Attacks against Geraldo and Napolitano expose establishment desperation and demolish left-right nonsense

CNN observes...

It's rare that two media watchdogs – one on the left and one on the right – ever agree when it comes to assessing coverage on the cable news outlets.

But both the conservative Newsbusters and liberal Media Matters are aiming fire at Fox News' Geraldo Rivera and Judge Andrew Napolitano for recently suggesting the third building to fall on September 11, 2001 – 7 World Trade Center- may have collapsed for reasons beside the widely held belief that fire from the two World Trade Center towers nearby was the ultimate cause.

It's not surprising. The system is like a football game - two teams play against eachother, each one with fans that cheer them on. To the owners of the league, it doesn't matter who wins, coz they win either way. On the pitch the teams are mortal enemies, but if something threatens the game itself, the two teams will stand together to defend it. Likewise, in poltics, if something threatens the system itself (e.g. 9/11 truth) both the left and the right will attack it.

While linking to the Popular Mechanics article, WTC7lies, the BBC conspiracy files piece and a structure magazine article which cites the FEMA report and the 2004 NIST interim report as its sources, Lachlan Markay of Newsbusters writes...

Both Napolitano and Rivera have, er, raised questions about the "official" (read: commonsensical) explanation for the collapse of the WTC7 building on September 11, 2001. This conspiracy theory has been thoroughly debunked a number of times. Apparently Geraldo and the Judge are not convinced.

Replace the 'comm' from 'commonsensical' with an 'n' and you've got a bettter description of the official theory of WTC7's collapse. What the government expects us to believe essentially is that on 9/11, malevolent offices fires were able to intelligently seek out and destroy the one vital column preventing the entire building from imploding into its own footprint at the rate of freefall - a theory which makes intelligent thermite look credible.

Aside from the 1 in 81 improbability of fact that the column the fire allegedly destroyed just happened to be the building's alleged single point of failure (one of hundreds of 'coincidences' surrounding 9/11) , NIST's 'thermal expanation' fairytale openly violates simple physics and 'has been thoroughly debunked a number of times' - as have all the propaganda pieces that support it.

Notice the circular logic of these hitpieces. Bob MacIlvaine & Tony Szamboti appear on TV questioning the NIST report, and the response is not to answer they're criticisms, not to get some other expert to address their chief objection (the two-and-a-half seconds of freefall), but to simply parrot the very report they are questioning.



The Newsbusters piece continues...

The physics of the incident (see links above) and moral repugnance of the suggestion that the American government would deliberately slaughter thousands of its own citizens as a pretext for war are generally enough to dissuade thinking Americans from these sorts of theories.

Right, because the US government - which slaughters innocent children oversees with predator drones and depleted uranium weapons - is run by moral men and women who would never even think about killing their fellow citizens to justify such acts.

The article ends with an excerpt of a rant about how it would have been pointless demolishing building 7, so why bother? Fair question - one I would like to know the answer to as much as anyone - but the fact that we don't have a definite answer to that doesn't change the fact that the forensic evidence proves that it was demolished! To argue otherwise is a logical fallacy.

These hitpieces really are getting pathetic. It just shows how little the official story has going for it and how desperate it's defenders are.

Related Info:

NFL's Mark Stepnoski & Tony Szamboti: Buildingwhat? Round 2

Building What? is up...

Thank You Mr Curley: "Debunker" PROMOTES the "Building What?" Campaign & Pushes Discredited Material (again) to Discredit Himself

Breaking News: Hell Freezes Over!

Geraldo Should Be Impressed by 1300 Architects and Engineers

Shirley they can't be serious!

Truthers are Broken Records Because 'Debunkers' Can't Face the Music!

Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog weighed in today on the recent radio interview conducted by Rosie O'Donnell with 9/11 family member Bob McIlvaine and engineer Tony Szamboti.

Pat states, "It's the usual bit of nuttery; the program leads in with a lie: 'How many buildings collapsed on 9-11 Mom? Three.' Well, three if you don't count WTC-3. And St. Nick's."

As I pointed out in a previous reply to Pat, trying to equate the destruction of the puny 4-story St. Nick's church and the damage to WTC 3 to WTC 7 is even more ludicrous today than it was when radio host Rob Breakenridge did it in April of 2008, because the August 2008 government report on WTC 7, oddly enough, put the final nail in this type of talking point when it stated that Building 7 was "the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building." That being said, I will at least give Pat credit for being less ludicrous than "debunkers" who tried to use the partial collapse a freeway for a comparison.

Pat states, "Tony Szamboti chips in (breathlessly--the guy sounds like he's just finished the mile run) to tell us fire can't melt steel. Oh, except for in a few cases. Left unsaid, of course, by this engineer is that fire doesn't have to melt steel for the metal to lose its load-bearing capacity.

I couldn't hear it, but if Szamboti is out of breath I'm sure it's from the exhaustion of debunking your ilk into silence. The few cases where fire can melt steel Szamboti was referring to were in controlled circumstances such as a blast furnace. Also, when fires are out in the open with plenty of oxygen fueling them, such as with the lame experiments conducted on the National Geographic 9/11 program, this can be accomplished, but when Underwriters Labs created full scale models of the WTC floor sections and tested them in hotter and longer fires they didn't collapse.

As I wrote in another previous reply to Pat on the matter:

Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog says, (to 9/11 activist Jeff Hill) "Here's a clue for
Jeff: Molten metal does not equal molten steel."

Here's a clue for Pat: This does equal molten steel, "In what The New York Times dubbed as 'perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation,' Appendix C of the WTC Building Performance Study documented 'intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.'"

Appendix C states, "The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified."

As 911research.wtc7.net points out, "The 'deep mystery' of the melted steel may be yielding its secrets to investigators not beholden to the federal government. Professor Steven Jones has pointed out that the severe corrosion, intergranular melting, and abundance of sulfur are consistent with the theory of thermite arson."

Pat adds in an update, "Some particularly moronic Truthers want to talk about the thermal images taken by NASA on 9/16/01. They're archived here, on Jim Hoffman's site. Notice the temperatures recorded go as high as 1377 degrees fahrenheit. Which is about half the temperature required to melt steel."

"All morons hate it when you call them a moron."
J. D. Salinger

Well I'm sure these truthers could care less if Pat goes around calling them moronic, but when we put the boot on the other foot ... hey Pat, what do you think of these FACTS, moron?

The images below represent surface temperatures, the 'optical depth' is at the most a few millimeters. (ACS919)

The debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400ºF to more than 2,800ºF. asse.org, May issue 2002 cached copy

Since the time I posted the above reply, civil engineer Jon Cole conducted an experiment where he proved wrong the explanations offered by "debunkers" for the melted and corroded steel from WTC 7. Pat may not be impressed with the experiment, but others are, and that includes debunkers.

Pat states, "These morons are like a broken record."

I sure as hell feel like one! A broken record that is. ;)

Freudian Projection of Irrelevance

I don't like stooping to their level, but I'm fed up with debunkers downplaying the credibility of 1300 Architects and Engineers and all the other technical experts in the truth movement. Let's consider the icons of their 'movement' ...

• A couple of gossip artists with a blog that makes The Daily Mirror look like Nature


• The former editor of Entertainment Weekly


• A 'scientist' who denies Newton's third law and suggested a plane crashing into rusty steel could produce thermite


• A tour guide


• A man who fantasizes about a baseball player, harasses victims and beats his kids

Oh my, how can we compete?! I bow to your academic superiority!

Mock our hundreds of technical professionals all you want, it's better than anything you have.

Geraldo Should Be Impressed by 1300 Architects and Engineers

Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog asserted yesterday that Geraldo Rivera wouldn't be so impressed by the 1,300+ Architects and Engineers of ae911truth.org if he knew "about the swimming pool engineer or the HVAC engineer or the dental engineer who thinks it was done with beam weapons from space." The so-called "swimming pool engineer" is Don Meserlian, who held a professional engineer's license "for more than 30 years." To achieve a P.E. licence Imagineering E-zine notes that one must pass several exams:

The first exam, Fundamentals of Engineering, covers mathematics, chemistry, physics, and engineering sciences. The second exam, Principles and Practice of Engineering, requires the applicant to solve engineering problems in his discipline plus problems in four other disciplines. The difficulty of these tests have been equated to passing ten final exams on the same day. The data covered on the tests requires the applicant to draw upon knowledge that has been accumulated over an entire college and professional career.

So when Pat calls him a "swimming pool engineer" he is grossly misrepresenting his credentials, just as he does when he calls Kevin Ryan, who has a B.S. in chemistry from Indiana University, a waterboy because he worked as a chemistry lab manager at a premier water-testing laboratory. And most of the members of AE911Tuth don't hold implausible ideas about the Tower's destruction. Pat of course ignores the fact that as of May 6th of this year over 40 structural engineers and 60 aerospace engineers had joined the ranks of ae911truth.

It must also be pointed out that any architects and engineers that 9/11"debunkers" deem unfit are more than compensated for by the over 10,000 other signatories of the AE911Truth petition, which include many highly credentialed people in other fields equally as relevant to the issue. Petition signers include metallurgists, physicists, scientists, explosives experts and demolition contractors.

Of course not even having a licence just one step down from being the "most highly qualified person at the blasting site" and working for a company named Controlled Demolition Incorporated, for whom one placed hundreds of explosive charges at the world's largest structure implosion by volume, makes somebody an explosives expert as far as "debunkers" are concerned!

One of Pat's regular commenters "GuitarBill" makes the argument that AE911Truth only represents 0.23% of the the US scientific and engineering community based on a number of 600,000.

First off, he only bases this figure off the number of architects and engineers who have signed the petition, ignoring the other credentialed signatories. This figure also ignores other 9/11 truth groups with large numbers of credentialed people signed on to their ideas such as Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice.

Of course there is some overlap and I'm not sure how much of a difference it would make, but it would make one. Regardless, and most importantly, a failure to condemn the official story should not be viewed as an endorsement of it. One should also not assume that all individuals have been exposed to the relevant information, as the "BuildingWhat?" campaign has proved with Geraldo, this is certainly not the case. And there is no way to calculate how many have the guts to take a public stance on such a controversial matter. As AE911Truth civil engineer Jonathan Cole has stated, "there is a good reason that there is no group called 'Architects and Engineers that support the official story.'"

Related Info:

Email from an Engineer in Phoenix

NFL's Mark Stepnoski & Tony Szamboti: Buildingwhat? Round 2 Building What? is up...

Thank You Mr Curley: "Debunker" PROMOTES the "Building What?" Campaign & Pushes Discredited Material (again) to Discredit Himself

Breaking News: Hell Freezes Over!

Shirley they can't be serious!

Attacks against Geraldo and Napolitano expose establishment desperation and demolish left-right nonsense