Friday, February 29, 2008


Truthers to suck up HSU air

And don't forget to bring your own tin foil
Blueprint for Truth: The Architecture of Destruction

Richard Gage, (American Institute of Architects, Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth - will present at the Jolly Giant Commons (355 Granite Ave, Arcata) at Humboldt State University Friday March 7th at 6pm. A 20-year veteran architect, Gage's extensive research in multi-media form focuses on the collapse of all 3 World Trade Center buildings. The two main towers, WTC1 & 2, were destroyed including WTC7, a 47-story skyscraper that fell at nearly free fall speed into its on footprint without being hit by a plane. Did you know 118 first responders saw explosions and flashes, molten iron under the buildings and Thermate, an incendiary used to cut steel, was found in the WTC beams and dust of the ruins? Attend to see for yourself, ask questions and demand answers! Presented by HSU 911Truth (707-826-5415, A second presentation will be hosted by Humboldt County 911 Truth (707-832-3916) at the Eureka Labor Temple (840 E street, Eureka) Saturday, March 8th at 3pm. Free with suggested donation of $10 general or $5 for students or Vets for Peace.
What do I know? I'm a lizard person.

Resistance is futile!

Addendum: Previous posts on topic: Most moronic post of 2006; destroying the peace movement; Michael Lerner part of the cover-up; Cultwatch; Truthers and porn; Noam Chomsky part of the cover-up; The Conspiracy Industry

At least we will know where a good portion of the local nuts will be for an hour or two.
... and just think of everything we can accomplish in an hour or two, so long as we know the coast is clear.
The 9/11 'truthers' are EVERYWHERE. It is getting crazy. I can no longer have a rational conversation on politics with people. And it's not just left wingers, but right wingers as well. It's completely disappointing.
hmmm Eric,I think I'll have to dig up a link to a Chomsky video clip regarding 9-11 conspiracy that I sent you.
My main concern with 9-11 conspiracies is that they defract from the true issues with the effects of years upon years of U.S. foreign policy being the primary agent in the destruction and destabilization of the Middle East's political structure.
And they make the antiwar movement look like a pack of loonies.
I should have guessed that Eric is a 9/11 truther. You are a moron Eric Kirk.
I should have guessed that Eric is a 9/11 truther. You are a moron Eric Kirk.

I may or may not be a moron, but where on Earth did you get the idea that I'm a truther?
Eric is also a Scientologist.
I think Eric took down the towers with a remote control plane all by himself.
It is not about lizard people!

It is about the gays and lesbians at Bohemian Grove!
I heard Steve Lewis say that Eric is a Zionist and, gasp, a Jew!

Poor Eric. Most of us know that in reality he is a very nice and reasonable minded intellectual. Even those of us that would just as soon see all leftists in concentration camps (yes this part is hyperbole and sarcasm so don't come unglued) can find some intellectual honesty in Eric.
Yep - and you guys know these "truthers" are wrong because... George Bush says so??
In such an ignorant, fearful and superstitious community, what did you expect?
Yep - and you guys know these "truthers" are wrong because... George Bush says so??

Or every major engineering association on the planet.
You guys laugh but science is going to kill any reasonable person's opinion that bought the government lies about 9-11. Anyone who can prove the collapse of Building 7 was due to pieces of another building falling on it will gain either a Guinness Book of Records for amazing feats of self-destruction without physical cause or into the annuals of infamy of government manipulation of the public's information and response to foreign attack.
How many people here read the 9/11 Report?
Uh huh, I thought so.
Popular Mechanics devoted an entire issue to debunking this and 15 other conspiracy theories on 911. Over 300 independent scientists offered detailed evidence that filled the entire issue. Not one single "truther" claim is true. Here's the search term. Start with the first link:

popuar mechanics 911

This is now a "flat earth" discussion for all but the paranoid fringe who will tell themselves that 300 scientists were somehow coerced into repeating the same lie.
Eric, you're no more a Lizard person than Virgina Bass, Arnold Schwarzeneggar, or Nick Bravo.
Okay, I've added to the main post links to my previous threads on topic.
8:43am to remind you, the periodical that Popular Mechanics eventually became spun out of the same influence and lies which sold a nasty war over a century ago.Popular Mechanics is a propaganda rag and shouldn't be used as the main information outlet to defunct 9-11 conspiracies.
And Ben,I read the commission report.

Name convenient! By calling them a "propaganda rag" you can skip actually reading the independent testimony of 300 scientists, who painstakingly researched every bit of so called "evidence" --no fewer than 16 "conspiracy" claims in all--and found it false.

Only a paranoid, will ignore evidence that doesn't fit his preconceptions.
Scientific American joined in the Popular Mechanics analysis, and they are not right wingers by any stretch of the imagination. Some credit S.A. with popularizing the phrase "global warming."
Well I'd trust Scientific American over Popular Mechanics any day.

"Only a paranoid, will ignore evidence that doesn't fit his preconceptions."

Can't discuss the issue with you if you have no idea what my preconceptions are.
You are wearing your "preconceptions" on your sleeve. You see govt conspiracies everywhere.

It doesn't occur to you that it might be a bit difficult to get 300 independent and well known scientists to tell the same lie.
Until the government explains or anyone who buys the government line explanation of how Building 7 implodes almost all by itself deserves a Nobel Prize for gullibility.

Thermite traces, explosions heard from the lowest floors right when the planes hit the upper ones, Building 7 falling on its own, the ridiculously small hole in the Pentagon and no signs of 757 wings, passengers, its a ruse, pure and complex. Demand reopening the case to catch the perps and impeach them from office.
"You see govt conspiracies everywhere."

Name one.
It was the Jews, wasn't it Stephen? Y'know, Mossad and all them guys?
Stephen, All those questions are exhaustively examined and answered--one by one--in the PM article that you refuse to read.
"name one..."


Have you read the PM issue? Yes or no.
Apparently you missed this from this very thread.

"My main concern with 9-11 conspiracies is that they defract from the true issues with the effects of years upon years of U.S. foreign policy being the primary agent in the destruction and destabilization of the Middle East's political structure."

I've read the PM report,don't totally dismiss the report,but I dismiss PM in general.
But regardless building #7's collapse is still a mystery.
Until the government explains or anyone who buys the government line explanation of how Building 7 implodes almost all by itself deserves a Nobel Prize for gullibility.

The Popular Mechanics book cites various engineers and explains it in very much detail
Count me as a skeptic... Both of the "truthers" and of the official line.

None of us know what really happened and probably never will.
Again, after the and definitive PM article, anyone who presses on with 911 conspiracy theories (mresq and others) is either paranoid or stupid.

Or both.
Oh, the 911 commission report is a whitewash of some very real issues. And a sloppy one at that.

But that doesn't mean the lizard people ordered the CIA to demolish Building 7 and make it look like terrorism.
Lizards unite! Dyslexics untie!
It's always interesting going back and forth with people on blogs who have little reading comprehension.
And anon,feel free to explain my 9-11 conspiracy theory for me if you will.You seem to know more about it than I do.
Feel free to explain how PM arranged for 300 independent and well known scientists to tell the same lie.
Love the way Mresq tries to get others to rationalize his thinking for him.

Answer a question with...
Here's how to get 300 professionals to say the same thing: do like 5 ding dongs on a blog, hoot at anyone who disagrees with you, and stay respectable. It's easy, it's lots easier than thinking.

The 911 Commission found a perfect way to explain the collapse of #7: tney didn't mention it, in 300 pages of flapdoodle that explained away everything. I guess they were too respectable to read Popular Mechanics. (I am too.)
Well I don't recall ever claiming that there was any conspiracy involved on 9-11.My conclusions don't differ too much from the Commission Report,which correctly claims that the government knew about the impending attacks and chose to do nothing about it (well except for preparing for wars and getting things together and getting war drum beats in line),which of course isn't mentioned in the report.
I've always thought there was probably sufficient evidence in the report to put some officials behind bars just for sheer negligence.But that doesn't seem to satisfy 9-11 conspiracy theorists who seem to prefer solving some fairly wild conclusions,and are dead set and determined to just be proven right.
I've gone over this before on different threads on this blog,so I'm done with the subject.
And 10:24am is correct,not a single mention of building #7 in the Commission Report.The mystery of that building is what 9-11 conspirators could solely focus on without defracting from other issues.
Eric has provided this link on several occasions it contains links which address all of the major questions.

Public Eye

And specifically on Building 7.

Microstructural analysis.

But the Truthers avoid these analysis like the plague because it reveals them as buffoons when it comes to science or even common sense.
So I can learn to sneer too, show me another skyscraper in the history of skyscraping that fell, as if by controlled demolition, according to scientific experts, 'just because.' I won't even ask for three times in one day, nor for one of them to lose its central core and collapse completely inside its own footprint for no better reason than 'it got hot,' though the building's fires weren't general, and had been suppressed all day. Please, just one example! I want to believe!
2:45 Not one, but MANY scientific explanations complete with many examples were given in the post about yours--which you obviously haven't bothered to read.
Wrong. Read 'em. "Got hot."

Your turn. Give me one example, just one. You're the one ignoring *my* point, remember?
typo ABOVE, not "about"

now you need to actually consider the evidence that proves you wrong.
Yes, "got hot." When steel reaches 12 degrees fahrenheit, it is at half strength. The fires were close to 2000 for a sustained period of time. The supports for the truss & tube structure weakened and the floors collapsed onto each other causing a collapse, just like a "controlled demolition." It hasn't happened before because nothing like this has ever happened before. There's nothing to compare it to.

The poster is right. Read the reports, then dispute the science. You haven't done that.
Maybe some right wingers should start blaming the whole thing on environmentalists who pushed for years to ban asbestos,as the top floors of the WTC were constructed without it.
Actually Mark, some people blame cheap and easy construction which characterizes tube & truss method which has defined highrise construction since the 1960s. The Empire State Building for instance, would not have collapsed. There's an open question as to whether it would have tipped over.

Anyway, there are some who argue that most of the modern buildings are potential death traps - a controversy completely obscured by the intensity of the "truth movement."
Er, Building 7, people. Building 7 'got hot' without any of the icky events. Third time's the charm: How did Building 7 'get hot?'

You're not the 9/11 Commission. This isn't the Reggae thread. What the heck, try to answer the question.
Hey truthers:


From the "neocon" source known to most as Popular Mechanics:

Claim: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

Fire Storm: WTC 7 stands amid the rubble of the recently collapsed Twin Towers. Damaged by falling debris, the building then endures a fire that rages for hours. Experts say this combination, not a demolition-style implosion, led to the roofline "kink" that signals WTC 7's progressive collapse. (Photograph by New York Office of Emergency Management)

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors — along with the building's unusual construction — were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.
So for the only time in the history of tall buildings, a building falls into its own footprint exactly like controlled-demolition buildings do. Then another one does it a half-hour later (with its top third slightly akimbo). Then another one collapses hours later across the plaza. But never since. And never before.

Okay kids, who wants to explain the Reichstag fire?
Well, when has anything similar happened to another highrise, ever? Do you recall any collapsing any other way?

It's like saying "when has an airplane which crashed into the Pentagon every made a hole with a diameter smaller than the wingspan? Never since and never before."

Hmmm. Amazing that.
Skyscrapers don't fall down when they're on fire, or afterwards, let alone fall into their own footprint. That's why I asked for another example, because there isn't one. They don't melt at their base from fires at their crown either. What a shame all burning buildings can't read Popular Mechanics and act respectable!
I'm sorry 8:02, but you really, really don't know what you're talking about. In about a dozen different ways, that post reveals that you've read none of the actual scientific material on the subject, not even the truthers'. You are so far off base not just with your conclusions, which appear to be regurgitations of truther rhetoric, but also your basic presumptions. I wouldn't even know where to start. I've provided the links, but you're obviously not going to read the material.
What a garbage defense, Eric. Probably every one of us who knows Building 7 was a controlled demolition has read the stupid PM explanations which do not, repeat, do not offer scientific explanation for why a high-rise building falls down practically all by its self, falls down exactly as if someone were "pulling it" as the owner said, i.e, a controlled demolition. The PM article offers psuedo-science, a most far-fetched explanation for both Building 7 and again for the amazing lack of airliner debris or damage to the Pentagon building we are told was struck by a 757. See Spielberg's War of the Worlds for what a 757 crash site looks like--nothing like the Pentagon site, that's for sure.
Zionists again, no doubt.
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Free Website Counter
Free Web Site Counter

Cost of the War in Iraq
(JavaScript Error)
To see more details, click here.
Click for