Un-TruTV: Fear vs. Fact on Ventura’s ‘Conspiracy Theory’
http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2010/11/22/un-trutv-fear-vs-fact-on-venturas-conspiracy-theory/
Funny how the Anti-Defamation League and the SPLC love to associate anything anti-establishment with holocaust denial, yet when you expose future holocaust plans, THEY become the holocaust deniers. I stopped reading when I read the words "told Popular Mechanics" lol.
Edit: Just read to the end...
"... and utterly ignores real authorities who could easily debunk the claims."
The key word there: authorities. The whole point of "conspiracy theories" is that they stem from our distrust of authority. Defending the authorities by simply restating the arguments of the authorities is circular logic.
It's like ... "Authorities say WTC7 collapsed due to fire, truthers disagree. But the truthers are wrong because authorities say WTC7 collapsed due to fire!" ... which is essentially the logic of every hitpiece I've ever seen.
UPDATE:
“Police State” episode of hit Ventura show covering FEMA camps pulled from air
http://www.prisonplanet.com/%E2%80%9Cpolice-state%E2%80%9D-episode-of-hit-ventura-show-covering-fema-camps-pulled-from-air.html
Errmmm ... If Jesse is crazy, why did his program get memory-holed?
Related Info:
TruTV's 'Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura' - 9/11
Refuting the Hollow Arguments of the So-called 9/11 Debunkers & Truthers
Friday, December 3, 2010
Attacks against Geraldo and Napolitano expose establishment desperation and demolish left-right nonsense
CNN observes...
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...
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 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!
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.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.
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.
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!
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Shirley they can't be serious!
9-11 Victim Families Criticize Napolitano Comments
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201011290030
No f-ing way! Shirley they can't be serious! (Sorry, couldn't resist) They are still playing the 'family members hate us' card?! ... Even though the thing they are supposedly debunking is a campaign started by family members, one of whom said on national tv he believed it was an inside job ... I honestly can't believe these people.
"They can't do an emotional hitpiece or use their favourite ad-hominems now that they've finally acknowledged the family members in the movement." - Scootle, November 21, 2010
Related Info:
9/11 Families Demand Apology from Media Matters
9/11 Family Group: Judge Napolitano and Geraldo Rivera Are Right to Question Building 7 Collapse
Representative Of Largest 9/11 Families Group Says Government Complicit In Attack
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
Attacks against Geraldo and Napolitano expose establishment desperation and demolish left-right nonsense
Geraldo ‘much more open minded’ about 9/11 thanks to NYC television ads
http://mediamatters.org/blog/201011290030
No f-ing way! Shirley they can't be serious! (Sorry, couldn't resist) They are still playing the 'family members hate us' card?! ... Even though the thing they are supposedly debunking is a campaign started by family members, one of whom said on national tv he believed it was an inside job ... I honestly can't believe these people.
"They can't do an emotional hitpiece or use their favourite ad-hominems now that they've finally acknowledged the family members in the movement." - Scootle, November 21, 2010
Related Info:
9/11 Families Demand Apology from Media Matters
9/11 Family Group: Judge Napolitano and Geraldo Rivera Are Right to Question Building 7 Collapse
Representative Of Largest 9/11 Families Group Says Government Complicit In Attack
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
Attacks against Geraldo and Napolitano expose establishment desperation and demolish left-right nonsense
Geraldo ‘much more open minded’ about 9/11 thanks to NYC television ads
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
The 9/11 Truth Experiment
Here is a proposed experiment from a new "debunker" on YouTube, "Humantidote":
Stand under it holding torches huh? As AE911Truth.org mechanical engineer Tony Szamboti just recently stated:
"Fire can't melt steel except in the controlled circumstances of a blast furnace, or with a welding torch, or with incendiaries."
So, I'll make you a deal Mr. Antidote, I will stand in a building the size of WTC 7 with the same type of construction that has large fires on 6 floors for 7 hours. But you have to let civil engineer Jonathan Cole rig the bottom 8 stories of another such building that you are in with thermate and hang out for 7 hours too.
Try doing a real 9/11 truth experiment and prove one of his wrong!
Slicing Through Every Single 'Debunker' Argument, One at a Time
Because it can Never be Repeated Enough: 9/11 Experiments: Collapse vs. Demolition
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)
Pat states, "These morons are like a broken record."
I sure as hell feel like one! A broken record that is. ;)
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 copySince 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. ;)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)