Monday, September 20, 2010
INCORRECT REPORT by Mother Jones -- I do not work for 2010 Christine O'Donnell Campaign for US Senate
NOTICE: Mother Jones reported incorrectly today that I worked in both Christine O'Donnell's 2008 and 2010 Senate campaigns.
THIS IS INACCURATE. Mother Jones is correcting the story, but others are copying the story around the internet already.
I was the 2008 campaign manager for Christine O'Donnell's primary campaign. At the May 4, 2008, Republican State Convention, Christine O'Donnell was chosen by the Republican Party of Delaware to be the official Republican nominee for US Senate. This ended the primary campaign, as her opponent accepted the endorsement of Christine by the convention.
I worked only on Christine O'Donnell's 2008 primary campaign. During that time I was also for a short time the Treasurer for the 2008 primary campaign. I filed the paperwork as Treasurer to meet the deadline imposed by the FEC while Christine searched for a Delaware Republican to fulfill this role. I was only named as Treasurer so we would not miss the deadline for filing the appropriate paperwork. I had no desire or intention to be a Treasurer.
I have not communicated in any way with Christine O'Donnell nor her campaign since June 2008, except concerning payment of old unpaid expense reimbursements from 2008. Her campaign eventually paid off my expenses.
As a private citizen, I have been and will continue to be outspoken in my personal opinion that Christine O'Donnell will make a great US Senator.
Everyone else is talking about the campaign in Delaware. I will, too.
As a private citizen, I will be very active both in telling what I know about Christine O'Donnell and trying to organize voters and volunteers to help her get elected.
But I have not had any relationship of any kind with either Christine O'Donnell's campaign nor Christine herself nor anyone related to her campaign or any other part of her life since June 2008.
When Christine O'Donnell attended the Values Voter Summit, I was very careful NOT to talk to her so that there can be no misunderstanding of any coordination.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Associated Press: Al-Qaida warns of new attacks deadlier than before
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100620/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_al_qaida_spokesman
By PAUL SCHEMM, Associated Press Writer Paul Schemm, Associated Press Writer – Sun Jun 20, 12:57 pm ET
CAIRO – Al-Qaida's U.S.-born spokesman warned President Barack Obama Sunday that the militant group may launch new attacks that would kill more Americans than previous ones.
In a taunting, 24 minute message that dwelled on Obama's setbacks, including the loss of Massachusetts Senate seat to the Republicans, Adam Gadahn set out al-Qaida's conditions for peace with the U.S., including cutting support for Israel and withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan.
Gadahn said that if you compared the number of dead Muslims "with the relatively small number of Americans we have killed so far, it becomes crystal-clear that we haven't even begun to even the score," he said, dressed in a white robe and turban.
"That's why next time, we might not show the restraint and self-control we have shown up until now," he said. Even if al-Qaida was defeated, "hundreds of millions of Muslims" would still fight the U.S., he added.
Al-Qaida offered the same conditions for an end to hostilities to then President George W. Bush in 2007, including the release of all Muslim prisoners and cutting off aid to Middle East governments.
Gadahn's statement was notable for its mocking tone, in which he described Obama as "a devious, evasive and serpentine American president with a Muslim name," and seemed to delight in his setbacks.
"You're no longer the popular man you once were, a year ago or so," he crowed, ascribing his drop in popularity to the escalation of the U.S. wars abroad. At the time of Obama's election, many analysts said al-Qaida was worried that his race and Muslim family connections would make him more appealing to Muslims and Arabs angry at Bush's foreign policy.
In its statements since his election, al-Qaida has taken pains to show the continuity between Obama's foreign policy and that of his predecessor. Gadahn is wanted by the FBI since 2004 with a $1 million reward for information leading to his arrest or conviction. He is also known as Azzam al-Amriki, Arabic for the American.
For More Inforation, see http://www.911reality.com/
CAIRO – Al-Qaida's U.S.-born spokesman warned President Barack Obama Sunday that the militant group may launch new attacks that would kill more Americans than previous ones.
In a taunting, 24 minute message that dwelled on Obama's setbacks, including the loss of Massachusetts Senate seat to the Republicans, Adam Gadahn set out al-Qaida's conditions for peace with the U.S., including cutting support for Israel and withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan.
Gadahn said that if you compared the number of dead Muslims "with the relatively small number of Americans we have killed so far, it becomes crystal-clear that we haven't even begun to even the score," he said, dressed in a white robe and turban.
"That's why next time, we might not show the restraint and self-control we have shown up until now," he said. Even if al-Qaida was defeated, "hundreds of millions of Muslims" would still fight the U.S., he added.
Al-Qaida offered the same conditions for an end to hostilities to then President George W. Bush in 2007, including the release of all Muslim prisoners and cutting off aid to Middle East governments.
Gadahn's statement was notable for its mocking tone, in which he described Obama as "a devious, evasive and serpentine American president with a Muslim name," and seemed to delight in his setbacks.
"You're no longer the popular man you once were, a year ago or so," he crowed, ascribing his drop in popularity to the escalation of the U.S. wars abroad. At the time of Obama's election, many analysts said al-Qaida was worried that his race and Muslim family connections would make him more appealing to Muslims and Arabs angry at Bush's foreign policy.
In its statements since his election, al-Qaida has taken pains to show the continuity between Obama's foreign policy and that of his predecessor. Gadahn is wanted by the FBI since 2004 with a $1 million reward for information leading to his arrest or conviction. He is also known as Azzam al-Amriki, Arabic for the American.
For More Inforation, see http://www.911reality.com/
Monday, November 16, 2009
Pt. 2: Controlled Demolition at WTC 100% IMPOSSIBLE
We now continue here with "Part 2" from the last post on why controlled demolition at the World Trade Center Twin Towers would have been absolutely impossible.
Conspiracy theorists argue that the "official" or public account of the 9/11 attacks on the United States by Al Qaeda (do not fit together or have questions or holes in the story. (This is not a "government" story because the public told the government what happened on 9/11.)
But they never stop to ask whether their own theories make any more sense. Unless their theories make more sense, than their imagined problems with the public account are not relevant. In fact, the conspiracy theories about 9/11 make absolutely no sense at all.
As explained in Part 1, controlled demolition would require at least 22,050 explosives or other demolition devices to destroy each of the 268 steel support columns around the outside (perimeter) of the building plus 47 support columns inside the building.
Because each floor -- individually -- began to move only when hit by the falling mass dropping from above, each floor would have to be handled individually. We do not see any floor moving below the line of the falling mass hitting it. We do not see more than one (1) floor moving at a time. We do not see a group of floors moving together. Therefore, each floor would need to be wired separately. If we assume at least 70 floors were wired below the aircraft impact zone, that is (268 +47) * 70 = 22,050 demolition devices.
Note that the perimeter columns supported the weight of the building. The interior columns prevented the building from swaying horizontally, side to side. So, demolition could not be accomplished by destroying only the interior columns. Furthermore, the interior columns were off-center. So the building would have fallen over if it could have been brought down only by destroying the interior columns. And of course the nuts depend upon the myth of extremely rapid collapse, so they depend on the idea that each floor offered zero (o) resistance to the collapse. Therefore, all 268 exterior columns had to be destroyed on every floor in addition to the 47 interior columns.
Furthermore, in addition to placing explosives, controlled demolition prep teams also CUT support columns and cross-members. The building comes down not only because of explosives, but because for weeks or months before "the day" the support columns have already been dramatically cut by acetylene torches. So when the explosives detonate, the building has already been severely weakened. The explosives only cut through a small remaining part of the columns, after the prep team has cut notches most of the way through the columns with torches. And auxillary lattices and cross-members have been completely cut through and disconnected in advance by the prep teams before the demolition.
AGAIN: Controlled demolitions do not involve explosives bringing down a building. Controlled demolition involves prep teams dismantling the building over a period of weeks or months with acetylene torches, so that only the barest minimum of the support structure is still intact. The explosives only destroy the last little bit of structure that the prep teams have not already dismantled.
However, conspiracy nuts have another problem: The architects who designed the WTC Twin Towers did not create empty spaces in the walls to conveniently hold bombs. There is no space for the bombs inside the walls.
During an actual controlled demolition, teams spend weeks or months preparing the building. They place HUGE explosive packages on the OUTSIDE of support columns and pillars, where they are VERY, VERY OBVIOUS.
No building in the history of humanity has ever undergone a controlled demolition in which the explosives were concealed inside the walls. It has never been done. No one knows how to do it, because no one has any experience with it.
But there was no room inside the walls for explosives. The architects designing the Twin Towers did not plan on leaving void spaces for the installation of bombs. Remember that the explosives must be directly against the support columns. If bombs were in some void space, but not against the column, they would have no effect other than being a noisy firecracker.
Furthermore, never in the history of humanity has any building undergone controlled demolition while still being inhabited by office tenants on a day-to-day basis. It has never been done (not even on 9/11 of course). No one knows how to do this.
It would be absolutely impossible to rig the Twin Towers for demolition while 50,000 people were working in the office buildings at the same time, without someone noticing.
Remember: Office workers do not work a 9-to-5 schedule. Law offices and financial offices in particular may have professionals working all hours of the day and night, 24/7. The World Trade Center was famous as an INTERNATIONAL center for businesses from around the world. Financial offices and import-export businesses might have staff in the office -- unpredictably and without warning -- in the middle of the night talking to Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, or China. Law offices crunching on a deadline for court may have lawyers and paralegals coming and going at all hours. Patent lawyers and researchers might be talking to Japan's patent office at 3:00 AM New York time.
But the nuts assume that the Twin Towers would have to be empty at night. Wrong. Conspirators would have no way of knowing who would be coming and going all night long in the WTC tenant offices. They could not count on a professional office building necessarily being empty, just because it is night. Such nonsense comes from inexperienced students and minimum-wage workers who do not understand an international, world-class office building like the World Trade Center.
But even if conspirators could open up the walls without anyone seeing, even if there were any vacant space in which to plant bombs, this would still be impossible.
After cutting open the walls and putting bombs inside, the conspirators would have to close up the walls again and make it look the same as it did before. This means putting in a new section of drywall, and applying drywall "mud" (joint compound) to smooth over the cracks and create a smooth surface. It takes time for the drywall "mud" to dry. Then it has to be sanded smooth. This creates a gigantic amount of extremely-fine dust -- the same fine, white powder we saw in billowing clouds on 9/11. That dust has to be cleaned up, after it blows everywhere. Then the new surface has to be painted -- and painted to match exactly. It takes time for the new, wet paint to dry. And it won't look the same color until it does dry. If you have seen a patch-job of paint, when you look at it from a certain angle you can see the new paint section looking different from the rest.
This could not be done in time for office workers to return to their offices the next morning. Many staff, especially clerical and secretarial, might be coming to work as early as 7:00 AM if not earlier, even if their executives arrive much later.
Finally, controlled demolition is performed by blowing out the lower floors of a building, so that the building will fall down into its footprint as much as possible.
THE KEY WORD IN CONTROLLED DEMOLITION IS CONTROLLED.
Uncontrolled demolition is not the idea.
So no one destroys a building from the top down, the way the WTC Twin Towers collapsed. No one has any experience at it.
The reason why buildings are never demolished from the top down is precisely what we see in the videos -- debris showers down from the top all over the entire region. Demolition from the top down is out-of-control, chaotic, messy, AND EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY DANGEROUS. The debris from the WTC Twin Towers -- each of which had a base of 1 acre -- COVERED 16 ACRES. No one does controlled demolition that way. So no one has any experience with it. There is no one that conspirators could call on who would know how to do it.
Conspiracy theorists argue that the "official" or public account of the 9/11 attacks on the United States by Al Qaeda (do not fit together or have questions or holes in the story. (This is not a "government" story because the public told the government what happened on 9/11.)
But they never stop to ask whether their own theories make any more sense. Unless their theories make more sense, than their imagined problems with the public account are not relevant. In fact, the conspiracy theories about 9/11 make absolutely no sense at all.
As explained in Part 1, controlled demolition would require at least 22,050 explosives or other demolition devices to destroy each of the 268 steel support columns around the outside (perimeter) of the building plus 47 support columns inside the building.
Because each floor -- individually -- began to move only when hit by the falling mass dropping from above, each floor would have to be handled individually. We do not see any floor moving below the line of the falling mass hitting it. We do not see more than one (1) floor moving at a time. We do not see a group of floors moving together. Therefore, each floor would need to be wired separately. If we assume at least 70 floors were wired below the aircraft impact zone, that is (268 +47) * 70 = 22,050 demolition devices.
Note that the perimeter columns supported the weight of the building. The interior columns prevented the building from swaying horizontally, side to side. So, demolition could not be accomplished by destroying only the interior columns. Furthermore, the interior columns were off-center. So the building would have fallen over if it could have been brought down only by destroying the interior columns. And of course the nuts depend upon the myth of extremely rapid collapse, so they depend on the idea that each floor offered zero (o) resistance to the collapse. Therefore, all 268 exterior columns had to be destroyed on every floor in addition to the 47 interior columns.
Furthermore, in addition to placing explosives, controlled demolition prep teams also CUT support columns and cross-members. The building comes down not only because of explosives, but because for weeks or months before "the day" the support columns have already been dramatically cut by acetylene torches. So when the explosives detonate, the building has already been severely weakened. The explosives only cut through a small remaining part of the columns, after the prep team has cut notches most of the way through the columns with torches. And auxillary lattices and cross-members have been completely cut through and disconnected in advance by the prep teams before the demolition.
AGAIN: Controlled demolitions do not involve explosives bringing down a building. Controlled demolition involves prep teams dismantling the building over a period of weeks or months with acetylene torches, so that only the barest minimum of the support structure is still intact. The explosives only destroy the last little bit of structure that the prep teams have not already dismantled.
However, conspiracy nuts have another problem: The architects who designed the WTC Twin Towers did not create empty spaces in the walls to conveniently hold bombs. There is no space for the bombs inside the walls.
During an actual controlled demolition, teams spend weeks or months preparing the building. They place HUGE explosive packages on the OUTSIDE of support columns and pillars, where they are VERY, VERY OBVIOUS.
No building in the history of humanity has ever undergone a controlled demolition in which the explosives were concealed inside the walls. It has never been done. No one knows how to do it, because no one has any experience with it.
But there was no room inside the walls for explosives. The architects designing the Twin Towers did not plan on leaving void spaces for the installation of bombs. Remember that the explosives must be directly against the support columns. If bombs were in some void space, but not against the column, they would have no effect other than being a noisy firecracker.
Furthermore, never in the history of humanity has any building undergone controlled demolition while still being inhabited by office tenants on a day-to-day basis. It has never been done (not even on 9/11 of course). No one knows how to do this.
It would be absolutely impossible to rig the Twin Towers for demolition while 50,000 people were working in the office buildings at the same time, without someone noticing.
Remember: Office workers do not work a 9-to-5 schedule. Law offices and financial offices in particular may have professionals working all hours of the day and night, 24/7. The World Trade Center was famous as an INTERNATIONAL center for businesses from around the world. Financial offices and import-export businesses might have staff in the office -- unpredictably and without warning -- in the middle of the night talking to Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, or China. Law offices crunching on a deadline for court may have lawyers and paralegals coming and going at all hours. Patent lawyers and researchers might be talking to Japan's patent office at 3:00 AM New York time.
But the nuts assume that the Twin Towers would have to be empty at night. Wrong. Conspirators would have no way of knowing who would be coming and going all night long in the WTC tenant offices. They could not count on a professional office building necessarily being empty, just because it is night. Such nonsense comes from inexperienced students and minimum-wage workers who do not understand an international, world-class office building like the World Trade Center.
But even if conspirators could open up the walls without anyone seeing, even if there were any vacant space in which to plant bombs, this would still be impossible.
After cutting open the walls and putting bombs inside, the conspirators would have to close up the walls again and make it look the same as it did before. This means putting in a new section of drywall, and applying drywall "mud" (joint compound) to smooth over the cracks and create a smooth surface. It takes time for the drywall "mud" to dry. Then it has to be sanded smooth. This creates a gigantic amount of extremely-fine dust -- the same fine, white powder we saw in billowing clouds on 9/11. That dust has to be cleaned up, after it blows everywhere. Then the new surface has to be painted -- and painted to match exactly. It takes time for the new, wet paint to dry. And it won't look the same color until it does dry. If you have seen a patch-job of paint, when you look at it from a certain angle you can see the new paint section looking different from the rest.
This could not be done in time for office workers to return to their offices the next morning. Many staff, especially clerical and secretarial, might be coming to work as early as 7:00 AM if not earlier, even if their executives arrive much later.
Finally, controlled demolition is performed by blowing out the lower floors of a building, so that the building will fall down into its footprint as much as possible.
THE KEY WORD IN CONTROLLED DEMOLITION IS CONTROLLED.
Uncontrolled demolition is not the idea.
So no one destroys a building from the top down, the way the WTC Twin Towers collapsed. No one has any experience at it.
The reason why buildings are never demolished from the top down is precisely what we see in the videos -- debris showers down from the top all over the entire region. Demolition from the top down is out-of-control, chaotic, messy, AND EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY DANGEROUS. The debris from the WTC Twin Towers -- each of which had a base of 1 acre -- COVERED 16 ACRES. No one does controlled demolition that way. So no one has any experience with it. There is no one that conspirators could call on who would know how to do it.
Controlled Demolition at WTC 100% IMPOSSIBLE
The 9/11 conspiracy theories are themselves absolutely ridiculous and preposterous. Conspiracy theorists fight very hard to never get specific. They need to remain vague and mysterious, because as soon as we actually think about what they are saying, it makes no sense.
In fact, the idea of controlled demolition of the World Trade Center Twin Towers would be 100% impossible. It could not ever happen -- not ever.
9/11 conspiracy theorists specialize in nit-picking the reality of 9/11 that we all saw and witnessed.
Of course they have no evidence whatsoever of any conspiracy about the 9/11 attacks by anyone other than Al Qaeda. However, they try to find any loose end or rough edge or apparent inconsistency in the "official" (public, not government) account of 9/11. They never actually prove anything, but simply make accusations that something or other is less than 100% perfect.
But the one thing they never do is apply the same yardstick to their own ideas that they want to use for doubting the official, public account of 9/11.
The first impossibility about controlled demolition on 9/11 is that any explosives planted in the WTC Twin Towers would have been destroyed, prematurely detonated, or disabled by the aircraft impact, jet fuel explosion, and the one hour fire in one tower and 1.5 hour fire in the other tower.
News video shows that the collapse of the first World Trade Center Tower began right where the aircraft struck the building. The gaping wound in the side of the building began to close like a mouth.
So any controlled demolition would necessarily require explosives right at that point. However, that is exactly where the aircraft impact would have destroyed any explosives. The Boeing 757 aircraft weighed 140 tons fully loaded, and was traveling near its top speed of 540 miles per hour. The human mind cannot understand the gigantic amount of energy involved. Kinetic energy is based on the SQUARE of speed. That is, a car going 550 MPH has 100 times the energy of a car going 55 MPH.
Furthermore, a gigantic explosion of jet fuel ripped the interior of the WTC Towers apart. This was essentially a "fuel air bomb" -- the most powerful non-nuclear bomb known. "Fuel air bombs" are so devastating that international organizations are trying to get them banned as immoral. They are that powerful.
Leslie Robertson, the designer of the World Trade Center, points out the bomb that destroyed the Federal Building in the Oklahoma City terrorist bombing was the equivalent of 192 liters of jet fuel exploding. But the explosion of jet fuel inside the WTC Towers was 45,600 liters of jet fuel. So, the jet fuel explosion was 237.5 times the power of the bomb that destroyed the Murrah Federal Office Building in Oklahoma City.
SEE: Original Engineer who Built WTC explains: (1) bomb that destroyed Oklahoma City Murrah Building equivalent of 192 liters of jet fuel, while airplanes that hit WTC had 45,600 liters. (2) No building can withstand aircraft impact
Therefore, the "fuel air bomb" of jet fuel exploding tore the insides of the buildings apart on a massive scale. The damage we could see on the outside was nothing compared to what happened inside.
As a result, no explosives planted in advance inside the buildings could possibly have survived that explosion. Any controlled demolition devices planted in the building would have been destroyed, disabled, or prematurely detonated.
Then, the fire raged in one tower for 1 hour and raged for 1.5 hours in the other tower. The fire again would have caused any explosives in the building to be destroyed or prematurely detonated out of sequence or at a minimum disabled by the melting of any electronic devices, control wires, detonator cord, etc.
So even if explosives had somehow been planted inside the Twin Towers, they could not have still been functional after the 1 hour fire in one tower and 1.5 hour fire in the other.
Second, the 9/11 conspiracy theorists depend on the idea that the collapse of the twin towers was unusually fast, unusually smooth, and straight down the centerline of the building, so that the building collapsed "within its footprint" - none of which is actually true.
Therefore, they insist that there must be complete destruction of every floor so that every floor offered no resistance to the fallig mass from above. The speed of collapse is determined in their minds by the lack of any resistance of the structure as it collapses.
So to meet the criteria of a controlled demolition as they argue it, there must be complete destruction of every support on every floor, so that each floor offers no resistance. Meanwhile, however, we see on the videos of the collapse that no floor moves until hit by the falling mass from above.
This requires that every floor must be destroyed SEPARATELY AND INDIVIDUALLY. We do not see groups of floors moving below as a mass. We do not see floors moving below the point of progressive collapse. We see the falling mass coming down, and only when it strikes a floor does that floor begin to move.
The support structure of the twin towers was made up of 268 steel support columns around the outside (perimeter) of the building and 47 relatively minor central columns inside the building, consisting mainly of the shells around the elevator shafts and stairwells. The 268 steel support columns around the outside held up the building, while the interior supports kept the buidling from swaying side to side in the wind.
Therefore, controlled demolition would require individual and separate demolition devices at 268 + 47 support columns ON EVERY FLOOR, because, again, we see each floor acting separately and individually as each floor is hit by the falling mass from above.
Again, complute destruction of all supports is mandatory for this scenario because the 9/11 conspiracy theorists depend upon their myth of extremely rapid collapse. Therefore, all the supports must be destroyed under this plan in order to meet their criteria.
Furthermore, the 9/11 nuts are fixated on their fantasy of a smooth collapse that "fell within its footprint." In fact, the collapse was chaotic and extremely messy and covered 16 times the footprint of the towers (16 acres was the debris field for the 1 acre footprint towers).
Therefore, every support would have to be destroyed completely and at precisely the right split-second, or the building would have tilted to one side or the other as it collapsed. Again, the reality is that the collapse was very messy. But the 9/11 nuts insist that the collapse was smooth, neat, and straight down.
As a result, the number of controlled demolition devices required is 268 steel support columns around the outside of the building + 47 interior supports on each floor times at least 70 floors = 22,050 demolition devices.
For both towers, that requires 44,100 controlled demolition devices.
And they would have to detonate with split-second precision. The nuts insist that the collapse was extremely rapid, consisting of only split seconds for each floor. That means that 268 +47 explosives would have to detonate on every floor at precisely the same time -- to avoid the building leaning over to one side or the other as it fell -- and in a split-second ballet of incredible precision. Once again, no floor moves until hit by the falling mass from above.
Such a controlled demolition is not possible. There would be a hundred miles of control wires necessary to control the explosives. There would be thousands of blasting caps found in the WTC rubble, along with miles of detonator cord.
In fact, the idea of controlled demolition of the World Trade Center Twin Towers would be 100% impossible. It could not ever happen -- not ever.
9/11 conspiracy theorists specialize in nit-picking the reality of 9/11 that we all saw and witnessed.
Of course they have no evidence whatsoever of any conspiracy about the 9/11 attacks by anyone other than Al Qaeda. However, they try to find any loose end or rough edge or apparent inconsistency in the "official" (public, not government) account of 9/11. They never actually prove anything, but simply make accusations that something or other is less than 100% perfect.
But the one thing they never do is apply the same yardstick to their own ideas that they want to use for doubting the official, public account of 9/11.
The first impossibility about controlled demolition on 9/11 is that any explosives planted in the WTC Twin Towers would have been destroyed, prematurely detonated, or disabled by the aircraft impact, jet fuel explosion, and the one hour fire in one tower and 1.5 hour fire in the other tower.
News video shows that the collapse of the first World Trade Center Tower began right where the aircraft struck the building. The gaping wound in the side of the building began to close like a mouth.
So any controlled demolition would necessarily require explosives right at that point. However, that is exactly where the aircraft impact would have destroyed any explosives. The Boeing 757 aircraft weighed 140 tons fully loaded, and was traveling near its top speed of 540 miles per hour. The human mind cannot understand the gigantic amount of energy involved. Kinetic energy is based on the SQUARE of speed. That is, a car going 550 MPH has 100 times the energy of a car going 55 MPH.
Furthermore, a gigantic explosion of jet fuel ripped the interior of the WTC Towers apart. This was essentially a "fuel air bomb" -- the most powerful non-nuclear bomb known. "Fuel air bombs" are so devastating that international organizations are trying to get them banned as immoral. They are that powerful.
Leslie Robertson, the designer of the World Trade Center, points out the bomb that destroyed the Federal Building in the Oklahoma City terrorist bombing was the equivalent of 192 liters of jet fuel exploding. But the explosion of jet fuel inside the WTC Towers was 45,600 liters of jet fuel. So, the jet fuel explosion was 237.5 times the power of the bomb that destroyed the Murrah Federal Office Building in Oklahoma City.
SEE: Original Engineer who Built WTC explains: (1) bomb that destroyed Oklahoma City Murrah Building equivalent of 192 liters of jet fuel, while airplanes that hit WTC had 45,600 liters. (2) No building can withstand aircraft impact
Therefore, the "fuel air bomb" of jet fuel exploding tore the insides of the buildings apart on a massive scale. The damage we could see on the outside was nothing compared to what happened inside.
As a result, no explosives planted in advance inside the buildings could possibly have survived that explosion. Any controlled demolition devices planted in the building would have been destroyed, disabled, or prematurely detonated.
Then, the fire raged in one tower for 1 hour and raged for 1.5 hours in the other tower. The fire again would have caused any explosives in the building to be destroyed or prematurely detonated out of sequence or at a minimum disabled by the melting of any electronic devices, control wires, detonator cord, etc.
So even if explosives had somehow been planted inside the Twin Towers, they could not have still been functional after the 1 hour fire in one tower and 1.5 hour fire in the other.
Second, the 9/11 conspiracy theorists depend on the idea that the collapse of the twin towers was unusually fast, unusually smooth, and straight down the centerline of the building, so that the building collapsed "within its footprint" - none of which is actually true.
Therefore, they insist that there must be complete destruction of every floor so that every floor offered no resistance to the fallig mass from above. The speed of collapse is determined in their minds by the lack of any resistance of the structure as it collapses.
So to meet the criteria of a controlled demolition as they argue it, there must be complete destruction of every support on every floor, so that each floor offers no resistance. Meanwhile, however, we see on the videos of the collapse that no floor moves until hit by the falling mass from above.
This requires that every floor must be destroyed SEPARATELY AND INDIVIDUALLY. We do not see groups of floors moving below as a mass. We do not see floors moving below the point of progressive collapse. We see the falling mass coming down, and only when it strikes a floor does that floor begin to move.
The support structure of the twin towers was made up of 268 steel support columns around the outside (perimeter) of the building and 47 relatively minor central columns inside the building, consisting mainly of the shells around the elevator shafts and stairwells. The 268 steel support columns around the outside held up the building, while the interior supports kept the buidling from swaying side to side in the wind.
Therefore, controlled demolition would require individual and separate demolition devices at 268 + 47 support columns ON EVERY FLOOR, because, again, we see each floor acting separately and individually as each floor is hit by the falling mass from above.
Again, complute destruction of all supports is mandatory for this scenario because the 9/11 conspiracy theorists depend upon their myth of extremely rapid collapse. Therefore, all the supports must be destroyed under this plan in order to meet their criteria.
Furthermore, the 9/11 nuts are fixated on their fantasy of a smooth collapse that "fell within its footprint." In fact, the collapse was chaotic and extremely messy and covered 16 times the footprint of the towers (16 acres was the debris field for the 1 acre footprint towers).
Therefore, every support would have to be destroyed completely and at precisely the right split-second, or the building would have tilted to one side or the other as it collapsed. Again, the reality is that the collapse was very messy. But the 9/11 nuts insist that the collapse was smooth, neat, and straight down.
As a result, the number of controlled demolition devices required is 268 steel support columns around the outside of the building + 47 interior supports on each floor times at least 70 floors = 22,050 demolition devices.
For both towers, that requires 44,100 controlled demolition devices.
And they would have to detonate with split-second precision. The nuts insist that the collapse was extremely rapid, consisting of only split seconds for each floor. That means that 268 +47 explosives would have to detonate on every floor at precisely the same time -- to avoid the building leaning over to one side or the other as it fell -- and in a split-second ballet of incredible precision. Once again, no floor moves until hit by the falling mass from above.
Such a controlled demolition is not possible. There would be a hundred miles of control wires necessary to control the explosives. There would be thousands of blasting caps found in the WTC rubble, along with miles of detonator cord.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
"I Don't Understand" is NOT Evidence of a Conspiracy
If you listen long enough, you can hear it.
Almost everything that the 9/11 conspiracy theorists say has one common theme: "I (the conspiracy nut) don't understand."
This is phrased in various ways, usually in outraged, nasty, and accusatory tones, or expressions of disbelief. But they all come down to saying they don't understand this or that.
However, "I don't understand" is not proof of a conspiracy theory. "I don't understand" how airplanes fly does not mean they don't fly. "I don't understand" how nuclear bombs explode does not mean they can't work. Scientists cannot figure out how bumble bees fly (they are too big and their wings too small), and yet bumble bees keep right on flying.
"I don't understand" should be a point of humility, a recognition of our own limits. But not for the arrogant conspiracy nuts. To them, if they don't understand, then it cannot be true. Whatever they personally do not understand must be false.
100% of what the 9/11 conspiracy theories have to say is evidence only that they don't understand how things happened or what happened. We are convinced: They don't understand. But the rest of us do understand. We get it. They don't. We're smart. They're dumb. They have persuaded us of this.
Of course, their confessions of not understanding is phrased in more arrogant ways than this. They proclaim "How could X happen?" by which they mean to imply that it could not happen. All this tells us is that they don't know how it happened.
A variation of this is "If X happened, then how could Y happen?" First, if you check, you will amost always find 99% of the time that X is FALSE. Whatever 9/11 conspiracy theorists assert as a fact, if you check it out, is almost always wrong. Second, what their argument boils down to is that the speaker simply does not understand how Y could happen. And yet Y did happen.
The nuts repeately ridicule the facts of 9/11 and otherwise declare that they don't believe the facts about 9/11. But the fact that they don't believe it is simply another way of saying that they don't understand how it could happen. If they understood physics, architecture, building construction, demolition, airplanes, etc., they would believe it. The fact that they don't understand what is going on is why they don't believe it. They are like someone afraid of flying because they don't understand how airplanes fly. If they can't understand, then they don't believe it.
Trained professionals patiently explain what happened on 9/11. But the conspiracy theorists don't want to hear it. Then they repeat that they don't understand, or they don't believe how it could happen.
At the root of the entire conspiracy theory community, with 9/11 and all other topics, is incredible narcissism, and childish selfishness. They believe that unless THEY personally are convinced, then it cannot be true.
Those who want to suggest that something happened on 9/11 different from what we all saw have the burden of proof. Yet, the 9/11 conspiracy movement also depends on the idea that the government has the burden of proof, and that the government must convince them that Al Qaeda attacked the United States on 9/11.
NOTE that I did not say they believe the government must investigate and come to a conclusion. I did not say they believe that the government must convince a normal, reasonable person. They assume that the government most convince THEM. But they don't want to be convinced. They want to believe the opposite. So, of course, this is an impossible standard, because they will never be convinced. If God Himself took them back in time and showed them Al Qaeda planning and carrying out the 9/11 attacks, they would still refuse to believe it.
They EXPECT that the Director of the FBI MUST come over to their house, spread out the evidence on their kitchen table and prove every detail until THEY PERSONALLY are convinced. They DEMAND this.
So, setting up the idea that the government must prove to them what we all know happened is in fact a scam, because they will never allow themselves to be convinced. They reject all common sense, all logic, all reality, in order to cling to their discredited fantasies about some involvement by the US government or officials or the Israeli Mossad.
Think, really think, about the absurdity of the 9/11 nuts. Their entire philosophy is founded on the belief that until THEY are convinced, it can't be true. They believe that THEY are entitled to a personal presentation, proving every detail, and answering every question.
This unbelievable arrogance is echoed by the Snot-Nosed Kid himself, Dylan Avery. Then an 18-year-old, unemployed loser, Dylan Avery created the fraudulent scam video "Loose Change." See "Screw Loose Change" to see all the errors and falsehoods in Avery's fruadulent video. Avery literally created this video at his computer in his bedroom, a few feet from his bed. And yet millions of naive sheeple are willing to follow a know-nothing 18-year-old kid rather than trained professionals with years of experience in their fields.
And yet Avery reveals his arrogance in everything he says. National Geographic has repeatedly proven that the conspiracy theories are absolutely wrong. So how does Avery respond to absolute proof that he is wrong? "I don't have a chain of custody on that," is Avery's response to proof that he has been lying to millions of people.
In other words, Avery imagines himself in the role of a judge sitting on the bench, and proponents of the reality of 9/11 must PROVE to him that the evidence establishes what we all know is true. He imagines that he can ignore the overwhelming evidence that he is wrong, by waving it away. He has aboslutely no evidence of anything. But he conveniently dismisses mountains of evidence against his position. Someone has to come and PERSONALLY prove to him every detail of the evidence, as if he were some self-appointed judge.
Almost everything that the 9/11 conspiracy theorists say has one common theme: "I (the conspiracy nut) don't understand."
This is phrased in various ways, usually in outraged, nasty, and accusatory tones, or expressions of disbelief. But they all come down to saying they don't understand this or that.
However, "I don't understand" is not proof of a conspiracy theory. "I don't understand" how airplanes fly does not mean they don't fly. "I don't understand" how nuclear bombs explode does not mean they can't work. Scientists cannot figure out how bumble bees fly (they are too big and their wings too small), and yet bumble bees keep right on flying.
"I don't understand" should be a point of humility, a recognition of our own limits. But not for the arrogant conspiracy nuts. To them, if they don't understand, then it cannot be true. Whatever they personally do not understand must be false.
100% of what the 9/11 conspiracy theories have to say is evidence only that they don't understand how things happened or what happened. We are convinced: They don't understand. But the rest of us do understand. We get it. They don't. We're smart. They're dumb. They have persuaded us of this.
Of course, their confessions of not understanding is phrased in more arrogant ways than this. They proclaim "How could X happen?" by which they mean to imply that it could not happen. All this tells us is that they don't know how it happened.
A variation of this is "If X happened, then how could Y happen?" First, if you check, you will amost always find 99% of the time that X is FALSE. Whatever 9/11 conspiracy theorists assert as a fact, if you check it out, is almost always wrong. Second, what their argument boils down to is that the speaker simply does not understand how Y could happen. And yet Y did happen.
The nuts repeately ridicule the facts of 9/11 and otherwise declare that they don't believe the facts about 9/11. But the fact that they don't believe it is simply another way of saying that they don't understand how it could happen. If they understood physics, architecture, building construction, demolition, airplanes, etc., they would believe it. The fact that they don't understand what is going on is why they don't believe it. They are like someone afraid of flying because they don't understand how airplanes fly. If they can't understand, then they don't believe it.
Trained professionals patiently explain what happened on 9/11. But the conspiracy theorists don't want to hear it. Then they repeat that they don't understand, or they don't believe how it could happen.
At the root of the entire conspiracy theory community, with 9/11 and all other topics, is incredible narcissism, and childish selfishness. They believe that unless THEY personally are convinced, then it cannot be true.
Those who want to suggest that something happened on 9/11 different from what we all saw have the burden of proof. Yet, the 9/11 conspiracy movement also depends on the idea that the government has the burden of proof, and that the government must convince them that Al Qaeda attacked the United States on 9/11.
NOTE that I did not say they believe the government must investigate and come to a conclusion. I did not say they believe that the government must convince a normal, reasonable person. They assume that the government most convince THEM. But they don't want to be convinced. They want to believe the opposite. So, of course, this is an impossible standard, because they will never be convinced. If God Himself took them back in time and showed them Al Qaeda planning and carrying out the 9/11 attacks, they would still refuse to believe it.
They EXPECT that the Director of the FBI MUST come over to their house, spread out the evidence on their kitchen table and prove every detail until THEY PERSONALLY are convinced. They DEMAND this.
So, setting up the idea that the government must prove to them what we all know happened is in fact a scam, because they will never allow themselves to be convinced. They reject all common sense, all logic, all reality, in order to cling to their discredited fantasies about some involvement by the US government or officials or the Israeli Mossad.
Think, really think, about the absurdity of the 9/11 nuts. Their entire philosophy is founded on the belief that until THEY are convinced, it can't be true. They believe that THEY are entitled to a personal presentation, proving every detail, and answering every question.
This unbelievable arrogance is echoed by the Snot-Nosed Kid himself, Dylan Avery. Then an 18-year-old, unemployed loser, Dylan Avery created the fraudulent scam video "Loose Change." See "Screw Loose Change" to see all the errors and falsehoods in Avery's fruadulent video. Avery literally created this video at his computer in his bedroom, a few feet from his bed. And yet millions of naive sheeple are willing to follow a know-nothing 18-year-old kid rather than trained professionals with years of experience in their fields.
And yet Avery reveals his arrogance in everything he says. National Geographic has repeatedly proven that the conspiracy theories are absolutely wrong. So how does Avery respond to absolute proof that he is wrong? "I don't have a chain of custody on that," is Avery's response to proof that he has been lying to millions of people.
In other words, Avery imagines himself in the role of a judge sitting on the bench, and proponents of the reality of 9/11 must PROVE to him that the evidence establishes what we all know is true. He imagines that he can ignore the overwhelming evidence that he is wrong, by waving it away. He has aboslutely no evidence of anything. But he conveniently dismisses mountains of evidence against his position. Someone has to come and PERSONALLY prove to him every detail of the evidence, as if he were some self-appointed judge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
