Here Today... Gone To Hell!

http://911blogger.com/node/10025

This is wild.  Long video. 

 ... and now for the truth, instead of something so mind numbing stupid, it hurts your brain:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

Oh here we go again...

The popular mechanics piece didn't really address the points brought up, but rather created a strawman to tear down instead.

Who was responsible for the PM article? Well the cousin of Michael Chertoff of course, imagine that.

I am not saying what is true, but if you watch that 2 hour presentation, its hard to argue with it. 

It has addressed the arguments that the "truthers" have raised. Where is the "stawman"?



The article was compiled by many unbiased sources. The Primary difference between the "truthers" and Pop Mech. is that the latter looks at the evidence, and then draws conclusions(science). Whereas, the former draws conclusions, and then try to make the evidence fit that conclusion(pseudo-science).



*cough cough* ;)

About 20 reputable scientists debunking the "truthers" on scienceblogs:

http://www.google.com/cse?cx=017254414699180528062%3Auyrcvn__yd0&q=debunking+9%2F11+truthers&sa.x=6&sa.y=5&sa=search

I'm not going to waste 2 hours on my life on that pile of crap.

Al Qaida hijacked 2 jets, crashed into the towers and the damage caused by the planes and ensuing fire weakened the buildings structure & brought down the towers. End of story.

The popular mechanic article (if I remember correctly) did not address all claims made by the Loose Change, but created their own and argued against those instead.

Of course an article article from "Senior Researcher" Chertoff would have zero bias, right?  ;)

The most compelling "truther" to me is Physicist Dr. Steve Jones. A conservative Mormon, former Bush supporter, and professor from BYU. This is no lefty nut case here, this is a scientist from one of the most conservative states in the country.

You can read his hypothesis HERE (http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf)

Of course he is not alone, there are plenty of engineers, scientists, architects and so on that have their own alternative (to the governments) hypothesis all over the globe. It would really help the governments position if they released reports, video footage and so on, but they will not.


It's a lot to sift through, but I think it is very important.

Which plane flew into building number seven?

Which plane flew into building number seven?

It had to be air force one! And not only that, Bush was actually flying it! And not only was Bush flying it, he was burning a small american flag while he was doing it!

I made it through 3 of his 13 "reasons", and they all dealt with shaped charges ... an utter ridiculous claim that has been addressed by many others.

If anyone can make it through all 1500 comments and responses HERE (http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/911myths/4213805.html), it should leave no doubt that these people are "grasping at thin air"

Furthermore, the author of the linked "thesis" make a claim of peer review for his paper. Submitting a paper to a group of like minded people that share ones biases does not peer review make.

 Let him submit it to a real peer review journal, and lets see how it stands up to scrutiny. I would think he has already submitted the piece, and that is why he had to resubmit to the "truthers" to get published.

No offense, but the man has an impeccable record, and I find it more compelling than your counter argument, ie "Ridiculous claims" and "addressed by others".

I've gone round and round on this in the past. I find their hypothesis intriguing, in particular building seven. Why did building seven fall straight down, like a demolition? It was not hit by a plane...

It's not as if he is the only PHD out there disputing the official story, he's hardly alone. Lets pretend for a minute that I agree with you, with the exception of one thing: Building seven. Why did it fall straight down?

When did this happen?

Exactly!  Plus home of CIA, SEC, and IRS offices.... Hmmmmm... It looks too staged.  A normal building wouldn't just fall like that unless imploded. Gravity doesn't work like that naturally.

9/11/2001

My bad. I was referring to SLC pulling a polluxlm.

If you would have worked that post a little harder it could have been a polluxlm pulling a SLC....





See now, I almost said that......lol, but I passed.

Yeah, I'm making it too easy for you.

Good to see you on the other side though.

It was a slow process: The tinfoil hat was taken off and replaced with a purple wig and evening gown.

Then I saw the light...

You know what's next...

The whole WTC 7 collapse conspiracy defies logic. If you go through the 1500 questions and answers that I posted, there is a logical explanation for every argument the "truthers" can muster.

Never mind the fact that somewhere between several hundred to several thousand people would have had to collude to pull it off, and then all of those would have to remain quiet to this day.

The 50,000 gal. of fuel in the basement would have destroyed any explosives that would have to been planted for a demolition.

Then there is the fact that WTC 7 did not collapse like a controlled demolition. There are plenty of examples on youtube that show the difference.

Then, of course, If WTC 7 were demolished, then those responsible would have to also be responsible for the two towers.

How did the conspirators hide the massive amount of prep work that would be required to pull off an implosion of that size from all the regular employs of WTC 7; all of the 10 or so thousand of those people would also have to be in on the conspiracy.


Finally, see this: Occam's Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor)

and for those that would rather watch and hear, rather than read:

http://www.videosift.com/video/911-WTC-7-Conspiracy-Theory-Debunked

That building didn't look very damaged and they way it fell looks really weird.  And the fact that the IRS, SEC, and CIA are in that building makes even more wonder if you know what I mean.  And the fact that Rudy and the Triage was asked to move cause "#7 is going to fall in a few minutes" is beyond bizarre.  Since when do "fires" make 47 story buildings implode on its own self???????

Severe structural damage from falling debris, and uncontrolled fire in the basement. The entire bottom corner of the building was "knocked off" in the collapse of the towers.

Did you watch the video in the last link? It answers those questions ... and more.

Lets say basement goes out all at once, building would still probably topple over vs. a perfect fall in its own footprint.  I watch your clip now. 

I've seen all the arguments before on that building and it doesn't convince me, sorry.

just watched the fucking crazy video clip.  All they said was everyone else is a nut job with out really giving good reasons as to why it was intentional.  I am not saying it was, but right now the argument in my clip is much better than the popular mechanics one.  "we didn't find a fuse", give me a break.  That was the whole point.  To hide it.

What? Maybe you should watch it again because that claim was never even implied, though, I think most of them are.

I meant that the people in the popular mechanics clip kind of felt the conspiracy people were nut jobs that make shit up to fit their story.

That is exactly what they do. It is called pseudo-science. they take the facts, and make the evidence fit ... all pseudo science does that.

To people uninformed about the scientific method, it seems like a valid argument. That isn't how science works.

Contrast these two wiki pages:

Scientific Method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)

vs.

Pseudoscience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience)

Science gave you your world around you ... everything. Medicine, plastics, travel, ad infinitum. Pseudoscience gave you bigfoot, ufos, atrology, channeling, 9/11 truthers, creation/ID, et al.