Fox News talking head Michelle Malkin calls SLC "the single best clearinghouse on the Net for fighting the tinfoil-hat brigade." An endorsement from Michelle Malkin? Shouldn't they just try to keep that quiet? This article is beyond ridiculous.
By Stephen Lemons
By Weston Phippen
By New Times Staff
By Stephen Lemons
By Kathleen Vanesian
By Stephen Lemons
By New Times Staff
By Stephen Lemons
It's late afternoon at a conference of 9/11 conspiracy theorists in Chandler, and Pat Curley's been batting away the intellectual softballs for a half-hour or so from a lady named Lynn Pentz, in town from La-La Land for the wingding that went down in February at the Crowne Plaza San Marcos.
Pentz, a rail-thin, pleasant, middle-aged woman with short, gray hair, started by giving Curley and a pal her spiel on a so-called citizens grand jury to be convened shortly in L.A., where some delusional members of the 9/11 "truth" movement were planning to investigate and possibly indict members of the Bush administration. Why? Because 9/11 was an inside job by the Bushies, of course.
Curley, a tall, unkempt roly-poly dude in dark prescription lenses better suited for a South American dictator, flicks away Pentz's putative proof that the official account of what went down on September 11, 2001, is tawdry government propaganda, riddled with lies and inaccuracies.
Pentz's arguments are hackneyed, and Curley sees every one coming like some slow-motion boomerang. Cell phones couldn't have worked on United Airlines Flight 93, the heroes' flight, so passengers couldn't have called their relatives, as the 9/11 Commission Report states. Bzzt! Wrong! Obviously, some cell phones did work. But the rest of the calls made from that flight were made from phones installed in the plane.
Pentz tries out a number of other conspiracy shibboleths: Those phone calls were faked using voice-morphing technology; World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein ordered the destruction of the lesser-known World Trade Center Building 7; some of the original 19 hijackers are still alive, perhaps sipping Coca-Colas in Morocco; yadda yadda yadda.
Curley's heard 'em all. The voice-morphing thing especially gets his goat, for reasons that'll be explained later. Curley's a walking encyclopedia of debunking lore. And Pentz, not knowing that she's speaking to one of the authors of the infamous Screw Loose Change blog (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com), seems worried that she won't be able to convince this gent that he's on the wrong side of history. She asks him to view photos and charts she's brought, but Curley's impatient, ready to get home and blog the events of the day.
That's when Pentz achieves something other troofers (as 9/11 conspiracy believers are called by their detractors) have rarely, if ever, achieved. In an oddball aside, she leaves Curley tongue-tied by explaining for reasons known only to herself how she once witnessed the dark green stone on the ring she's wearing emerge from the hand of an Indian saint named Swami Kaleshwar. It's a "blood stone," she tells Curley and a bemused comrade seated next to him, with magical healing properties.
Pentz would later relate how she had, in her youth, traveled to India and had eaten peanut butter cookie dough that a famed miracle worker named Sathya Sai Baba had manifested from thin air. Apparently, Hindu mystics do this kind of thing all the time. The incident with Swami Kaleshwar occurred more recently, in the States. Seems Kaleshwar used ashes blessed by Sai Baba to make the stone in her ring.
As Curley noted in his blog that eve, tongue firmly in cheek, "It was the only time all day I didn't have a rejoinder." And so it goes for the Yoda of 9/11, a man most troofers love to hate. His days are tinged with profound weirdness and intellectual hand-to-hand combat. Wielding a keyboard instead of a lightsaber, he mercilessly carves up the Count Dookus and Emperor Palpatines of the 9/11 conspiracy movement, laughing all the way.
Along with co-blogger James Bennett of Seattle and SLC allies such as New York City's Mark "Gravy" Roberts, author of the painstakingly detailed Loose Change Second Edition Viewer Guide, Curley patrols a veritable Mos Eisley cantina of conspiracy mavens, kooky celebs, Holocaust deniers, nutty academics, anti-Semites, aged hippies, delusional twentysomethings, and cynical, Elmer Gantry-like opportunists, all of whom are united in their opposition to the official version of what transpired on September 11, 2001: that 19 al-Qaeda members armed with box-cutters and knives pulled off the most daring and destructive surprise attack on American soil in history.
Initially conceived as a rebuttal to the popular Internet documentary Loose Change, which, after its release in April 2005, helped disseminate these paranoid conspiracy fantasies to their largest audience yet, Screw Loose Change has since become the way station for everyone who is seeking sanity when faced with the wild distortions, half-truths, and outright lies of the 9/11 truth movement.
Google Loose Change and Screw Loose Change is the sixth item that appears (the fourth, if you remove duplicates). Currently, SLC is netting 1,000 to 1,500 unique visitors a day, with 700,000 unique visitors and 1.7 million page views since Curley's first post on May 1, 2006. No longer a straight debunking site, SLC has evolved into an up-to-the-minute news and information portal focused on critical reporting on the 9/11 truth movement, with humor, irreverence, and a general disdain for troofers.
"It's perverse," notes Curley regarding the almost symbiotic link between the conspiracy believers and the success of his blog. "I certainly don't want to encourage the growth of this movement, but at the same time, we're not making any money off this. We don't have any advertising."
Fox News talking head Michelle Malkin calls SLC "the single best clearinghouse on the Net for fighting the tinfoil-hat brigade." An endorsement from Michelle Malkin? Shouldn't they just try to keep that quiet? This article is beyond ridiculous.
What was the point of this incredibly long article? I was just trying to find out why this whacko carries a light saber. And why is this guy spending his life trying stop people from asking questions about 9/11?
The word "momentum" did not appear in that entire article. Therefore it made no attempt to address the physics involved in a supposed top down gravitational collapse of a skyscraper.
Since skyscrapers are designed to hold themselves up the designers must determine how much steel and concrete to put on every level. That means a top down collapse must break the supports AND ACCELERATE THE MASS of everything below.
It is disturbing that so man people in the nation that put men on the Moon cannot figure out that that is IMPOSSIBLE!
It seems the real screwball is the one writing the gossip against 9/11 truth seekers. I guess lies and fabrications is all that the Bush/Cheney/Olmert/Brown supporters have.
Now for some truth:
Vincenzo Vinciguerra stated, in sworn testimony on Operation Gladio in Europe: "You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple: to force ... the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security." Former Italian President Francesco Cossiga: "[Bin Laden supposedly confessed] to the Qaeda September [attack] to the two towers in New York [claiming to be] the author of the attack of the 11, while all the [intelligence services] of America and Europe ... now know well that the disastrous attack has been planned and realized from the CIA American and the Mossad with the aid of the Zionist world in order to put under accusation the Arabic Countries and in order to induce the western powers to take part ... in Iraq [and] Afghanistan."
" .... 9/11 was an intricately planned act of state-ponsored terrorism concocted by a foreign government (Israel) in unison with an ardently loyal faction of neocon [zionist] crazies who had burrowed their way into the Pentagon." -- Victor Thorn
It's not called conpiracy theory, It's called investigative journalism... More journalists should practice this lost art!
i've seen just about every conspiracy documentary on the internet, and i'll grant that deagle's story would at the very least make a good movie. but you have to look at real historical events such as the holocaust, or present day events like the killings in darfur and the brutal oppression that takes place in china (the home of the 2008 olympics) and it becomes quite clear that a government can become evil. they tell healthy people to check themselves for cancer, that's not crazy, it's not stupid. it can be scary and you can get freaked out over a lump thats just a bug bite, but you have to do it. as we search for things that are wrong with the rest of the world, we need to be vigilant of theings that could be wrong in our own country. you can say these people are crazy if thats really what you believe, but does that mean that you would let the government put a tracking chip under your skin if they actually wanted to? i would not.
yes we are in denial of a real investigation from our gov..we have been denied any video from the pentagon . denied a independent investigation with people not appointed by the criminals in the white house who have used and abused there power ever since .Its funny that every one thinks they have all the answers when all there is a bunch of questions that the gov would like nothing more than to be swept under the rug.well that isn't gunna happen if true American patriots stand up and demand answers!
Yeah, Phader, you hit it on the head. I am in denial.
Face it, Phader, you and the other troofers are LOONS!! Live in the real world. I love reading the comments from the other nutjobs like you that say "Just go to (insert website or youtube link here)." In effect, what you are saying is "Let this website or video do my thinking for me."
Well, guess what, Phader, I have a mind of my own. I question what you crazies are perpetuating. I SPEAK FROM EXPERIENCE. I investigate plane crashes. I know what is and was is not possible. What your fringe groups spout is UTTER NONSENSE.
You speak from NO EXPERIENCE other than vague warnings about our government. Go join the rest of the Kennedy, TWA Flight 800, Bermuda Triangle, Phoenix Lights and 9/11 wackos and enjoy your delusional fantasies.
But, then, I guess what I have just written must PROVE to you that I am in denial.
Get a life and a mind of your own!!! Gawd, it's scary to think of people like you out there.
I'm sorry but if you don't think 9/11 was a conspiracy you must be in denial. You must be so scared of the thought that your own country did this that you'd rather remain ignorant to it than to accept the truth: This country lies, kills, tortures, and cheats the people of this planet as well as some of it's own, to further their agenda. But hey, don't just take MY word for it, give it about 5 or 6 years. "There are none so enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free"
I would just like to ask any troofer if they have ever been at the site of a catastrophic airplane crash (i.e. hitting the earth at full speed).
I have. The term "a million pieces" is reality. What were they expecting at the Pentagon? A Wily Coyote-style outline of the plane in the wall? What did they expect to see in the field in Pennsylvania. Except for some pieces of hardened composite metal pieces (i.e. turbofan blades, etc), you will be lucky to find anything bigger than a notebook at the site.
Thank you, New Times, for exposing the nonsense these troofers perpetuate.
OK. . . let's see the author debunk this: www.journalof911studies.com
YOU also dont have any facts.saying he was accurate but I was wrong is total double speak.I do admit there was fire and damage , you said I didnt ,you say we have no facts,um molten steel could not happen from jet fuel.just because you think 7 hours is a long time for a fire to burn ,and its imposs ,is ridiculous why ius it impossiable.paco didnt actually disprove any thing I posted paco only tries to devalue the testimony of the people who were the by saying they were confused and only heard explosions.but they werent bombs they were what again jet fuel..I am not here to try and prove a specific bomb theory,but just trien to prove the official story is a total lie.mono is only convincing to people who know very little about the time line and testimony of the fire fighter and first responders cover up of the crime scene, no pentagon vid,the 911 commission didnt interview any of the fire fighters who had anything to say that didnt support the official lie.but in America its ok to cover up the biggest false flag opp in the history of the world with out any questions being answered .copy and paste some more links to the double speak and strawman sites .next do more than just say its not true.or improbable .mr the collapse started from the top..address that..
El Mondo Hummus is certainly motivated to "thoroughly debunk" questioning of the official [Saudi Arabian-terrorist/NORAD Incompetence] conspiracy theory "five years later." He has indeed researched one side of the argument very well- he is to be commended for his persistence and efforts there.
I'd like to recommend that 9/11 researchers also visit the following in addition to the links provided by El Mondo Hummus:
The credentials of the people questioning the "official" 9/11 explanation at these 2 websites look fairly impressive to me, but be your own judge(s) there.
To answer El Mondo Hummus' allusion to steel expansion, John J. Jackson and Harold G Wirtz' "Statics and Strength of Materials" Schaum's Outline [yes, engineers do use Schaum's Outlines during/after college, and most of my other books are at home right now] lists the Average Coefficient of Linear Thermal Expansion of steel at 7.0E-6 /degree_F or 13.E-6 / degree_C [with the units being either inch/inch or m/m- they cancel out in a linear expansion calculation and "may be in any units" according to p.213 of Jackson and Wirtz, Associate Professors of Mechanical and Civil Engineering respectively, at Vermont Technical College]. There is also a thing called the volume expansion of materials alluded to and a fairly good, accessible source of information on both is at:
Now why exactly linear and volumetric thermal expansion was cited here escapes me, since a lengthening of steel beams would likely cause "sag" and not structural failure of the beams. In my opinion, the yield point, ultimate stress, and breaking stress of the steel alloy used in the WTC beams, welds, rivets, bolts, and pins are of greater relevance to beam failure, but we would need to know the exact specifications for the particular steel alloy ACTUALLY used in the WTC, and also have stress-strain diagrams for the temperatures actually experienced by the various steel locations (finite element ananlysis probably needed here). MOST of the temperature numbers that I've seen thrown around are combustion estimates and generalities about "steel" instead of a specific alloy actually called out on the WTC blueprints.
"to loosen bolts, crack welds, and displace other supporting assemblies"-- 3D volumetric thermal expansion might actually tighten the bolt-to-beam fit- that's sometimes what happens when an internal combustion engine "siezes" or "spins a rod"; extreme electric arc-welding heat is used to create a weld, and properly certified structural welds should not crack due to heat unless there was gross incompetence on the part of the WTC Design and Construction Teams; displaced structure does not necessarily lead to catatrophic structural failure.
I have seen very few people bring up the issue of steel's thermal conductivity- it is relatively POOR at roughly 20/128, or 15.625% that of Aluminum for comparision (with the units being BTU / (Hr * deg_F * ft^2) /ft according to http://www.engineeringtoolbox....The low thermal conductivity of the steel would likely result in HUGE temperature gradients in the steel structure across the towers with very UNEVEN heating- the temperature distribution would be far from homogeneous, and I'd expect the greatest STEEL temperatures near the greatest concentration of jet fuel near the impact locations. Now if there were a 2nd plane impact in each tower after the fires had burned for 1-1.5 hours, I'd expect the "weak steel"/pancake collapse explanation to hold a little more water, since both towers withstood the plane impact for over 30 minutes each while the fires have been reported to have burned down during this time. I believe that a forced-induction coal combustion yields higher temperatures than jet fuel combustion in air, but I have yet to see a 400-lb. wood/coal burning forced-induction steel stove collapse due to fire. They also don't lengthen appreciably, but I wouldn't recommend touching one with a white-hot coal fire inside.
Now if NIST has some INSTRUMENTED data to support their temperature estimate numbers, I'd question why the thermocouples and temperature loggers were placed inside the Twin Towers before the "Osama Bin Laden/" conspiracy flew the two jetliners into WTC 1 & 2. If you follow the chain of command up from the NIST and the Kean-Hamilton 9/11 Commission, it leads right to the White House- please provide refuting evidence of this statement if you can. I haven't seen any steel scale WTC engineering fire models and mock-plane impacts for that matter, made by NIST or any of the other "official" experts, yet firemen train in mock buildings frequently.
Finally, to answer El Mundo Hummus's question about what it would take to satisfy his stereotypical characterization of 9/11 questioning "conspiracy theorists":1. An independent scientific analysis of the WTC steel and Ground Zero crash site by non-federal (which excludes the Kean/Hamilton Commission, FEMA, and NIST reports) personnel.2. An explanation of the NORAD incompetence in failure to intercept the hijacked planes, and an explanation of why the people who allowed this incompetence are still in power and have not been tried for criminal negligence and manslaughter- a drunk driver would have been in prison or on death row by now.3. An independent, scientific thermal analysis WITH MODELS of the WTC steel structures that supports the "official" OBL conspiracy theory.4. An independent, scientific explanation of why the Windsor Building in Madrid supported its own weight and the weight of a construction crane on the roof after a fire much worse than the WTC 1,2,&7 fires. http://www.whatreallyhappened....5. An independent, scientific analysis of the Pentagon and Shanksville damage with the FULL PUBLIC disclosure of all records, crash-site debris, and surveillance tapes and photos.6. A detailed explanation of why "trooothers" deserve to be personally attacked for questioning the questionable behavior of the US Governnment, NORAD, and other agencies before, on, and since 9/11 without resorting to ad-hominem attacks or other well-known propaganda techniques. You have your opinion/theory, and other people are entitled to their opinions/theories- our nation was founded upon the principle of dissent, lest you forgot.
An independent, scientific investigation should include Truthers and Debunkers both- 9/11 WITNESSES, naterials scientists, civil engineers, architects, demolitions and fire experts, chemists and physicists, welders, construction and foundry workers that are NOT under the control of the White House and Federal Government. I'd expect that Canadian, Japanese, Middle Eastern, French, German, Swiss, and other countries' industries could provide some experts for a truly independent study not directly linked to the Bush White House.
The 7 hour gap is merely "strange". 7 hours between explosion and collapse. "Strange".
It's not "strange". It disproves the entire thesis of the first video. You cannot claim any factual accuracy out of that video. A 7 hour gap between explosions and collapse cannot be written off as merely being "strange".
Typical dodge. You provide no facts, no sound argument, no proof. You merely claim to "to prove... that something happened in 7 before any collapse". You're right: The "something" that happened was the debris hitting building 7 and the fires starting. The video you provide proves nothing about emplanted explosives whatsoever.
I don't need to tell the witness he's wrong to his face. His testimony is accurate. There's nothing wrong about what he said. He witnessed an explosion. It's *you* who is wrong in assuming what caused the explosion. You, Alex Jones, and anyone who believes that interview is proof of controlled demolition.
You don't even try to challenge any other point. You can't. You have no facts. You have no argument. You merely have your fantasy. This, everyone, is why I call these folks "conspiracy fantasists". Calling their stories "theories" presumes some rational thought, logical construction, and existing evidence. He has none. He can't argue any of the above points.
There were no explosives. Your own evidence shows this.
Truthers put words into their "sources" mouths. Readers, view the videos for yourselves, and judge for yourselves.
Truthers cannot answer basic questions, such as "How were the explosives planted"?
Truthers cannot do any more than ridicule. Did the collapse not start from the top? Don't believe me; watch the video and judge for yourself.
Occision, and by extension the other truthers that generate the arguments he merely parrots is wrong. QED. In the absence of any real defense from him, there's nothing more to say about his arguments.
you seem to have all the answers .but he clearly said the explosion in wtc 7 was before the collapse have not disproven that what so ever.yes the timeline is strange but all I was trying to prove was that something happened in 7 before any collapse.the jet feul didnt explode the basements in the towers either.I bet you would tell that man he is mistaken to his face right..oh yea wtc 7 collapsed from the top ..lol..thats still my fav you tried..
This is how conspiracy fantasists debate. They make baseless claims, then when confronted with facts, they call it "disinfo" and refuse to confront the
reality of their arguments. Again, as the first example, look at Occision's first video: It claims that demolition charges to bring down WTC 7 went off
before 10am (before WTC 2 fell, which was at 9:59am). WTC 7 fell at 5:20pm.
Over 7 hours and 21 minutes after the demolitions were supposedly witnessed.
Over 7 hours and 21 minutes. The explosions went off, then 7+ hours passed before the building fell.
What controlled demolition leaves the building standing for over 7 hours?
How does Occision explain this? How do any conspiracy fantasists explain this?
This is the conspiracy fantasists� claim. Demolition charges went off in WTC 7 before WTC 2 fell, but WTC 7 fell after 5pm. Watch Occision's first video.
Look up the info. Decide for yourself.
The rest of his arguments are like that. Conspiracy fantasist arguments are always like that.
Look at those videos and see where truthers put words into Jennings and Silverstein's mouths. Jennings never claimed to witness *demolitions* explosions.
Silverstein never claimed to order building 7's destruction. That's what the truthers say. The subjects they post never say that.
Fantasist arguments depend on putting words in people's mouths.
Look at what Occision wrote and see how he misrepresents counter arguments. Truther arguments depend on misrepresenting others' explanations, like when
Occision refuses to admit that the truth is that both debris damage *and* fires caused WTC 7's fall.
Watch the Jowenko video and see how the arguments of the conspiracy obsessed depend on pushing that man's superficial and incomplete opinion as final say.
See what Jowenko says, and see how fantasists make too much of it. A hypothetical explanation, and a follow-up phone call that doesn't go into the damage
from the debris in addition to the fires is supposed to be enough to believe in controlled demolitions? Again, he clearly showed incredulity in the first
video when told of the timeline, and he comes out and says he wishes he had more evidence to review. But this is supposedly enough to distrust the extensive
- and ongoing - studies done by NIST, various universities, and many engineers writing for publications like Implosion World, Engineering News-Record, or the
This is how fantasists argue. They isolate individual points, divorce them from context, and try to spin fantasies about what's left over. They also refuse
to confront the facts of the situation, instead dwelling on the narrative they've constructed, a narrative that does not stand up to examination.
Truthers refuse to confront facts.
WTC 7 was not brought down by controlled demolition. The evidence they themselves point to indicates otherwise.
WTC 7's collapse started at the top. Watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... and decide for yourselves.
Jowenko's argument is unsupported and superficial to begin with. He hasn't seen other studies, such as the Worcester Polytechnic Institute. He hasn't
attempted to explain his differences with the NIST studies.
These are the facts. Note that, like all other fantasists, Occision refuses to confront those facts.
Note the truther's distortions. Read the links. Study the info. Decide for yourselves.
Everyone: Notice how the conspiracy fantasist dodges the weakness of his argument by trying to call facts "disinfo". Instead of dealing with the argument, he tries to diminish it and push a long disproven story:
He doesn't even try to confront the blatantly improbable timeline problem. Again, if you watch the video, the claim is that the demolitions explosions for WTC 7 were heard before 10am. But that building didn't fall before 5pm. The conspiracy fantasist here doesn't try to explain that.
He doesn't pay attention to the far more probable explanations for the explosions. Fuel lines were there, and WTC 7 had taken damage from the first falling tower, cutting those fuel lines and sparking other fires. Yet, he instead relies on a deus-ex-machina explanation about explosives without confronting the question: How could the explosives been emplaced to begin with?
He puts words into people's mouths. Watch the videos for yourselves. Understand what the witnesses say, and ask how did Alex Jones, Jason Bermas, and the other fantasists, like Occision here, jump to conclusions about things the witnesses didn't say? Ask yourself: Did Jennings say there was a bomb? No. Did Silverstein say he ordered his own building demolished? No.
He misrepresents arguments debunking his own stances in order to make appeals to incredulity. Again, both damage from debris *and* fires were the problem. Separating out one contributing cause without including the other is dishonest.
And: He never, *ever* confronts the facts. Again, see above. No attempt to rebut anything posted. No attempt at counterargument. Simply assertions devoid of supporting argument.
Fact: There was severe damage to WTC 7. No planted explosives are needed to explain its collapse. That's the judgment of emergency personnel who were there as well as structural and fire engineers who investigated later.
Fact: Silverstein does not say pull the building. Again, refer to the links above, starting with:
... and understand how conspiracy fantasists distort facts to make their own arguments.
Fact: The collapse is documented as starting in a manner inconsistent with controlled demolition. Again, start by viewing this:
This is how conspiracy fantasists work. By not paying attention to facts, selectively presenting some, and creating out of nothing entire fictions masquerading as facts, these folks build stories that sound incredible and make pretenses at being true, but upon study are internally inconsistent, depend on twisting of arguments, and on the whole completely miss the mark. That's the important thing to remember about their stories: They're not true. There were no explosives. The WTC owner did not order building 7 "pulled". No one witnessed explosives intended for building demolitions.
Understand how the so-called truth movement distorts the event to make their own fantastically improbable claims. Read the links I provide. Study the information. Draw your own conclusions.
If what you say is true, then why doesn't anybody know about Building 7? Why was it never reported AFTER 9/11? If your explanation is so plausible why the cover-up? Why does the "Official" 9/11 Report only fleetingly mention the collapse of Building 7? The numerous videos on the Internet show the free-fall collapse from different angles yet these videos have never been seen on mainstream media after 9/11. If your theory is so correct then what is the problem?
a long and drawn out disinfo isnt gunna work paco,the first vid does prove that explosions happened before the towers collapsed.so it doesnt matter what was on the 5th flore .as no damage was done to wtc 7 until after the collapse watch the whole video.second of your right he doesn't say pull the building ,he said pull it..not them so you draw your own conclusion what he was talking about.and danny has not retracted his demo theory .http://youtube.com/watch?v=Qaj...have a good one paco!arent you the one who said the collapse started from the top..yea thats a good one..
There's no proof for any of those claims. You're trusting Alex Jones, known Holocaust denier and conspiracy fantasist over the judgment of those who either personally witnessed the event or personally examined the remains of the towers. Alex Jones provided no proof for his allegations; he has none. The man talking in that interview did not witness a bomb, he never claimed that the explosion was a bomb.
Jason Bermas is no expert, yet he's quoted in the video as if he's a scholar on the event. He is not. He's studied no evidence and talked to no witnesses. His and Alex Jone's claim are empty.
You forget: The emergency generators were on WTC 7 were on the 5th floor; the witness at the center of that video says he was on the 6th. Any explosion he witnessed - and only being one floor above, he would have witnessed them - would've come from the fuel for the generators. And as for his claims the "fuel tanks" were on one side of the building: The generators on that floor were fed by fuel lines *from* the tanks, which were in the basement anyway. Those lines ran up to the 5th floor and fed the fires there. Why would you need explosives to explain an explosion when it's known that there were generator fuel lines gushing up there? That explains the explosion, and the fact that it would've caught all the office contents on fire explains the structural weakening.
Besides, how did the government *get* explosives in the buildings? Every conspiracy fantasist fails to answer that; the most ever presented is that there was a power outage only days before that required people not enter the building (no power, no ability to work). But, that was Tower 2, not 7. How would the government have gotten explosives into WTC 7?
Also: In the video, they make a lot out of the orders to leave the building, but how's that supposed to prove CD? If the government planted explosives, why warn people to leave? More deaths would make the event even more horrendous, not to mention that it would eliminate people who by chance witnessed elements that would reveal the supposed plot. Why set up so many deaths, but yet order people out? The fact is that the evacuation order was issued because of the danger of collapse. Again, refer to the quotes *from firefighters onsite* in my previous post.
And last, stop and think about this: Jones claims the explosives in WTC 7 were heard before tower 2 fell. WTC 2 fell at 9:59 am. If you believe the claims in the video were correct, then explain why the explosions supposedly responsible for the collapse occurred **HOURS** before the tower actually fell. WTC 7 fell late in the afternoon, after 5pm. If you believe the claims were that the explosions were heard before WTC 2 fell, then those explosions happened prior to 9:59 am. Since when in the history of controlled demolition is there an hours long gap between the explosions and the collapse itself?
Funny you should post one from a debunker. Here's what he wrote:
"This video shows a large rip in the south side of building 7 before it collapsed. Evidence the building was far more damaged than conspiracy theorists suggest. Note the smoke coming directly from the rip and not building 6 as conspiracy theorists suggest. At 1:33 Min into the video someone says (Firefighters and police were the only ones allowed in the area so it is most likely a firefighter or policeman) "Look at the hole in that building... 7 world... that might come down". Anyone seeing this and suggesting no one knew the building was going to come down is lying."
Yes, the damage *was* enough for the building to be susceptible to the effects of the fires. Refer to the links and testimony provided in my previous post. Again, you oversimplify the argument in order to make your own.
Plus, why are you making judgments about internal damage from watching videos of the exterior? Do doctors determine the presence of tumors, fractures, or internal deformities by looking at someone's body, or taking an x-ray? You make an argument not supported by the evidence you present. Read the testimony and the links I provided; there was *clear* evidence that there was so much damage that the fires were going to make the building collapse. *That's* why people were ordered out. Looking at a low-res video without knowing what happened to the interior does not give you enough information to pass judgment on how badly the building was damaged. The load-bearing elements are on the inside in the case of WTC 7, not on the outside.
"yes, it was pulled?"... "that is vid you guys use right..pull it, not them ,it"
How does this video prove your point? Again, he was referring to the firefighters. He never says they pulled the building. Watch the video again, and point out where he says they pulled the building.
For everyone else reading this thread: Occision is trying to push the very old and many times disproven meme that the owner of the Towers, including building 7, ordered the demolition. See here for the explanation on why that is wrong:
Danny Jowenko's testimony is well known. For those who don't know: Jowenko made his judgment based on a single video viewing session, and was not told of the extensive damage from the main towers' debris, nor of the extent of the fires.
Also: Viewers of that video should note that he was surprised when he was told that the building was supposedly imploded on the same day. He obviously is in disbelief, and then discusses how fast the demolitions men must have worked. Again, in the absence of knowing of the internal damage and the extensive fires, and not having reason to disbelieve what he was being told, he of course goes along with the interviewer and discusses how it *could* have been done, because that's the direction the interviewer is leading him. And his answers to the questions right there should be the tipoff that he's not in possession of all the information he needed: He discusses how a team of perhaps 30 to 40 experienced men could do this, then discusses how to do it **on columns that are either inaccessible due to fire or fallen debris**. How could they implant the cutter charges or make the cuts he describes when they couldn't even get at the columns?
I'm surprised conspiracy fantasists continue to use Jowenko's testimony. He doesn't believe CD was used for the main towers, and he clearly shows incredulity when he's told that WTC 7 collapsed on the same day. On top of that, he mentions that he wishes he had more evidence to review, a clear signal that he's rendering a superficial opinion, not a considered professional one. He makes this wish in the very video you post. Yet, you and others keep trying to push his interview as an expert rendering professional judgment rather than what it truly is: A short interview during a single video viewing of a man rendering initial impressions without knowing all the information.
On top of that, why is he the only CD expert the conspiracy fantasists can come up with? No others hold that view; read industry publications, Implosion World (Brett Blanchard, another industry expert, wrote a short paper discussing the impossibilities of CD (warning: Long URL - you may have to cut and paste it if this comments section cuts it in two): http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20CO...
Think. Use logic. You're falling for empty claims and vacuous explanations. You are not critically thinking your way through. You're merely placing faith in YouTube videos as if they're established scholarship rather than contextless information. You are not **studying** the event, you're merely going with the conspiracy fantasy crowd. That's hardly the act of a studied thinker.
Think. Use logic. Evaluate. Study. But don't try pushing videos short of information, empty of context, and distorted on top of everything as proof of some conspiracy. That only shows that you�re willing to be misled.
The official story is the biggest conspiracy that is unbelievable .The pentagon was hit 45 min after the second tower and the vid occision posted up there is great! It proves that explosions happened before any collapse in wtc 7.
please understand bombs were going off in wtc 7 before any collapsed happened..also the collapse didnt start from the top..the central column was blown. here is first hand testimony from someone in wtc 7.http://youtube.com/watch?v=XuU...is this all the damage you were talking about..deff not enough to make it come straight down.yes there was fire, yes there was some damage..yes it was pulled..http://youtube.com/watch?v=Afb...that is vid you guys use right..pull it, not them ,it.http://youtube.com/watch?v=7WY...this is what a demo expert who didnt know wtc 7 collapsed on 911.http://youtube.com/watch?v=k3D...have a good one paco!
Occision, WTC 7 did not collapse "demo style". Buildings demolished through controlled demolition don't have the collapse start at the top, first of all. Read the WTC 7 information at http://www.debunking911.com/ and http://911myths.com/index.html for the total story.
Also, you need to read what I actually wrote:
"No plane hit it, but that ignores the amount of material that did, plus the effect of the fires within."
I was responding to the red herring above about WTC 7 collapsing with "no plane hitting it", which is an attempt to imply that there was little to no damage. There was in fact extensive damage, enough to leave it susceptible to the effects of the large fires.
Read the links I provided. Also, read "NIST NCSTAR 1-8 (Draft) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster":
"� The building had sustained damage from debris falling into the building, and they were not sure about the structural stability of the building.� The building had large fires burning on at least six floors. Any one of these six fires would have been considered a large incident during normal FDNY operations.� There was no water immediately available for fighting the fires.
... At approximately, 2:30 p.m., FDNY officers decided to com-pletely abandon WTC 7, and the final order was given to evacu-ate the site around the building. The order terminated the on-going rescue operations at WTC 6 and on the rubble pile of WTC 1. Firefighters and other emergency responders were withdrawn from the WTC 7 area, and the building continued to burn. At ap-proximately 5:20 p.m., some three hours after WTC 7 was aban-doned the building experienced a catastrophic failure and collapsed."
First understand that there were raging fires:
"... you're walking by this building and you're hearing this building creak and fully involved in flames. It's like, is it coming down next? Sure enough, about a half an hour later it came down. �FDNY Lieutenant James McGlynnhttp://graphics8.nytimes.com/p..."
"The fear then was Seven. Seven was free burning. Search had been made of 7 already from what they said so they had us back up to that point where we were waiting for 7 to come down to operate from the north back down. �Captain Robert Sohmer http://graphics8.nytimes.com/p..."
Also understand that WTC 7 was indeed heavily damaged:
"The major concern at that time was number Seven, building number Seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the facade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. �FDNY Chief Frank Fellinihttp://graphics8.nytimes.com/p..."
"... you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn�t look good. But they had a hose line operating. Like I said, it was hitting the sidewalk across the street, but eventually they pulled back too...
... Firehouse Magazine: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered through there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we�ll head back to the command post. � Capt. Chris Boyle http://tinyurl.com/e7bzp"
... and understand that the damage was so evident and the danger of collapse so obvious that not only did the emergency responders on site freely comment on it, but at the time of the event they chose to get out of the way:
". We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. So for the next five or six hours we kept firefighters from working anywhere near that building, which included the whole north side of the World Trade Center complex. �Chief Frank Fellinihttp://graphics8.nytimes.com/p..."
". Early on, there was concern that 7 World Trade Center might have been both impacted by the collapsing tower and had several fires in it and there was a concern that it might collapse. So we instructed that a collapse area --Q. A collapse zone?A. Yeah -- be set up and maintained so that when the expected collapse of 7 happened, we wouldn't have people working in it. There was considerable discussion with Con Ed regarding the substation in that building and the feeders and the oil coolants and so on. And their concern was of the type of fire we might have when it collapsed. They shut down the power, and when it did collapse, the things that they were concerned with would have been [sic]. That's about it. �Chief Frank Cruthershttp://graphics8.nytimes.com/p..."
And finally understand that it was a combination of the severe damage from the falling debris, plus the unchecked fires further damaging the structure that caused WTC 7 to collapse. It's overly simplistic to say "debris from the collapse took out an entire building demo style", and it betrays a lack of knowledge about the subject to do so. Get informed first; with information, you'll be able to construct logical challenges instead of empty arguments from incredulity. And that's all your statement is: An argument from incredulity. That's a tactic only the uninformed use.
man so debris from the collapse took out an entire building demo style ..wow you really believe that...did you see the oak. city building that was blown in half..it didnt just fall down ..I bet you think the Gulf of Ton Kin was a real event also right...
... or in short, saying about WTC 7 that "It collapsed with no plane hitting it" is misleading. No plane hit it, but that ignores the amount of material that did, plus the effect of the fires within.
The links to http://www.debunking911.com and http://www.911myths.com have much information regarding the truth behind the collapse. And no, the collapse of the main towers or WTC 7 is not "against all laws of physics and engineering". Saying that ignores the physics and engineering facts about the collapses.
Steve, WTC7 was hit by significant amounts of debris from the main towers, and also had a large fire raging unchecked, fed by diesel lines installed for emergency generators. Perhaps it wouldn't have collapsed if firefighters were available to contain the blaze, but they were all pulled off for human rescue operations, not fire containment.
w/r/t the rate at which things fall:
No need to get fancy. It's pretty simple physics; it's just the sheer quantity of factors involved that make it a difficult calculation.
In a vacuum, in a constant gravitational field, with no other forces acting, with everything else being equal, yadda-yadda, all objects fall with a fixed *acceleration*.
BUT, it is NOT a vacuum, there ARE other forces acting, yadda-yadda. The basic physics remain the same: F=ma. When you have LOTS of different forces and a trillion pieces of mass, the question is one of *quantity* of calculations, not *quality*.
So let�s see 52 years old never been married, overweight, unkempt, lives in a garbage dump, and has 3,000 comics (can we say loser) and why should I believe this man? What a bunch of trash. While there are whacko�s in every field, I believe a good portion of the information out there about the con job of the governments lies about 9-11. I am anything but a wacko having been in the military, law enforcement, Top Secret Clearance, etc. I knew at the time of 9-11 watching it on TV that the buildings collapse was just against all laws of physics and engineering, and what about building 7? It collapsed with no plane hitting it, how do you explain that?
It's difficult to fill seven web pages with words that say nothing, but Stephen Lemons manages to do it.
Let's all raise our soporific glasses high to a man who would rather think up hundreds of spiffy gossip-columnist-like adjectives than do research.
Signed, Jock Doubledayhttp://www.SpontaneousCreation...
Oh please, Lemmons doesn�t believe a goddamn word he writes. If the teenagers who made Loose Change lived in Phoenix instead of Curley, we would have been treated to an unsubstantial ode to their collective awesomeness, how scary the manipulative Man is, and how totally friggin� crazy the righties are.
Call their advertisers and let them know you will boycott their products and services due to this article
this is a rediculous attempt to slander real american patriots that fight for the first responders and victims of 911..who ever wrote this is total spineless scum.,and I would be glad to debate any of the liers who are accosiated with screw loose change.its to easy to debunk them as they only use peoples ignorance about that day to thier advantage and donmt ever really explain anything..because if they did they would be rich and famouse.the truth is comming out and the liestimes cant stop it!
The real issue is why the government imploded the investigation and 911 commission report.
The largest crime scene EVER in the USA and it receives relatively minimal resources to finding the truth. Particularly with respect to examination of the forensic evidence at ground zero.
WTC 7 was mentioned in the report. Not explained, mentioned.
I don't need any scientific explanation or "con. theory" to know that this event was not investigated properly.
I am totally baffled by anyone who is satisfied with the response from our elected officials.
We are in deep trouble, until we take these people to task and demand our money's worth.
Fact is not disputable. Fact simply is.
Science however, is the search for fact, and RELIES on disputes to winnow out the bogus hypotheses and support the possible theories.
As far as divining fact: opinion is useless, feeling is useless, even profound belief (or faith) is useless. All that matters is the reproducable evidenciary chain and the internal logical consistancy of the theory.
The videos you have presented (and yes, I have seen most of them) are not, in ANY way, science. They do not search for fact, they search for any tidbit of coincidental evidence that may (or may not) support the preconceived hypotheses of the creator of the video. You will note the LACK of any evidence that REFUTES the creator's preconceived hypothesis. In other words, these pieces are propaganda (at best). For reference to this style of propaganda, see "An Inconvienent Truth, or Farenheit 9/11", both are straight up propaganda.
As you say, you must USE your mind. To use it, you must first learn how the underlying science actually works - not how you would LIKE it to work, but how it works in reality. You must also learn how to properly apply Occam's razor, roghly paraphrased as "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best"
We have OBL essentially stating that 9/11 was the work of AQ. We have captured people (I hesitate to use that word for them, but I am being fair) who confirmed that statement independently. We have air traffic control radar records showing the planes from takeoff to impact. There's a TON of other evidence that is available.
For the conspiracy theory to be correct, they MUST dovetail with the existing evidence. Simply put, they don't. Indeed, they CONTRADICT the evidence. They contradict each other. Indeed, there's more contradictions than there are theories.
Almost universally, they require large numbers of conspirators (just TRY to take a plane off from Logan without having at least 50 people AT THE AIRPORT ALONE in on it), a longish timeframe to plan and execute (demolitions, scientists, pilots, logistics, etc all have to be planned out and coordinated), and best of all, they require that ALL (every single one) of those conspirators to be willing to KILL A LARGE NUMBER OF THEIR COUNTRYMEN and never - EVER - spill the beans.
It's that type of theory vs: A group of fundamentalist radical muslums managed to get through security with (at the time) legal items, board planes on the same morning, and turn them into guided bombs.
Now, the really cool part: The evidence (taken as a whole) supports the latter. The evidence (taken as a whole) does NOT support the former. It's really that simple.
And I note that no one backing the conspiracy theories hava answered the question yet. "What reasonable evidence would convince you that your interpretation of the data is DEAD WRONG?"
"That was my point about the temperature. Fire conditions with standard occupancy load is unlikely going to break 1200 degrees Fahrenheit. The reference of 1000 degrees Celsuis sounds very unlikely. That would put it beyond 1800. The color of the smoke can be an indicator of how a fire is burning, but the fuel source is also a factor. The weakening point for tempered steel is over 1200 degrees Fahrenheit."
Unlikely or not, the 1000 degree C figure is not only what NIST has put forth, it is also supported by a Worcester Polytechnic Institute microanalysis on the steel. Levels of oxidation and "intergranular melting" on that member suggests temperatures approaching the 1000C mark. In fact, it's that same "intergranular melting" that's leading some folks who've read Steven Jones's work to make an overly credulous leap of faith to the "thermite" conclusion themselves.
"The weakening point for tempered steel is over 1200 degrees Fahrenheit."
The 50% weakening point of steel occurs at around 1100 or 1200 degrees Fahrenheit (I see both figues when I research this; I don't know why). Steel can start losing load bearing capacity at much lower temperatures, as low (if temperatures this high can ever be considered "low) at 600 degrees F.
"Fire conditions with standard occupancy load is unlikely going to break 1200 degrees Fahrenheit"... Firefighters are taught that flashovers in standard home fires can reach 1500F, which is also the point (flashover, not the specific temperature) that firefighters are taught to be concerned about structural collapse. The only question is whether enough energy is absorbed by the structure to make it fail. And that gets to the crux of the issue: *Energy* is the key to understanding the event. When people talk about jet fuel of office contents not burning hot enough to affect steel (I'm not saying you, Dave, I'm talking others I've read on the net), they're referring to a figure obtained burning in air, not one in conditions like are experienced within buildings. The amount of potential energy - measurable upon release in joules, kilocalories, whatever you want to measure it in - contained in the material matters, and if the environment is insulative - that is, if heat doesn't escape at a high rate, which is the case with grills, campfires, fireplaces, but **not** fires within structures (as well as ovens, kilns, blast furnaces, etc.) - then it doesn't matter what the open-air temp of the combustion source is because that figure will be greatly exceeded. The energy gets produced period, and if it doesn't escape, it heats the structure containing it. And that temperature can be incredibly high. Again, joules more than temperature. The temp achieved in this case is dependent on the production of heat by the combustibles minus what heat escapes. Talking about means or averages, or what's likely based on standard office contents, or the materials used in construction misses that point, and creates a false impression of the fires effect on the towers.
Also: Don't forget, the point at which steel starts expanding is well below the 1100 degree figure (800F? 600? I'm not finding it immediately, will continue to try and relocate it). There is a rule of thumb that for every 100 degrees F temperature change, a 100 foot length of structural steel expands around 3/4ths of an inch in length (I didn't see a volume rule of thumb, and really, the steel would expand in all directions, not just one, but that's the only real quantifcation for this effect that I can find). How much expansion is needed to loosen bolts, crack welds, and displace other supporting assemblies? No, I'm not saying that at 1000, there would have been 750 inches of displacement, all I'm saying is that the temps were enough to displace and therefore compromise other structural supports, not just weaken the steel members themselves.
Why am I saying all this? It's to show 1. That the figures are credible, and that the temperatures are not just possible, but so far supported by study, and 2. To get the point across to other readers that these isolated criticisms or complaints that some answers "don't fit" only occur when people divorce the specific subject being criticised or "not fitting" from the overall context of the event. Sure, the jet fuel - fire issue conspiracy fantasists bring up sounds reasonable on its face. So do others like the cell phone use canards. But when the overall story is seen and understood, those odd anomalies turn out not to be so.
It *is* about studying the event and the claims. And I mean **really** studying them, not just credulously accepting that details separated from context equals research.
My objections to the official story of 9-11, and the government may not reflect those of the so-called "wingnuts" or "troofers" or conspiracy theorists as they are referred to here, however they do represent issues that we all should be researching for ourselves, rather than "jumping on the bandwagon".
I have seen virtually every video online regarding 911 truth, and have heard all the contradictory arguments for and against the issue. Overwhelmingly, what I have found is that very few people are willing to look, with objectivity, at the issues. Instead, they focus primarily on discrediting the authors of their respective works. Conversely, while many outstanding members of the 911 truth movement propose genuine questions that need be answered, they undermine their own credibility by producing false or misleading statements or selectively sampling from interviews, statements, or reports and taking them out of their original context.
Regardless of whether or not a person proposes the idea that particle beams had something to do with 9-11, or if they are accused of anti-semitism, or any other unsubstantiated claims, they may very well have other useful information. The information they put forth should be scrutinized and tested as should everything else you believe or disbelieve. Their personal opinions or professions have nothing to do with fact.
I propose to everyone from either end of the issue to focus on fact and reasoning, rather than jumping to irrational conclusions, and childish name calling tactics, neither of which will gain you and inch of ground in my search for the truth.
For those of you that are accusing 9-11 truthers of stupidity, dishonesty and hating the United states, you must understand that for our government to serve the people the people must be diligent in their efforts to hold our government accountable for their actions. We must be involved right, wrong or indifferent. A healthy distrust for your government will only serve to keep them on their toes. Those that are accused of hating their country are only guilty of hating their government.
I suggest that everyone watch these documentaries, and extract for themselves the fact, before they suggest that our government is or is not capable of such huge far-reaching conspiracies:
Bush Family Fortunes, The Best Democracy Money Can BuyBush's BrainImperial Grand Strategy, Noam ChomskyIraq For Sale The War Profiteers UnconstitutionalUncovered, The Whole Truth About The Iraq WarWeapons Of Mass DeceptionOrwell Rolls In His GraveWhy We Fight
You Have A Mind, Use it.
STJ911 does not conduct legitimate peer review. Part of the whole concept of the academic referee process is to have the journal reviewing the works to be independent of the organizations creating the research.
Also: A legitimate refereeing process would have proven experts in narrowly defined, pre-existing fields of academic study directly relevant to the claim. For example: Proper refereeing of Steven Jones' claims of thermite would have to be conducted by a chemist, and the claims of what they did to the towers conducted by a structural engineer. That is not the case with STJ911 papers. Having philosophers and religious studies trained individuals peer review works on topics like aeronautics or fire and structure engineering can be considered a review by peers, but it is no more than a cargo cult implementation of academic refereeing.
There is no honest refereeing in STJ911 works. The conflict of interest is too strong, nevermind the fact that an analogy can be drawn between them and kangaroo courts.
Ah, all the beautiful open minded truthers.
Same old shit. I bet you all are thinking that its a "jew" owned paper eh?
No proof, no evidence, just the same kooky stuff rehashed every year.
You all are lucky, people were bored with the JFK stuff, now all the dweebs can glom on to their new obsession, telling us the "truth" about the evil cabal that is running the world!
Keep it up truthers, the normal people are on to you, enjoy the fringe, enjoy being laughed at and made fun of, because that is your lot in life. Crazy nuts seeing conspiracies around every corner!
"My understanding is that the fed is a central bank made up of private banks. They create as much money as ordered for budget and covering loans from default World Bank Loans. "
Your understanding is wrong. The Fed is publicly regulated (directors appointed by the president, confirmed by the Senate) but does have a certain amount of independence. It has to report on its activities and finances annually to Congress, and its chairman regularly testifies before Congress.
It does not have anything to do with the federal budget. It's goal is simply to provide stability to the banking system, by keeping money supply stable, keeping economic growth solid, and inflation low. It does this through two main actions, regulating the reserve that other banks are required to keep, and through the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC), which regulates money supply by buying and selling treasury bonds. They do not, however, just print up money and hand it over to the government. In fact they don't even print money, the treasury does that, and they certainly do not charge the Treasury a fee for doing this. The fed also does not make a profit. The money it makes off of interest, for treasury bonds and loans to private banks, it refunds back to the Treasury. About $29 billion last year alone if I remember correctly.
As far as the Grace Commission, that report is over 20 years old, so I am not sure how it is relevent. If there is a specific citation you have a question on, please post it so I can comment.
My understanding is that the fed is a central bank made up of private banks. They create as much money as ordered for budget and covering loans from default World Bank Loans. As you and others say the amount of money being printed is not based on what is being collected by income taxes. I have to again point you to the Grace Commission report. This report says that the personal income taxes collected are not being put towards the deficit, rather are paying the interest the federal reserve charges the treasury to print the money. Which of course means the personal income tax is not paying for any service for the government other then the paying of interest. This is of great concern because the treasury should be perfectly capable of printing their own money without having to pay interest to what amounts to a private bank.
The more propaganda that is presented as so-called 'evidence', the more I realize that most humans have the logical reasoning ability of a typical house cat. I've coined a new word for this tripe: Slyence - Sly manipulation of selective data that supports a pet theory with complete disregard for anything that defies that theory. (For examples of these, see DDT, Global Warming, and ETS)
Here's a question for those of you who believe that 9/11 was a put up job: "What reasonable evidence would convince you that your interpretation of the data is DEAD WRONG?"
If your first thought to that question is "Nothing!", then you are not relying on evidence, but on your emotional attachment to the conclusions you have already made based on insufficient evidence. i.e. your mind is closed.
If your first thought is something so totally out in left field that no human on the planet could POSSIBLY provide the evidence, then you are most likely a idological zealot who has not done true research. i.e. you are not thinking, just jumping on the bandwagon.
As for me, the evidence available to date clearly supports the conclusions that A) we were attacked by radical muslum extremists intent on doing EXACTLY what they did - drive planes into buildings. B) We were radically unprepared for the attack, both as a population (psychologically) and in terms of defense (military response).
Now, what could change my mind? Show me logical conclusions backed up by evidence that can be examined independantly by multiple people who are specialists in the areas of aeronautics, civil engineering, electrical engineering, etc. Not ramblings on a blog, theories from wingnuts, or ideas of space weapons from Venus. REAL evidence. So far, none is there. So far, every piece of so-called 'evidence' can be knocked down ('refuted' is the technical term) by looking to the people who KNOW this stuff, who do these type of analyses for a living.
Also, if what the 9/11 conspiracy enthusiasts believe happened really did happen, then where are the insiders who could TRULY blow the whistle, have the documents, have tapes... hell, have a SINGLE WORKING THEORY that can't be knocked down? It would be the story of the millenium - worth millions (if not billions) to the person willing to come forward. Every major news outlet (and Steven too, I bet) would be flying anywhere on the planet blindfolded to get that story, and would pay nearly anything to get it.
As some examples here, Clinton couldn't hide a blow job in the white house. Nixon couldn't hide a low-rent burglery. Reagan couldn't hide Iran-Contra. Bush couldn't hide from photographers in his underwear. Do you guys really, truly, think that something as big as a 9/11 conspiracy would have to be (thousands of people) wouldn't be blown wide open by an insider wanting to be set up for life? That there wasn't a SINGLE person with a conscience in the vast cabal of conspirators who was so filled with remorse that they would spill the beans?
Come on guys, start using the space in your head for something other than a ear spacer. Think for a change.
With the exception of Social Security, federal tax money does not go to specific items. Since we have a deficit, the amount of income tax money which is being spent is simply 100% of the income tax revenue.
I'm glad that New Times is free. It's going to be a lot easier to put them all in dumpsters that way.
Dear Advertisers, Please don't waste your ad dollars on this poor excuse for a newspaper.
Thanks for the link. I looked through the spreadsheets and see: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/... which is showing the income that seperates the Corporate Income taxes and Personal Income Taxes. So, that is showing what is being collected.
Which sheet should I be looking at that shows where the personal income taxes are being spent?
I did get off that blog and check some facts. I just spent 2 years in grad school studying economics, finance and accounting. I know how to read a budget. You are wrong.
Yeah, that is correct. I suggest reading the Grace Report commissioned by Ronald Regan that showed not a single dime collected in personal income taxes goes to any U.S. government program or service. Get off that blog, and check some facts for yourself.