Wednesday, December 31, 2008

Permanent Top Post--Scroll Down for Newer Posts

(Note: The date on this post is intentional; it keeps this post pinned to the top. Thanks for asking!).

11/11/07 Update: Loose Change Final Cut has just been released and so we have not prepared a full debunking. Both James and I have many comments about the movie below and I started a thread over at JREF with some examples of mistakes in the film. Much of the rest of the information in this particular post concerns the earlier versions of Loose Change.

Because this blog is getting so much traffic from Google searches and referrals from various forums and Wikipedia, we decided to put one post up top to link to information our newest visitors are apparently looking for.

First, if you have not seen the film and want to watch it, be sure to watch Markyx's annotated version, which he very kindly named after this blog, Screw Loose Change. Markyx did a terrific job on this, and we strongly recommend watching this version rather than Dylan Avery's cut.

James has put together a list of major lies in Loose Change. Here's Part 1. Part 2. Part 3. Part 4.

I compiled three very easily refuted lies in the movie. I also showed three tricks and distortions that are used throughout the film.

A friend of the blog named Mark Roberts (aka Gravy at the JREF forums) compiled this amazing Viewer's Guide to Loose Change, (now HTML) which includes a complete transcript of the movie, pictures and links that refute many of the claims, and which highlights the changes between Version 1 and Version 2.

The hot new film in 9-11 Denial is called 9-11 Mysteries. One of our JREF buddies, The Doc, has put together a rebuttal video called (you guessed it!) Screw 9-11 Mysteries, and assembled a viewers' guide to 9-11 Mysteries.

Many 9-11 Deniers focus on the collapse of World Trade Center 7, which fell at 5:20 PM on September 11, almost seven hours after the North Tower. I have devoted a fair amount of research to the topic of WTC 7. If you want a really detailed analysis of WTC 7, I recommend Mark Robert's WTC 7 and the Lies of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

If you'd like to discuss the ideas about 9-11 you've encountered here or elsewhere, another friend of the blog started a Screw Loose Change Forum. It's a very lively place with lots of opinion back and forth between both sides. There's also a Screw Loose Change MySpace page, with some animated commentary. Of course, we also welcome comments on our posts.

If you're looking for detailed rebuttals of other aspects of 9-11 Denial, I heartily recommend 9-11 Myths, Debunking 9-11 and Internet Detectives.

Markyx has also put together a video (note: graphic images and strong language) called 9-11 Deniers Speak. If you think Dylan Avery and Jim Fetzer have any respect for the victims of 9-11, just watch this film. There are five parts. Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V.
There's also a Google Video which is all in one part.

This should be enough to get you started debunking Loose Change to your friends. We have a lot more content below this post.

Notes on unusual terms/abbreviations: Looser (not a misspelling of Loser)=Believer in Loose Change. CT=Conspiracy Theory, Conspiracy Theorist. Truther=9-11 Conspiracy Theorist (all Loosers are Truthers, not all Truthers are Loosers). OS=Official Story. CD= Controlled Demoliton. LIHOP: Let It Happen On Purpose; theory that the government knew the 9-11 attacks were coming but allowed them to happen to further other goals of theirs. MIHOP: Made It Happen On Purpose; theory that the government planned and orchestrated the attacks. Most Truthers are MIHOP.

Update: Comments closed on this post, which is intended solely as a pointer. Because Haloscan will not let us close comments on a particular post, be forewarned: Don't leave a comment in this post or it will be deleted.

Update II: Note on comments: We maintain open comments on this blog, and so you will see lots of posts from people dissenting with our viewpoint on 9-11. We trust our readers to separate the good arguments from the bad arguments and come to their own conclusions. Links that you see in the comments are of course not endorsed by either James or Pat, and you should approach any link in the comments (as you should approach any link from the blog) with a healthy degree of skepticism.

Labels: , ,

Sunday, May 25, 2008

Ideas for 9-11 Debunking Signs?

I'm going to the local fruitloop's starvation celebration tomorrow and I want to have some amusing signs. Ones that I've come up with:

"Fair Play for Al Qaeda Committee". Obviously stolen from Mark Roberts. On the back of that one I intend to have "9-11 Truthers: The Only Thing They Get Right Is the Date of the Attacks!"

Then, hitting on their penchant for "Google WTC 7", I'm planning "Google Evil Jewish Landlord Silverstein Jew". On the flip side, "Google Holocaust Deniers and 9-11 Truthers".

Any ideas? Short, punchy, funny is what I'm looking for.

The Ground Zeroes

(Lots of Profanity)



Been awhile since we've seen a long form video of what actually goes on at Ground Zero on a Saturday. Rosalee Grable holds court on the beam weapons, while a younger "Truther" talks about WTC 7 coming down in "freefall speed". Nico mentioned in the comments that at some point Paula Gloria shows up with a "Investigate Dan Wallace's Death" sign and gets some spittle from Sabrina Rivera for her efforts. I haven't hit that part yet.

Update: That part starts about 22 minutes in. It gets pretty good. For a woman who seems clearly deranged, the Web Fairy knows how to push the WAC-jobs' buttons. They should just ignore her. Rosalee shows the "Investigate Dan Wallace's Death" sign, but Paula gets hit by the spit.

LOL! At 31:25, one of the WAC-jobs comes up with the question we always ask the "Truthers", "Why don't you speak to a prosecutor? Why don't you get an attorney?"

Saturday, May 24, 2008

The Bird On Gadsby

Our longtime buddy Stephen Lemons has some thoughts on the 9-11 "Truth" Diet.

I for one hope that Gadsby is successful in his hunger strike. Nah, I don't want him to get any time with McCain. I want him to starve! And as he does so, I'd like to be there, noshing on some Chinese takeout. Plus if Gadsby keels over from lack of sustenance, maybe his students will get a replacement religion prof who has a PhD and is not a complete fruitcake. Hey, dare to dream, people.




As I've pointed out in the past, WTC 7 is a foolish focus for the "Truthers", because it takes too long a chain of an argument:

Truther: WTC 7 proves 9-11 was an inside job.
Debunker: How so?
Truther: Because it came down in a controlled demolition.
Debunker: So what? The fear that the building would collapse was impeding rescue efforts in the towers, so maybe they brought down the building.
Truther: No, it takes months to rig a building for controlled demolition.
Debunker: So they couldn't have done it? Is that what you're saying?
Truther: No, I'm saying that they did do it. They set it up months in advance.
Debunker: And nobody noticed this? But let's grant your point for a second. What's the big deal? Nobody died in WTC 7, so what does it matter?
Truther: But if WTC 7 was a controlled demolition, then the towers must have been controlled demolitions too!
Debunker: Okay, so what you're really trying to prove is that the towers were controlled demolitions, and the reason you know this is that another building was a controlled demolition? Why do the collapses of the two towers look nothing like the collapse of WTC 7?
Truther: Because they were a different kind of controlled demolition!

Labels: ,

Griffin's Five (More Or Less) Points on the Pentagon

DRG was on Air America with Richard Greene last week on the show Clout. No surprise, Griffin took no questions from anybody other than the host, who is very Truther-friendly, even though Ron Wieck was on the line from New York. Griffin made five (or so) points on the Pentagon. Again, not surprisingly, after Griffin hung up, Ron was allowed to rebut one of the points. So I thought I'd take a more detailed look at the claims that Griffin made and the real truth:

1. Was there any evidence that it was a 757 that hit the Pentagon? Griffin says that there are 152 people who claimed to have seen the attack, but only 31 of them give "explicit, detailed descriptions. Many of them describe something very different." Out of the 31, 24 either worked for the Federal Government or the mainstream media, and in 21 of them there were substantial errors and contradictions.

2. Griffin claims that there is no evidence that the remains of the passengers that were identified came from the Pentagon rather than added to the remains at the Pentagon.

3. (Griffin says that this is second). Is there evidence that it was not a 757? He claims there was no detectable seismic signal. Griffin adds the claim that there was a seismic signal from Shanksville. Griffin adds a subsidiary point, that there was a lack of debris suggesting that a plane was there.

4. (Griffin says thirdly). If they wanted to prove a 757 hit the Pentagon, they could just release the videos. Griffin makes the usual retarded claim that there were 85 videos and that the Justice Department says these are exempt from disclosure, and that the two (really four) that were released show nothing.

5. (Griffin says fourthly). Griffin says something about "the time changes" but goes on to say that "Almost always, the NTSB when they do a report on a crash, give the serial number for the flight data recorder. Griffin says, "There was another case where they could prove."

6. (Griffin bizarrely now says he's on a third general point). Griffin talks about the phone calls from Barbara Olson. He mentions that the Moussaoui trial evidence only presented one call from Mrs Olson and that it lasted zero seconds.

7. Hole in the C ring. Griffin says that Rumsfeld claimed that the nose of the plane had gone all the way through the C ring and was still there, but that now everybody has disowned that claim.

8. (Griffin says fourth general point). Hani Hanjour couldn't fly, and "Everybody agrees that would have taken an expert pilot."

9. Wedge 1 would have been the least likely spot for a terrorist to attack because a) it's not where Rumsfeld and the top brass had their offices, b) it would have been physically impossible to hit because of obstacles.

10. (Griffin now thinks he's on his fifth point). The Pentagon should have been evacuated. Griffin now takes us to the next level on Mineta, that this indicates foreknowledge of the coming Pentagon attack and that because Mineta's testimony reveals Cheney knew of a plane that was 50 miles out, that the Pentagon should have been evacuated.

11. E-4B was flying over the White House at the time of the Pentagon strike.

Griffin hops off the phone, having now taken up 15 straight minutes with his blather. Ron Wieck is given one minute to respond and the host specifies, "one thing".

Ron does a good job talking about the numerous bits of debris from a 757 that were in fact found at the Pentagon.

But I think tactically he should have gone for the nuclear option, which is to use the "Argument from Increduly" (sic) as Craig Ranke put it a few days ago.

The argument from incredulity here is to quite simply point out that almost all Truthers agree that planes hit the World Trade Center. So, assuming for the moment that the government was indeed behind the attacks, as Professor Griffin clearly does (he often uses the movement's catchphrase "9-11 was an inside job") why would they have used planes at the WTC and not at the Pentagon? The answer of course is that there is no good reason, not with many busy freeways surrounding the Pentagon where somebody might see something else. So why do "Truthers" focus on this? Because they start with the assumption that the government was behind it, and inevitably factions form around each individual incident. Therefore, even though the idea is quite ridiculous to many in the "Truth" movement there is still a subset of Troofers that believes that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon.

It's unsatisfying but rather than tackling one of 11 points, you've swatted the whole thing away.

Now, let's do what Greene did not allow Ron to do and answer all them:

1. No matter how you slice and dice the testimony of the witnesses there are still some left who quite plainly saw a large Boeing hit the Pentagon. According to the claims made by Griffin, seven witnesses with explicit, detailed descriptions did not work for the government or mainstream media. Ten witnesses who gave explicit, detailed descriptions did not make errors or contradictions.

2. This is of course an irrefutable point on the part of Griffin. None of us saw the body parts being tagged, rode along in the vehicle that brought them to the laboratory and saw the actual DNA testing being done and confirmed to our own satisfaction that the DNA matched what was being claimed. By this standard I do not know that the Earth rotates around the Sun, either, or that Queen Elizabeth isn't secretly a shape-shifting lizard.

3. On the seismic argument, Griffin has a point. The seismic reports do not show a signal for the Pentagon, but do for the plane in Shanksville (and for the World Trade Center). However, when you think about this for a moment, it becomes pretty obvious why that would happen. First, the Shanksville plane hit directly into the earth; the angle was not perpendicular but it was very steep. Of course that is going to result in something of a seismic event. Second, the WTC Towers were both anchored to bedrock because of their size and location. They were hit relatively high up, meaning that they would sway more than if hit lower, with all that movement eventually transferred to the ground. They also were fairly close (about 20 miles) to an earthquake observatory. Now consider the Pentagon by contrast. Although immense in size, it is actually a fairly small building in terms of height, with only five stories. Hence, while it certainly has footings and foundations, these do not extend deep into the earth, so the energy of an impact, especially an impact parallel to the ground, would only be transferred to the earth very inefficiently. The nearest observatory to the Pentagon was 39 miles away. Now, I won't deceive you, the nearest observatory to Shanksville was 57 miles. But again, all the energy of the crash at Shanksville was absorbed by the ground, whereas much of the energy of the crash at the Pentagon was dissipated by the building itself and not the ground.

Ron covered the issue of the actual debris rather well, but I would add that David Ray Griffin was the fact-checker for Loose Change Final Cut, which showed in quite interesting detail a large amount of evidence of a plane at the Pentagon. If he really believes there wasn't a lot of evidence of a plane, shouldn't he have corrected that film?

4. At least four videos have been released; the two fisheye camera shots from near the guard shack which are the only ones that show anything, the Doubletree Hotel video and the Citgo video. The 85 videos are just another example of how silly the Truthers are. Do they really imagine that there 85 cameras trained on anyplace in the world? Paris Hilton's butt doesn't have 85 cameras focused on it.

In all probability, Judicial Watch filed an overly broad FOIA request, asking for any videos pertaining to 9-11, the FBI said, that's too broad, we have 85 possible videos, what do you really want, and Judicial Watch said, okay, give us what you've got showing the Pentagon strike. At that point the fisheye videos from the guardshack comes out, which are the only videos that show anything, come out. JW goes back for the known cameras: the Doubletree and the Citgo. The idea that there's any more significant video of that attack is a myth.

5. Another goofy Sacred List argument! I'm going to argue from incredulity here: Does Dr Griffin really mean that if only the government had included the serial number from the black box that he'd accept that Flight 77 indeed crashed into the Pentagon? Of course not, so it's silly for him to claim otherwise.

6. Imagine the stupidity of this argument. The government, while framing Moussaoui for the terrorist attacks he did not have any knowledge of (according to the "Truthers") the FBI supposedly refused to lie about the Barbara Olson phone calls in that same trial. And in fact, as we have gotten tired of pointing out, there are four unattributed phone calls from Flight 77 in the Moussaoui trial evidence, two of which are almost certainly the two connected Barbara Olson phone calls.

7. I dunno, did Rummy really claim the nose went through? This is silly.

8. Although Hanjour was refused a rental airplane at Freeway Airport (as highlighted in Loose Change), he did manage to rent a small plane elsewhere and fly down to Maryland, so the notion that Griffin tries to sell, that Hanjour could not fly at all is obviously wrong. In fact Hanjour had been a pilot for longer than any of the other hijackers. And the idea that Hanjour's flight required some extraordinary skill is silly; a Dutch TV program gave a guy two hours training in a simulator (far less than Hanjour had), and he hit the Pentagon three times straight.

9. The hijackers were smart and organized. They knew they had to execute their attacks rapidly before the US had time to respond. The side of the Pentagon that the hijackers hit was the closest side to where they were coming from. They did not go past the Pentagon and then turn around; it is not hard to imagine why. I don't know why they think the Pentagon was unhittable from that side, and if Rob Balsamo is giving the explanation I'm not sure it's worth the effort.

10. Griffin is (as usual) wrong. We know from the Vanity Fair tapes when NEADS found out about each hijacked plane on 9-11 and the answer in the case of Flight 77 was about 3 minutes before it collided with the Pentagon. In order for that plane to have been 50 miles out and there to have been that short a warning, the plane would have had to have been flying at about 1000 miles per hour.

11. This is that White Plane that the Troofers obsess about. Again, read the Vanity Fair tapes story and you'll realize that even if an E-4B was in the skies over DC that day, that it could not have prevented the attack on the Pentagon.

Friday, May 23, 2008

Moron the Local Fruitcakes



Sounds like Blair is another crazy Canuck, just like Jeff Hill. I'll be down there on Monday, but you know the irony of the situation is that McCain's office will certainly be closed on Memorial Day, which may not have occurred to these clowns. I'm not going to do the barbecue idea, but I'll certainly enjoy a sub sandwich in Blair's honor.

A Note to Troy and Walter

Knock it off. I don't care what dirt you guys think you can dig up on each other; it has nothing to do with the focus of this blog. Troy does seem to be getting a little close to the edge of harassment with his phone calls, but if he goes over the line I'm sure he'll hear about it.

Walter says in one post:

I was also promised a video statement from 15 year-old [name deleted] about Troy’s call to his house and what exactly happened between Troy, the boy and his parents.


First, let's not mention the names of minors on this blog. Second, assuming Walter does get that video statement, what exactly will it prove? That a 15-year-old accuses Troy of harassment. We're all skeptics on this bus; accusations are not evidence, or Bush, Cheney, James and I would be up on Kevin Barrett's oft-fantasized scaffold. Take your claims and counterclaims elsewhere; I'm not going to referee this fight, and if I see further arguments between you two I'm going to start banning IP addresses.

Kevin Barrett, Promise Keeper

I have to chuckle at the opening paragraph of this screed from the Hangman:

I have decided to go ahead and post my recent email correspondence with Noam Chomsky, without his permission, and against his wishes, despite his claim that by doing so I am violating his privacy, and despite my earlier statement to him that I would respect his privacy.


Well, so much for that pledge. The best thing about this exchange is that it takes place on his campaign website. I can't think of another time that a political candidate has broken a promise and then highlighted his reneging on his own website.

You can skim through the emails. It starts out very friendly, with Barrett rhapsodizing on the twittering of the birds and the smell of the melted earth, but it isn't long before Chomsky realizes he's dealing with a lunatic. It's hard to pick a favorite bit, but I had to chortle at this claim from Barrett:

I have respected your wishes for confidentiality thus far, and am taking a lot of flak for it.


Chomsky reaches the obvious conclusion:

If you have indeed kept confidentiality of correspondence, then no one but you or me knows anything whatsover about what you allege (wrongly) to be a false claim. So there is no one who can even know that there is anything to judge. We therefore are left with the following: either you violated confidence and circulated private correspondence, contrary to what you now claim; or this letter is simply a pretext for breaking confidentiality.

Labels: ,

Dylan Avery: The All-Seeing Eye


We always knew Do-Over had delusions of grandeur but this is a bit much:

Also, Jason and Korey have been hard at work on Fabled Enemies. Obviously I'm only involved from an omniscient standpoint, but from what I've seen earlier this morning, it's shaping up to be a decent production.


I'm baffled by what he meant by omniscient. And how about calling his best friends' movie a "decent" production? Et tu, Dylan?

Dylan's doing some sort of online TV gig with Abby of the San Diego Troothers. Here they are in San Francisco at a really pathetic-looking rally:



Abby's talking about how organic the movement is and Dylan's twirling the sign; seems like one of them knows it's over.

Here's the video for their joint project, which looks quite a bit like public access TV but not actually on TV:



They got Bill O'Reilly freaking out! I'm absolutely amazed, here I thought he was this mellow guy. The next thing you know, they'll have that peacenik Kevin Barrett fantasizing about hanging people! Or, amazing as it sounds, Alex Jones sounding like he might be a bit mentally imbalanced.

Labels:

Thursday, May 22, 2008

John Feal On the Truthers



I'm liking this guy more and more. Served his country in the military and on the pile after 9-11, donated a kidney to a stranger, and has started up a charity for the first responders. What's not to like? As I said back in August, the man's a certified hero.

Kudos to Troy for pointing this out.

Labels: ,

No One Can Convince Me...

That Jon Gold doesn't believe in "Protecting and rewarding those who may have been involved in the attacks", and "That trying to hold those accountable for possible criminality is the wrong thing to do".



Here he posts (without comment but clearly approvingly) an article about how terribly hard it is going to be for their lawyers to defend (i.e., protect) KSM and Binalshibh at their trials. Jon Gold does not want them to be held accountable for possible criminality.

Here he post a Newsweek article which bemoans the treatment KSM received:

But the CIA admits Mohammed was waterboarded, rendering his confession unreliable and any conviction a sham.


Even though that treatment prevented several terrorist attacks and captured those responsible for earlier attacks:

KSM's revelations helped authorities arrest at least six major terrorists:

* Ohio-based trucker Iyman Faris pleaded guilty May 1, 2003, to providing material support to terrorists. He secured 2,000 sleeping bags for al Qaeda and delivered cash, cell phones and airline tickets to its men. He also conspired to derail a train near Washington, D.C., and use acetylene torches to sever the Brooklyn Bridge's cables, plunging it into the East River.

* Jemaah Islamiya (JI) agent Rusman "Gun Gun" Gunawan was convicted of transferring money to bomb Jakarta's Marriott Hotel, killing 12 and injuring 150.

* Hambali, Gunawan's brother and ring-leader of JI's October 2002 Bali nightclub blasts, killed 202 and wounded 209.


And Apparently Gold (and Newsweek have forgotten that KSM admitted his involvement in 9-11 well before any waterboarding incident.

"I am the head of the al Qaeda military committee," he told Al Jazeera in April 2002. "And yes, we did it." KSM wired money to his nephew, Ramzi Yousef, who masterminded the February 1993 World Trade Center blast that killed six and wounded 1,040. KSM and Yousef planned Operation Bojinka, a foiled 1995 scheme to explode 12 American jetliners above the Pacific. While some doubt his claim, KSM reportedly said, "I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew Daniel Pearl in the City of Karachi, Pakistan."


Jon Gold loves to hide behind the family members, but he wants to free those guilty of the attacks against their loved ones.

Paranoids Team up With Communist One Worlders

The World Prout Assembly is holding a conference, starting today called the "Building a New World" Conference. Their political views are apparent from this statement on their home page:

PROUT stands for PROgressive UTilization Theory. It means, the progressive utilization and rational distribution of all the earth's natural resources. PROUT advocates another type of revolution called "nuclear revolution." In nuclear revolution, every aspect of collective life - social, economic, political, cultural, psychic and spiritual - is completely transformed. New moral and spiritual values arise in society which provide the impetus for accelerated social progress. The old era is replaced by a new era - one collective psychology is replaced by another. This type of revolution results in all-round development and social progress.


OK, so we have this weird, new-age, collectivist socialist organization. Kind of strange, but they got some second rate truthers to show up.

4:00 pm – 5:45 pm
9/11 TRUTH
Cook 107

Keynote: William Woodward

Moderator: Meria Heller

Panelists: Steve Alten, Jesse Johnson, Jim Fetzer

Where is Alex Jones amidst all this? Fight the New World Order!

Troofer Wars

I was reading the blog Arabesque, amused by the internal politics of the paranoid. First the author attacks Kevin Barrett:

Kevin Barrett is a prominent 9/11 activist. While he has significantly contributed awareness for the 9/11 truth movement, he has also damaged its credibility with damaging associations, discrediting theories, and controversial statements.

Can't argue with that much. Then the author posts an attack from the CIT guys in the form of a photo, of whom he is quite critical:

"Arabesque, I found a photo of you at a 9/11 conference... Oh yeah...by the way[...] the plane approached on the north side of the Citgo."

Then somehow we are thrown into the fray:

Personal attacks are a diversion and distraction similarly exploited by FOX propaganda specialists like Bill O'Reilly and Michelle Malkin. Likewise, the 9/11 truth "debunker" site "Screw Loose Change" strongly emphasizes personal attacks against 9/11 truth advocates instead of debate.

Which is pretty ironic since I just proposed a debate with David Ray Griffin, only to receive a string of insults from Kevin Barrett.

Labels: , ,

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Alex Jones Unhinged

Crazy people can be entertaining. I swear, he considers himself some sort of low grade superhero, channeling a professional wrestler.


Labels:

Less Than Zero

The Troofers have a new film coming out called Zero. I believe (but am not sure) that it has already been released in Italian (the original language of the filmmakers), but that the English version is not available yet. There is a video of the first fifteen minutes.

The filmmakers choose an especially grisly opening; the 911 phone call of a woman on the 83rd floor of one of the towers, who is obviously about to die. We've talked about 9-11 videos being porno for paranoids; this one starts out like a snuff film.

The first bit of "evidence" is that old favorite of Troofers, "Osama ain't wanted for 9-11." This is the Sacred List BS that we have talked about ad infinitum. Elements at the very top level of the US government were involved in 9-11, and yet they can't change the freaking Wanted Poster? What do they think is going on? Is there a rogue band of "Truthers" in the FBI who just happen to control what goes on the Wanted Posters, and they're sending this signal to their allies in the 9-11 Goofball community?

In fact, of course, the FBI's Most Wanted Posters list people and the crimes for which they have been indicted or convicted. The FBI already has plenty of indictments to arrest Osama, and thus there is no current need to indict or convict in absentia Osama bin Laden for his crimes on 9-11. In the unlikely event he is captured while living, there will be plenty of new charges added to his rap sheet.

And of course the Troofer idiots always miss that KSM and four other 9-11 plotters are in fact about to go on trial for their part in the crime. How come the FBI isn't raising a stink about that? The FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9-11, but they do have hard evidence on KSM, Bin-al-shibh and the others?

They present the story of two of the few men to make it down out of the South Tower above the impact zone; Stanley Prainmath and Brian Clark. As best I can figure, the reason for including this is so that they can mention the ominous fact that there was an announcement in the South Tower that there was no need to evacuate that building (after the first plane had hit but before the second).

Then we get Nobel Prize Winner Dario Fo explaining that the WTC was constructed to take the impact of a plane. And of course I'm thinking, wow, a Nobel Prize winner! But it turns out he's a playwright and his Nobel Prize was in Literature. He sounds PC to the max:

Following the performance of Dario Fo's anti-Iraq war play 'Peace Mom' featuring Frances de la Tour as mother Cindy Sheehan, United Kingdom theatre has seen a revival of political satire in the form of farce (particularly in the Edinburgh Festival). This farce generally aims to alert all social classes to political oppression and exploitation rather than specifically targeting the working classes.


So, okay, they got a lefty playwright to explain structural engineering to us. But he sure looks impressive standing in front of a couple of blueprints.

They show some quotes, like this one from Frank De Martini:



That's not even a quote mine; that's a quote creation, taken rather loosely from here:



So our first outright lie comes about 6:40 into the film. That's actually pretty good by Troofer standards, usually there's been several by that point.

Steven Jones compares the buildings to "a (sic) tree". He claims that the fibers in a tree can handle that motion. I'm thinking maybe we're about to get the Keebler Elves comparison, but no such luck. We get the collapse of the South Tower, then some more snuff bits of the jumpers. Then the North Tower collapses. But it's amateur hour. After correctly showing the initiation of the North Tower collapse, they cut to a street-level scene of the South Tower collapse.



See that big building at the left? It's the North Tower. DOH! At this point I'm thinking maybe I should hire myself out as a fact-checker for these crappy films.

Next we get a quote from Morgan "One-Planer" Reynolds. Heheh! I'm starting to enjoy this and according to a review posted earlier on 9-11 Blogger by Reprehensor, there's more entertainment to come, with Munchkin Barbara Honegger and the man who walks through walls (unsuccessfully), Maj. Gen. Albert Stubblebine.

Next we get the lefty playwright in front of the blueprints again. What, they couldn't afford Richard Gage? Then they show once again, the phony quote from De Martini.

Then Urantia and 9-11 Nut Les Jamieson gets his moment in the spotlight, to tell us never before... steel frame... yadda yadda. The lefty playwright talks about the Windsor Towers. As usual, they show the collapsed steel portion of the skyscraper and marvel that it did not collapse completely. He points out that it was still under construction (not noticing that means it had a much lighter load than an occupied building would have, with all the furniture, filing cabinets, computers, people, etc). He sure looks jovial while telling us this, with a big grin on his face.

Jones tells us that the fires in the WTC were oxygen-starved. I am so sick of that claim:



Does that fire look like it's having difficulty breathing to you? And at this point they zoom in on the lefty playwright and we can actually see those "blueprints" he's been standing in front of:



And it's somebody's crayon drawing of the Towers? Wow, it's easy to see where they spent the $1.5 million budget that is reported for this crockumentary! Throughout this part, Fo is smiling and jovial, like some old man telling a silly joke to his three-year-old grandson. Weird.

Then he claims there's some mystery about how anybody got down from the South Tower above the impact zone (Prainmath and Clark are two of the very few). Of course it is well known that one stairwell in the South Tower was clear because of the off-center hit by Flight 175. The purpose of that segment of the film seems to be so that Clark can mention that the fire wasn't very strong at the 78th floor (he helpfully suggests "oxygen-starved") and that the building was quite normal from the 74th floor down. All I can figure is they're trying to claim that because it was cool on the 74th floor, the fire could not have been very hot.

As further evidence they show poor Edna Cintron standing in the entrance hole of the North Tower, once again ignoring the fact that where she was standing was the spot farthest away from the fires. So far we've heard the voice of one doomed women, seen three jumpers and now doomed Edna. Beyond the errors and phony quotes, this is the most disturbing aspect of the film. I have a hunch we're going to see the body parts photos from the Pentagon before it's over. That's where the opening segment leaves off.

The film is already on some of the BitTorrent sites so I may watch the rest of it for Honegger and Stubblebine, easily two of the zaniest characters in Kookdom. It also features Gore Vidal, which means I can't resist posting Bill Buckley's smackdown of him at the 1968 DNC:



It's another craptacular production from the 9-11 Troof Movement, who've made more lousy movies than Uwe Boll. Negative One Stars.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Richard Gage and Troofer Logic

The main reason I am interested in conspiracy theorists, is not for the subjects they discuss, personally I could go for the rest of my life without having to hear about Marvin Bush being the head of WTC security, but that I was interested in how they come up with their conclusions. Yes, some are just insane, people who look in the clouds and see secret messages, but others just follow certain irrational ways of looking at things. They take certain facts which are at least partially based in reality, mutate them a bit, tie them together with some stretched logic, and proudly proclaim a completely false conclusion.

The latest example of this is Richard Gage on Kevin Barrett's radio show Tuesday night. Barrett actually asked me to be on over the weekend, but I refused and was replaced by someone much more entertaining, if not exactly equal in logical thought.

Anyway, about half way through the first hour Gage argues:


But back to this molten metal found, not only at the base of building 7, but the twin towers, tons of it, seen by the first responders and the demolition workers, flowing like lava, they say.


There is only one person who made the lava comparison, but they did not say "tons of it" Gage, added that part.




And afterwards, months afterwards, it took months to cool, they would bring up these multi-ton chunks of this previously molten substance which turned out to be iron, its not even structural steel, because it doesn't have chromium in it and it has manganese, it has fluorine.




Here is he merging two claims. First, the "chunks" which are on display in an aircraft hanger along with other debris recovered from ground zero. It is not a "previously molten substance" though but compressed concrete and other debris. The testing for chromium is probably referring to a separate claim that Steven Jones made about the dust he collected from New York. Jones certainly did not test this chunk of concrete, in fact he commented to me in an e-mail that he still needed to in order to figure out what it was.














Gage continues after a break for commercials:



Barrett: Now you said it was molten iron, not molten steel. What explains that?

Gage: Exactly there is no explanation for molten iron in any of the official accounts of the story.


I'll skip ahead for a minute, past where he quotes from that mighty
scientific source, Wikipedia...



So what produced all this molten metal and this incredible heat that sent pyroclastic dust clouds down the street at 35 MPH in every direction, away from building 7.

It was a volcano!


Gage: Well, it turns out, in the previously molten metal chunks, Dr. Steven Jones, this physicist, formerly from Brigham Young University, finds the chemical evidence... including iron mostly, and aluminum, manganese, flourine, potassium, and sulfur. These form the chemical ingredients of the classic signature of thermite. A high tech incendiary used to cut through steel like a hot knife through butter. This is the smoking gun of building 7, which is the smoking gun of 9/11.


Except Jones did not test these concrete chunks. He claims he tested other debris, and Gage is just running the two claims together. This could not be the "smoking gun of building 7" even if it were true, because the chunks were from the towers, not building 7.

Labels: ,

Can These People Get Anything Right?

Richard Greene, the Air America host who is promoting the truth movement on his show, posts this short bit bragging about the reach of his show:

We have fans in Oregon! George Rede, Sunday Opinion Editor for The Oregonian, Portland, OR's largest daily, gave Clout! a nice mention in his recent piece, "Seeking Out the Truth."

Just one problem, if you actually read the blog piece all the way to the end, you see the tagline:

-- Niranjan Ramakrishnan


Boy, must be all those critical thinking skills at work there.

Labels:

9/11 Conspirator Trials Tidbit

An editorial in the Wall Street Journal today drew my attention to a part of this court case that I didn't realize before.

Meanwhile, the press has distorted another recent Guantanamo decision. Susan Crawford, the former civilian judge who is supervising the military tribunals, dismissed the capital charges last week against one of the six al Qaeda 9/11 conspirators. Mohammed al-Qahtani was allegedly going to be the 20th
hijacker on 9/11 had he been admitted to the U.S. He was captured in late 2001.

Echoing defense attorneys, the press is calling Judge Crawford's decision a setback for the tribunals and is reporting the now-routine claim he was tortured under interrogation. But those attorneys haven't seen Judge Crawford's ruling, which is under seal. We're told the judge separated al-Qahtani on grounds that he was less central to the conspiracy than were the likes of KSM, and that being tried with the five others might have prejudiced the death-penalty case against him. In other words, her ruling shows how independent Judge Crawford and the tribunals are from Pentagon pressure.


You mean the judge can dismiss charges if they don't believe the case is strong enough? What kind of a show trial are we running here?

Labels:

You Can't Parody This Stuff

A "Truther" comes up with a new theory about Satam al Suqami's passport:

The Ingenious Whistleblower Theory

Somebody involved at some level is watching 9/11 unfold. She has realized that the safety drills and military exercises scheduled for 9/11 will be used to facilitate the WTC and Pentagon attacks. She recognizes the coming events for what they are: an American coup d’etat.

Instead of blowing the whistle and surely being silenced by those who also control the Main Stream Media, she comes up with a better idea: she will plant the most implausible and absurd piece of 9/11 evidence possible.

This evidence is unexpected and unrecognized at first, so it will initially get covered by the media before it can be censored. The magic passport will, by its very existence, denote planted evidence. And because planted evidence of such a nature requires preparation, it will be a beacon of proof to any American who can put two and two together that there was foreknowledge of the events that occurred on that horrible day.


Because she knew that one of the passengers on the plane was named Satam al-Suqami, and she just happened to have a passport in that name.

Labels: ,

She's Baaa--aack!

Judy Wood checks in with a page on ties between a hurricane and 9-11.

The development of “supercell” storms is examined and a comparison of their structure to that of a Tesla Coil is considered. It is therefore suggested that the electrical properties of large storm systems may have some similarities to Tesla coils and there is a possibility that technology exists to utilise or manipulate the energy in these storm systems for “secondary” purposes.


Countdown to "Truthers" saying we should concentrate solely on the sane members of their little club....

Labels:

I Take it That is a 'No'

Well I got a response from Kevin Barrett, but all I really found out is that he is nutty as a fruitcake and truthers still do not understandt he meaning of the term "ad hominem", which admittedly is not much of a revelation:

Here's my take.

Kevin
On May 19, 2008, at 12:41 PM, Kevin Barrett wrote:

These rude, no-credentials, ad-hominem-spewing people seem to have a very high opinion of themselves. Though I guess Mark "I may know more about 9/11 than anyone else in the world" Roberts apparently does have a tour guide license.

"I demand that Griffin and only Griffin show up at X time for Y format blah blah blah."

Sheesh!! If these are the best people the other side can muster, I rest my case.
Kevin


When I pointed out that we had demanded nothing, merely made a proposal, he continued:

James,
Since ad hominem is the only language you folks undertand, I'll serve you straight up.

Griffin's Ph.D. involves advanced training in critical thinking. You guys need potty training first, and then a whole lot of academic training second. You wouldn't know critical thinking if it took a bite out of your malodorous buttocks.

Find us somebody with a Ph.D and 30 published books - heck, even 20 - and David will debate him. Find an accomplished pilot who isn't too big a coward to use his real name and Rob will debate him. Find me ANYBODY who isn't a no-show coward like you - they don't need to have four advanced degrees like I do, I'll settle for a pompous hack with a tour guide license - and I'll happily stoop to debate them on my shows.

Otherwise, bugger off and get a life.


Ahh yes, being told to get a life from a failed college professor who dresses up in a Guy Fawkes mask and stands on street corners. And now we have apparently established that the untimate credential for studying the events of 9/11, is a theology PhD. Explain that one.

Labels: ,