Osama Did It - Get A Life !!

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

Something Else About WTC7

Another thing I noticed today about the "pull" conversation between Silverstein and the FIRE CHIEF that is such a big point to the Conspiracyologists:

Are you telling me that a FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMANDER is a complicit participator in the "demolitions" supposedly perpetrated by the government? A FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMANDER is going to OK something which has already KILLED 343 of his fellow firefighters? I think that assumption is an insult to the heroes of that day and to every firefighter in this country who loved their job and takes their job seriously.

"They told us to get out of there because they were worried about 7 World Trade Center, which is right behind it, coming down. We were up on the upper floors of the Verizon building looking at it. You could just see the whole bottom corner of the building was gone. We could look right out over to where the Trade Centers were because we were that high up. Looking over the smaller buildings. I just remember it was tremendous, tremendous fires going on. Finally they pulled us out. They said all right, get out of that building because that 7, they were really worried about. They pulled us out of there and then they regrouped everybody on Vesey Street, between the water and West Street. They put everybody back in there. Finally it did come down. From there - this is much later on in the day, because every day we were so worried about that building we didn't really want to get people close. They were trying to limit the amount of people that were in there. Finally it did come down." - Richard Banaciski

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Banaciski_Richard.txt

The best site I know that explains a lot of things

http://www.debunking911.com/index.html

This site is the "other side" of the hundreds of conspiracy sites.

It has a particularly good section on pictures of the South side of WTC 7 and why that building was NOT going to stand up for long. Huge hole in the back side. A hugely crooked outer wall. And "pull" meaning "pull the firemen OUT" not "demolish it."

Monday, August 28, 2006

You Conspiracy Guys Need To Attack My LOGIC

OK let's take another tack. So far, all the comments which have been left have either:

1. Called me an idiot for believing what I saw with my own eyes, or
2. Pointed me to websites which have a huge number of unsubstantiated hearsay stories, or
3. Pointed me to websites which have total nonsense as the argument.

Now, I completely understand that you guys HATE the Bush Administration - that's a given. I have yet to hear from ONE SINGLE APOLITICAL PERSON or REPUBLICAN who is in favor of this "we did it" theory.

Here's what I want you to do so we can make some headway, versus just banging our heads against a wall:

ATTACK MY CONCLUSIONS.
ATTACK MY LOGIC.
SHOW ME THAT MY COMMON SENSE STATEMENTS ARE FALSE.

Don't try to show me all your supposed "evidence" because all that means NOTHING if you cannot penetrate the logic of what I am saying. For example, if you can't dissuade me from believing that the Towers started falling from the areas where the jet fuel fires had done the most damage to the steel, then your conspiracy ends right there. And if you cannot show me any conclusive evidence that there were any explosions or fires anywhere else except where the jet fuel had gone down the elevator shafts, then your theory ends right there. And if you can't show me that the planes were NOT hijacked by young arab men, then your theory ends right there.

Prove to me your theories have a basis of truth by disproving the logic I have posted here.

Friday, August 25, 2006

Summary of Common Sense Reasons Why the Towers Were Felled By OBL

Let's summarize the major points I have made in this blog.

1. If OBL 'did not do it' then why is he constantly saying he DID DO IT? And why are the Muslim extremists having meetings and praising ALLAH for the 9-11 attacks? Should they instead be praising Karl Rove?

2. To the people who think the fact that OBL is not listed by the FBI as "WANTED FOR THE 9-11 ATTACKS" - do you think the reason is that they KNOW HE DIDN'T DO IT so they are not listing him as a suspect? Don't you think THAT might kinda give away some of the secrecy of the fact that they are trying to HIDE that the government did it? Would it not make more common sense to LIST HIM AS A SUSPECT if you are trying to BLAME IT ON SOMEONE ELSE other than the government Invisible Ninjas who planted the explosives in WTC?

3. This demolition was done and not a SINGLE PIECE of trace evidence has shown up of the demolition - even on E-Bay? None of the thousands of cleanup workers found ANYTHING suspicious and pocketed it? So this was the MOST INVISIBLE demolition operation ever?

4. For Bush (who the haters keep saying is SO STUPID) to have pulled this off, he is not only one of the more capable and cunning people ever to walk the Earf, he is ALSO AT LEAST AS EVIL AS THE WWII GERMAN CHANCELLOR. Right? To kill thousands of innocent people on your own soil, and to cover it up, and for what reason? To make a few Rich Guys even Richer?

5. The collapse of WTC has been investigated and described by many individual engineers and groups of engineers from many backgrounds, countries, and across the political spectrum. The VAST majority agree on how these simple principles of physics brought down the towers. Fire was the culprit (or more accurately heat energy), and the fact that fireproofing systems were disrupted by the impact of the aircraft was critical. Science with a political motivation is not real science.

6. Say there WAS a big thermite-based bomb in the basement which aided in the speed of the collapse. Who's to say Osama's boys did not plant that one ahead of time? Just because we did not catch them in the act does not mean they couldn't have gained access and left a car or truck down there, right, on a timer? If we didn't find any other evidence of a "secret government demolition," then why would we have found this?

7. Assume that the Bush Administration DID perpetrate 9-11. What would that mean to the Democrats? What it would mean is this: the possible complete destruction of the Republican party. Every single Republican would get voted out of office. If a group of Senate or House Democrats took this conspiracy theory under their wings and were able to PROVE that it was a government job, that would mean the Democrats would take over the WORLD !!! So why has that not happened? Because the evidence to PROVE that it was an inside job IS NOT THERE. If it were there, the Democrats would have ALREADY run with it. So would have the media.

8. OK, so if there WERE NO hijackers, what were all those flight attendants and passengers ( who called family members and emergency numbers from the plane) talking about when they described "young, middle eastern men who have swarmed the cockpit and killed flight attendants" ?? Were THOSE CALLS FAKE TOO? Or were all those people WILLING PARTICIPANTS, who were coached as to what to say? The flight attendants whose fear was clearly recognizable in their voices - they were what, paid to fake it?

9. How about all the black box recordings? All Faked, too? How about the military and civilian air traffic controllers transcripts and recordings, some of which CLEARLY had middle eastern men with according accents speaking from the cockpits? All Faked? How about all the air traffic controllers who are now doing something else - did they all get paid off to "keep quiet?" Once again, those questions and the possible answers to them would mean a MASSIVELY secret, MASSIVELY successful coverup, involving HUNDREDS of people who are STILL ALIVE !!! All the people who were called from the planes, all the 911 operators who got calls, all the aircraft employees who were called by the flight attendants, all the air traffic controllers, all the cops and firemen and survivors of the WTC collapses. All these people are still LYING about it, even today? For what reason? So Dick Cheney's hunting buddies can get richer? It's nonsensical !!

10. "sounded like a bomb" absolutely does not mean BOMB. The morning of 8-8-2006 a construction accident occurred in downtown Phoenix. A portion of a two-story concrete parking building being demolished collapsed onto a worker. But here's why this event is in THIS blog: The first eye-witness interviewed said, "It sounded like a bomb went off. All I heard was this huge boom and I looked over and saw dust and smoke." So. A little corner portion of a small concrete parking garage collapses, and it "sounds like a bomb" going off. HHHHMMMMMMMMMMMMM. Was it a bomb? No. I wonder what the sound of a 110-story concrete and steel building collapsing would sound like !!!!!! So I think any "hearsay" eye-witness accounts of people at Ground Zero hearing "bombs going off" can be completely discounted. It was the concrete pulverizing. When the commercial dumpster guy comes to my company and removes the full dumpster and "drops off" the empty one, when the empty one hits the ground, it sounds a LOT like a bomb going off. Is it a bomb? No.

This Post Is One Of The Most Logical Posts Yet - thanks to the commenters for making this point come to me.

Have we all seen the video of the towers collapsing? Just this past weekend I watched three or four specials on TV which showed the collapse again, so it's fresh in my mind.

Think about it for a second: Did the original collapse of each building NOT START from right at the bottom of the floors that were impacted by the plane crash? It sure looked like to me it did, in both buildings. Right where the explosion and fire had done the most damage to the interior of the buildings. Those of you who remember the image - can we agree on that? Can we agree that the first floor which collapsed in each building was at or near the bottom of the areas which were damaged by the planes crashing into the buildings?

OK, so, since the collapse started there, and the building was SUPPOSEDLY blown up from the INSIDE with BOMBS, that would mean that in each building there was a bomb located on the EXACT FLOOR which was located at the bottom of the floors where the plane damage occured which was detonanted and that started the collapse?

Such an AMAZING BOMB that must have been !! The bomb which did not explode from the jet crashing into the building and starting the fire and stayed away from the fire until it was "time to explode"? The bomb which was adequately hidden from all the survivors on each floor. The bomb which, when it WAS supposedly finally detonated, gave NO VISUAL INDICATION that it had been exploded to the MILLIONS of people watching on live TV and the MILLIONS who have seen that image dozens of times each !! What an AMAZING BOMB !!!

And the planters of the bomb beforehand KNEW RIGHT EXACTLY WHERE to put the bomb so that it would be RIGHT AT THE BOTTOM of the plane crash damage (it had to be there so it could be hidden from the TV cameras, right?) and start the collapse? And how to protect it from the plane damage and the fire until it was "time" to blow down the building? They knew EXACTLY where the planes were going to crash so they could put the bombs RIGHT THERE on the CORRECT FLOORS? Is that what happened?

You see how goofy that sounds?

If anyone can show me ANY REAL EVIDENCE that the collapse DID NOT START right at the bottom of the plane damaged floors, I will delete this blog.


Use the "hate-free" portion of your brain for a second and think about this:

What were all the floors UNDER the top 50 floors SUPPOSED TO DO when hundreds of tons of concrete and steel started falling down on top of it? Were any of those floors rated for support of 600 tons of water dampers? What was supposed to happen when the top 50 floors collapsed onto the floor right under it? Was that floor supposed to then support the weight of the 50 floors above it?

Pancake collapse was INEVITABLE once the first floor collapsed. And from the above points I made, HOW ON EARTH could a bomb have made that first floor collapse?

Explain that to me. I'm waiting. Patiently.

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

Zacharias Moussaoui

Here's one that I think the "conspiracy proponents" have a SERIOUS problem explaining.

If you think the Arabs who hijacked and crashed the planes are "CIA Patsies", then how do you explain this guy?

Is he a "hired Mental Patient CIA Patsy?"

At no time in ALL his crazy ramblings did he blame George Bush for the attacks. He was still working for Geroge Bush, and yet calling him Satan? What did the CIA tell him: "Act crazy as a loon, claim to be Al-Quaeda, and never mention that it was an inside job." ??? Would you trust THIS KOOKBIRD if you were trying to hide the most brazen American Government secret death plan of all time? Wouldn't it have been FAR BETTER for the secrecy of the cause to just give him the same treatment the 9-11 plane victims got - quick and secretive death?

Some of his wacky court filings:

First Pleading is titled 'Wanted for WTC Bankruptcy' and offers "WTC profit and loss Account" with pleading: Loss: 3000 sons of evil Profit: 19 slaves of Allah

Osama Bin Laden's response - he CLAIMS Moussaoui as an Al-Quaeda operative:

On May 23, 2006, an audio recording attributed to Osama Bin Laden said in translation that Moussaoui "had no connection at all with September 11.... I am the one in charge of the 19 brothers and I never assigned brother Zacarias to be with them in that mission.... Since Zacarias Moussaoui was still learning to fly, he wasn't number 20 in the group, as your government claimed". The voice alleged to be Bin Laden also suggested that Moussaoui's confession was "void" as it was a result of pressures applied during his incarceration.

Saturday, August 19, 2006

"The Ceiling is Falling!!!"

One of the victims in the South Tower talking to his dad from the 103rd floor on his cell phone at the instant the South Tower started to fall.

Just like the engineers who built the building SAID it collapsed - floor upon floor like an accordion.

The pilots of the police helicopters saw GLOWING RED HOT BEAMS at the plane entrance moments before the North Tower collapsed, and they knew it was coming down and radioed it to the people below. That saved hundreds of people because the firemen and police then started moving people out and away quickly.

The Video also shows red hot flames at the bottom of the plane entrance right before the collapse.

This all from the A&E show "Anatomy of 9-11" which aired 8-19-2006.

Also: CNN Presents had a show about the terror war. It showed groups of radical young Islamists having meetings and CELEBRATING 9-11 AS A VICTORY FOR ISLAM. Should they be instead praising GEORGE BUSH, since HE knocked down the towers? Has George Bush been cheated out of all this free praise? Allah hopes not !!!

Wednesday, August 16, 2006

This column makes some great points.

I will repeat some of them below in case the link goes away.

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51540

First, al-Qaida has repeatedly admitted planning and executing the 9/11 attacks. In a captured videotape recording of a private meeting in November 2001, bin Laden talks in detail about the 9/11 plot, comparing his expectations in advance to what actually occurred.

End of discussion, right? Nope. The 9/11 conspiracy peddlers reply that bin Laden is –today – on the payroll of the CIA and the Israeli Mossad. To explain away al-Qaida's proud admission, they "out" bin Laden as a CIA agent. (Where is Joe Wilson when you need him?) Some also insist that Al Jazeera is a television network operated by Israel, because Qatar lacks technical skills.

Second, of the World Trade Center, professors Fetzer and Jones insist "there was not enough kinetic energy to cause one floor to bring about the collapse of the floor below it." Yet about 29 floors tilted and fell onto the crumbling floor where the aircraft gouged out and removed support structure. Why would a university professor talk about "one floor" falling when everyone knows that 29 floors, plus 140 tons of aircraft and cargo, fell? Fetzer is intentionally deceiving the gullible. (But I am Jewish, he says, for disagreeing with him.)

Third, Fetzer and Jones argue that the Twin Towers could not have collapsed so neatly without a controlled demolition. Architects clarify that any such building is designed to load-shift. The failure of part of a floor causes other parts of that structure to compensate and take up the load. This means that each floor must always fail symmetrically. As long as any part of the floor remains intact, it is designed to pick up the remaining load. Thus, it was inevitable that the towers collapsed symmetrically and down the center. Furthermore, controlled demolitions start from the bottom up. The WTC collapse bears no resemblance to that whatsoever.

Fourth, many conspiracy peddlers insist that no airplanes ever hit the World Trade Center or Pentagon. The airplanes never existed. They refuse to acknowledge that tens of thousands of eyewitnesses went outside and watched the WTC burn before the second airplane hit. News footage was faked, they say, but they do not explain how thousands of journalists and New Yorkers all watched the airplane hit or how dozens of cameras all show the same thing. They ignore how American Airlines crash investigators verified their airplanes from the wreckage in order to file insurance claims and prepare for lawsuits. They do not explain why hundreds of civilian air traffic controllers and airport radar operators confirm the official explanation (indeed, are the sources for much of it). They assume that hundreds of local police and firefighters crawling over the wreckage covered up for the murderers of their fellow firefighters and cops.

Fifth, conspiracy mongers claim that no steel building has ever collapsed from fire alone, so the Twin Towers couldn't, either. However, the heavy-steel-construction McCormick Place Exhibition Hall collapsed after only 30 minutes of an ordinary fire in Chicago. No physical damage. No jet fuel. Just an ordinary fire softened the steel to the point of structural collapse. And that steel was not carrying the load of 110 floors above it. A dozen other fires in steel buildings have also collapsed floors because the steel softened and buckled. The Hotel Windsor lost its entire upper half in a fire. Clearly, the temperature of an ordinary fire can make a steel structure fail.

But, of course, the WTC towers did not collapse from fire alone, but from the severe physical damage of a 140-ton aircraft traveling at 540 mph shredding the support structures, not to mention the weight of the planes themselves. Incredible temperatures resulted from approximately 30,000 kilograms of jet fuel. But the fireball itself was an enormous, cataclysmic bomb, shattering the building's interior. They ignore how this fantastic bomb of jet fuel damaged the building. During the ensuing fire, the expansion of steel in 1,500 degree fires distorted the building and sheared off bolts and connectors, as the steel expanded, buckled and warped. Later, a "fuel air bomb" from jet fuel leaking down the elevator shaft shook the entire structure.

Sixth, conspiracy mongers engage in pure science fiction about whether the WTC buildings should have collapsed as they did. Such calculations are meaningless because we can never know the actual circumstances: What was the temperature inside? We will never know. Was there substandard construction material? Was the construction perfect? Was there corrosion from the salt air of the ocean during 35 years? Was the architectural design as good as the architects thought?

All such calculations are pure science fiction because there are a hundred variables we can never know. The mythmakers ignore the structural damage from the 1993 bombing. Islamic terrorists had calculated that their truck bomb in the basement garage would bring down the Twin Towers completely. The towers stood, but with what damage?

Similarly, the mythmakers claim that the towers fell at the same rate as objects in free fall. Actually, the towers fell in a span of between 12 and 20 seconds, whereas free fall is 9.22 seconds. Dr. Frank Greening's exhaustive paper demonstrates brilliantly that the Twin Towers collapse is entirely explainable from gravity alone. Furthermore, how the government can make buildings fall faster (consistent with the news footage) is never well explained.

Seventh, engineers at the Pentagon measured the hole from Flight 77 at 90 feet wide. Yet the fiction-peddlers claim that the hole was only 16 feet wide, based on a French author who apparently has never visited the United States. Conspiracy peddlers argue that a Boeing 757 would have made a hole wider than 16 feet. It did. Yet vast arguments, websites, books and careers are based on the hole being only 16 feet, instead of the actual 90 feet.

Eighth, other mythmakers point to lists of victims on each flight. They claim that the hijackers are missing from the passenger manifests, which proves that the government slipped the hijackers past security gates. But lists of victims obviously do not include the murderers who killed them.

Ninth, the 9/11 conspiracy peddlers all contradict each other. Collectively, they will claim that there is "overwhelming evidence" against the official explanation of 9/11. However, what is "overwhelming" is a mish-mash of contradictory and mutually exclusive scenarios. Each of the conspiracy peddlers proves the others wrong. Moreover, the conspiracy theories keep changing. When confronted by the falsehoods and contradictions, they simply change their story. This proves that they are not seeking the truth, but any excuse to bash Bush.

In general, conspiracy theorists point to elements of the official explanation they find hard to believe – but then adopt infinitely less believable, preposterous scenarios. Their scenarios do not answer their own questions any better than the official explanation (or even as well). These activists are simply intent on bending the truth, not finding it, to bash George Bush.

Thursday, August 10, 2006

"Fake" War On Terror Continues

Boy, George Bush keeps looking smarter and SMARTER. All these "fake" supposed Al Quaida attacks we are thwarting - MAN !! He's not only the mastermind behind the attacks THEMSELVES, but he's getting credit for STOPPING them TOO !!!

Man, does he have to go down as the smartest, most capable President EVER or WHAT ?????

(ok tongue now removed from cheek)

So conspiracy proponents: A Question If You Would Please

If Geroge Bush "faked" 9-11 as an Al Quaida attack to start the "Fake War On Terror", then where are all these other bombings and attacks and planned attacks coming from?

Is your ridiculousness becoming apparent to your own self now? It should be, because it's becoming Crystal Clear to me.

Tuesday, August 08, 2006

More tidbits from the PM story:

Puffs Of Dust
CLAIM:As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."

FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."

Popular Mechanics Debunks the "Conspiracy Theories"

See this story.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

It uses SCIENCE and COMMON SENSE to debunk a lot of the "conspiracy proponents" main points.

After reading this, my Blog becomes so much stronger.

Some tidbits:

Seismic Spikes
CLAIM:Seismographs at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the WTC, recorded the events of 9/11. "The strongest jolts were all registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before falling debris struck the earth," reports the Web site WhatReallyHappened.com.

A columnist on Prisonplanet.com, a Web site run by radio talk show host Alex Jones, claims the seismic spikes (boxed area on Graph 1) are "indisputable proof that massive explosions brought down" the towers. The Web site says its findings are supported by two seismologists at the observatory, Won-Young Kim and Arthur Lerner-Lam. Each "sharp spike of short duration," says Prisonplanet.com, was consistent with a "demolition-style implosion."

FACT:"There is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers," Lerner-Lam tells PM. "That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context."

The report issued by Lamont-Doherty includes various graphs showing the seismic readings produced by the planes crashing into the two towers as well as the later collapse of both buildings. WhatReallyHappened.com chooses to display only one graph (Graph 1), which shows the readings over a 30-minute time span.

On that graph, the 8- and 10-second collapses appear--misleadingly--as a pair of sudden spikes. Lamont-Doherty's 40-second plot of the same data (Graph 2) gives a much more detailed picture: The seismic waves--blue for the South Tower, red for the North Tower--start small and then escalate as the buildings rumble to the ground. Translation: no bombs.

"sounded like a bomb" absolutely does not mean BOMB

This morning (8-8-06) a construction accident occurred in downtown Phoenix. A portion of a two-story concrete parking building being demolished collapsed onto a worker. He is likely deceased - they are digging him out now.

But here's why this event is in THIS blog:

The first eye-witness interviewed said, "It sounded like a bomb went off. All I heard was this huge boom and I looked over and saw dust and smoke."

So. A little portion of a small concrete parking garage collapses, and it "sounds like a bomb" going off. HHHHMMMMMMMMMMMMM. Was it a bomb? No.

I wonder what the sound of a 110-story concrete and steel building collapsing would sound like !!!!!!

So I think any "hearsay" eye-witness accounts of people at Ground Zero hearing "bombs going off" can be completely discounted. It was the concrete pulverizing.

Something else.

When the commercial dumpster guy comes to my company and removes the full dumpster and "drops off" the empty one, when the empty one hits the ground, it sounds a LOT like a bomb going off. Is it a bomb? No.

Monday, August 07, 2006

Something else that is prevalent in the "conspiracy theorists" mentality

Many times, a person who brands themselves "intellectual" or fits into an "academic elitist" category will take on a socially compelling issue such as this for a boost to their own ego.

Because they want to believe they are "much smarter than the average USA citizen" they try to put on airs of "I'm smarter than you are, so I'm not going to fall for the Official Story like all you sheep are doing. Ha Ha Ha you silly sheep !!!"

This attitude is just mere, complete, unabashed POPPYCOCK.

There's nothing "smarter" about believing that someone who you feel is such a dumbass (George Bush) is capable of pulling off a successful secret attack such as 9-11.

And like I have said before - how many DOZENS or HUNDREDS of people would have had to be involved in such a cover-up? You think all those people can be kept silent? Dream on.

"Worshiping the Politcally-Motivated Scientist Who Sees It My Way"

Recent story on the web indicates that the "conspiracy freaks" have a new hero. Some scientist named "Steven Jones" who is apparently some big lefty academic guy.

The story mentions that "politically motivated science is not science at all" and I could not agree with that statement more strongly.

Also, it mentions that the "molten metal" found in the debris was likely molten aluminum from the planes, and not from the beams helping to hold the buildings up.

But I said before - even if there WERE signs of molten steel beams, what's to say that the terrorists planted a bomb or bombs in the basement as a part of the attack? No one knows if that did or did not happen, but it SURELY is more likely than other ideas.

One of the "scholars" in the group says:

"If the U.S. government is lying about how the buildings came down, anything else they say cannot be believed," she said. "So why would they want to tell us an incorrect story if they weren't part of it?"

Oh, Yes, that makes perfect sense !! If they lie about something, then that means they will lie about EVERYTHING !! Whata stupid ass doofus.

Mr. Jones' paper says this:

Thus, molten metal was repeatedly observed and formally reported in the rubble piles of the WTC Towers and WTC 7, metal that looked like molten steel. However, scientific analysis, using for example X-ray fluorescence, would be needed to ascertain the actual composition of the molten metal. I maintain that these published observations are consistent with the use of the high-temperature thermite reaction, used to cut or demolish steel. Thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum powder. The end products of the thermite reaction are aluminum oxide and molten iron. So the thermite reaction generates molten iron directly, and is hot enough to melt and even evaporate steel which it contacts while reacting.

So he ASSUMES that molten metal was present, due to HEARSAY, and NO SAMPLES of this supposed metal are available for testing? How CONVENIENT to his hypothesis.

Friday, August 04, 2006

More on the Hijackers:

As my post directly below this one proves, there were DEFINITELY ARAB hijackers on the 9-11 planes. I proved that point beond doubt, by asking my questions and providing the only possible answers.

Many of the "conspiracy sites" I have read say that "7 of the 19 supposed hijackers alive and well!" or statements similar to that.

Allow me to say how that does not matter AT ALL.

The way those terrorists use names and trade them around and use different identities all the time, to cover their illegal ways, WHO CARES WHAT NAMES THEY USED?

There were definitely "young arab men" on the planes, killing people, in the process dying for ALLAH. Can we ALL agree on THAT POINT? ( If you think there were not young arab men on the planes killing people, see my below post and then come back up here. )

Would they have died for GW Bush? ( Please allow me to stop "rolling on the floor laughing my tail off all night long" before I continue. )

So what do the conspiracy guys think? The CIA hired these guys to die so Dick Cheney's hunting buddies could get richer? You see how idiotic that sounds?

This one is SO EASY to Refute:

I have seen a lot of "conspiracy talk" with variations on this theme:

"There were no Arab Hijackers on the planes at all" or
"Four of the supposed hijackers are still alive" or
"All we have is a grainy tape from Logan which could have been doctored" or
"No way those flight school dropouts could have piloted those planes so well" or
Etc Etc Etc.

Let's refute that with a few questions and answers:

1. OK, so if there WERE NO hijackers, what were all those flight attendants and passengers ( who called family members and emergency numbers from the plane) talking about when they described "young, middle eastern men who have swarmed the cockpit and killed flight attendants" ?? Were THOSE CALLS FAKE TOO? Or were all those people WILLING PARTICIPANTS, who were coached as to what to say? The flight attendants whose fear was clearly recognizable in their voices - they were what, paid to fake it?

2. How about all the black box recordings? All Faked, too? How about the military and civilian air traffic controllers transcripts and recordings, some of which CLEARLY had middle eastern men with according accents speaking from the cockpits? All Faked?

Once again, those questions and the possible answers to them would mean a MASSIVELY secret, MASSIVELY successful coverup, involving HUNDREDS of people who are STILL ALIVE !!! All the people who were called from the planes, all the 911 operators who got calls, all the aircraft employees who were called by the flight attendants.

All these people are LYING about it, even today? For what reason? So Dick Cheney's hunting buddies can get richer? It's nonsensical !!

This little refutation has got me thinking again about HOW MUCH OF AN INSULT it is to the people who DIED ( many who were probably LOYAL AMERICANS who TRUSTED THEIR GOVERNMENT to take care of them, and with GOOD REASON ) to accuse that same government of perpetrating such an atrocity. The same government which is respected and loved and appreciated for helping protect us and help make this the best place on the planet to live. To accuse that government of willingly killing these people - it's an outrage.

If you think this government is so Evil, wouldn't it be better for you to move to Canada or Mexico or someplace else and take your HATRED with you? Loyal Americans who trust that the government is doing the right thing in the war on Terror don't need people spreading hate like this.

Sure, we want people who are "watchdogs" to help protect us from REAL government abuses - but this is not the case here. And I don't want to stifle debate or protest in any way - that's part of what makes this a great country, that you and I can disagree. But the conspiracy freaks are GENERATING HATE with no reason other than their unfounded dislike of this particular Administration. Don't you think the terrorists themselves bring enough hate to this country?

This country was built by and is protected by people who have TRUST in their elected leaders.

If you think the government is out to kill you, then do the "smart" thing and move away from the danger.

Thursday, August 03, 2006

Here's another MAJOR point

Assume that the Bush Administration DID perpetrate 9-11.

What would that mean to the Democrats?

What it would mean is this: the possible complete destruction of the Republican party. Every single Republican would get voted out of office.

If a group of Senate or House Democrats took this conspiracy theory under their wings and were able to PROVE that it was a government job, that would mean the Democrats would take over the WORLD !!!

So why has that not happened?

Because the evidence to PROVE that it was an inside job IS NOT THERE.

Basic Logic 101

Osama Bin Laden hates America:
TRUE.

Osama Bin Laden hates George Bush:
TRUE.

Osama Bin Laden Claims to have perpetrated 9-11:
TRUE.

George Bush would not admit to having anything to do with 9-11:
TRUE.

If it was the truth that GW was the perpetrator, he would be impeached and probably executed:
TRUE.

Impeachment of GW would be a good thing for Osama Bin Laden:
TRUE.

If Osama Bin Laden could bring GW down he would do so:
TRUE.

But, instead, Osama Bin Laden is claiming 9-11 as his own doing:
TRUE.

Thusly, Osama Bin Laden would not take credit if he could instead blame it on Bush:
TRUE.

So, the logical conclusion is that if Bin Laden could lay this on Bush and get it off himself, he would do so in a hearbeat:
TRUE.

So, Osama Bin Laden must be telling the truth about being the perpetrator:
TRUE.

Ta-Frickin-Da.

Oh-Oh-OH Here's something else

Say there WAS a big thermite-based bomb in the basement which aided in the speed of the collapse. Who's to say Osama's boys did not plant that one ahead of time? Just because we did not catch them in the act does not mean they couldn't have gained access and left a car or truck down there, right, on a timer? If we didn't find any other evidence of a "secret government demolition," then why would we have found this?

If anyone thinks there has been thermite found at WTC, then fine, but answer this: What is the PROOF that this was not done by the terrorists too? You don't have any. "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!!"

I say if there was a basement explosion, prove to me that the terrorists did not do THAT ONE along with the planes........!!!!!!

Another MINOR PROBLEM for the "Conspiracy Freaks"

On the issue of a missile, not a passenger plane, hitting the Pentagon:

1. How about the HUNDREDS of eyewitnesses outside in DC who saw the plane coming in low and fast, flew right over their cars? Were they blind?

2. Assume it was a military missile. Where, perchance, is the plane and the passengers and crew right now? Did they fly it to a military base, disembark and subsequently MURDER the passengers and crew, then blowtorch the plane into tiny pieces, and incinerate all of it at the military dumpster?

More about the simple tower collapse, brought on by weakened steel:

The conspiracy theory regarding the collapse of WTC is ridiculous and ignores basic principles of physics. The idea that only controlled explosions, pre-planted by some far-ranging conspiracy, could bring the towers down makes poor fiction at best.

How could the World Trade Center buildings collapse straight down? How could they have done otherwise? The World Trade Center Towers were over 200 feet on each side. To tip over, they would have had to bend or lean over 100 feet first to shift the center of gravity sufficiently to tip over.

How can such a building collapse in less than ten seconds? How can stuff fall through concrete and steel almost as fast as a free fall? Easy, drop the top 50 floors down on the next floor. As the building collapsed, the entire mass of the upper floors hit each floor in succession. The mass was huge; the momentum inexorable. Thats why the collapse shows a very brief initial slowness as the floor where the plane struck buckled, and then not much resistance at all after that.

Pulverized concrete can only come from an explosion? How about dropping hundreds of floors of concrete from a great height. Welcome to pulverization.

Oh one more... why haven't other skyscrapers collapsed during fires? Because they burn from one area to another: The drapes catch fire, flashover temperature is reached, and everything in the initial room burns. The girders are heated. The fire spreads to adjacent rooms. The initial burn room begins to cool because there is no fuel left. The girders cool and regain strength. The whole floor does not burn and weaken at once during a normal fire. In the WTC towers, 10,000 gallons of jet fuel was sprayed through the entire floor by the impact of the aircraft and ignited at once, weakening the central group of columns. The horizontal trusses collapsed, and then no longer supported the columns at the perimeter of the building. These are likely the "explosions" supposedly heard by survivors. Once the outer and inner columns no longer had lateral support to hold them vertically, they failed, and the rest is history. The towers were not verticle sticks to tip over, but webs of interacting elements that failed and turned to mush.

The collapse of WTC has been investigated and described by many individual engineers and groups of engineers from many backgrounds, countries, and across the political spectrum. The vast majority agree on how these simple principles of physics brought down the towers. Fire was the culprit (or more accurately heat energy), and the fact that fireproofing systems were disrupted by the impact of the aircraft was critical.

The articles on this page should END all the "conspiracy theories" about how the tower fell. These are STRUCTURAL BUILDING ENGINEERS who know their business, and all of them explain and understand how the towers fell - without DEMOLITION assistance:

http://www.icivilengineer.com/News/WTC/structure.php

Another Good PDF which explains the building design and how the design contributed to the failure:

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/aibs_2002_wtc.pdf


VERY GOOD PAGE which supports the "normal" collapse scenario

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

From this page I get this, as some arguments the "Conspiracy Freaks" have come up with:

The fire wasn't hot enough to melt the steel
There has never been a claim that the steel melted in the fire before the buildings collapsed, however the fire would have been very hot. Even though the steel didnt melt, the type of temperatures in the fire would have roughly halved its strength.

There would have been variations in the distribution of the temperature both in place in time. There are photos that show people in the areas opened up by the impact, so it obviously wasnt too hot when those photos were taken, but this is not to say that other parts of the building, further inside were not hotter. In addition, to make a reasonable conclusion from these photos, it would be important to know when they were taken. It might be possible that just after the impact the area wasnt very hot, but as the fire took hold the area got hotter.

The way the building collapsed must have been caused by explosions
One demolition expert on the day of the collapse said it looked like implosion but this is not very strong evidence. Implosion firstly requires a lot of explosives placed in strategic areas all around the building. When and how was this explosive placed in the building without anyone knowing about it. Second, implosion required more than just explosives. Demolition experts spend weeks inside a derelict building planning an event. Many of the beams are cut through by about 90% so that the explosion only has to break a small bit of steel. In this state the building is highly dangerous, and there is no way such a prepared building could still be running day to day like WTC was.

Why did the building fall so quickly?
The buildings did fall quickly - almost (but not exactly) at the same speed as if there was no resistance. Shouldn't the floors below have slowed it down? The huge dynamic loads due to the very large momentum of the upper floors falling were so great that they smashed through the lower floors very quickly. The columns were not designed to carry these huge loads and they provided little resistance.

Found something else interesting:

I knew about the bonded-rubber damped steel connectors collapsing on each floor before. But I did not know about the 600-ton water-filled mass dampers at the top of the towers. That's 600 tons crushing the building down on itself. This from a website I located:

Did 600 ton water-filled mass dampers at the tops of the towers hasten the collapse? Did they, or could they in future designs, contribute to fire suppression? Did 10,000 bonded-rubber viscous damped steel connections play any special role in the initiation or progression of collapse?

So work that into your PHYSICS equations, all you conspiracy dudes.

Something else is fishy:

OK let's for hypothetical reasons say GW and the "Conspiracy Guys" are the smartest, most capable, best-people-in-history-to-keep-a-secret dudes that they would have to be to have pulled off this one.

Now let's get to the "demolition" part.

First, how would they have gotten ALL that demolition equipment into the building "sight unseen?" No one in security saw anything. It's in the middle of damn Manhattan (not really the middle but you get the point.) There were hundreds of security cameras in the building, and hundreds of people around there all the time. Were these demolition guys INVISIBLE NINJAS?

Second, why would you CARE that the buildings fell down straight? Demolition is used to blow buildings down into their own footprint, so as to limit damage to surrounding areas. If they are intent on killing THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE, why would they CARE that the building fell down on itself at all? Let if fall sideways and take out ten city blocks, the more the merrier, right? If they had no care for human life anyway, all they needed to do was to blow up the feet and let the towers fall sideways !!!

Third, once again, how did they hide the evidence AFTER the explosion? They had no control over who was down there cleaning up. As far as they knew, maybe 50 people with demolition credentials would have been down there cleaning up. all it took was ONE GUY finding ONE PIECE of evidence and saying, "Hey, wait a minute! This building was demolished !!!"

Ridiculous......

Bush would have to be more evil than Hi#ler

Another thing that sits badly in my craw.

For Bush (who the haters keep saying is SO STUPID) to have pulled this off, he is not only one of the more capable and cunning people ever to walk the Earf, he is ALSO AT LEAST AS EVIL AS THE WWII GERMAN CHANCELLOR. Right? To kill thousands of innocent people on your own soil, and to cover it up, and for what reason? To make a few Rich Guys even Richer?

Does that make a lick of sense? Any of those things? Is Bush the most capable conspirator in history? Or the smartest? Or the most Evil? I don't see how anyone can believe even ONE of those statements, much less all three of them !!!

Here's my psychoanalysis of where the Haters are coming from:

They are scared. Scared that someone (Osama BL) in another country, an ocean away, could have such hatred and such capability to attack us, here in our homeland, with such hatred and ferocity. They are scared that it can or could happen to them. BECAUSE of this fright, they are FORCED to disbelieve that it could happen that way. The most logical perpetrator in their minds? Well, OBVIOUSLY it would be the person they HATE the most - Bush !!! They already hate him anyway, so it's so very easy to push that blame to him !!

Not to mention that we have Osama on video tape MULTIPLE TIMES admitting that he was the perpetrator. How does that fit into the conspiracy? Osama working for GW? That makes sense, right? ????? So we have this FAKE chase of Osama, this FAKE terror war, all just to.......what, make some guys richer?

It's all just nonsensical when you look at it from the position of someone who DOES NOT HATE THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION.

Let's get one thing straight: IF the conspiracy proponents are correct, and GW and his croneys DID do this atrocity, they are not only some of the worst criminals in the history of the USA, but also some of the SMARTEST MOTHER EFFERS ever to live, to be able to pull this off in secret.

OK Folks I have had it up to HERE with this DRIVEL !!!!

I am in an ongoing debate with a very smart man with whom I attended 11 years of school back in my hometown. He is a very smart guy. He is worldly, intelligent, knowledgeable, bright, a good communicator, a professional speaker and professional musician, with a beautiful wife and kids. He lives in the Los Angeles area after coming from Smalltown USA in central Texas, population 5,000 country folks.

He has moved up in his life. He has famous friends, is politically very active as an Independent, and has an internet weekly radio show. He's not a dumb guy, and far from it. Far more accomplished than I am, for sure.

Here's the problem:

He believes the US Government is responsible for the 9-11 attacks.

(long, long, LONG head-shaking sigh)

Along with thousands, maybe millions of misguided souls, he has fallen into the crevasse of those who believe our government is capable of:

1. Killing thousands of Americans and international visitors ON PURPOSE.
2. Doing so as a prelude and a precursor for authorizing an attack on Iraq so all the BushCo Oil guys and the Haliburton guys could get rich.
3. Doing so as a prelude to start spying on Americans in America.
4. Hiding such a HUGE HUGE "conspiracy" secret from the people.
5. Covering it up to an extent where no one other than the fringe people who believe it have ANY idea.

Now, this is SO RIDICULOUS in SO MANY WAYS that it's hard to even find a place to start attacking the idiocy of the idea. But I'm going to try to start anyway - that's just me :)

Let's start with one of their BIG premises:

The towers were IMPLODED and DEMOLISHED from within by explosive charges planted by the "Conspiracy Guys."

OK, first of all, explosions of the sort they talk about would have been VISIBLE to the naked eye to the MILLIONS of people watching the towers fall on TV. Dust and debris would have flown out of the building at the instant the "rigged bombs" would have been exploding within the building. Did anyone see that? Nope.

Secondly, the police and fire who were in the area would have HEARD or SEEN something that keyed them to the fact that interior implosions were taking place. They were THERE, onsite, within hundreds of feet of the area. They would have known. SO, based on that inescapable fact, it did not happen that way.

In addition: All the THOUSANDS of people who were involved in the debris cleanup. Did any of them EVER report seeing any "planted explosives debris" during the cleanup? For the "Conspiracy Guys" to have blown the buildings down, and left NOT A SINGLE PIECE OF TRACE EVIDENCE behind, well that would have been the most incredible feat of explosives engineering in the history of mankind !! AND, on top of that, they had to KNOW they would not leave a trace, because if not, the "Conspiracy Guys" would have had to been in control of the cleanup, making sure any evidence of implosion equipment was quickly "hushed up" and hidden away. Not possible, with THOUSANDS of RANDOM VOLUNTEERS doing the job.

And - what about the thousands of workers who reported to work that day - did any of them report seeing any explosive charges rigged around the building? Nope.

And - in most demolition jobs, they cut through the main support beams of the building, usually about 90% through them, to make for a clean collapse. Obviously, the implosion was one of the CLEANEST in history, right? Could this beam-cutting have been done SILENT and UNNOTICED by the INVISIBLE DEMOLITION NINJAS too?

Also: There are seismologists and earthquake equipment all over NYC. If there had been explosions of that kind, someone would have noticed them and reported them to SOMEONE, SOMEWhERE, right? That did not happen. (after further review of this statement, there ARE apparently conspiracy proponents who have seismic readings that day which of course COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE HUGE BUILDINGS FALLING DOWN. NO, it MUST have been explosive charges in the buildings !!!! ((Puh-Leeze)) )

Lastly on this subject: One of the TV channels, I think A&E, had a special show where they detailed how the towers collapsed. They spoke to the designers and engineers of the building, and the NYC building inspectors, and they came up with a perfectly logical explanation of the collapse. It is based on how the steel cross beams for each floor were attached. They were held by one weld at each end, and when the steel SOFTENED, Not MELTED, the weight of the floor above pushed the beams down, and the weight from the above floor caused the lower floor joists to collapse, and it collapsed on itself like an accordion. It's very simple. It was based on the fact that the fireproof spray was scarce in many places and had fallen off, and the force of the explosion blew the rest of it off, so the building had no fire protection for the steel beams. Simple. Obvious. Conclusion.