Alex Jones: Showman, Charlatan and Huckster

Faux Christian and deadly charlatan Jim Jones, whose tactics much resemble those used by talk radio fraud Alex Jones.

Maybe it’s not such a coincidence that Alex Jones shares the same last name as that notorious, faux Christian sicko who led over 1,000 core supporters to their death (including 280 children) in the Jonestown Massacre. Victims of their own blind devotion to a madman, Jones’ cult followers inadvertently created a now ubiquitous term in the American lexicon — Kool Aid drinker — often used by talking heads like Bill O’Reilly to describe folks who refuse to think for themselves, but instead fall for false, provocative rhetoric packaged within a charismatic personality.

Alex Jones: Master of disinformation and tea party poison.

The citizens who comprise today’s “beautiful movement” (as described by Sarah Palin) known as the Tea Party must be on guard against another poisonous cult of personality aside from the delusional congressman from Texas: Alex Jones. Purveyor of anti-American garbage disguised as patriotism, Jones was the subject of a serious warning issued to the “new right” by AIM back in June:

But Jones is not and never has been a conservative. Jones has much more in common with the left than the right. He is, for example, a member of the 9/11 Truth Movement, as was Van Jones, the Obama official fired after evidence of his communist background began to surface. The 9/11 Truth Movement was originally designed to undercut evidence that Muslims were behind the attacks that killed almost 3,000 Americans. Leftists joined the movement and used it to undermine the Bush Administration drive for a military response to Islamic terrorism and its base of operations in the Middle East.

On MSNBC, it seems clear that the “Rise of the New Right” program planned for June 16 is an outgrowth of fear that the Tea Party movement could threaten liberal control of Washington, D.C.

The key to the MSNBC assault is the use of Jones.

As Accuracy in Media has documented, Jones postures as a “patriot” with inside information about various plots but appears regularly on the Russia Today television propaganda channel, where he has defended Russian foreign policy. One of his themes is that the U.S. is the greatest instigator of terrorism in the world today. He also promotes legalization of marijuana as a solution to our economic woes.

These are hardly “conservative” or Tea Party positions.

Indeed.

And when I see friends I know to be actual conservatives posting articles from Jones’ InfoWars and Prison Planet (neither of which I will legitimize with a link) on Facebook and Twitter, I cringe.  This man is not our ally, but the exact opposite — an enemy, a fringe kook who ought to be marginalized, not validated as a credible source of information and news.

No one who believes 9/11 was an inside job deserves to be taken seriously.

Like his buddy Ron Paul, Alex Jones is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Though Paul will not actually admit he’s a 9/11 truther, he basks in the glow of their support, has never condemned their false propaganda, and even promised to investigate the matter to a group called “9/11 Students for Truth” back in 2007. Further, he consistently blames the United States for acts of Muslim aggression, including the attempt to blow up the Northwest airlines flight on Christmas Day, 2009. He constantly uses the anti-Semitic, derogatory term “neo-con” to describe Americans who want to stay on offense against Global Jihad, and those who oppose the travesty of the proposed Ground Zero mosque.

Let’s also remember that Alex Jones harassed and threatened conservative author, journalist and blogger Michelle Malkin at the DNC in 2008, screaming “Kill Malkin!” as he menacingly swarmed her on the streets of Denver. Cool as a cucumber, Malkin calmly kept walking, surrounded by friends and colleagues.

Given all of these facts, why would any rational American give credence to either Jones or his political soul mate Ron Paul? It is imperative for the sake of the republic and the success of the Tea Party movement, that authentic conservatives and grassroots activists soundly reject these dangerous charlatans who like their lefty counterparts, are useful idiots for the cause of Global Jihad.

Advertisements

30 Comments

Filed under Politics, Tea Party, US Military

30 responses to “Alex Jones: Showman, Charlatan and Huckster

  1. Amen, Daria…we seem to be on the exact same sheet of music. It’s funny that you followed up your Ron Paul article with one on Alex “whack-o” Jones. That is the exact same direction I went after my Ron Paul article, though I wasn’t tactful enough to bestow upon him the titles you did:

    http://silentnomoremajority.blogspot.com/2010/05/alex-jones-is-fat-disgusting-pig-who.html

    I couldn’t agree more with you about conservative friends that I see linking posts to infowars, etc…I always speak up and let them know that they are furthering the views of a nutjob!!

  2. dariaanne

    I haven’t even read your post yet, but love it already from just the title alone! 😉

  3. Agreed wholeheartedly. Jones is Class A straitjacket bait.

  4. Bruce C. A. Desautels

    I used to follow Jones, for a short time during the Y2K scare… My primary interest in Jones’ commentary was his discussions on the police state mentality gripping America. However, I always kept a healthy skepticism of Jones’ more ominous rants, and considered that his “reporting” might be out of context or some form of manipulating propaganda, if for no other reason than the sheer sensationalistic approach Jones would characteristically resort to.

    My interest in Alex Jones was finally and permanently arrested when he seriously asserted that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were an “inside job” accomplished through a conspiratorial plot by the government of the United States.

    Even without my background, common sense alone dictated the absolute impossibility of the assertion, and thus proved that some underlying agenda was driving Jones to make such an astonishingly ignorant claim. His altruism and zeal appeared overdone, pretentious, and without sufficiently documented facts.

    Alex Jones also tends to rely on what is commonly referred to as “circular reasoning” … The “sources” upon which Jones most often places the greatest merit are those of his own organization (or his various related sister affiliates.) He rarely uses primary source documents, and when he does, these are usually taken out of context. Similarly is Jones’ use of “anonymous source” mode–always a red flag for pseudo journalism. But Jones’ affiliation with the 9/11 “Truther” movement was the last straw in the tapestry of questionable stories being woven in the InfoWars propaganda factory.

    Having accumulated 23 years’ service in the field of aviation, several years in aeronautical propulsion engineering, several years in construction, and being an architectural designer whose college thesis was the planning, construction, history and destruction of the World Trade Center, I gained enough real and useful knowledge to understand that what Alex Jones and his followers claimed was ludicrous on its face.

  5. jsknow

    Just explain to me how 2 planes can bring down 3 steel framed buildings designed to withstand just such an impact… straight into their own footprint at virtually free fall speed. I suppose fire from jet fuel that burns at about 1100 degrees did it right? Problem is, steel melts at 2100 degrees and there is no way fuel spread by a plane crash could have heated the buildings in all the right places with the split second timming required to bring a buildings straight down. Then there is the question of what fueled the fire in building 7 that was not hit by a plane. Wake up folks, Ron Paul is the best hope you have for 2012!

    • Bruce C. A. Desautels

      DEBUNKING WTC IMPLOSION MYTH
      This is an excellent reference by the Demolition Industry’s best. http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

      Info on demolitions, with references to the collapse of the WTC towers:

      http://www.implosionworld.com/news.htm#1

      Relating whether the September 11, 2001 attack was the result of conspiracy, I thought to provide insight.

      The attacks of September 11, 2001 were done by Islamic terrorists. The US federal government was complicit to the extent that if failed to act on intelligence, and created a web of bureaucratic ineptitude that no amount of common sense could penetrate.

      Osama Bin Laden (OBL) received his Masters degree in Mechanical Engineering here in the US and his family owns Saudi Arabia’s largest construction company. OBL was well-versed how to destroy a structure. He was also trained in covert operations by the CIA, when the Mujahidin were fighting Soviet occupation in Afghanistan. Add to this mix the foreign policy failures of the Clinton Administration, the asinine surveillance restrictions effected by the Clinton Justice Department, including the “wall” created by Jane Garafolo, which prevented cross-sharing of intelligence between FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. This provided the recipe for disaster. Under Clinton the government got lazy, sloppy and weak; but even Reagan was culpable for his failure to retaliate after the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut. For two decades, America sat on its collective ass following a succession of increasingly more violent terrorist attacks. We treated such aggressions as criminal acts, rather than as acts of war, and so we got caught flat-footed.

      Now, before we go down the path of conspiracy, about 9/11 being an “inside job,” I shall tell of my experience: I have 23 years in commercial aviation: 4 years in development, building and testing of commercial turbine engines for Pratt & Whitney; 2 years in military turbine engine testing for Pratt & Whitney; 3 years commercial heavy maintenance for Eastern Airlines and Amerijet International (simultaneous); 9 years in aviation and industrial turbine engine overhaul with Gas Turbine Corporation; 2 years airframe overhaul for Gulfstream International; 1 1/2 years cargo aircraft line maintenance for the USPS; and 1 1/2 years as a maintenance controller for Shuttle America. I have 8 years combined experience in construction, materials testing, and architectural design. I completed 10 years of college in mechanical engineering and architectural design, and 3 years in legal studies. I did my construction management thesis on the history, design, building and destruction of WTC towers 1 and 2. Every conspiracy theory I have investigated to date is unsupportable by forensic facts. The only conspiracy that withstands scrutiny is that of a federal government fowl with institutionalized bureaucratic incompetence on a massive scale.

      Pertinent points:
      1.) The federal government cannot keep the smallest secret from becoming public knowledge; yet they crafted a conspiracy that would have required the cooperation and continued silence of hundreds if not thousands of actors, years in advance of its action, and then following the event.

      2.) It is not possible to plant sufficient explosive, such as would be required to bring down two structures having open-floor plans, and do so without detection.

      3.) The main core of each building would require significant pre-weakening prior to the action of demolition charges, in order to efficiently collapse the structure. Such weakening would render the building unstable and useless long before any “controlled” demolition could be affected. Neither could such acts remain undetected.

      4.) The necessary work to sufficiently pre-weaken steel core coulombs would be impossible to conceal from office occupants, maintenance staff, and fire inspectors that performed regular checks throughout the structures.

      5.) It would not be possible to hide the miles of detonation cord required for such demolition, and impossible to prevent its premature detonation in the presence of sustained high-heat fires, such as would be created from fuel-saturated paper and office materials burning under conditions of high ventilation. (2100+ degrees F)

      6.) In such a fire, it would be impossible to keep the high-explosives from deteriorating prior to detonation.

      7.) The integrity of detonating devices would be destroyed by the aircraft impacts and resultant collapse of local structures. Without this continuity, no “controlled demolition” could be affected.

      8.) Building demolition progresses from the ground up, not from the top down; because gravity is necessary to collapse the structure, and the amount of explosives required to do a reverse collapse would be impossible to control, under the best of circumstances.

      9.) Unprotected steel looses 50 percent of its strength and sags at 550 degrees Celsius (1022 F). This is in a static unstressed condition, without additional loading. Under structural load conditions a temperature of 800 F is sufficient. During a building fire, the hot gas layer above the flames reaches 600 to 1000 degrees Celsius (1112 – 1832 F) So, even at the lower limit, the gas temperature is more than sufficient to degrade structural steel to 50 percent of its initial strength.

      10.) Most prudential is this point: there would be no way to hide or quickly remove, without detection, all the residual detonation cord, the copper backing plates (used for contact explosives) or the blasting cap remnants, etc., from the rubble. These items are ALWAYS present AND PLENTIFUL in any demolition operation.

      Flame Temperatures in Room Fires:
      See: Forensics, physical constants of fire http://www.tcforensic.com.au/docs/article10.html#1.3

      There is fairly broad agreement in the fire science community that flashover is reached when the average upper gas temperature in the room exceeds about 600°C. Prior to that point, no generalizations should be made: There will be zones of 900°C flame temperatures, but wide spatial variations will be seen. Of interest, however, is the peak fire temperature normally associated with room fires. The peak value is governed by ventilation and fuel supply characteristics [12] and so such values will form a wide frequency distribution. Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, [2192°F] although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C. The peak expected temperatures in room fires, then, are slightly greater than those found in free-burning fire plumes. This is to be expected. The amount that the fire plume’s temperature drops below the adiabatic flame temperature is determined by the heat losses from the flame. When a flame is far away from any walls and does not heat up the enclosure, it radiates to surroundings which are essentially at 20°C. If the flame is big enough (or the room small enough) for the room walls to heat up substantially, then the flame exchanges radiation with a body that is several hundred °C; the consequence is smaller heat losses, and, therefore, a higher flame temperature.

      [12] Babrauskas, V., and Williamson, R. B., Post-Flashover Compartment Fires, Fire and Materials 2, 39-53 (1978); and 3, 1¬7 (1979).
      [13] Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials (ASTM E 119) American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.

      http://www.doctorfire.com/flametmp.html

      Now, let’s look at ventilation. We have two high rise structures, having massive holes punched through there exterior faces, a wide open floor plan, and moderate winds aloft.

      Energy Release:
      Fire intensity may be calculated by the buoyant energy of the rising smoke plume. The WTC fires produced a peak energy release of 3.5 trillion BTU per hour, or 1 to 1.5 GW of energy. This would require a fuel load of 5 pounds per square foot for one hour, or 10 PSF for two hours. The volume of air necessary to sustain such a fire would range from 600,000 to 1,000,000 cubic feet per minute.

      Photographic evidence reveals the ventilation area created by the impact to WTC1 was approximately 14,639 square feet [Table 2]. Reducing this area by half to allow for outflow currents, and then calculating for velocity, yields a required speed of 1.36 to 2.27 FPS to sustain airflow. Meteorological data provided by NOAA and the Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) confirms that between 0715 and 0900 EDT on September 11, 2001 the local winds aloft varied from 10 to 20 mph at the height of the upper floors. This converts to a value of 14.6 to 29.3 fps, which is more than sufficient for the required ventilation.
      The very nature of the World Trade Center design, an “open floor plan” composed of a diaphragm-type steel truss system embedded in concrete, a central core having box steel elements of a successively lighter fabrication with height, a vertically-fenestrated exterior wall of bolted 3-story modular sections, and a roof “hat truss” that integrated the inner core to the outer wall, proved both the reason that the WTC towers stood as long as they did, and simultaneously the reason why they collapsed as they did.

      For those who doubt an aluminum aircraft can penetrate a steel wall, I remind them of three facts of physics:

      F=ma: Force of impact equals the mass of the moving body, multiplied by its acceleration.
      Conversion of Energy: A moving body possesses kinetic energy. If that body strikes an immovable object, then the kinetic energy of the projectile is instantaneously converted to heat energy, and this conversion will continue until the object is completely consumed. This is the principle of high velocity inertia weapons used to penetrate armor or reinforced bunkers.

      Point Force: A steel vehicle slams into an oak tree at 80 mph. The vehicle is hardly recognizable after impact. The oak tree is without any significant damage. However, the same amount of velocity, concentrated to a small area (an axe) will fell the mightiest oak.

      • jsknow

        Bruce C. A. Desautels,
        I appreciate your informed comments. They do offer a lot of evidence, some of which I had never seen before. Your rational approach and professional tone are much appreciated in the midst of the over emotional closed minds that seem to permeate this thread.

        I’ve given this matter a lot of thought in light of your post and rather than the two of us and the others here trying to prove our respective points, I can’t help but wonder if our energy might not be much better focused on what we can all do, no matter how we feel about 911, to prevent the possibility of such a controversial and divisive event from occurring in the future. There is no doubt that a rapid, quality forensic 911 investigation, certainly could have prevented the uncertainty and speculation that remains in so many minds and likely will for decades to come. The simple solution would be two fold. 1. A by the book government investigation requiring complete openness and preservation of significant evidence. 2. Demanding an independent simultaneous examination of the evidence by qualified individuals/groups with no obligations to any suspect involved and this group having full access to all evidence. I think this should apply to all questionable incidents where government officials are involved, including police, particularly when loss of life occurs.

        There doesn’t seem to be much doubt in the mainstream that the 911 attacks were carried out by Islamic terrorists. In an effort to clarify this group however, the term “Islamic terrorists” really should include the word “extremist” or “radical”. This was NOT an action supported or carried out by all or anywhere near a majority of Muslims. We should endeavor to place blame on those actually guilty and never allow ourselves to be drug into escalating our just desire to bring the culprits to justice into a war against an entire religion, which as a whole or a majority has not attacked us. I am well aware of the numerous injustices that have been carried out in the name of jihad but the actions of a few do not justify an unjust retaliation against any innocent person(s) simply because they belong to the same religious group as the guilty who claim, or are accused to have acted in the name of that religion.

        There are many more questions being raised about our own government’s actions than the ones you pointed out. I don’t mean to over broaden the topic but since much of what we are discussing about the 911 building collapses and the role our government may have played are covered in a rather informative documentary (links below) I feel it is on topic enough to post. I couldn’t find a link to the full movie but despite its length and being in so many parts I hope you (and all those that have doubt about whether reasonable, rational 911 questions are being asked by those in the 911 truth movement) will take the time to watch it in its entirety. I do not agree with everything pointed out in this video nor do I agree with the way some of it is presented. However, there is a lot there that makes it worth watching by everyone on both sides of the “inside job” question. One thing is certain, if no one asks questions we will never have satisfactory answers.

        Because the video is in so many parts and there have been some “updates” I listed them all below. I have no idea what happened or didn’t happen about any removal of videos from youtube but here’s the best set of links I was able to compile.

        Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Odp1FO0Vmuw
        Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7BSt9jhxPQ&feature=related
        Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pd8B-8Au-Wk&feature=related
        Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rQ8_Qy0zp8&feature=related
        Part 5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3JmXQ-z8S4&feature=related
        Part 6: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=em_XyTeNA1g&feature=related
        Part 7: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ9BofDUXv0&feature=related
        Part 8: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIx2CVRxRXg&feature=related
        Part 8: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JithuVAIb7Y&feature=related (Part 8 UPDATE)
        Part 9: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHJHAp49Lh8&feature=related
        Part 10: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1x4TD0WP3pM&feature=related
        Part 11: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puWqNJI8Mjo&feature=related
        Part 11: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9xh7bPfk-U&feature=related (Part 11 UPDATE)
        Part 12: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5JVYTxjmdc&feature=related
        Part 13: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xs4eHvD-BrE&feature=related
        Part 14: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXk0LFVAgHE&feature=related
        Part 15: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oYjsVdm7dE&feature=related
        Part 16: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFqYf-ID5oY&feature=related
        Part 17: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kxE6lftTWU&feature=related
        Part 18: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzUNvEfYDEQ
        Part 19: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yTgbZSATTU&feature=related

        RE: Your “Pertinent points”:
        1.) The federal government cannot keep the smallest secret from becoming public knowledge; yet they crafted a conspiracy that would have required the cooperation and continued silence of hundreds if not thousands of actors, years in advance of its action, and then following the event.

        My thoughts: They can keep a secret when they want to. If you don’t believe that maybe you’d like to post the plan for “continuity of government”, from what I’ve picked up here and there, even Congress doesn’t know what that plan is. I don’t know why you think an inside job would require “hundreds if not thousands of actors, years in advance of its action”. It’s not like the entire government would be in on the deal, just the “need to know” crowd. If you believe the official story, then you believe 19 hijackers and a hand full of planners pulled off 911. Why would there need to be so many if there was an inside job? As far as the “following the event” worries go, the guilty in government would just do what thugs do best, silence them permanently, either by death or threats of such magnitude that death would be preferable to talking.

        2.) It is not possible to plant sufficient explosive, such as would be required to bring down two structures having open-floor plans, and do so without detection.

        My Thoughts: There have been several possible theories I’ve read about this. The most interesting involved a crew that was allegedly virtually living in the WTC for quite some time just prior to 911. They were alleged to have construction clearance, pass keys to virtually everything and access to pallet jacks and elevators. I’ve seen reports that said tons of explosives or incendiaries would have been needed to pull the job off but in reasonable theory, if such a group had this type access, placing huge amounts of explosives, especially at night when the buildings were virtually unoccupied and in concealed places, is supposed possible, especially under the cover of an alleged construction project. The seismographs mentioned in some of your references poses interesting information that I was not aware of prior to reading your references but considering the massive displacement of the falling towers and building 7, I fail to see how they could tell with certainty, from some distance, by monitoring ground vibrations, whether there were or were not explosions. They referenced the absence of any “spikes” and described instead that there was a steady activity that increased, then decreased. How is that even possible if there were huge sections of buildings crashing randomly to the ground? I’m not sure what you mean by “open floor plan”, from what I have read all the supporting columns were concealed in enough areas to make hiding destructive materials possible. Is that not a fact?

        3.) The main core of each building would require significant pre-weakening prior to the action of demolition charges, in order to efficiently collapse the structure. Such weakening would render the building unstable and useless long before any “controlled” demolition could be affected. Neither could such acts remain undetected.

        My Thoughts: On one hand you say the buildings could collapse from plane impacts and fires alone, on the other hand you say: “The main core of each building would require significant pre-weakening prior to the action of demolition charges, in order to efficiently collapse the structure.” How can both be true?

        4.) The necessary work to sufficiently pre-weaken steel core coulombs would be impossible to conceal from office occupants, maintenance staff, and fire inspectors that performed regular checks throughout the structures.

        My Thoughts: Obviously, no pre-weakening is necessary, if as you and the official report maintain, the buildings could come down from planes and fire. I already offered what I consider the most likely way preparatory work could have been done and concealed.

        5.) It would not be possible to hide the miles of detonation cord required for such demolition, and impossible to prevent its premature detonation in the presence of sustained high-heat fires, such as would be created from fuel-saturated paper and office materials burning under conditions of high ventilation. (2100+ degrees F)

        My Thoughts: Wouldn’t remote detonation solve the problem and make miles of detonation cord unnecessary? Granted, wireless wouldn’t be the best choice but it does seem possible. There is another theory of how detonation cables could have been installed in the documentary linked above. Heat from the fires setting off explosives certainly would present a problem with many conventional explosives but what about thermate, or thermite? As I understand those compounds, they ignite only at very high temperatures. Setting a charge of that nature seems the most plausible to me. That would also account for the lack of explosions, since this is an incendiary pyrotechnic composition that can generate short bursts of very high temperatures focused on a small area for a short period of time. The forensic properties of properly placed incendiary charges might easily be mistaken for demolition cutting from acetylene torches by weary, highly stressed workers. The lack of workers seeing evidence of thermite type evidence could have been due to sloppy forensic detective work, that seems to exemplify 911. Once heavy equipment, acetylene torches and a vast array of demolition and removal paraphernalia were introduced to the evidence it was drastically contaminated. Add to that the speed with which the job was done and you have a reasonable possible explanation. Even if the temperatures you mentioned were achieved, that would no doubt be in localized areas, randomly placed by jet fuel and the crash and would more than likely result in a nonsymmetrical collapse in the areas most heated, a much slower total building falling speed and visible evidence of both in the videos of the collapses.

        6.) In such a fire, it would be impossible to keep the high-explosives from deteriorating prior to detonation.

        My Thoughts: I already addressed this above and so did you.

        7.) The integrity of detonating devices would be destroyed by the aircraft impacts and resultant collapse of local structures. Without this continuity, no “controlled demolition” could be affected.

        My Thoughts: I already addressed this above and so did you but I will add this: The crashes and resulting fires and explosions did mostly local damage to the impacted floors and those closest to them. There certainly was ample unaffected building area below the impact points to conceal and protect demolition materials and prevent them from going off prematurely. As you noted, controlled demolitions progress upward from the base of the structure. Despite your evidence to the contrary, there seems to be sufficient reliable witness evidence and even visual evidence in the video linked above and from other sources to suggest that massive explosions occurred in the lower levels of the towers well before they collapsed. Similar testimony has surfaced about explosions in the lower levels of building 7. Had sufficient explosives been placed in the lowest underground basement area, that certainly could have resulted in tremendous weakening of the foundations and steel support beams.

        8.) Building demolition progresses from the ground up, not from the top down; because gravity is necessary to collapse the structure, and the amount of explosives required to do a reverse collapse would be impossible to control, under the best of circumstances.

        My Thoughts: There is ample witness testimony to support the possibility of explosions occurring in the lower parts of the buildings. This is covered extensively in the documentary linked above. I do concede that I have seen no evidence of the bottom of these buildings moving downward prior to the top downward collapsing. This raises an interesting point that I will be looking to see if I can find any evidence of. It also raises the question of the plausibility of a complete “top to down” mostly vertical collapse occurring due to the official explanation of fire and building weight alone considering the difficulty you cited in accomplishing this even with explosives.

        9.) Unprotected steel looses 50 percent of its strength and sags at 550 degrees Celsius (1022 F). This is in a static unstressed condition, without additional loading. Under structural load conditions a temperature of 800 F is sufficient. During a building fire, the hot gas layer above the flames reaches 600 to 1000 degrees Celsius (1112 – 1832 F) So, even at the lower limit, the gas temperature is more than sufficient to degrade structural steel to 50 percent of its initial strength.

        My Thoughts: Again, this type of structural demise would be much more consistent with sections of the building collapsing than it would be with what we saw in the towers. This is even more difficult to attribute to building 7 and the symmetrical collapse we saw there, since it was not hit by a plane.

        10.) Most prudential is this point: there would be no way to hide or quickly remove, without detection, all the residual detonation cord, the copper backing plates (used for contact explosives) or the blasting cap remnants, etc., from the rubble. These items are ALWAYS present AND PLENTIFUL in any demolition operation.

        My Thoughts: I’m no expert on explosives or demolition by any means but I offer this: If the detonation cord was concealed to look like normal building wiring, or computer cable, as is suggested in the documentary film linked above, no one would have given it a second thought during a wreckage removal operation. If thermite or thermate were used couldn’t those incendiaries be placed in such a manner to render those items undetectable, maybe even nonexistent after being subjected to such high heat? One of the mysteries of this incident seems to be the utter destruction of so much of the contents of the buildings. Please take note of the report in the video in which it is noted: you don’t find a desk, a computer, nothing, the largest piece of a phone that was found was a small section of a keypad. The aparent disintegration of so much material has long been a question with many people.

        We already addressed high temperatures above. We obviously disagree on randomly placed high temperatures bringing down steel framed buildings in a symmetrical fashion. I maintain that if the steel had failed as you describe, it would have done so in localized areas and resulted in a series of progressive local collapses in those areas and NOT a symmetrical structural loss like we saw on 911. Although the steel framing was substantially different in the 911 events than it was in other high-rises noted and linked in one of my earlier posts, the high heat you mentioned would have no doubt occurred in those buildings also if that is an occurrence common to large building fires and your hypotheses of the 911 events is correct. The large gaping holes from the planes would have no doubt produced similar ventilation as that which has occurred in other skyscraper fires in which the outer walls have been burned away or fallen away. Again I refer you to the pictures and articles in my previous post on skyscraper fires.

        As I mentioned above, I’m sure we are never going to agree on what we think really happened on 911, who the real culprits are or what their motives were but as I mentioned above maybe we can all agree that when incidents that could lead us to war occur, we should demand a timely thorough professional investigation by both the government and at least one independent highly qualified source, if for no other reason than to prevent the confusion, division and potentially disastrous outcomes we have seen in this case and in the well documented Gulf of Tonkin incident.

        My best to you and yours and thanks again for your heartfelt quality input on my comments. I hope what we have both posted gets a few more people thinking and helps result in a better handling of any future similar occurrences. One thing we agree on 100%, our government is a mess!

    • Bruce C. A. Desautels

      DEBUNKING WTC IMPLOSION MYTH

      Excellent reference by Demolition Industry:

      http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

      More info on demolitions, with references to the WTC collapse:

      http://www.implosionworld.com/news.htm#1

      The attacks of September 11, 2001 were done by Islamic terrorists. The US federal government was complicit to the extent that if failed to act on intelligence, and created a web of bureaucratic ineptitude that no amount of common sense could penetrate.

      Osama Bin Laden (OBL) received his Masters degree in Mechanical Engineering here in the US, and his family owns Saudi Arabia’s largest construction company. OBL was well-versed how to destroy a structure. He was trained in covert operations by CIA, when his Mujaheddin were fighting Soviet occupation in Afghanistan. Add the foreign policy failures of the Clinton Administration, the surveillance restrictions effected by the Clinton Justice Department, including the “wall” created by Jane Garafolo, which prevented cross-sharing of intelligence between FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. This provided the recipe for disaster. Under Clinton the government got lazy, sloppy and weak; but even Reagan was culpable for his failure to retaliate after the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut. For two decades, America sat on its collective ass following a succession of increasingly violent terrorist attacks. We treated aggressions as criminal acts, rather than acts of war, and we got caught flat-footed.

      Now, before we go down the path of conspiracy, about 9/11 being an “inside job,” I shall tell of my experience: I have 23 years in commercial aviation: 4 years in development, building and testing of commercial turbine engines for Pratt & Whitney; 2 years in military turbine engine testing for Pratt & Whitney; 3 years commercial heavy maintenance for Eastern Airlines and Amerijet International (simultaneous); 9 years in aviation and industrial turbine engine overhaul with Gas Turbine Corporation; 2 years airframe overhaul for Gulfstream International; 1 1/2 years cargo aircraft line maintenance for the USPS; and 1 1/2 years as a maintenance controller for Shuttle America. I have 8 years combined experience in construction, materials testing, and architectural design. I completed 10 years of college in mechanical engineering and architectural design, and 3 years in legal studies. I did my construction management thesis on the history, design, building and destruction of WTC towers 1 and 2.

      Every conspiracy theory I have investigated to date is unsupportable by forensic facts. The only conspiracy that withstands scrutiny is that of a federal government fowl with institutionalized bureaucratic incompetence on a massive scale.

      Pertinent points:
      1.) The federal government cannot keep the smallest secret from becoming public knowledge; yet they crafted a conspiracy that would have required the cooperation and continued silence of hundreds if not thousands of actors, years in advance of its action, and then following the event.

      2.) It is not possible to plant sufficient explosive, such as would be required to bring down two structures having open-floor plans, and do so without detection.

      3.) The main core of each building would require significant pre-weakening prior to the action of demolition charges, in order to efficiently collapse the structure. Such weakening would render the building unstable and useless long before any “controlled” demolition could be affected. Neither could such acts remain undetected.

      4.) The necessary work to sufficiently pre-weaken steel core coulombs would be impossible to conceal from office occupants, maintenance staff, and fire inspectors that performed regular checks throughout the structures.

      5.) It would not be possible to hide the miles of detonation cord required for such demolition, and impossible to prevent its premature detonation in the presence of sustained high-heat fires, such as would be created from fuel-saturated paper and office materials burning under conditions of high ventilation. (2100+ degrees F)

      6.) In such a fire, it would be impossible to keep the high-explosives from deteriorating prior to detonation.

      7.) The integrity of detonating devices would be destroyed by the aircraft impacts and resultant collapse of local structures. Without this continuity, no “controlled demolition” could be affected.

      8.) Building demolition progresses from the ground up, not from the top down; because gravity is necessary to collapse the structure, and the amount of explosives required to do a reverse collapse would be impossible to control, under the best of circumstances.

      9.) Unprotected steel looses 50 percent of its strength and sags at 550 degrees Celsius (1022 F). This is in a static unstressed condition, without additional loading. Under structural load conditions a temperature of 800 F is sufficient. During a building fire, the hot gas layer above the flames reaches 600 to 1000 degrees Celsius (1112 – 1832 F) So, even at the lower limit, the gas temperature is more than sufficient to degrade structural steel to 50 percent of its initial strength.

      10.) Most prudential is this point: there would be no way to hide or quickly remove, without detection, all the residual detonation cord, the copper backing plates (used for contact explosives) or the blasting cap remnants, etc., from the rubble. These items are ALWAYS present AND PLENTIFUL in any demolition operation.

      Flame Temperatures in Room Fires:
      See: Forensics, physical constants of fire:

      http://www.tcforensic.com.au/docs/article10.html#1.3

      There is fairly broad agreement in the fire science community that flashover is reached when the average upper gas temperature in the room exceeds about 600°C. Prior to that point, no generalizations should be made: There will be zones of 900°C flame temperatures, but wide spatial variations will be seen. Of interest, however, is the peak fire temperature normally associated with room fires. The peak value is governed by ventilation and fuel supply characteristics [12] and so such values will form a wide frequency distribution. Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, [2192°F] although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C. The peak expected temperatures in room fires, then, are slightly greater than those found in free-burning fire plumes. This is to be expected. The amount that the fire plume’s temperature drops below the adiabatic flame temperature is determined by the heat losses from the flame. When a flame is far away from any walls and does not heat up the enclosure, it radiates to surroundings which are essentially at 20°C. If the flame is big enough (or the room small enough) for the room walls to heat up substantially, then the flame exchanges radiation with a body that is several hundred °C; the consequence is smaller heat losses, and, therefore, a higher flame temperature.
      [12] Babrauskas, V., and Williamson, R. B., Post-Flashover Compartment Fires, Fire and Materials 2, 39-53 (1978); and 3, 1¬7 (1979).
      [13] Standard Test Methods for Fire Tests of Building Construction and Materials (ASTM E 119) American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia.

      http://www.doctorfire.com/flametmp.html

      Now, let’s look at ventilation. We have two high rise structures, having massive holes punched through there exterior faces, a wide open floor plan, and moderate winds aloft.

      Energy Release:
      Fire intensity may be calculated by the buoyant energy of the rising smoke plume. The WTC fires produced a peak energy release of 3.5 trillion BTU per hour, or 1 to 1.5 GW of energy. This would require a fuel load of 5 pounds per square foot for one hour, or 10 PSF for two hours. The volume of air necessary to sustain such a fire would range from 600,000 to 1,000,000 cubic feet per minute.

      Photographic evidence reveals the ventilation area created by the impact to WTC1 was approximately 14,639 square feet [Table 2]. Reducing this area by half to allow for outflow currents, and then calculating for velocity, yields a required speed of 1.36 to 2.27 FPS to sustain airflow. Meteorological data provided by NOAA and the Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS) confirms that between 0715 and 0900 EDT on September 11, 2001 the local winds aloft varied from 10 to 20 mph at the height of the upper floors. This converts to a value of 14.6 to 29.3 fps, which is more than sufficient for the required ventilation.

      The very nature of the World Trade Center design, an “open floor plan” composed of a diaphragm-type steel truss system embedded in concrete, a central core having box steel elements of a successively lighter fabrication with height, a vertically-fenestrated exterior wall of bolted 3-story modular sections, and a roof “hat truss” that integrated the inner core to the outer wall, proved both the reason that the WTC towers stood as long as they did, and simultaneously the reason why they collapsed as they did.

      For those who doubt an aluminum aircraft can penetrate a steel wall, I remind them of three facts of physics:

      F=ma: Force of impact equals the mass of the moving body, multiplied by its acceleration.
      Conversion of Energy: A moving body possesses kinetic energy. If that body strikes an immovable object, then the kinetic energy of the projectile is instantaneously converted to heat energy, and this conversion will continue until the object is completely consumed. This is the principle of high velocity inertia weapons used to penetrate armor or reinforced bunkers.

      Point Force: A steel vehicle slams into an oak tree at 80 mph. The vehicle is hardly recognizable after impact. The oak tree is without any significant damage. However, the same amount of velocity, concentrated to a small area (an axe) will fell the mightiest oak.

    • Bruce C. A. Desautels

      http://www.debunking911.com/osama.htm

      I am unable to find a reply icon so that I may answer directly your last reply.

      I will say that after watching the opening sequence of the first video from the series you presented, their are inaccuracies immediately. First, WTC 1, 2 and 7 were not brought down by fire… They were brought down by a combination of massive structural damage AND fire.

      As far as who owned all three buildings… that is a non-sequitur. Likewise to the point that these structures all collapsed in the same day. So what?

      Most importantly is the fact that the design of WTC 1, 2 and 3 were all unique, precedent setting designs. not even remotely similar to pre-existing structures.

      I mean no personal attack upon you jsknow; however…

      I am finding myself in an exceedingly difficult situation. I would enjoy continuing this debate, save for my observation that you refuse to allow reason to permeate the wall of sensational “theory,” which, admittedly, I cannot fight with reason, since theoretical conjecture, being purely subjective, is never much assailed by reason.

      You and I may theorize indefinitely, but at some point we must except the revealed facts as they are, and not as we should want them to be in order to satisfy our private prejudices. I am no fan of the federal government; but I am objective, informed by experience, and directed by reason as to what exists in the realm of possibility and what remains in the realm of plausibility. Between the two there is a great chasm that can only be bridged by facts, and not by speculation.

      There is am axiom in logic known as “Occam’s Razor” that states (paraphrasing here) “the simplest explanation of events is usually the correct explanation of events.” The problem with the arguments you present is that, while they may be possible, their probability falls into the realm of fantasy; if for no other reason than the sheer complexity required to perfectly accomplish all the events as you propose, and do so without unintended consequence making the “best laid plans” a chaotic failure. I will take you to task on a few brief points.

      EXHIBIT 1 — Thermite (Thermate) Debunked myth:

      http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

      Both Thermite and Thermate leave identifiable characteristics at the molecular level that are quite easy for a forensics technician to spot. I viewed many micro photographic images of steel samples from WTC 1, 2 and 7 … They all demonstrate severe heat stress or typical sheer failure in their crystalline structures, but NONE show the telltale signature of thermite or thermate: aluminum oxide and barium nitrate.

      By your reckoning, we are to believe that the government confiscated, from a 13-story pile of rubble, every beam felled by these exotic pyrotechnics? We are to believe that weary iron workers, whose life is steel (manufacturing, fabricating and cutting) were clueless to the difference between a relatively clean cut made by an oxy-acetylene torch and the fusion mess generated by a thermite burn?

      EXHIBIT 2 — Contact explosives:

      jsknow, do you not understand the difference between “deterioration” of an explosive due to sustained heat (or cold) that may through chemical change render the substance unstable (or at best ineffective) and “premature detonation” of an explosive due to the effects of chemical instability because of deterioration or shock?

      Either situation creates instability and unpredictability in the explosive… All explosives exposed to fire are extremely hazardous, because chemical changes take place within the explosive that may result in crystallized by-products. These crystals, or “salts;” are extremely sensitive to friction, heat, and shock. Not a good thing if you are planning a very complex progressive collapse!

      For every rational premise I assert, based on the forensic evidence that is a matter of record — evidence revealed not by agents of the federal government, but in fact brought forth through independent investigation by objective experts in the necessary disciplines — you counter with a theory of how the events “could” have happened differently, even though there is not a shred of forensic data to support or even suggest that such a theory “did” happen or were even possible. Worse, many of those theories you offer have already been shown to be either patently false or made questionable by the inaccurate or misleading assertions made on information taken out of context.

      There is absolutely no comparison between the WTC towers and every previous steel framed design. None. The buildings were engineering firsts in every possible measure. So we have an immediate disconnect in facts when any comparison is made to previously erected structures.

      WTC 7 actually had design flaws so critical as to make the building virtually unstable in anything but perfect conditions. WTC 7 was a flawed design because its loading configuration left little room for normal structural stress and strain anomalies, never mind the sort of degradation that led to its eventual progressive collapse.

      I must apologize that I simply have neither the time nor the patience to indefinitely refute every theory suggested, nor to point out the contradictions. And I have too much charity to harp on the glaring gaps apparent in your knowledge of modern steel-framed structures, physics, fire dynamics, the effects of asymmetrical load, progressive failure modes, etc.

      This is the root problem: You make unsupportable arguments because, as far as I am given to understand, you have no background in real-world architectural design or structural engineering. This makes you an easy mark for all manner of conspiratorial theories suggested.

      Trying to argue against them is like trying to convince a child that Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny does not really exist. You basically ask me to prove a series of negatives–i.e.: you require that I prove something did not happen, which is a logical impossibility. Perhaps this is why others are so frustrated by your arguments, even though they do not intellectually understand why, they intuitively know something is amiss.

    • Bruce C. A. Desautels

      This page gives a very detailed look at what happened to WTC 7. The structure had a series of internal collapses FIRST, before the facade failed:

      http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

      Please do not take this as an insult, for it is not meant in such a spirit; however, I strongly recommend that you take some basic structural engineering courses, particularly the study of “structural failure.” There is nothing more fragile than those things men believe with certainty to be indestructible!

  6. Pingback: One More Time: 9/11 was an act of war in the name of Islam « Daria Anne DiGiovanni, Inc.

    • jsknow

      If you’re so insecure that you feel it necessary to include childish name calling like “idiot” and “freak” go ahead. I’ll be sticking to the issues and presenting sound reasons to support my positions. I certainly agree that ”arguing with idiots is a waste of time”. I consider anyone that has to resort to name calling or personal attacks a looser when it comes to a logical rational debate. What’s next, are you going to stomp you foot and pitch a hissy fit? Your response and your articles are causing me to wonder if you have what it takes to participate in a coherent discussion of the issues on a factual level with a person of a different opinion than your own. I suppose we’ll see. Since I’m holding ALL the cards, it’ll be amusing to watch you squirm as you try and find a position you can adequately defend while you cook in your own diatribe stew. I feel confident you’d rather pee in your grandmothers biscuits than try and compete with me in an adult debate.

      The computer generated cartoons you posted failed miserably to adequately address the issues I raised about 911. I’m not saying there aren’t plenty of folks with opinions contrary to mine. My point is that there is nowhere near a strong consensus about the plausibility of 2 planes and fires causing 3 steel and concrete buildings to collapse into their own footprint. There are a lot of other unanswered questions about 911 but the twin towers and building 7 in particular, bother me the most. I don’t claim to be an expert but even as I watched the towers fall I was questioning how they could have fallen straight down rather than over. You see, all 3 buildings fell straight through the most resistance. A phenomenon regarded as highly unlikely, if not impossible as a result of plane crashes and fires by over 1250 architectural and engineering professionals. So much so, that they have organized and are as a group calling for an independent investigation: http://www.ae911truth.org/

      I worked on a 38 story building that was completed about the same time as the twin towers. Everything we put into that building was state of the art fire resistant. I haven’t seen specs on the World Trade Center (WTC) but I would be very surprised if they were more flammable than the building I helped build, especially considering the WTC buildings were much taller. In the building I worked on the studs in the walls were aluminum, the carpeting, ceiling tiles, wallboards, in short EVERYTHING was highly fire resistant. We tried to burn several materials (ceiling tiles, carpet, etc.) with an acetylene torch (used to cut steel) and all we could ever get them to do was smolder, no material we tried to ignite would stay lit once we removed the torch. Even the furniture that was used was resistant to fire. In short, if it would burn it was banned from the building. That raises the question in my mind about all this fuel people keep referring to (other than the jet fuel from the planes).

      The official report on what brought the towers down gives the same explanation but just like your computer generated examples, fails most of all regarding building 7. Never in the history of skyscrapers has fire ever brought down a single steel framed building other than supposedly the 3 on 911, let alone, into their own footprint. http://stevex09.wordpress.com/2010/03/09/fire-has-never-caused-a-steel-frame-building-to-collapse/

      My point is that there is enough question in the minds of the public and many of the family members and friends of those that perished on 911 to warrant an independent investigation by a highly qualified team of experts. Another question about 911 that has worried me is the quick destruction of the evidence. That seemed to be the case with ALL the 911 crash sites. I have never heard of a plane crash where there has been so little evidence collected and analyzed.

      The Gulf of Tonkin incident and Operation Northwoods offer legitimate reasons for all Americans to keep a close eye on every “crisis” or “attack” that may result in war. No one should be overly cynical but we should all be prudent, logical and demand honesty form our elected representatives. If for no other reason than to rebuild the trust some elected representatives have destroyed, an independent professional reexamination of 911 is warranted.

      I fail to see any logic in your attacks as you attempt to discredit Ron Paul and Alex Jones. I don’t agree with Alex Jones all the time by any means. He’s loud and obnoxious and frankly I think he grabs at more straws of speculation than he should. However, he’s in the entertainment business and he gets a lot of people thinking about issues you’ll never hear in the mainstream media. We The People have been asleep at the switch for far too long. If it takes someone like Jones and his rants to get people politically active, what’s wrong with that? He makes it very clear that he does not support a violent revolt against the government. I’ve heard him say that several times. I’ve been listening to him off and on for several years and if you listen to the points he’s making most of them are at least worth mulling over. The federal government is drastically too far away from governing according to the plainly defined federal powers allowed by the Constitution. Alex Jones describes himself as a Constitutionalist, that’s why I listen to his broadcasts occasionally. It seems to me we’d all be a lot better off if we get the federal government back in line with the Constitution.

      Ron Paul represents the pure Constitution better than ANY politician I have ever supported. He doesn’t waiver! He describes himself as “the defender of the Constitution”, his voting record over 10 terms in Congress and his positions on the issues prove that. If the Constitution does not give documented authority for the federal government to govern a particular issue, Ron Paul will not vote for the federal government addressing it. He absolutely will not support the federal government over stepping its authority. All such issues he rightly leaves to the states or the people, just as the Constitution says.

      Ron Paul has NEVER voted to raise taxes, NEVER voted for an unbalanced budget, NEVER voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership, has NEVER taken a government paid junket and has NEVER voted to increase the power of the executive branch. He voted AGAINST the so called Patriot Act. He voted AGAINST regulating the internet. He voted AGAINST the war in Iraq. He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program. He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. Treasury EVERY YEAR.

      There’s a reason they call him “ Dr. No” in Congress, he won’t go along with the unconstitutional waste, loss of rights and freedoms, nation building, unconstitutional wars and host of other unconstitutional actions that are contrary to the will of the people yet supported by the majority in the federal government.

      Ron Paul is not against us having a strong military and he is certainly not against us defending ourselves but he is adamantly against us going to war in an unconstitutional manner.

      When 911 happened Ron Paul rightly suggested using a small force to track down and bring to justice all those that were involved. No nation attacked us, it was a small group of Islamic extremist thugs. Had we asked a country to let us enter their boarders to arrest these people (or kill them if necessary) and that country refused, then the proper Constitutional course would have been to present the evidence to congress and ask Congress for a legal Constitutional declaration of war against that country.

      Only Congress has the Constitutional authority to declare war. Instead of following our Constitution, president Bush invaded Afghanistan and killed thousands of people who had nothing to do with 911. These people were willing to fight back (just as we would) against an invasion. This method got many of our own military killed, wasted countless Billions of tax dollars, still has not captured the real 911 culprits and probably never will. On top of that, he cooked up a fraudulent conspiracy theory about Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction and invaded that country and killed thousands more people that had nothing to do with 911, wasted countless Billions more in tax dollars and got many more of our own soldiers killed. Now we have even more enemies willing to carry out more 911 styled terrorists acts against us because they regard us as unjust invaders of their country. I guarantee you if another country came here and did what we have done in those two countries I’d be willing to fight them to the death, wouldn’t you? Every war we have let a president get us into without a Constitutional declaration of war has resulted in disaster. As far as I know we have lost every one of them, wasted lives, resources and accomplished little or absolutely nothing good.

      I don’t know who your pick for president would be in 2012. I certainly know you don’t support Dr. Ron Paul but just consider what he is saying. He is not an isolationist, he is in favor of nonintervention, they are two completely different concepts. Ron Paul supports the Constitutional position of not meddling in the affairs of other nations like we did in Korea and Vietnam. He’s against nation building through military force and unconstitutionally attempting to promote democracy through the barrel of a gun. He’s not afraid to go to war if war is necessary. He is saying, don’t go to war in an unconstitutional way, the wars never end, we waste lives on both sides, we waste astronomical amounts of money and in the end we accomplish little or nothing and end up with thousands more enemies willing to die to do us harm. If we are going to go to war, have Congress declare war and go to win like we did in WWI and WWII, that’s Ron Paul’s war policy in a nutshell. It seems to me that we could much better promote democracy by example rather than military force. If the citizens of other nations saw us as prosperous and free, then they would likely demand to be governed in a similar manner. The key is, they have to want it bad enough to fight for it, just like we did, if they don’t, then more often than not, no matter what we do for them, they won’t remain free very long.

      Just as Dr. Paul says in the clips below, we should be targeting the REAL bad guys, not an entire religion. 911 was NOT a united action of the Islamic religion. It was the actions of a few extremists thugs. Dr. Paul has been saying all along that we need to bring the culprits to justice. Doesn’t that make more sense than invading two countries, killing many thousands of people that had nothing to do with 911 and attacking an entire religion?

      (Everyone should see this)
      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3505348655137118430#

      Preemptive war in the absence of a clear and certain attack is very similar to the issue of gun control. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. You can’t try a gun or bring a gun to justice and you certainly can’t destroy all the guns in the world. You can’t hold a gun guilty of anything, People are responsible for what happens and only people can be held accountable. I love this quote: “Blaming a gun for shooting is like blaming pencils for misspelled words”.

      I noticed you took a shot at me by saying: “if the pot hasn’t already destroyed his brain”. Maybe you should try and prove you can defend marijuana prohibition and in fact all drug prohibition. Maybe you’d like to explain why after almost 100 years of drug prohibition, drugs are more available, more potent and often less expensive than they were when Richard Nixon started the modern “drug war” in the 70’s. Maybe you’d like to tell us how much SAFER we are because we arrest a nonviolent drug user every 17 seconds here in “the land of the free”. Maybe you’d like to explain how PROHIBITION putting criminals, gangsters and terrorists in complete control of the illegal drug trade and the billions of yearly profits from it is really great policy. Maybe you’d like to explain the great strides drug prohibition has made. In 1914 when all drugs were legal in the US, 1.3% of the US population was addicted to drugs and despite over 1 trillion tax dollars being wasted, millions of Americans being arrested, ever increasing harshness of penalties, the shredding of the Constitution in the name of promoting this ILLEGAL federal drug prohibition and all the other harms that have resulted from our failed drug prohibition policy, today 1.3% of our population is still addicted to drugs. THAT’S 0% IMPROVEMENT.

      Well worth reading:
      Google: “WHY IS MARIJUANA ILLEGAL, Pete Guither” and “MARIJUANA AND HEMP THE UNTOLD STORY, Thomas J. Bouril”, or click the links to those articles on the webpage below:
      Internet Explorer web browser: http://jsknow.angelfire.com/home
      With All Other Browsers: http://jsknow.angelfire.com/index.html

      The World Health Organization Documents Failure of U.S. Drug Policies http://www.alternet.org/drugreporter/90295/

      Watch this video: “Irvin Rosenfeld Medical Marijuana Testimony”, then get back to me about what you think of medical marijuana and heavy long term marijuana use.

      I don’t think you can defend drug prohibition any better than you can defend attacking Dr. Ron Paul, Alex Jones, me, or any of the other topics you choose but I’ll check in later and see if you are interested in debating further.

      • Don Deskins

        I won’t go into the details, but you can get EVERY answer to the Truther conspiracies by going through: http://bccth.is/80H

        Alex Jones is a truther and a leftist. His conspiracy theories are just a waste of time (as was reading your rants).

        Ron Paul is a antisemite and racist. He is a leftist in his ideology, except on fiscal policy.

      • Bruce C. A. Desautels

        Insofar as Congress’s power to “Declare War,” it is just that… the power to “declare”… However the Constitution vests the power to “Make War” in the Executive, and thus the premise for the War Powers Act. Just because the Congress is granted authority to declare, does not prohibit the Executive from Making War. To reinforce this point, I bid you to examine the presidencies of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, both of whom “made” war on the Barbary Pirates (Muslims) without a Declaration of War by Congress… And both these gentleman were founding fathers having a hand in the writing of the Constitution.

        Insofar as the WTC towers 1 & 2 collapsing onto their own footprint: NOT TRUE. They actually “exploded” outwards to a great distance, hence the pile of rubble was spread across many acres 13 stories deep. If you examine the video footage of the exterior facade, which was constructed of 3-story bolted segments, then you will see that as they lost lateral support (due to the failure of the floor diaphragms) they were pushed outwards. While it appears a free fall, it actually did not achieve that velocity. The collapse was in fact predictable and quite in line with the failure mechanism typical to a open-floor truss plan and nested tube structure.

      • He is never going to listen to you Bruce…he drank an entire pitcher of Alex Jones Kool-Aid and is immune to facts, logic, and common sense.

  7. Dee Dunn

    jsknow = bullsh*t

    I am with Daria on this one.

  8. RoxannaT

    Daria, you can’t fix people ‘stuck on stupid’ but we still try. As in any cult, the brainwashing that takes place often is irreversible, i.e. Jim Jones. What is the most irritating to me are folks like jsknow who refuse to listen to or research any point of view other than what they have already made their minds up about. Common sense, scientific evidence and truth is beyond their comprehension. The up side is they are the tiny minority, much like an irritating mosquito in your tent while camping…

  9. Shawn McElhinney

    [Since I’m holding ALL the cards]

    Phuleeze. Every time I have ever engaged moonbats like you on this garbage, you either (i) switch topics when one of your groundless assertions are critically engaged with, (ii) try to ignore me and continue re-posting the same idiocy as if nothing changed, (iii) barrage people with more garbage than can be casually sifted though and interacted with as if volumes of shit thereby makes a formidable “argument”, or (iv) accuse me of being part of the mythical “cabal” you sorts always rail irrationally against. (And predictably on form you went with approach #3 with the writer of this post already!) You conspiracy speculators are so predictable it is laughable but then again, having once walked among your sort in years past (before I started really researching and debunking this kind of garbage), I recognize the patterns well.

    As for Ron Paul, his ignorance of American history eclipses even his ahistorical misunderstanding of the Constitution and an understanding of originalism congruent with how the Founders as a rule understood the concept. Sorry dude, Ron Paul could not even win the primary two years ago in his own home state. He has next to no chance being nominated and even less of a chance of getting elected. Obama would win in a 50 state landslide of the sort that has never happened in American history. Dr. Paul should stick to the one area where his doctorate actually has value (medicine) and stop pretending to be something he is not. Oh and he can stop taking so many earmarks while he is at it -earmarks SHOULD be anathema to those who would take the supposedly “principled stands” he purports to take.

  10. jsknow

    Well so much for a rational debate, I’m beginning to wonder if anyone here can even read and respond to the issues being debated.

    These responses are really great, so full of facts and believable sources I hardly know where to begin, so I’ll just take them in the order they posted:

    @Don Deskins
    If every 911 question is so plainly answered at http://bccth.is/80H why do you suppose millions of people are still calling for an independent reexamination of 911? Why are there still huge marches and well qualified professionals demanding a new investigation? This is no fringe movement, this is a strong, growing, mostly well educated group with credible questions. Are there some nuts out there? Sure, there always are in any large group but the fact remains that the official report of 911 has not even come close to explaining the events satisfactorily and until these questions are answered, the movement will continue to grow. These people are looking for proof and scientific explanations not theory and computer generated cartoons.

    Alex Jones is neither left nor right, he sticks to the middle, which is also exactly where you’ll find the Constitution. He is just as critical of the left as he is of the right when they act contrary to the Constitution. He addresses the issues not a stance for or against a political party nor a left or right position. He favors Constitutional government and people like Ron Paul who also support the Constitution.

    As far as Dr. Paul being an “antisemite and racist”, you know nothing about Dr. Paul and your asinine response proves that better than I ever could. He has addressed the issue raised about him being a racist, which was dredged up from over twenty years ago and he has been more than open about his position on race. The libertarian philosophy he strictly adheres to rejects even the slightest notion of supporting racism. Libertarians believe in the right of the individual, they do not play favorites because of race on any issue, end of conversation. You’re the first I have ever heard accuse him of being an anti-Semite, so if you have some reference that proves that, please post it. If you can’t, then may I suggest you start actually reading and listening to what Dr. Paul himself says instead of being a parrot for inaccuracies from invalidated sources. RON PAUL IS NO RACIST, DON’T YOU PEOPLE EVER GET TIRED OF POSTING PURE LIES? Show me one example of anything Ron Paul has done himself that proves he is in any way a racist, I’ll be checking back to see what you come up with!

    @Bruce C. A. Desautels
    If you have some documentation of your position of who has what authority to ”declare” or “make” war please post a link. I cite the following link in defense of my contention that ONLY Congress has this right. There is a provision that gives the president the authority to repel an invasion but that is as far as his war making authority goes, to the best on my knowledge.
    http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/A-D/The-Constitution-The-war-power.html

    Maybe you should take a look at this documentary and learn the truth about what happens when presidents abuse their power and act contrary to the Constitution: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3505348655137118430#

    As far as your falling building theory, you’re the first person I have ever heard say the buildings “exploded”. There were no doubt some fragments that traveled some distance from the impact of the 2 planes but the majority mass of the buildings fell, at virtually free fall speed, down, not out. This means they fell through the path of the most resistance. If what you described had actually happened, how do you explain the lack of significant damage to surrounding buildings? The floors were not what held the buildings up, it was the steel frames that did that and they were massive. My question in a nutshell is this: How could randomly placed fuel cause stress in enough key places to bring the buildings straight down instead of them tipping over?…All 3 of them. Like so many others, you say nothing about building 7… are you saying that it exploded too? If so, what caused that and do you have any pictures of these exploding buildings that you can provide a link to? I didn’t see any exploding buildings, I saw 3 buildings, only 2 hit by planes, come virtually straight to the ground. My contention is this: There are more than sufficient credible unanswered questions to warrant a reexamination of the events by qualified architectural engineering professionals.

    @david michel
    I agree! Many are!

    Dee Dunn
    Dee Dunn = bullsh*t. I hope that is a satisfactory response, I’m not use to quite this level of debate but I’m sure I’ll catch on as we go along!
    I’m with Ron Paul on this one!
    ————————–

    @RoxannaT
    I raised several points for debate, you addressed NONE of them. Instead of a personal attack, why don’t you post some common sense, scientific evidence and truth? All you did was flap your trap like a child on a playground.
    ————————–

    @Dariaanne
    I noticed you didn’t even address a single point I raised, is that response your idea of a debate?
    _______________

    @Shawn McElhinney
    Which Moonbat reply of yours even makes senses?
    What did I switch topics on?
    I’m not ignoring you, post some facts contrary to my positions. Please include references too, okay?
    Maybe if you would address the debate issues people wouldn’t keep posting their unchallenged positions.
    If you regard other folks accumulation of facts as “shit” who do you think would even want to have a conversation with you?

    As for your comments about Dr. Paul, please cite some references if you can.
    Here’s something for you to mull over about a race between Dr. Paul and Obama: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_barack_obama_42_ron_paul_41
    You obviously don’t know Dr. Paul’s position on earmarks:
    http://www.nolanchart.com/article1146.html
    http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/earmark-reform/

    • Bruce C. A. Desautels

      To jsknow:

      Sir, please read the detailed information I posted to you, including the physics of fire, and the articles on “implosion” written by demolitions experts whom examined the forensic evidence.

      You are quite wrong of the contrsuction of WTC 1 & 2. (WTC 7 is another subject, its structural design peculiarities having much to do with its collapse.) The massive steel core columns to which you refer did not continue beyond the first 7 floors, including the 4 sub-levels. Likewise is the case for the perimeter wall assemblies. The core columns were erected in progressivly lighter fabricated shapes with increased height. The exterior fenistration columns were a box beam construction, not solid. They were fabricated into three-story sections, stiffened with spandrel webs, and connected to one another with steel bolts. The composit concrete-steel truss floors were fastened to these exterior fenistration assemblies with bolted plates and viso-elastic dampers, and to the core colums via a perimeter beam. The entire design was ment to be an efficient (minimal) use of materials. WTC 1 & 2 were examples of superior engineering, not requiring massive steel, in order to maximize useable floor space and maintain loadling limits (gravity and dynamic tortional loads iduced by wind).

      If you study the derbis field, you will discover that the buildings did indeed fell outward (the pressure wave produced by the collapsing floors induced and outward push). The debris did in fact severly damage surrounding buildings, and in particular WTC 7 had much of its facade ripped away. Several buildings were damaged severly enough that they were condemned by the fire marshall. Video footage and still photographs demonstrate that WTC 1 & 2 collapsed outward as it disintegrated downward. Both seismic and video evidence demonstrate that the building did not reach freefall velocity (120 fps/s).

      You are mis-informed on so many counts that it is challenging to decide which to first address. It appears all your information derives from conspiracy web sites and not from reputable experts within the disciplines involved. It matters not the quantity of your controverting “evidence” or the number of individuals calling for further investigations, etc… What does matter is the quality of the information and the irrefutable forensic facts previously established by those who are competant to make such analysis. From what I have read in your analysis, it is becomming clear that you are not familar in any of the required disciplines.

      Perhaps I should begin to post excerpts of my college thesis, but something tell me I am likely wasting my time. That is unfortunate for you.

      • jsknow

        Bruce C. A. Desautels,

        I read the information you posted, including the physics of fire, and the articles on “implosion” written by demolitions experts who examined the forensic evidence, prior to making my previous reply. I noticed your original use of the word “explosion” has now changed to “implosion”, a significant difference considering the extensive expertise you cited having in your previous post. I hope the information I posted subsequently has helped you understand why I and so many millions of others still have doubts about 911’s true circumstances.

        I am aware of the twin towers’ “progressively lighter fabricated shapes with increased height” that you mentioned. It is precisely that construction feature which makes the official hypothesis of what brought the towers down less than easily believable. You see, in a top to bottom collapse, the resistance would have drastically INCREASED as the downward progression continued. This would make it even more likely that the falling portion of the building would have either stopped due to the increasing resistance or slid to one side and ripped off a portion of the lower stronger section of structure, leaving the path of most and ever increasing resistance standing and intact. That same progressively stronger support should have also resulted in a dramatic measurable progressively slower rate of decent speed.

        I am aware that the entire design was meant to be an efficient (minimal) use of materials, however this DOES NOT represent an unsound or less than adequately strong building design, as is noted in the references below. All these buildings were over designed as is the case with all tall buildings and bridges. WTC 1 & 2 were also specifically designed to withstand the impact of a fully loaded 707 as noted below in much detail.

        The two tower buildings did indeed fall outward to some degree, mostly that appears to be the outer crust of the buildings virtually disintegrating. It’s hard to imagine that such a heavy and well connected, steel and concrete structure, could have projected large heavy intact portions of itself in a lateral direction from the pressure wave produced by the collapsing floors alone and in the absence of explosives. I’m aware the debris did in fact severely damage surrounding buildings and that some additional buildings were demolished by demolition teams some time later because they were unsound due to the destruction they suffered on 911. You originally said: “Insofar as the WTC towers 1 & 2 collapsing onto their own footprint: NOT TRUE. They actually “exploded” outwards to a great distance, hence the pile of rubble was spread across many acres 13 stories deep”. I fail to understand, in the absence of explosions, what projected large portions of the towers onto buildings at great distances away. I had always assumed this damage was done by the initial impact of the planes and the result of building material traveling quite some distance as a direst result of the initial impacts. Since the WTC towers did not fall over, it seemed to me that any severely damaged buildings would have been very close to the tower’s footprint.

        I find it difficult to comprehend that WTC 7 had much of its facade ripped away, let alone enough core structural damage from falling tower debris and a couple of relatively small fires that those random events could have brought building 7 down in a symmetrical fashion. The videos I have repeatedly watched of building 7 collapsing do not appear to show any exterior damage that I remember seeing. If you have a link to a video or pictures that show such damage, I would be very interested in seeing that.

        I don’t believe I said absolute freefall speed, I believe I said, “near” or “virtually freefall speed”, quality evidence of this is demonstrated in great detail by clicking a link below. It is also worth noting that highly qualified experts have used the term freefall speed, I can only surmise they used that term because the actual recorded speed was very close to true freefall and not indicative of material falling through massive resistance.

        Just because someone has been labeled as a “conspiracy theorist” does not detract from their expert knowledge and qualifications within their respective fields. In fact, in a case such as we are discussing, where else would you expect to find expert information opposing the official report? Anyone with scientific evidence, no matter how well educated and experienced, is being labeled as a conspiracy theorist by those who choose to believe the very hard to believe official account of these events. I never claimed to be an expert in any field relating to the subjects at hand but I do possess a significantly above average IQ and feel I am competent to voice rational questions when something makes as little sense as the official report on 911. I trust the links I have posted will be sufficient to at least get you to admit that there is sufficient reason for more proof than what the official report contains.

        I am more than willing to look at your college thesis and any other information you would like to share. I’m approaching this with an open mind and you have presented some information already that I was unaware of and which, is causing me to do further research in specific directions. Thank you!

        In all honesty, nothing would make me happier than to be able to believe that the official account of 911 is 100% true. That would mean I really could trust my government to be open and honest about this issue. If I can ever find such evidence I will be the first to admit that my suspicions were unfounded. To date however there are too many 911 issues that simply do not add up and there are too many qualified experts willing to risk their jobs and possibly even their lives by publicly questioning the government’s possible involvement in the dark side of this issue.

        ———————–
        Below are several interesting references I found online. I included sources and links so you can check them further if you like:

        http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/TheMissingJolt7.pdf

        Aside from the fact that no steel-frame high-rise building has ever collapsed due to fire prior to or since Sept. 11, the manner in which the buildings came down is itself a substantial cause for reinvestigation. A collapse due to fire would likely proceed gradually with large deformations visible in the building’s perimeter, with the building tipping over slowly in the direction of the steadily weakening structural members – to the path of least resistance. Yet the Twin Towers both came down quite suddenly, without warning, and without any “jolt” that would indicate the upper mass impacting the lower. The smooth rate of descent was measured at 2/3 of free-fall. In other words, the building is accelerating (traveling faster and faster) straight down through what should have been the path of greatest resistance – the 80,000 tons of structural steel designed to resist this load. Physicists and other experts agree that this could have happened only if the underlying supporting structures were removed ahead of the falling upper building mass. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) acknowledges that each building was destroyed in fewer than a dozen seconds, and that they “came down essentially in free-fall”.

        Towers’ Design Parameters
        Twin Towers’ Designers Anticipated Jet Impacts Like September 11th’s
        http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

        Archive for Wednesday, September 12, 2001
        http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2001/sep/12/towers_built_to/

        “Sightseers at the towers over the past few years would have seen a reassuring information panel at the top floor visitors’ centre, explaining how they should not worry about plane crashes as the building was made to withstand them.”

        “…architect Minoru Yamasaki designed the World Trade Center towers to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707 airplane (Federal Emergency Management Agency 2002). The Boeing 707 is similar to the Boeing 767s that actually crashed into the towers, the main differences being that the 767 is slightly heavier and slower. The impact from the plane that hit Tower One was well within the force limits of the design and the impact from the second plane was only ten percent above the force that Tower Two was designed to absorb (“Nerdcities: The Guardian” 2002). So, from an engineering perspective, the World Trade Center towers, at least Tower One, should have been able to withstand the collisions on September 11th…” -Vikas Agrawal (science-writing.org)

        Here is a 3 part series about NIST finally admitting that free fall speed did occur in WTC 7. It’s by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth. A group of over 1000 Architects and engineers who find that the towers were brought down by explosives. http://www.ae911truth.org

  11. Shawn McElhinney

    [@Shawn McElhinney
    Which Moonbat reply of yours even makes senses?]

    Makes senses?

    [What did I switch topics on?I’m not ignoring you, post some facts contrary to my positions. Please include references too, okay?]

    Do you bother reading what people write? Of COURSE not cause you are a conspiracy loon who is only interested in cherry picking out of context bits to attempt to prop up your presupposition of overarching conspiracies that go against the grain of human nature and its tendencies. You do not care about facts or real evidences, only what fits your paradigm and the rest are ignored or (if they are acknowledged at all) are not rationally interacted with. Now then, I outlined four approaches that conspiracy loons take and noted that you had already taken one of those approaches with Daria. Did I say anything about you interacting with me? No I did not because you had not up to that point in time. Maybe if you bothered READING something and knowing what the hell is being said before responding, you may not look so silly.

    [Maybe if you would address the debate issues people wouldn’t keep posting their unchallenged positions.]

    I have address countless issues with conspiracy nuts like you. The problem is, y’all are only open minded when it comes to trying to sucker people into listening to you but when your premises are challenged, there is a habit of following at least one of the four paths I outlined earlier. And as I noted before, you followed the third one with Daria.

    [If you regard other folks accumulation of facts as “shit” who do you think would even want to have a conversation with you?]

    I regard the accumulation of carefully selected and presented data as propaganda not a genuine analysis of the data. Furthermore, I have no interest in interacting with the data of those who are only here to ignore when their evidences are debunked only to play a game of “well what about this?” with the next piece of evidence. There are fundamental points in every discussion and they are too often drowned out when a person is only interested in a monologue not a dialogue. And the moment someone critically starts engaging the idiocies of the conspiracy loons is the moment the latter are no longer interested in dialogue.

    [As for your comments about Dr. Paul, please cite some references if you can.]

    Well, Dr. Paul’s views on centralized banking and on it requiring a congressional declaration to lawfully go to war come to mind. Most of the Founders and men who were involved in the drafting of the Constitution had no problem whatsoever with a central bank and even James Madison (one of the lone holdouts initially) came around and realized he was wrong. (Those that did not like the idea were the Anti-Federalists who fought against the Constitution’s ratification and lost.) And following the same principles under which a central bank was viewed as constitutionally permissible, one can deduce that it is not required for a declaration of war in order to utilize the military. Which is not to say the latter is without its usages of course -Hamilton indeed explained this during the debates on whether such a declaration would be required against the Barbary Pirates. His logic on the matter convinced the congress that it was not required but Jefferson at least wanted congressional resolutions to use force voted on and they were. That is the pattern this country has followed ever since reserving declarations of war for very specific military circumstances and (in other less ambiguous ones) going with a simple resolution to use force when it comes to drawn out military campaigns. This is a matter of historical record; however conspiracy sorts do not know American history and continue to misrepresent things in this and not a few other areas.

    [Here’s something for you to mull over about a race between Dr. Paul and Obama: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_barack_obama_42_ron_paul_41%5D

    One poll does not determine anything definitively, get me an average of five to seven polls and then we will talk. And this ignores the fact that if Paul was the nominee, the content of his newsletters which was a localized controversy in the past would become nationwide:

    http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter

    What is particularly funny is that Paul denies knowing who wrote the offensive articles or even reading them even though they were published in a newsletter under his own name!

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/

    I am not about to buy that bullshit from him any more than I did that Obama spent twenty years in the church of Rev. Wright and yet never heard him say any of the incendiary things he said.

    Do you actually think that if that data was shown to the people polled in Rasmussen and if they were re-polled if those who preferred him before would still do so? How about if they are also told that Paul refused to denounce the racist Stormfront movement after they endorsed his candidacy in 2008 -so desperate was he for some endorsements he was not too picky over where they came from?

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html

    No, this information would go viral in a presidential campaign and Ron Paul would get destroyed in a general election worse than Dukakis or Carter did. Hell, I would say his loss would likely be worse than Alfred Landon in 1936, worse than George McGovern in 1972, and perhaps worse than Walter Mondale did in 1984. That is of course if he even got nominated which he would not with this stuff out there (and which would be circulated to a greater extent if he was perceived to be a favourite at any time). But even if somehow he limped into the nomination, there is also the fact that Barack Obama for all his weaknesses and all his flaws THRIVES on discussing the subject of race and playing the division card with it. And on that subject, Ron Paul is politically radioactive.

    [You obviously don’t know Dr. Paul’s position on earmarks:]

    Of COURSE he thinks it is a minor issue because he has requested so many of them himself! Indeed, Ron Paul on some years has been in the upper tier of earmark requests -such as in 2009 for instance:

    http://blogs.chron.com/txpotomac/2008/04/ron_pauls_earmarks_for_fy2009.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+houstonchronicle%2Ftxpotomac+%28Texas+on+the+Potomac%29

    Now how about responding to the technical information on detonations that Bruce raised earlier in this thread and ceasing the distractions? And do not respond to me unless you actually read what I write first. Otherwise I will not be this irenic the next time around, capiche?

  12. The Underground Conservative

    “Sir, please read the detailed information I posted to you …”

    9/11 Troofers have consumed so much Kool Aid thye are incapable of any intelligent debate. Besides, I don’t think this moron can read anything he can’t color. Or, you might have to get him the Golden Books version …

    • Bruce C. A. Desautels

      I mean no personal attack upon jsknow; however…

      I am finding myself in an exceedingly difficult situation. I would enjoy continuing this debate, save for my opponent refuses to allow reason to permeate the wall of sensational “theory.”

      We may theorize indefinitely, but at some point one must except the revealed facts as they are, and not as we should want them to be in order to satisfy some prejudice. I am no fan of the federal government; but I am objective, informed by experience, and directed by reason as to what exists in the realm of possibility and what exists in the realm of plausibility. Between the two there is a great chasm that can only be bridged by facts, and not by speculation.

      There is am axiom in logic known as “Occam’s Razor” that states (paraphrasing here) “the simplest explanation of events is usually the correct explanation of events.” The problem with the arguments presented by jsknow is that, while they may be possible, their probability falls into the realm of fantasy; if for no other reason than the sheer complexity required to perfectly accomplish all the events jsknow proposes, and do so without random chance or unintended consequence making the “best laid plans” a chaotic failure.

      EX: Thermite (Thermate) Debunked myth:

      http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

      Thermite leaves identifiable characteristics at the molecular level that are quite easy for a forensics technician to spot. I have already viewed many of the micro photographic images of steel samples from WTC 1, 2 and 7 … They all demonstrate severe heat stress or typical sheer failure in the crystalline structure, but none show the telltale signature of thermite or thermate: aluminum oxide and barium nitrate. So I guess we are to believe that the government confiscated, from a 13-story pile of rubble, every beam felled by thermite? We are to believe that weary iron workers, whose life is steel (manufacturing, fabricating and cutting) were clueless to the difference between a cut made by an oxy-acetylene torch and the fusion generated by thermite?

      EX: Contact explosives. jsknow does not understand the difference between “deterioration” of an explosive due to sustained heat (or cold) that may through chemical change render the substance unstable (or at best ineffective) and “premature detonation” of an explosive due to the effects of chemical instability because of deterioration or shock. Either situation creates instability and unpredictability… All ordnance and explosives exposed to fire are extremely hazardous, because chemical changes take place within the explosive that may result in crystallized by-products. These crystals, or “salts;” are extremely sensitive to friction, heat, and shock. Not a good thing if you are planning a very complex progressive collapse!

      For every rational premise I assert, based on the forensic evidence that is a matter of record — evidence revealed not by agents of the federal government, but in fact brought forth through independent investigation by objective experts in the necessary disciplines — jsknow counters with a theory of how the events “could” have happened differently, even though there is not a shred of forensic data to support or even suggest that such a theory “did” happen or were even possible.

      There is absolutely no comparison between the WTC towers and every previous steel framed design. None. The buildings were engineering firsts in every possible measure. WTC actually had design flaws that were so critical as to make the building virtually unstable in anything but the perfect conditions. WTC 7 was a flawed design because its loading configuration left little room for normal structural anomalies, never mind the sort of degradation that led to its eventual progressive collapse.

      I simply have not the time nor the patience to indefinitely refute every theory suggested, nor to point out the contradictions. And I have too much charity to point out the glaring gaps apparent in jsknow’s knowledge of modern steel-framed structures, physics, fire dynamics, the effects of asymmetrical load, etc.

      This problem of unsupportable arguments occurs where individuals have no background in real-world architectural design or structural engineering. These people become an easy mark for all manner of conspiratorial theories suggested. Trying to argue against them is like trying to convince a child that Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny do not really exist.

  13. Bruce C. A. Desautels

    jsknow: “I noticed your original use of the word “explosion” has now changed to “implosion”, a significant difference considering the extensive expertise you cited having in your previous post.”

    RE: I gave you a reference to implosion MYTHS, that DEBUNKS the implosion theory. I did not switch my viewpoint from that of an outward explosive (METAPHOR!) collapse due the loss of lateral stability.

    jsknow: “I am aware of the twin towers’ “progressively lighter fabricated shapes with increased height” that you mentioned. It is precisely that construction feature which makes the official hypothesis of what brought the towers down less than easily believable.”

    RE: Wrong. You had the weight of the individual floors (concrete weighs 114 pound psf), an all their contents, the weight of the exterior box beam structure, the weight of the roof and hat truss system, and the weight of whatever utilities or HVAC were located on the roof. You need to understand that the gravity load was SHARED by both the inner core AND the perimeter columns. The core columns DID NOT HAVE MUCH SPARE CAPACITY, and therefore the exterior perimeter box columns were able to carry a significant portion of the gravity load because their design required the ability to resist torsional and bending forces induced by dynamic wind loads. This structure was entirely unique, and anything like a standard steel-framed building.

    WTC 1, THE NORTH TOWER
    American Airlines Flight 11 struck the north tower, between the 94th and 98th floors, at a point of entry centered upon column 130 in the north face of floor 96. Aircraft attitude was nose-level and approximately 15-degrees of left bank. The impact velocity is estimated to have been between 429 and 494 mph. The angle of impact created massive damage across multiple floors. Photographs and enhanced video shows that 33 of the 59 perimeter box beams were destroyed over a four-story range. Deflection of the north tower is calculated to have been 2.03 feet, with the line of impact being nearly perpendicular to the major axis of the core. The aircraft traversed a distance of 60 feet before entering the core region. Computer analysis has determined that 20 of the 47 core columns were either destroyed or disabled, and it is believed that all three emergency exit stairwells were rendered unusable. Individuals located on floors below the impact zone confirm that extensive debris had collapsed in the south and eastern portions of the core, down to the 91st level, preventing the use of two stairwells.

    Aircraft debris traveled completely through the structure. For example: Life jackets and seats were found on the roof of the Banker’s Trust Building, located south of WTC 2; and portions of the aircraft’s main landing gear were discovered five blocks south of the WTC complex.

    WTC 2, THE SOUTH TOWER
    United Airlines Flight 175 struck the south tower, between the 78th and 84th floors, at a point of entry skewed towards the south corner and centered upon column 424 in the south face of floor 81. Aircraft attitude was slightly nose-down and approximately 30-degrees of left bank. Impact velocity is estimated to have been between 537 and 586 mph. (Note: this speed exceeds the design limits of the aircraft.) The angle of impact created massive damage across multiple floors. Photographs and enhanced video shows that 29 of the 59 perimeter box beams were destroyed over a five-story range. Deflection of the south tower is calculated to have been 2.39 feet, with the force of impact being almost perpendicular to the minor axis of the core. The aircraft traversed 35 feet before entering the core region. Computer analysis has determined that 5 of 47 core columns in the southeast corner were either destroyed or disabled. Two of the three emergency exit stairwells were rendered unusable.

    Aircraft debris traveled completely through the structure. For example: landing gear crashed through the roof of a building located six blocks to the north; one engine traveled to approximately the same location; and portions of the fuselage were discovered on the roof of WTC 5.

    WTC 1 (North Tower) was 107 stories tall, and so having the impact centered on the 95 floor (94-98) there were 12 stories of DEAD LOAD weighing down on major structural damage COMBINED WITH intense fires burning UNCONTROLLED over multiple floors.

    WTC 2 (South Tower) was 107 stories tall, and so having the impact centered on the 81st floor (78-84) there were 26 stories of DEAD LOAD weighing down on major structural damage, including the loss of CORNER stability, COMBINED WITH intense fires burning UNCONTROLLED over multiple floors.

    Of course there were also the effects of torsion and bending on the weakened structure produced by the winds aloft

    If you cannot understand the implications of these factors, then their is nothing I can do to improve your understanding.

    You seem to ignore that the loss of lateral stability as floor collapse progressed downward several stories AHEAD of the collapsing walls. This is to be expected when static and dynamic floor loads are exceeded.

    NORTH TOWER COLLAPSE
    Video footage of the north tower collapse shows that the transmission antenna, located atop WTC 1, began to shift laterally and downward before movement was evident at the exterior wall. This suggests that the collapse of the north tower was initiated by the failure of core members.

    The first loading event, impact, destroyed or severely weakened a large number of steel structural members within the north tower, and disabled all three fire protection systems. Following the impact the resultant dynamics of load transfer began a cascading process, pushing the utilization ratios for various members of the structure towards their design limit. Beginning in the core, whose members had little spare capacity, the loads increasingly shifted, first to the surviving core members, and then to the more robust perimeter box-beam columns. This transfer process proved to be the most significant strength, and yet also a critical weakness of tube tower design.

    The second loading event, the ensuing fire, doomed the tower to collapse, because fire degraded the steel below its ability to support the tremendous gravity loads stored within the structure. As the heated steel of the core columns began to plasticize, the hat truss transferred gravity loads outward from the core, and this action increased the stress upon those exterior columns that remained intact. Simultaneously the floor trusses, being constructed of far lighter members, began to rapidly heat and undergo catenary action.

    Cantenary action may be observed where a suspended cable is allowed to assume its natural parabolic arc. Steel is stronger in tension than compression; but concrete prefers compression and is weak in tension. The steel reinforcing of a concrete slab produces a composite structure that maintains its integrity when placed under a heavy stress load. If a composite slab is heated it will begin to exhibit catenary action, and seek its natural arc. This process of sagging will progress until the end-connections undergo shear failure.

    The WTC towers used 1-inch diameter steel rods in the webbing of the floor trusses, and this continuous rod passed through the truss top chords and rose slightly above the metal decking. The design allowed the steel webbing to be integrated within the concrete slab, so that when the heated floor trusses began to sag, the entire slab acted as a membrane. The truss end-connections placed an increasing lateral force on the perimeter and core columns, pushing individual members outward or pulling them inward, dependent on fire intensity and location. Under the increasing lateral and gravitational loads, segments of the exterior modules attempted to rotate out-of-plane about their bolted connections; and so the short stiff columns began to act more as plastic hinges. At some point the truss end connections failed in shear, causing the entire slab to collapse onto the floor below, further stripping the exterior columns of lateral support.

    The sudden increase in dead load combined with the dynamic force of impact from the falling slab exceeded the lower floor’s Ultimate Load Limit by an order of magnitude. The lower floor, even if undamaged by the aircraft impact and the fire, experienced shear failure and collapsed onto the next lowest level. Stored gravitational energy was rapidly converted into kinetic energy, as each successive floor collapse further increased the dead load and mass acceleration forces, until the entire structure was moving downward in a progressive collapse. At the same time the outer walls, now stripped of lateral support, buckled under the tremendous weight being exerted by that portion of the building mass located above the impact zone. The bolted connections, which held the pre-fabricated segments together, experienced shear failure, and the 12-story mass of structure above essentially acted as a pile driver all the way to the ground.

    SOUTH TOWER COLLAPSE
    The collapse of the north and south towers was not identical insofar as the initiation sequence. Core orientation relative to aircraft flight path was different, and the impact occurred at a significantly higher rate of speed, but at a much lower floor level. This may explain why the south tower collapsed before the north, even though the north tower was struck first in the attack.

    Because the point of impact was confined mostly to the southeastern corner, fewer core columns were damaged than had occurred within the north tower; however the loss of corner stability proved to be a critical factor. Loads imposed on the south tower were far greater, because twenty-six stories of structural mass were located above the impact zone, and therefore the damaged area was subjected to a greater gravitational load. The south tower’s core, although not suffering the heavy damaged that had been inflicted on the core of the north tower, had to withstand greater buckling forces. This loading would be exacerbated by the fire, perhaps to a greater degree than had occurred within the north tower.

    Much more combustible material was likely swept up by the aircraft that struck the south tower, because the disintegrating jetliner would have plowed through the long and wide area of floor space that ran parallel with the major axis of the core. Videotape evidence suggests that in the minutes preceding the collapse, intense fires occurred along the north face of the south tower, near the 80th floor level. Immediately prior to the collapse, molten metal was seen flowing out of an opening in the northeast corner at approximately this level. This stream of molten metal was likely from the melting aluminum structure of the aircraft.

    The collapse initiated at the southeast corner with a partial collapse of the floor at the 80th level, followed by a rapid collapse of the entire floor along the east side. Exterior columns along the east face of the tower then buckled in the region of the collapsed floor, beginning at the south corner and progressing towards the north. This caused the top of the building to rotate toward the east and south, and then collapse downward.

    Now, jsknow, if you want something to study? Dig into this: http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1-2ADraft.pdf

    That should keep you busy for a very long time.

    jsknow: “WTC 1 & 2 were also specifically designed to withstand the impact of a fully loaded 707 as noted below in much detail. ”

    RE: WRONG!

    The WTC towers were the first civilian structure designed to withstand the impact of an aircraft. In 1966, the Boeing 707 was the largest jetliner in service. Leslie Robertson, recalling the 1945 crash of a B-25 bomber into the 78th and 79th floors of the Empire State Building, determined that the WTC towers should be designed to survive the impact of a fully loaded B-707. However, Robinson made three presumptions:

    1.) The aircraft would be lost in bad weather, such as fog.
    2.) The aircraft would be low on fuel.
    3.) The aircraft would be in a landing configuration, having a maximum speed of 185 mph, and flying in a wings-level attitude.

    However, in an October 2001 interview with The New Yorker, Robinson could not recall if the effects of burning jet fuel were ever considered during the structural design phase:

    “We studied it and designed for the impact of such an aircraft. The next step would have been to think about the fuel load… but I don’t know what happened there, whether in all our testing we thought about it… I don’t know if we considered the fire damage… Anyway, the Architect, not the Engineer, specifies the fire system.”

    Now, examine at the specifics of the B-707 and the B-767:

    Boeing 707

    Including the prototype, there are eight Boeing jet airliners; the others are the 707-120, the 707-120B, the 707-220, the 707-320, the 707-420, the 720 and the 720B. Weighing in at 248,000 pounds as compared with the prototype’s 190,000, the 120 is principally intended for continental use. The 220 is identical in airframe and body size to the 120, but is powered by Pratt & Whitney JT4 turbojet engines, larger and of greater thrust than the JT3. The “B” airplanes use Pratt & Whitney JT3D turbofan engines.

    The 320 and the 420 are the Intercontinental 707s, which partially fulfill the growth potential Boeing designed into the basic 707 series. Weighing more than 295,000 pounds, they are 8 feet, 5 inches longer overall than the 120, 220, and 720, have 11 feet 7 inches more wingspan, and 500 square feet of additional wing area. Fuselage diameter, 148 inches, is the same in all models. Only difference between the 320 and 420 is the engines, the former using Pratt & Whitney JT4s and the latter Rolls-Royce “Conways.”

    SPECIFICATIONS INTERCONTINENTAL: Span 142 ft. 5 in.; Height 42 ft.; Length 152 ft. 11 in.; Engines Four Pratt & Whitney JT4 or Rolls Royce Conway turbojets, more than 10,000 Lb, thrust; Gear tricycle, main undercarriage units, four-wheel trucks, dual nose wheels.

    PERFORMANCE: Cruise Speed 591 mph; Cruising Altitude 25,000 to 40,000 ft.

    SPECIFICATIONS (120): Span 130 ft. 10 in.; Height 42 ft.; Length 144 ft. 6 in.; Engines Four Pratt & Whitney JT3C-6 turbojet, more than 10,000 lb. thrust; Gear tricycle, main undercarriage units, four-wheel trucks, dual nose wheels.

    PERFORMANCE: Cruise Speed 591 mph; Cruising Altitude 25,000 to 40,000 ft.

    Boeing 767-200ER

    Both flights were Boeing 767-200ER series aircraft, having a Maximum Takeoff Weight of 395,000 pounds, and a Maximum Fuel Capacity of 23,980 gallons (U.S.). The design cruise speed is 530 mph at 35,000 feet MSL. The aircraft’s basic dimensions are: Wing Span – 156 feet; Overall length – 159 feet; Tail Height – 52 feet; Interior Cabin Width – 15 feet. Passenger configurations varied from 181 up to 255. On September 11, 2001, Flight 11 carried 92 people, and Flight 175 carried 65 people.

    So right off the bat we have a significant difference in weight between the 707 and 767. Moreover, as the structural engineer pointed out, the building was designed to withstand the impact of a B-707 that was LOW ON FUEL, traveling ate LOW SPEED.

    As for the remainder of your assertions, I simply do not have time to address them.

  14. Ron Jones

    All you people that agree with this post are a bunch of fake liberal morons, period.

    Wake up.

    Or better yet, keep taking your vaccine shots and drinking fluoridated water you f*cking idiots…..

    The Govt. loves you….. and oh yah, the check is in the mail too…..

  15. Damn, Some of these people are Whacko’s.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s