a total lack of structural knowledge regarding building design in the latter part of the century.”

     Along the same line of argument, pipelines are not supposed to leak, moorings are not supposed to break, ships are not supposed to sink, wardrobes are not supposed to malfunction, innocents are not supposed to get hurt, and mascara is not supposed to run, ever or at all. And yet, strangely, all of these things do happen. Particularly when someone actively tries to make them happen.

     The Towers were not supposed to be rammed by fuel-heavy, 100+ tonne, 400+ mph aircraft either. They were, and they stood long enough to save most of their tenants. For that we may thank God, and luck, and engineers and architects of considerably more understanding than you have shown yourself to possess.

     There is no such thing as unobtanium. No matter how many X-Men comics you read, that isn’t going to change.

     Comment by Troll feeder — 9/12/2007 @ 9:06 pm

346. Talk about missing the forest for the tree. When will all these gormless deniers get it into their thick sculls that it doesn’t matter whether there was controlled explosions or not. It doesn’t matter at what temperature steel melts. These are all just pedantries which help to cloud the real issue.

     The real question is, did the US government cause it or allow it? This question applies to all the events of that day, not just the twin towers. This cannot be answered by concentrating on one event only. One thing is for certain. The official 911 report is not going to be revisitied by any government body however lacking it is believed to be by however many people. The fact that a very great number of people believe there should be a much more thorough investigation (one that omits nothing and answers all unanswered questions) doesn’t seem to bother the present administration and I doubt it will even be entertained by any future one.

     You can argue till you go blue in the face but nothing will be resolved. The deniers will go on denying and the truthers will go on believing that the goverment had something to do with it .

     One thing I am certain about is that the government definitely does have evidence hidden away deep in its top-secret vaults that proves one way or the other exactly what happened and why (and please don’t repeat the cock and bull story about how Osama Bin Laden did it all; it really is beyond the pale). But I don’t believe the’re ready to share it with the rest of us.

     Needless to say, unless there is something close to a miracle, such information will not be allowed to surface. The only question is why. And that my friends is where lies the linchpin to this and a great deal else besides.

     Comment by bolinger — 9/13/2007 @ 12:13 pm

347. Bolinger’s argument can be summed up thus:

     “Who needs evidence? Faith is all that matters.”

     Comment by Frank IBC — 9/13/2007 @ 3:40 pm

348. Bolinger 346: Lordy, Lordy, Lordy.

     I did not argue that the government was uninvolved in the collapse of the buildings; I argued that they were unnecessary, and that no proof - as opposed to innuendo - had been provided to indicate that they were either necessary or involved. Your question is completely separate from a discussion of the verifiable facts of building construction etc.

     But nice of you to come straight out with your real agenda instead of making up asinine questions whose answers you care about not a whit.

     What proof do you have that the government definitely does have evidence hidden yada yada yada? How and why do you know this for certain?

     If we’re going to “omit nothing and have all our unanswered questions answered”, I want to know why my boogers are clear sometimes, yellow other times, green other times, and once - and this was a really weird one - kind of a fluorescent orange. And don’t repeat that old cock and bull story about allergies and viruses and bacteria and vitamin overdoses; that really is beyond the pale. I am certain it is because the government is putting poison in the sky behind big jet plane thingies and fluoridating the water and other stuff to corrupt my precious bodily fluids.

     I know, I know…boogers. Real mature.

     Better than arguing that the government did it because you just knows it, man!

     Comment by Troll feeder — 9/13/2007 @ 8:14 pm

349. Replying to #347 and #348.

     How well it suits the agenda of those who wish to cling to timid but
     politically correct ideals about how the government is totally innocent and had nothing to do with it. I’d say that if we’re arguing about faith, you are much farther in on that side of the fence than I am. How quaintly Troll puts it saying “I did not argue that the government was uninvolved..”. No, you did not argue this but you damn well believe it, don’t you: because if you believed otherwise you would say so and you wouldn’t be wasting your time in futile exchanges. Your only option is to say that you don’t know, but then that would be a lie. So don’t put faith on my side of the court when you are embracing it on yours.

     I hope you’re good enough to understand that comparing the issues surrounding 911 to trivia such as boogers is about the level to which the angry misguided patriot will stoop in order to counter a serious point. Still, never mind, little things please little minds.

     But let’s forget faith. Let’s use intelligence instead, a novel concept among you faithful I know, but let’s give it a try.

     If the US government was to go on trial for an alleged cover up regarding the events of 911, here are at least TWO of the answered questions they would have to address.

     1. Why was there such gross failure in chain of command on that day.
     2. Why did the air defenses fail to take out any of the planes, espcially the one that flew into the Pentagon, which incidentally happened 1 hour and 20 minutes after the first plane hit in New York.

     Since you like to bring up trivial analogies, here is one for you think about. If I drive a car and cause an accident, for what ever reason, am I not responsible? Do I not have to pay some sort of penalty? Of course. Why then is Dick Cheney still in office? Why is George Bush still in office? Are you really telling me that these men and whoever else was around then, bear absolutely no responsibility for the events of 911?

     Given all of that, everything that has been said since 911 on the side of the truthers does in fact amount to innuendo (as you put it), circumstancial evidence and a plethora of coincidences which as you know cannot rationally be explained however remote the probabilities happen to be. Since evidence is the only thing that can possibly stand up in a reasonable court of law and one was to take this to trial, it would be solely on the basis of circumstancial evidence. But this need not be a reason to leave it at that: here is an entry in the Americal Law Register (dated October 1868) regarding circumstancial evidence. Don’t fret, it’s quite short, but fascinating.

     http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1558-3813(186810%2F11)16%3A12%3C705%3ACUCE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6

     Comment by bolinger — 9/14/2007 @ 12:50 pm

350. Replying to #347 and #348.

     How well it suits the agenda of those who wish to cling to timid but
     politically correct ideals about how the government is totally innocent and had nothing to do with it. I’d say that if we’re arguing about faith, you are much farther in on that side of the fence than I am. How quaintly Troll puts it saying “I did not argue that the government was uninvolved..”. No, you did not argue this but you damn well believe it, don’t you: because if you believed otherwise you would say so and you wouldn’t be wasting your time in futile exchanges. Your only option is to say that you don’t know, but then that would be a lie. So don’t put faith on my side of the court when you are embracing it on yours.

     I hope you’re good enough to understand that comparing the issues surrounding 911 to trivia such as boogers is about the level to which the angry misguided patriot will stoop in order to counter a serious point. Still, never mind, little things please little minds.

     But let’s forget faith. Let’s use intelligence instead, a novel concept among you faithful I know, but let’s give it a try.

     If the US government was to go on trial for an alleged cover up regarding the events of 911, here are at least TWO of the answered questions they would have to address.

     1. Why was there such gross failure in chain of command on that day.
     2. Why did the air defenses fail to take out any of the planes, especially the one that flew into the Pentagon, which incidentally happened 1 hour and 20 minutes after the first plane hit in New York.

     Since you like to bring up trivial analogies, here is one for you think about. If I drive a car and cause an accident, for what ever reason, am I not responsible? Do I not have to pay some sort of penalty? Of course. Why then is Dick Cheney still in office? Why is George Bush still in office? Are you really telling me that these men and whoever else was around then, bear absolutely no responsibility for the events of 911?

     Given all of that, everything that has been said since 911 on the side of the truthers does in fact amount to innuendo (as you put it), circumstantial evidence and a plethora of coincidences which as you know cannot rationally be explained however remote the probabilities happen to be. Since evidence is the only thing that can possibly stand up in a reasonable court of law and one was to take this to trial, it would be solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence. But this need not be a reason to leave it at that: here is an entry in the American Law Register (dated October 1868) regarding circumstantial evidence. Don’t fret, it’s quite short, but fascinating.

     http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1558-3813(186810%2F11)16%3A12%3C705%3ACUCE%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6

     I’ll conclude by saying that if I was one of the 12 in the jury for this case, based on the evidence (circumstantial though it may be) and the staggering number of coincidences, I would convict. That is the basis of my certainty that the government does have evidence hidden, yada yada yo!

     Comment by bolinger — 9/14/2007 @ 12:57 pm

351. Apologies for duplicate posting of 349 and 350. 350 is spell checked and has a conclusion.

     Comment by bolinger — 9/14/2007 @ 1:06 pm

352. If I drive a car and cause an accident, for what ever reason, am I not responsible? Do I not have to pay some sort of penalty? Of course.

     But Dick Cheney wasn’t flying any of the four planes - that was Mohammed Atta and his gang.

     Comment by Frank IBC — 9/14/2007 @ 2:20 pm

353. Bollinger -

     Can you cite any previous instance in which a plane which originated inside the United States, which posed a grave threat to the security of the United States, was shot down by the armed forces of this country?

     Comment by Frank IBC — 9/14/2007 @ 2:23 pm

354. Also, Bolinger - can you tell us at what point it became known that Flight 77 was heading towards the Pentagon?

     Comment by Frank IBC — 9/14/2007 @ 4:04 pm

355. Reply to #352:
     Please understand the point I was making. Since when has it become necessary in statute law that only the person holding the gun can be deemed as responsible? What about the person who pays the assassin or provides shelter or aids and abets? I am not implying this is the case. My point was that we know Dick Cheney had sole responsibility that day for the air defense of the country. He could be forgiven for missing the first plane, but 1 hour and 20 minutes later, we are told another plane hit the Pentagon. The political terminology is “collective responsibility”. The accusation is that there was enough time and information to intercept at least two of the four planes. But none were.

     Reply to #353.
     The point was really about intercepting the planes before they reached their intended targets. If this was achieved, it might not have been necessary to fire upon them but simply to flank them as they progressed. Then and only then, when it became obvious as to what was going to happen, would the option of air to air missiles be considered. I cannot cite an actual shooting down of a commercial aircraft but there are instances where military aircraft have intercepted planes with which radio contact was lost. The FAA regulations are clear on this. If radio contact is lost, one must assume an emergency. Here are some links to those interception stories.

     http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-104016519.html

     http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article610890.ece

     http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/10/27/njet27.xml

     It proves that if a single plane can be intercepted, two out of 4 should be a lot easier. But we are told that all available fighters were too far away, there was confusion, there were military exercises mimicking exactly the events of the day, etc. etc. When coupled with all the other facets of the remarkable turn of events, it really does become the most incredible story - possibly in US history. One at least to my mind that requires greater scrutiny by officials and experts on both sides of the argument than has hitherto been the case.

     Comment by bolinger — 9/14/2007 @ 4:16 pm

356. Frank IBC 352, 353, 354: I doubt that any of what you are asking is relevant. The dog bolinger finally wends his way to describing didn’t bark. Must be evil. No other possibility. QED.

     One question, though, when (and how) did we determine that Dick Cheney “had sole responsibility that day for the air defense of the country[?]” I’m no expert, but I’da kinda sorta thunk maybe that “air defense” would have been left up to air traffic controllers (who rely on working transponders to some limited extent) and maybe some of the …. whatcha call its? …. oh, yeah, military-types.

     The VP had sole responsibility all day for the whole country, though. Double tough, man. Dude is double tough.

     Comment by Troll feeder — 9/14/2007 @ 8:42 pm

357. There are several reasons why the incidents in the articles to which you link are not relevant. First and foremost, all of these incidents occured AFTER 9/11, when the air defense systems of the NATO countries had prepared for such threats.

     Second, all of these incidents involved planes crossing national borders - as I said previously, all of the 9/11 planes were hijacked from US airports, therefore they were already within US borders - prior to 9/11, the air defense systems were designed to intercept ONLY FLIGHTS ORIGINATING OUTSIDE US BORDERS.

     Third, none of the articles to which you link state the amount of time that it took to intercept the flights.

     Fourth, while radio contact was lost, the transponders on the 9/11 planes were deliberately turned off. There was therefore no way to track the planes using the existing system. Prior to 9/11, no planes had flown within US borders with their transponders deliberately turned off.

     Comment by Frank IBC — 9/14/2007 @ 9:16 pm

358. there were military exercises mimicking exactly the events of the day

     WTF are you babbling about?

     Comment by Frank IBC — 9/14/2007 @ 11:51 pm

359. BTW, I’m still waiting for him to mention Payne Stewart.

     Comment by Frank IBC — 9/14/2007 @ 11:53 pm

360. I am astounded by the depth of idiocy of the replies that keep coming back. You’re all desperately lost at sea. If a plane takes off from within internal airports, it is impossible for it to be intercepted. What a dumb answer. What do you think people would say if the head of US air forces stood up and said that planes cannot or will not be intercepted if they originate from internal airports. Why? Oh it’s so difficult. All they have to do is turn off the transponder. Just listen to yourself.

     You still don’t get it, do you? If a case was being prepared to challenge the so called “incompetence” of that day and the case was based on circumstance evidence, these are exactly the sort of questions that would be asked. The implications and the conclusions are left to the jury to decide. And as I said before in my posts, based on the circumstantial evidence and the huge number of coincidences, if I was sitting among the 12 in that jury, I would convict.

     It’s no good picking out excerpts from what I’ve said and trying to explain them away as if your explanations are somehow made valid simply because you can come up with them. Any one can come up with an explanation for anything. The way it seems to me is that the truthers are trying to get to the truth and you’re trying to get to the truthers. How stupid is that?

     There is no black and white absolute certainty. The events and explanations surrounding the events of 911 are controversial to say the least. As I said before, and I think we have all conceded that there is circumstantial evidence to put it through the judiciary but you seem to labour under the false impression that if one can come up with an explanation of any sort, it must be the right one. That is up to the jury to decide not you.

     At this precise moment in time, the trial is being conducted not in a court of law (where it should be) but among the general public not only in the US but around the world. Films have been made, books have been written, documentaries have been commissioned and almost the entire world and his wife now has a view on this subject.

     So please don’t come all high and mighty thinking you’re doing people a service attacking the truthers because all you’re doing is satisfying your own little appetites for shit mongering.

     Comment by bolinger — 9/15/2007 @ 3:55 am

361. It was not “impossible”, just extremely difficult under the old system.

     And can you tell me how long it took the planes that tracked Payne Stewart’s doomed flight, to reach that plane?

     I was sitting among the 12 in that jury, I would convict.

     Wrong, you would vote to convict. But I seriously doubt that any of the other 11 would.

     Comment by Frank IBC — 9/15/2007 @ 9:47 am

362. Actually, you wouldn’t have made it on to the jury in the first place, since you’ve already made up your mind as to what the verdict would be, in the absence of any evidence.

     Comment by Frank IBC — 9/15/2007 @ 10:13 am

363. On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. “They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us,” says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD’s Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175 had been hijacked — the same time the plane slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of that first call from Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated planes.

     Why couldn’t ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes’ transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country’s busiest air corridors. And NORAD’s sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. “It was like a doughnut,” Martin says. “There was no coverage in the middle.” Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn’t prepared to track them.

     Comment by Frank IBC — 9/15/2007 @ 10:16 am

364. There you go again, explaining it all away almost as if you were there among the decision makers and the responsibility bearers on that day. Were you? If not, all you have is their say so that everything happened just the way they say it did. Please listen to yourself as I paraphrase some of #363:

     - Only 14 fighter jets on alert for 48 states.
     - No computer system alarmed NORAD of missing planes
     - ATC had to use the phone to inform NORAD
     - NORAD’s radar was looking outward and not inward

     In general, it was simply too difficult to identify and intercept any one of the planes, even the one that hit the Pentagon 1 hour and 20 minutes after the first attack on the twin towers.

     You just repeat and repeat and repeat the same old tired explanations offered by the very same officials whose organizations would go under scrutiny if this went to trial. Let me post here a very relevant excerpt from the American Law Register of October 1868 regarding circumstantial evidence in case people didn’t bother to go to the link on post #350:

     “Heinous crimes are usually committed in secret, and the proof, therefore, is necessarily circumstantial. Evidence so precarious in its nature should indeed be closely scrutinized.”

     Even back in 1868, people of intelligence and common sense had the foresight to put circumstantial evidence in its proper perspective instead of dismissing it out of hand as we do today. Why do we do this? Because that is how it has been broadcast to us by our present educators. Circumstantial evidence is not worthy of scrutiny and therefore there is no case to answer in a court of law. Of course, there are cases for which there isn’t sufficient evidence to try (circumstantial or otherwise) but 911 is not one of them. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence and I don’t believe even the most hardened denier can deny that.

     So you see, I’m not really here to play ping pong with argument and counter-argument regarding the particulars of 911. I purposely only touched on two issues in my first post #349 as an example of questions that would be asked if the case ever went to trial. No doubt there would be expert witnesses on both sides telling us how and why things happened the way they did.

     Simply repeating the official version of events and using explanations already heard and noted isn’t really what any of this is about. In the final analysis, one has to reach a decision and say one way or the other whether or not there is sufficient circumstantial evidence for this to go to trial. I say that there is, and on the basis of what I have seen and heard from both sides of the argument I would vote to convict if I was sitting on that jury. However, that is not the same as saying I have heard everything. There may indeed be evidence that totally acquits the government of any wrong doing just as there may be evidence that you haven’t yet heard which proves the government to be guilty.

     The very fact that no such trial will ever be permitted take place simply because those under scrutiny have the power to veto it, does not bode well for the government.

     Oh but you will immediately say, “We can’t put the government on trial for every conspiracy theory!” No. Not EVERY conspiracy theory. But 911 isn’t just any old conspiracy theory. The event itself and the aftermath affected many thousands of people directly by the appalling loss of life, and indirectly by ensuing wars and liberty consuming laws. These are undeniable facts, however you dress it.

     Comment by bolinger — 9/15/2007 @ 1:11 pm

365. So how would you have sought the hijacked planes among 4500 identical blips, Bolinger?

     Comment by Frank IBC — 9/15/2007 @ 1:38 pm

366. Again, this isn’t about how I would find the plane or how you would find it, or even what an official says while not under oath. None of it matters because there is no risk of perjury. It matters not one jot what anyone says out of court on matters where a crime has clearly been committed and people have died. It might as well be filed under folk lore and forgotten about.

     The evidence for and against must be tested in a court of law and what ever the truth is, it certainly has a greater chance of coming out than it will ever have otherwise.

     The failure to intercept is but one facet that needs to be explained and tested. This is how the system of trying someone for an alleged crime works. An accusation is made and the prosecution gathers all its evidence to support the accusation. The defense is then given access to the evidence and allowed to prepare a rebuttal.

     In the course of this, lots of things come out because lots of witnesses are called. I don’t pretend to know the details of how things work in the military, nor am I an expert on air defenses and I certainly cannot say that I am acquainted in any way with the details of the day to day running of military organizations. But looking at it from a citizen’s point of view, I have come to realize that there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to merit a trial of some sort.

     Not withstanding some individuals who inevitably will always use any event or disaster for profit, by far, the majority of those representing the aptly named “truth movement” are after just that; the truth. The best way to ensure that this comes out is through a trial and as I’ve said before, I do not think one will be permitted simply because the power to stop it rests with those who will be among the accused.

     Comment by bolinger — 9/15/2007 @ 3:30 pm

367. I have come to realize that there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to merit a trial of some sort.

     No, you have simply made up your mind that it was all done by the government, and you refuse to acknowledge the abundance of direct evidence that contradicts your hair-brained scenarios. Yours is a religious belief, not arrived at through careful thought.

     Comment by Frank IBC — 9/15/2007 @ 3:51 pm

368. If you are going to continue to babble about “failure to intercept”, then you had damn well better to come up with a scenario in which you are somehow able to track the four hijacked planes among the other 4500 identical blips.

     Comment by Frank IBC — 9/15/2007 @ 3:53 pm

369. Back to the usual MO I see. Ridicule and keep asking the same question and eventually they’ll go away. Apparently wanting a trial for a crime is now a religious belief. Not accepting the word of officials and those who repeat their words are the thoughts of someone thinking up hair-brained scenarios.

     Since you keep asking me questions which I have already said I don’t know, let’s see if you can be as honest.

     Do you think there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to merit a trial or not?

     If you think there is sufficient circumstantial evidence you must agree that a trial is needed.

     If you do not think there is sufficient circumstantial evidence, you are therefore relying solely on the statements and explanations posited by government officials and other esteemed personages.

     If, as I suspect, you will maintain the latter option, you really haven’t a leg to stand on. You have chosen to believe what the official story says, I haven’t. How far does that get us? Not very.

     Can you not see the glaring shortfall in your argument. If you believe and trust the word of officials like Maj. Douglas Martin on whose unofficial explanations you have chosen to rely, who is to say that what he says isn’t simply what he wants you to believe as opposed to what the truth might be? Is there not even the slightest hint of a conflict of interest here. Same goes for all things said out of court while not under oath.

     You accuse me of religious thinking. What is religious thinking other than relying on the testimony of revered individuals, past or present. No, I think the argument for religion is firmly lodged at your door, not mine.

     Finally, I don’t have to come up with a scenario in which the four planes may or may not be tracked. I am a member of the jury. I listen, I evaluate and I assess. You, on the other hand, have assumed the role of defense attorney and in the absence of a judge and some witnesses, you have decided to turn on the jury. How absurd.

     Comment by bolinger — 9/15/2007 @ 4:24 pm

370. Mr Bolinger, sounds to me like you’ve not only joined the jury but have assumed the role of judge as well. Once upon a time we’d have called that a “Vigilence Committee.”

     Comment by Aridog — 9/15/2007 @ 4:41 pm

371. Why is it so hard to understand the concept that direct evidence can REFUTE circumstantial evidence?

     And why can’t you answer my simple question in #365?

     Comment by Frank IBC — 9/15/2007 @ 4:44 pm

372. You accuse me of religious thinking. What is religious thinking other than relying on the testimony of revered individuals, past or present. No, I think the argument for religion is firmly lodged at your door, not mine.

     Sorry, but you do exactly what you are accusing me and others of doing, in reverse - you arbitrarily and totally disregard evidence because it is put forth by people who you “un-revere”.

     Comment by Frank IBC — 9/15/2007 @ 4:48 pm

373. Whether or not the 4 blips could have been isolated is merely the first step. Beyond that, there is no legal precedent nor statutory foundation for the US Military to intercept and shoot down a US flag common carrier aircraft originating within the US borders. There are very limited circumstances where the Commander in Chief (..e.g., the President) could order such an action. In this case (there are other legal instances regarding insurrection), it would require confirmed knowledge that the threat originated out side of the US, came across the borders, and was now resident in the US using US carriers by hijack or other proxy. No senior military commander would execute such an order without that assurance. See, it’s a unique feature of our military that they not only must follow orders, but they must also be capable of evaluating the legality of those orders.

     Once you understand the above, 1 to 2 hours time is insufficient to resolve the unprecendented events of 9/11 and proceed to legally shoot down aircraft. Based upon a couple decades of first hand experience, I can suggest to you that the US Military has no standing mission to defend against internal threats.

     Comment by Aridog — 9/15/2007 @ 5:10 pm

374. Yes, there were a lot of “firsts” on 9/11.

     -First successful hijacking of a US airliner flying within the borders of the USA since 1979.

     -First time that boxcutters were used as a hijacking weapon. Boxcutters had been allowed in carry-on luggage up to that point - in my previous job, we carried boxcutters to meetings so that we could unpack our equipment the moment we arrived at the meeting site.

     -First time more than one plane was hijacked in the same day, let alone the same hour.

     -First time that a plane itself was used as a weapon.

     -First time that a jet plane flying near full speed (and well above the recommended speed for the altitude) , and fully loaded with kerosene, was flown into a skyscraper.

     -First time that the transponders on a commercial airliner were deliberately and maliciously turned off during flight over the USA.

     -First time that a plane that represented a threat to the citizens of the USA originated within the USA.

     And many more…

     Comment by Frank IBC — 9/15/2007 @ 5:45 pm

375. Ooops, it did it again - text between two successive dashes automatically “striken”. Weird.

     Comment by Frank IBC — 9/15/2007 @ 5:46 pm

376. If the US government had done a “controlled demolition”, it would have looked a lot like this.

     Comment by Frank IBC — 9/15/2007 @ 5:52 pm

377. # 375 Frank IBC…ref: strikeouts

     No doubt those dratted “Men in Black” again.

     /if a sac tag necessary?

     Comment by Aridog — 9/15/2007 @ 5:54 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

• Pages:
  • About Me
  • Contact Me
• Blogroll
  • A CERTAIN SLANT OF LIGHT
  • A Conservative Lesbian
  • ABBAGAV
  • ACE OF SPADES
  • ALPHA PATRIOT
  • AM I A PUNDIT NOW
  • AMERICAN FUTURE
  • AMERICAN THINKER
  • ANCHORESS
  • AND RIGHTLY SO
  • ANDREW OLMSTED
  • ANKLEBITING PUNDITS
  • AREOPAGITICA
  • ATLAS SHRUGS
  • BACKCOUNTRY CONSERVATIVE
  • BASIL’S BLOG
  • BEAUTIFUL ATROCITIES
  • BELGRAVIA DISPATCH
  • BELMONT CLUB
  • BETSY’S PAGE
  • Blacksmiths of Lebanon
  • Blogs of War
  • BLUEY BLOG
  • BRAINSTERS BLOG
  • BUZZ MACHINE
  • CANINE PUNDIT
  • CAO’S BLOG
  • CAPTAINS QUARTERS
  • CATHOUSE CHAT
  • CHRENKOFF
  • CINDY SHEEHAN WATCH
  • Classical Values
  • Cold Fury
  • COMPOSITE DRAWLINGS
  • CONSERVATHINK
  • CONSERVATIVE THINK
  • CONTENTIONS
  • DAVE’S NOT HERE
  • DEANS WORLD
  • DICK McMICHAEL
  • Diggers Realm
  • DR. SANITY
  • E-CLAIRE
  • EJECT! EJECT! EJECT!
  • ELECTRIC VENOM
  • ERIC’S GRUMBLES BEFORE THE GRAVE
  • ESOTERICALLY.NET
  • FAUSTA’S BLOG
  • FLIGHT PUNDIT
  • FOURTH RAIL
  • FRED FRY INTERNATIONAL
  • GALLEY SLAVES
  • GATES OF VIENNA
  • HEALING IRAQ
  • http://blogcritics.org/
  • HUGH HEWITT
  • IMAO
  • INDEPUNDIT
  • INSTAPUNDIT
  • IOWAHAWK
  • IRAQ THE MODEL
  • JACKSON’S JUNCTION
  • JO’S CAFE
  • JOUST THE FACTS
  • KING OF FOOLS
  • LASHAWN BARBER’S CORNER
  • LASSOO OF TRUTH
  • LIBERTARIAN LEANINGS
  • LITTLE GREEN FOOTBALLS
  • LITTLE MISS ATTILA
  • LIVE BREATHE AND DIE
  • LUCIANNE.COM
  • MAGGIE’S FARM
  • MEMENTO MORON
  • MESOPOTAMIAN
  • MICHELLE MALKIN
  • MIDWEST PROGNOSTICATOR
  • MODERATELY THINKING
  • MOTOWN BLOG
  • MY VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY
  • mypetjawa
  • NaderNow
  • Neocon News
  • NEW SISYPHUS
  • NEW WORLD MAN
  • North Star National
  • Northerncrown
  • OUTSIDE THE BELTWAY
  • PATRIOTIC MOM
  • PATTERICO’S PONTIFICATIONS
  • POLIPUNDIT
  • Political Byline
  • POLITICAL MUSINGS
  • POLITICAL TEEN
  • POWERLINE
  • PRO CYNIC
  • PUBLIUS FORUM
  • QUESTIONS AND OBSERVATIONS
  • RACE42008
  • RADICAL CENTRIST
  • Ravenwood’s Universe
  • RELEASE THE HOUNDS
  • RIGHT FROM LEFT
  • RIGHT VOICES
  • RIGHT WING NEWS
  • RIGHTFAITH
  • RIGHTWINGSPARKLE
  • ROGER L. SIMON
  • SHRINKRAPPED
  • Six Meat Buffet
  • Slowplay.com
  • SOCAL PUNDIT
  • SOCRATIC RYTHM METHOD
  • STOUT REPUBLICAN
  • TERRORISM UNVEILED
  • TFS MAGNUM
  • THE ART OF THE BLOG
  • THE BELMONT CLUB
  • The Conservative Cat
  • THE DONEGAL EXPRESS
  • THE LIBERAL WRONG-WING
  • THE LLAMA BUTCHERS
  • THE MAD PIGEON
  • THE MODERATE VOICE
  • THE PATRIETTE
  • THE POLITBURO DIKTAT
  • THE PRYHILLS
  • THE RED AMERICA
  • THE RESPLENDENT MANGO
  • THE RICK MORAN SHOW
  • THE SMARTER COP
  • THE SOAPBOX
  • THE STRATA-SPHERE
  • THE STRONG CONSERVATIVE
  • THE SUNNYE SIDE
  • THE VIVID AIR
  • THOUGHTS ONLINE
  • TIM BLAIR
  • TRANSATLANTIC INTELLIGENCER
  • TRANSTERRESTRIAL MUSINGS
  • TYGRRRR EXPRESS
  • VARIFRANK
  • VIKING PUNDIT
  • VINCE AUT MORIRE
  • VODKAPUNDIT
  • WALLO WORLD
  • WIDE AWAKES
  • WIZBANG
  • WUZZADEM
  • ZERO POINT BLOG
• Links
  • WordPress
• Media
  • ABC NEWS
  • ACCURACY IN MEDIA
  • AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE
  • AMERICAN THINKER
  • BBC
  • BLOGCRITICS.ORG
  • BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
  • C-SPAN
  • CBS NEWS
  • CNN.COM
  • CNS NEWS
  • COMMENTARY MAGAZINE
  • CONSERVATIVE PUNK
  • DILBY NEWS
  • DISCOVER MAGAZINE
  • DRUDGE REPORT
  • FOR YOUR CONSERVATIVE PLEASURE
  • FOREIGN POLICY.COM
  • FOX NEWS
  • FRONTPAGE MAGAZINE
  • HERITAGE FOUNDATION
  • HISTORY NEWS NETWORK
  • HOOVER INSTITUTION
  • HUMAN EVENTS
  • INSIGHT ON THE NEWS
  • INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE
  • MEDIA RESEARCH CENTER
  • MEMRI (MIDDLE EAST MEDIA RESEARCH INSTITUTE)
  • MILITARY HISTORY ONLINE
  • MSNBC
  • NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC.COM
  • NEWSBACK
  • NEWSMAX
  • NEWSTEX
  • OPINION EDITORIALS.COM
  • POLITEES
  • POLITICS WATCH (CANADA)
  • REALCLEAR POLITICS
  • SALON
  • SCIENCE MAGAZINE
  • SLATE MAGAZINE
  • TAKE BACK THE NEWS
  • TECHCENTRAL STATION
  • THE AMERICAN SPECTATOR
  • THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE
  • THE GUARDIAN UNLIMITED
  • THE LOS ANGELES TIMES
  • THE MIGHTY GWINN SHOW
  • THE NATION
  • THE NATIONAL INTEREST
  • THE NATIONAL LEDGER
  • THE NATIONAL REVIEW
  • THE NEW EDITOR
  • THE NEW REPUBLIC
  • The New Scientist
  • THE NEW YORK POST
  • THE NEW YORK TIMES
  • THE POST CHRONICLE - A WEB NEWSPAPER
  • THE RICK MORAN SHOW
  • THE VANGUARD
  • THE WASHINGTON POST
  • THE WASHINGTON TIMES
  • THE WEEKLY STANDARD
  • TOWNHALL
  • WATCHING AMERICA
  • YOUNG NATIONALIST
• Space and Technology
  • ALAN BOYLE-MSNBC
  • HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE
  • MARS BLOG
  • NASA
  • NASA WATCH.COM
  • NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC.COM
  • PROJECT CONSTELLATION U.S.
  • QUARK SOUP
  • SCIENCE MAGAZINE
  • SPACE REF.COM
  • SPACE.COM
  • SPACECRAFT
  • The New Scientist
  • THE SPACE REVIEW
  • TRANSTERRESTRIAL MUSINGS
  • VOYAGE TO ARCTURUS
• The Wide Awakes
  • CAO’S BLOG
  • CAT HOUSE CHAT
  • CRYSTAL CLEAR READS
  • DEAD REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTS
  • IOWA GEEK
  • KENDER’S MUSINGS
  • LONG TIME GONE
  • MARK LEVIN FAN
  • MOONBATTERY
  • NIF
  • OGRE’S POLITICS AND VIEWS
  • RAVINGS OF A MAD TECH
  • ROTTWEILER PUPPY
  • STICKS AND STONES
  • THE NASHIF REPORT
  • UNCIVIL RIGHTS
  • UNCLE JACK
• WATCHER'S COUNCIL
  • Big Lizards
  • BOOKWORM ROOM
  • Colossus of Rhodey
  • DONE WITH MIRRORS
  • ETERNITY ROAD
  • JOSHUAPUNDIT
  • RHYMES WITH RIGHT
  • RIGHTWING NUTHOUSE
  • SOCCER DAD
  • THE EDUCATION WONKS
  • THE GLITTERING EYE
  • THE SUNDRIES SHACK
  • WATCHER OF WEASELS
• Categories:
  • "24"
  • ABLE DANGER
  • American Issues Project
  • Arizona Massacre
  • Bailout
  • Bird Flu
    • Swine Flu
  • Birthers
  • Blackhawks
  • Blagojevich
  • Blogging
  • Books
  • CARNIVAL OF THE CLUELESS
  • Caucasus
  • CHICAGO BEARS
  • Chicago Bulls
  • Chicago East
  • CIA VS. THE WHITE HOUSE
  • Cindy Sheehan
  • Climate Change
  • Climate Chnage
  • conservative reform
  • cotton candy conservatives
  • CPAC Conference
  • Culture
  • Debt ceiling
  • Decision '08
  • Decision 2010
  • Decision 2012
  • Deficit reduction
  • Election '06
  • Entitlement Crisis
  • Environment
  • Ethics
  • Fairness Doctrine
  • Financial Crisis
  • FRED!
  • FrontPage.Com
  • Frum Forum
  • Gaza incident
  • General
  • GOP Reform
  • Government
  • health care reform
  • History
  • Homeland Security
  • IMMIGRATION REFORM
  • IMPEACHMENT
  • Iran
  • IRAQI RECONCILIATION
  • Israel vs. Hamas
  • KATRINA
  • Katrina Timeline
  • Lebanon
  • Liberal Congress
  • Manzine
  • Marvin Moonbat
  • Media
  • Middle East
  • Moonbats
  • National Health Insurance
  • NET NEUTRALITY
  • Newsreal Blog
  • Obama inauguration
  • Obama-Rezko
  • OBAMANIA!
  • Oil Spill
  • Olympics
  • Open House
  • Palin
  • Pirates
  • PJ Media
  • PJ Tatler
  • Politics
  • Presidential Debates
  • Presidential Transition
  • RINO Hour of Power
  • RNC
  • S-CHIP
  • Sarah Palin
  • Science
  • Space
  • Sports
  • Star Trek
  • SUPER BOWL
  • Supreme Court
  • Tea Parties
  • Technology
  • Tenth Amendment
  • The Caucasus
  • The Law
  • The Long War
  • The Rick Moran Show
  • Too Big To Fail
  • Torture
  • UNITED NATIONS
  • Walpin Scandal
  • War on Terror
  • WATCHER'S COUNCIL
  • WHITE SOX
  • Who is Mr. Hsu?
  • Wide Awakes Radio
  • WORLD CUP
  • WORLD POLITICS
  • WORLD SERIES
• Search:
  
  
• Archives:
  • January 2021
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
• Meta:
  • Log in
  • RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • Valid XHTML
  • XFN
  • WP