(
« Lapses in Light | Main | Google Offers Free In-Home Wireless! »
Rosie the Physicist
By Matt Jones | March 30, 2007
I wasn’t going to post about this, but then Instapundit made me change my mind. Earlier today I read the HotAir post: Rosie Melts Down on the View. In there is this clip of The View which, among other things, shows that Rosie O’Donnell is a Truther (shocking I know).
Before I go on, let me say this: anyone who believes in any of the conspiracy theories regarding the September 11th attacks is extremely ignorant. I am quite tempted to say they are idiots… but I will stay with the more pc “ignorant.” A long while back Popular Mechanics wrote an amazing piece: Debunking The 9/11 Myths (which eventually became a more complete book of the same name). If any part of you believes any of the nonsense, go read that article.
Back to Rosie. Here is what she claims in her rant on The View:
I do believe that it’s the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel. I do believe that it defies physics that World Trade Center tower 7—building 7, which collapsed in on itself—it is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved. World Trade Center 7. World Trade [Center] 1 and 2 got hit by planes—7, miraculously, the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible.
She makes numerous other idiotic statements, this is just one. She also challenges any physicist to come on and tell her something different. I REALLY hope someone takes her up on that offer. Until then, the fine folks at Popular Mechanics have offered up Rosie O’Donnell 9/11 Conspiracy Comments: Popular Mechanics Responds. There they shut her down. Read the full thing, but here is a brief quote:
Towers 1 and 7 were approximately 300 ft. apart, and pictures like the ones here and here offer a clear visual of how small that distance is for structures that large. After further studies, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) told PM that debris from the 110-floor North Tower hit WTC7 with the force of a volcanic eruption. Nearly a quarter of the building was carved away over the bottom 10 stories on its south face, and significant damage was visible up to the 18th floor (see p. 24 of this report).
And that is just one one piece that opposes Rosie, there is much more. Think it will shut her up? Doubtful. So sad.
I’ll have to say, as frustrated as I got watching the clip (and it is EXTREMELY frustrating) I laughed quite a bit when Rosie made the ironic comment in reference to the mainstream media: “In America we are fed propaganda.” That made me laugh. Was she listening to her own rant?
As a PS, check out the lovely hypocrisy of Travolta. “Do as I say, not as I do!” Again, shocking, I know.
UPDATE I: Rosie completely misses the point of everyone making a big deal of her truther comments.
If the very act of asking is so destabilizing for people, than I have to wonder whether the fabric of our democracy is indeed so raveled it is beyond salvage.
Oh, please! It isn’t the fact that you question things, it is the fact that you ignore the reality of situations and choose to believe things that make no sense at all. I think her mind is “indeed so raveled it is beyond salvage.”
UPDATE II: Wait, she actually was wrong, who knew? Oh right, most intelligent people did.
Topics: Science, Social Commentary |
March 30th, 2007 at 10:13 pm
wHAT EVER DUDE
March 30th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
Nice addition!
March 30th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
1/4 OF THE BUILDING REALLY NICE TRY GUY REALLY NICE TRY. oK THEN PROVE IT: WHERES THE PROVE AND WHAT ABOUT CLEAN DROP TO EARTH ALL FOUR CORNERS LEVEL AS IT ” bUILING” FELL. yOUR A SMART GUY…lOOK INTO THE CREATORS OF THAT ARTICLE FOR p.m.
dON’T BE kEEPER
sEMPER fI
March 30th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
Stop typing like a 12 year old.
See here is the thing, the guys at PM have actually studied this quite in depth. Conspiracy theorists like to talk big but never actually have anything to support their claims.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Well how does a building fall: Symmetrically? Oh Hey…With a 1/4 chunk pulled out of it?
March 30th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
When a building is designed like that one, it does. Try this: set up a book on four posts that aren’t right at the edges. If you can pull them out fast enough the book will collapse relatively level. It’s like pulling the table cloth out from under your dinnerwear. It isn’t that complicated.
March 30th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
March 30th, 2007 at 11:39 pm
Really move on. Conspiracy nonsense just tires me because conspirators don’t really want to listen and just keep pounding away with the same old stuff.
[Ed. Note: the large majority of this conversation has been deleted because it was pointless and annoying…]
March 30th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
bwhwahahaha!! Good one.
Popular Mechanics doesn’t ADMIT that days later firefighters were using the word “pull” as a demolition term on surrounding buildings but magically when Silverstein says they “pulled” WTC 7 it somehow meant nothing of the sort. Rightttt!
They don’t explain why parts of the steel beams were “EVAPORATED”. That’s NY Times, by the way.
They don’t explain why the first part to go was the central column.
They don’t explain why there were THERMAL HOT SPOTS showing unbelievably high temperatures underneath all three buildings DAYS and DAYS after the event.
They don’t explain why firefighters were reporting MOLTEN STEEL “pouring down the channel rails like a volcano”. Regular fire doesn’t do that, Honey.
They don’t explain why The BBC reported the building collapsed 25 minutes before it fell. How did they know it was going to fall accidentally?
They don’t explain why firefighters said the words “BLOW UP” regarding WTC 7.
And on and on and on….
A NEW thorough 9/11 INVESTIGATION would put all this to rest.
http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechanics-Defenders-Conspiracy/dp/156656686X
March 30th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
I think it is funny that people are doing Rosie O’Donnell Google BlogSearches to defend her against all us evil conspiracy deniers (that is how Anon got here).
March 31st, 2007 at 12:17 am
So, are you gonna address the points raised or divert?
March 31st, 2007 at 12:19 am
Neither. I don’t really care to have an argument about what people said. I am going to stick with the science and the facts.
March 31st, 2007 at 12:34 am
Matt, you’re probably a great guy and mean well but you just haven’t done any research on this outside of the cherry picking analysis performed by Popular Mechanics which is a Hearst owned publication. Are you familiar with the term “Yellow Journalism”? Google the words.
They don’t address the points I raised b/c they can’t. It would be an admission. Firefighters are the TV saying these things while they’re on the site. If was a single thing that was strange about this then it would definetely be considered a coincidence. But after a while when you’ve got thing after thing it starts to smell rotten. Especially when the Commission Report won’t even acknowledge critical aspects and ESPECIALLY interesting that Commission Chairman Kean ADMITTED that the commission was lied to so badly that they were considering turning the investigation over to the Justice Department.
Look at this when you get the time. It deals with nothing but the buildings themselves.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003
March 31st, 2007 at 12:42 am
I have read more than just the PM. I think it is funny that whenever a journal or report goes against when someone says they are automatically labeled and “yellow jounralism.”
The majority of the points raised are what people were saying… most often in the middle of an extremely traumatic event. At that stage they aren’t going to be the most reliable sources… nor are they experts… structural engineers… physicists… what have you. They are common people in a sucky situation.
Sure not everything lines up perfectly. Welcome to the world of forensic science… not exactly as clean cut as CSI. People are fallible and will make mistakes so there will always be the possibility of conflicting reports. That is life.
I am going to side with the science. (Yes I understand that those who do the science can also make mistakes.) The abundant evidence just does not support the conspiracies.
March 31st, 2007 at 12:50 am
Demolition experts using the word “pull” to bring down buildings at Ground Zero are the same words the owner used on tv. That’s scientific language. “They gave the order to pull it and we watched the building come down.”
This isn’t panicked people saying those words. This is days later.
There hasn’t been a real “forensic investigation” or they would’ve found traces of THERMITE on the beams that independent metalergists are finding. That’s science that Popular Mechanics are ignoring right there. It’s not heresay. Many experts have confirmed this thermite data.
You just haven’t looked at all the data. See the clip I posted above.
March 31st, 2007 at 12:56 am
So you think days later isn’t traumatic any more?
There are too many experts out there that don’t buy the conspiracies, I am not too worried about it.
March 31st, 2007 at 1:06 am
So, you’re not gonna see what I posted? You’re gonna post stories on your blog about a subject you only know one side about?
March 31st, 2007 at 1:10 am
No, you don’t understand. This is normal workers on their walkie-talkies giving commands back and forth to demolish ramaining buildings, such as WTC 6. Saying “We’re getting ready to PULL building 6.” The point I’m making is that PULL is a demolition term despite what P.Mechanics says. They are outright lying about that.
March 31st, 2007 at 1:11 am
Yep, that’s exactly it.
Look, here is the deal. I have looked into this and I don’t find the evidence for the conspiracy theories compelling or convincing. I don’t deny that there have been oddities in the case, but I haven’t found them compelling.
If you feel like you need to spend time trying to convince people that there has been some huge cover up, that is your prerogative, but from everything that I have seen, it just isn’t worth it.
March 31st, 2007 at 1:12 am
I don’t care how “pull” is used. Even if it has been used in reference to WTC7 on the day of, so what? How does that mean that it must have been demolished? That is just silly logic.
March 31st, 2007 at 1:17 am
From everything which you have seen, right. But you haven’t seen much. LOL
I know you don’t care b/c, again, you haven’t done any real research yourself. You’re just taking P.Mechanics word when they’re ommitting so much data.
March 31st, 2007 at 1:18 am
How do you know what I have researched? How do you know what I have looked at? Just because I am only link PM here doesn’t mean I have thought about this in other contexts. I actually do have a degree in physics and know how science works.
March 31st, 2007 at 1:22 am
Then you should be willing to view all the data even more.
March 31st, 2007 at 1:23 am
I have seen quite enough.
[Ed. Note: Once again, the conversation degraded into less “fruitful” comments so I have chosen to delete them. Yes, it is a form of censorship, it is my prerogative. If they have been germane to the conversation, I would have left them.]
March 31st, 2007 at 7:51 am
Matt, you’re doing a good job keeping reality reality. What you are doing is looking at science and the facts to come up with your opinion of what happened while Anonymous and Rosie look at 911 through the prism of their political agenda which is Anti-America, Anti-Bush. While your 911 position is not a pro-Bush position, their 911 position is an anti-Bush position as crazy as that is.
Logic, facts, and common sense are wasted on the foolish. It wouldn’t matter if the world trade center had full surveillance 360 degrees inside and out to prove what your saying happened. These fools will not believe it because it doesn’t fit the agenda and so any evidence against their agenda is said to be made up or fabricated. So ends any logical discussion.
Keep up the good work!
March 31st, 2007 at 8:09 am
full time spook?
March 31st, 2007 at 8:52 am
The forensic evidence against conspiracy is just the beginning of the problems with “truther” theories.
The conspiracy buffs want us to believe that air force jets under secret orders from the White House hit those buildings. And before that secret crack demolition commandos snuck into the buildings and planted charges and wires in order to bring them down in a “controlled demolition”, which is the only way a building can collapse like that, they think. Never mind that controlled demolition of buildings like the WTC towers requires tearing out floors and walls and drilling into concrete pillars to plant hundreds of charges ahead of time, all of which would have to be done somehow without the people who worked there every day knowing about it. It would be an operation that would require dozens of experts, all of which had to be kept secret in a government where leaks of top secret information out of the CIA, the Pentagon, and the FBI happen on a daily basis.
And this incredibly complicated and risky venture involving the highly illegal activities of dozens if not hundreds of people in an array of different agencies was done for what? So that Bush’s oil buddies could make more money? Wouldn’t it be easier just to cut them a tax break or something?
When you get to be as crazy as the truthers I guess what is reasonable doesn’t matter much.
March 31st, 2007 at 8:52 am
Why is it these true belivers in conspiracy always hide behind “anonymous” tags? If you think and beleive this is true then have the stones to stand up publicly and not hide behind a tag that says “I’m afraid someone that actually know me will discover what a yahoo I really am for defending Rosie.”
March 31st, 2007 at 9:24 am
Yeah, most conspiracy theories are long on nefarious plots and short on details on how the plots where executed. Promoters of said plots have a childlike faith that conspiracies involving large numbers of people to execute will somehow stay secret. Strange how members of conspiracies like the JFK assassination, the moon landing and 911 keep the secret even after decades in some cases.
Another weakness of these conspiracies is the motive explanation. The payoff would have to be huge to balance out the risk of discovery (unless of course you believe that the plotters have mindless minions to do their bidding). In none of the mentioned conspiracies has the motives mentioned been sufficient for such acts.
March 31st, 2007 at 9:29 am
“Truthers” are a bunch of sock puppets. They ignore REAL science and rely instead on projection and selective “facts” to sustain their idiotic claims, while at the same time accusing real scientists and engineers for having an agenda sympathetic to evil Bushco. How open-minded of them.
March 31st, 2007 at 9:51 am
I like how Anon said, “A NEW thorough 9/11 INVESTIGATION would put all this to rest.” Riiiiiiight. Not if you’re a TRUUUUUUE BELIEVER baby! Ya gotta have faith to believe in a conspiracy. If you’re relying on human nature to keep that big a secret, you’re bound to be disappointed. I want to see the proof of someone paid off by the government to keep quiet about all this. Show me the canceled check with “9/11 Conspiracy” typed on the memo line…maybe then I’ll become a believer. Yeah, that’s right, I’m a doubting Thomas.
March 31st, 2007 at 9:53 am
Anonymous writes like a NY Times journalist using “citations” to bolster his point. E.g., “There hasn’t been a real ‘forensic investigation’ or they would’ve found traces of THERMITE on the beams that independent metalergists are finding.” What independent metalergists are finding these traces? Citation please. All I’ve ever seen is discredited “analysts” pointing to secondary, or implied, evidence; i.e., “this looks just like a thermite-caused reaction.” I’ve never heard of someone coming out with real data, from real chemical analysis, of real samples extracted from the scene. Please note that none of this conspiracy stuff has made it into peer-reviewed journals. Now we can’t blame the PM ownership for a total boycott on opposing views, can we? It’s more likely that peer reviews don’t find the arguments convincing.
Unfortunately, there are too many folks having too little understanding of science, engineering and the scientific method; and just enough discredited engineers and physicists to feed them bad information and keep these truthers happy. Here’s the approach the conspiracy nuts take: decide on the answer, and focus all explanations of all phenomena to support that answer. The forensic engineers and scientists: take all data and all possible explanations, build various credible hypotheses that would explain cause and effect, perform mathematically-based modeling and studies where possible, and develop a credible, unemotional, unifying theory.
March 31st, 2007 at 9:54 am
I am a mechanical engineer. I have studied the physical properties of steel and the physics of structures. What ignorant truthers like anonymous and Rosie don’t realize is how engineers push the boundaries imposed by the properties of materials in order to accomplish truly amazing things like the World Trade Center. What this means, anonymous, is that it is totally credible that if you weaken one beam, not to mention dozens of them, in a building like WTC7 by as little as 50%, the entire building can come down. Try this experiment: go out to your car and remove one head bolt. Your car will start and run fine. Go out and drive it on the freeway at 85 mph. What is it doing? Smoking? Steaming? Sputtering? Your engine is toast. Why is this? It is because the number of head bolts was just enough. Engineers specified just the right number of head bolts, not one extra, not one too few. Buildings are designed the same way. Keep in mind that the fire raged for seven hours before WTC7 came down. This is plenty of time, especially given 6000 gallons of diesel fuel distributed throughout the building under pressure, to weaken it to the point of failure. Your problem, anonymous, is that your arguments are led by ideology, not science. Long before 9/11 you had notions of the world that informed your analysis of the events of that day, and no amount of contradiction by your intellectual superiors will ever change it. You are like the creationist who uses truly comic mental gymnastics to explain away the evidence for evolution. Your religion is Hate America. I pity you.
March 31st, 2007 at 9:54 am
Sorry for posting an “anonymous” comment (the 9:53 post). Hit the post button too fast!
March 31st, 2007 at 10:02 am
“Anonymous” is anonymous for a good reason. He’s an idiot. Just like Rosie. Here’s a tip. NIST released its final report (298 pages) in 2005. There are also about eight supplemental reports that go into great detail about the various sub projects undertaken during the course of their investigation. Go read those (as I have) and then come back here (or to my blog) and try to argue you’re stupid “points”. Some of the most eminent mechanical, structural and metallurgical engineers in the world worked on the NIST report. I suppose they’re all “in” on the conspiracy.
It doesn’t take much to be an idiot. Profound ignorance will do the trick.
March 31st, 2007 at 10:17 am
really man, don’t feed the troll
March 31st, 2007 at 10:19 am
I’m an engineer, not a structural engineer, but I’ve had enough exposure to the principles to know that the conspiracy theorists are full of crap.
My father and sister are both firefighters as well, and I can promise you, neither of them know anything about the term “pull” as a demolition term of art, nor do they know anything at all about demolition, or anything relating to how structures can fail.
Also, geniuses, thermite is not used in demolition. The military uses it to destroy equipment. It’s not even an explosive! I’d also be curious what kind of residue these “metallurgists” are finding, because thermite works through aluminothermic reaction. You start out with iron oxide (rust) and aluminum, and end up with aluminum oxide and iron. Both those compounds are not unusual.
Of course, I don’t expect you “truthers” to buy any of this, because this isn’t about the truth, it’s about you folks wanting to believe something, and you’ll discredit anyone who tries to convince you otherwise. Because clearly I’m a CIA plant, or one of the many thousands of people who the conspiracy has “compromised”.
Have fun in your little fantasy land.
March 31st, 2007 at 10:32 am
Conspiracy buffs are very frustrating to interact with. I used to occasionally listen to a guy who had a radio show that expounded conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory.
The US didn’t drop an atom bomb on Hiroshima
The Port Chicago ammo ship explosion was the US testing a atom bomb in the San Francisco bay
The attack on Pearl Harbor was a US plan
The Kennedy assassination
On and on. There were hundreds of them. And each theory had dozens and dozens of little details and innuendos to support them. And as those details were disproved, more details were found. Its the same with UFO believers.
The fundamental problem with all of these plots is that they require thousands of people to be in on the plot and keep their secrets. This is simply not possible with human beings.
Conspiracy beliefs are a form of mental illness. The proponent has access to some secret knowledge that the rest of are too deluded to see. They *believe* in it. Have you ever talked to a psychotic person? They have amazing beliefs that they firmly believe no matter how prosperous.
You will never win.
March 31st, 2007 at 10:45 am
Well put, Jonathan -
If anything, I should rant against the fine job done by the public ed system - churning out willing ignorance by the ten of thousands, and having them vote.
I love anony’s reference to the ‘9/11 mysteries’ video - within 2 minutes of this moron production, you heard the terms “steel melting”, collapse in only 10 seconds, yadda, yadda. Ass-hattery at its finest. I just picture these logic-deprived morons watching this and doing the old Baby Huey - “Duuhhh, that sounds logical!” Tragic. I actually sat through this - the worst part was the condescending, schoolteacher narration; though given the intellect of “believers”, somehow fitting.
The stupidity of the video is mind-boggling. It’s almost worth a fisking on its own lack of merit. When they denigrate the “official story” of an MIT Engineering prof in favor of some software stooge that fancies himself a metallurgist, that sealed the deal. F=ma, baby.
March 31st, 2007 at 11:05 am
Jeff king is from Mit: Matt Jones. Does his statements behind the WTC explosion lack educated consideration?
March 31st, 2007 at 11:11 am
No, he went to MIT:
Not exactly the credentials of an expert (that is from his own page).
March 31st, 2007 at 11:13 am
Well I am glad you did, because I couldn’t. Was too aggravating!
March 31st, 2007 at 11:22 am
Oh, and also, here is a rebuttal video to the ‘9/11 mysteries’ video
And Screw Loose Change has lots of good truther debunking resources.
March 31st, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Also, as I recall from one of the (many) “Truther” rebuttals, the “pull it” comment by the fire captain (chief?) on the scene referred to ending the attempt to fight a clearly losing battle against that fire (WTC 7).
March 31st, 2007 at 12:30 pm
A controlled demolition is an extremely complicated process requiring numerous people and well laid plans. I find it interesting that none of the people “on the inside” have been found or spoken out. And if the “pull it” heard on the site was in reference to a demolition, where is the fellow that said it?
The argument is just silly! I guess that is the nature of conspiracy theories though: everyone who truly knows will keep it secret! They are being kept quiet! Right.
March 31st, 2007 at 1:03 pm
I’m with Anonymous! Anybody who doesn’t think 9/11 was planned by George Bush is obviously working for the CIA or Fox News (same thing). Thinking about 9/11 makes me angry, and the conspiracy theories make me feel better: Therefore they’re true. THAT’S WHAT THEY CALL SCIENCE, PEOPLE.
March 31st, 2007 at 1:05 pm
Wow, so the BBC and the firefighters were also in on a conspiracy? Where did this conspiracy hold their meetings? Yankee Stadium?
Guess I’m the only one who wasn’t in on it. What a sucker.
March 31st, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Let’s have some “Fun With THERMITE” (i wanted to do all-caps to poke the troll with a pointy stick.)
Here’s a simple(ton) test:
1. How does an “independent metalergist” get a piece of WTC steel to test?
a) They load an entier WTC beam onto a truck and drive it to their offices
b) They get a small sample via mail or shipped
2. How does a small sample of WTC steel get made so it can be sent to the “independent metalergist?”
a) Using pliers, someone twists one of those beams until a piece comes off, they pack it up, and ship it
b) They cut a piece off with a torch
3. What is a compound released by your standard acetelyne torch through the process of torching?
a) Cheeze Whiz
b) Thermite
d’oh (_8{|}
tard
March 31st, 2007 at 1:46 pm
The essential problem with “anonymous” loons is that they, er, pull a series of (sort of) facts out of their context, then put them in a list one after the other, without reference to every other fact. For example, maybe the firefighters said, “Pull,” but they also said a great deal more that contradict Anonymous’s dogma. Refute him on his own terms by listing your supporting facts and he’ll cry.
March 31st, 2007 at 2:14 pm
No, I think it was largely in AOL chatrooms.
Haha, nice test DJ.
Well said joe y. I completely agree.
Sadly, that doesn’t really work…
March 31st, 2007 at 2:24 pm
I also wanted to point to commenter antimedia’s post: As far as I’m concerned…. Here is a snippet:
Occam’s razor has been floating around my head since last night; conspiracy theorists generally will spew anything to counter that principle.
Also, The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society has a great article: Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation.
March 31st, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Seems I remember reading that, due to environmental concerns, one of the towers stopped having its structural steel uprights wrapped in asbestos at the halfway point, and the other never had the asbestos used at all, notwithstanding that the asbestos insulating coating was part of the design spec for both buildings to prevent weakening of the main steel supports in the event of just such a catestrophic fire.
1) True? Any researchers out there who know for sure?
2) If so, part of Rosie’s plot?
March 31st, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Nice post, Matt! We’ll link over at Screw Loose Change.
March 31st, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Benjamin Chertoff is related to Michael Chertoff, former Secretary of Homeland Security.
But who is Benjamin Chertoff, the “senior researcher” at Popular Mechanics who is behind the article? He is none other than a cousin of Michael Chertoff, the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
This means that Hearst paid Benjamin Chertoff to write an article supporting the seriously flawed explanation that is based on a practically non-existent investigation of the terror event that directly led to the creation of the massive national security department his “cousin” now heads.
March 31st, 2007 at 3:14 pm
So our original Anon commenter is back with a conspiracy theorist staple: government officials and their relatives who are in on it! Run for the hills!
March 31st, 2007 at 3:15 pm
SPOOK
March 31st, 2007 at 3:16 pm
HIRED HELP
March 31st, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Popular Mechanics IS TIN foil Central… Only good for reading on the toliet!
March 31st, 2007 at 3:19 pm
You are really helping your cause.
March 31st, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Sagi said: “If so, part of Rosie’s plot?” Rosie’s rant was only focused on WTC7, I believe what you are talking about only applied to WTC1 and WTC2. I could be wrong though.
Thanks Pat, I appreciate it!
March 31st, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Matt doesn’t like to talk about flight 93 in ShanksVille, or Flight 77 at the Pentagon…Well because: right there is no plane right Matt.
March 31st, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Yep, must be it.
March 31st, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Matt Why did 2 hours elapse without any fighter pilot sending rounds down range. All those planes, all that wasted time.
I know what happen: Fog of war- ill communication amoung old equipment and new. Fog of war.
March 31st, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Yep, must be a conspiracy.
March 31st, 2007 at 3:37 pm
exactly
March 31st, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Matt filters.
Magical thinking, advance thoughts and there you go: your GateKeeper.
Semper Fi
USMC
March 31st, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Yep, I have already said that I do. If you cannot offer anything constructive and just clutter my blog up with nonsense, I will delete. This isn’t just about disagreeing with me, if that were the case I would have deleted all your posts, this is about not contributing anything of value (although your other comments don’t exactly measure up to that either…).
March 31st, 2007 at 4:53 pm
Lets see. The evil government operatives crash planes into the twin towers. Then with extraordinary coordination they use demolition charges to implode the buidings. What was the motive? Who knows. Now one would think that the destruction of the twin towers would be enough to further the mysterious evil plot. However you would be wrong. Because having crashed the planes into and imploded the twin towers, the evil gov’t operatives then fire a missile at the Pentagon. Why? I mean after the attack/implosion of the WTC this next bit seems slightly surperfluous. Yet its even more diabolical, because having already crashed the planes into the twin towers they decide for whatever reason to only make it seem like a plane crash and to use a missile instead. Now that’s a hell of a days work, but still they continue, subsequently faking a plane crash into a Penn. field. Apparently having crashed the planes and imploded the twin towers and having fired the missile and faked the plane crash at the Penatgon, this still was not enough to achieve their sinister goals. And yet still it contines, because for reasons that defy any rational explanation the evil gov’t operatives then decide to demolish WTC7 hours after the event. Now does any of this make sense? Of course not. Yet that is what the self-styled “heroic” truth seekers want people to believe. As for evidence? There isn’t any. Instead they crawl over the detritus of a national tragedy like human cockaroaches seeking out anything that has the surface apparence of being unusual and which requires some analysis to explain upon which to bootstrap their stupid theories. Facts and evidence are simply besides the point. Pathetic.
March 31st, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Is the U.S. a more Socialist country now in 2007 than it was pre-911?
March 31st, 2007 at 6:30 pm
I’m all with Mr. Jones on the silliness of 9/11 conspiracies.
But please, let’s not bash all conspiracy buffs and imply that all conspiracy theories are loony.
There really are conspiracies, people. You know, I know it and the American people know it.
Some appear to work very well for many years. We still don’t know, for exmaple, exactly what happened to Jimmy Hoffa; for sure. The Mafia is a great example of an ongoing conspiracy at various levels and successes, as well as failures.
The Soviet Union ran a very good bunch of conspiracies for 70 years across the globe.
Not all have been solved.
The CIA at times apparently has run conspiracies (conspiracies are by definition criminal enterprises and I don’t want to libel the CIA unfairly; but I think arranging assassinations in other countries, maybe even here, has been done within the CIA. Maybe such efforts were rogues; maybe they were official at times.) We likely don’t know about some of them and not much about many of them.
Human beings tend to conspire when they set out to do bad things.
To paraphrase Woody Allen: Just because lots of conspiracy theories and buffs are loonies doesn’t mean there aren’t REAL conspiracies.
And just for the record, the Warren Commission’s version of JFK’s assassination isn’t believable, based on just a few of the physical facts still observable. I.E.: the placement of the bullet hole in his shirt and coat and the near-pristine condition of the “magic” bullet said to have gone through JFK and Gov. Connally. And Jack Ruby shooting Oswald. No credible motive except silencing a patsy, which is what Oswald called himself after his arrest.
And I’m not looney and neither am I.
March 31st, 2007 at 7:12 pm
@ ian: If only the truthers could follow that logic things would be much easier.
@ steviejimbo: I think I will shy away from addressing your comment directly and just say that there are huge differences between things being clouded in mystery and doubt and actually having a conspiracy.
March 31st, 2007 at 7:39 pm
I did not mean to imply the Warren Commission was part of a conspiracy; merely that if the offician version is wrong, then more than one shooter was required. Ipso faxo, a conspiracy, at some level, by someone.
A good, careful distinction you make between mystery and conspiracy.
But in the case of crimes, often the mystery is there because of a conspiracy by the criminals to keep things mysterious.
I grant the ubiquity of the psychology of conspiracy theorizing that seems to chase reason out of the brain.
But let’s all remember that calling something a conspiracy theory is not an argument about it’s truthiness.
March 31st, 2007 at 7:50 pm
Good point…I mean make him cry in person, where he can’t get away from you, and everyone else is looking at him, and he realizes that they know…that he’s an…ignorant fanatic…not even insane…just stupid, lazy. and sexually repulsive.
March 31st, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Fools! The real conspiracy is the existence of all the conspiracy theories. The government has helped cook up these conspiracy theories so that we citizens think that a pack of idle beaurocrats who can barely run a DMV without managing to lost most of your driver’s license data are actually smart enough to have pulled off the conspiracy.
Err, at least that’s what I think it means. Unless the real conspiracy is the conspiracy of the conspiracy theories…I think I need to take an aspirin and lie down.
March 31st, 2007 at 8:18 pm
Man, I need to spell check next time. Sorry!
March 31st, 2007 at 9:06 pm
American car companies were not prepared for our post-911 economy. While they were making profits from bigger & heavier SUVs, Honda and Toyota were developing smaller, more efficient hybrid cars. And waiting for a reason to sell them here. Presto! 9-11.
OMFG. Japan did it!!!!1!
I mean, MY PET GOAT, people!
just kidding, Matt.
see, the problem with wacko conspiracy theories is the ease in which they can be created and the relative difficulty in disproving them (in my example above, a mere coincidence is sufficient to get started). Much credit goes to the editors of Popular Mechanics for their efforts and attention to detail. I’ll ignore the whole Chertoff-Chertoff-Hearst thing because it’s a non sequitur. It’s a sleight of hand trick designed to keep you on the defense, Matt. ‘Cos, check it out yo, Hearst. Big Company. Bad. Homeland Security. Inside Job. Nepotism. See?
um, no. it’s a non sequitur, Mr Anonymous. Google it.
The “truthers” merely have to latch onto a series of theories, intelligent-sounding concepts, half-baked rationalizations, eyewitness error, coincidences (melted steel, thermite, mysterious white planes, Bush knew! etc), a modicum of plausible deniability, and a little ignorance. It does not matter that some theories conflict with others, just toss out which ever parts do not fit & “speak truth to power”. Wipe hands on pants. Repeat as necessary. Ignore any information which sounds like the Official Story. Dismiss science and entropy altogether! Wheeeeee!
I would be surprised if Rosie finds a “physics expert” from Yale or Harvard willing to go on The View to back up her claims of a controlled demolition of WTC7. If such an engineer existed, they would have made themselves known by now. Plus they’d have to be willing to put themselves in the uncomfortable position of refuting the 911 Commission and the State Department — and they’ll be completely PWN3D by teh internets. It”s called credibility, Rosie. Google it.
It is ultimately ironic that the same people who claim to want the Truth, seem to put alot of effort into ignoring it, or avoiding it altogether.
Occam’s razor be damned.
State Department linky (and you know they’re not fans of teh Bush)
http://usinfo.state.gov/media/misinformation.html
March 31st, 2007 at 9:24 pm
March 31st, 2007 at 9:30 pm
Indeed! So annoying. That is why I love using the “Truther” title, the irony make me laugh in the midst of all the ignorance.
March 31st, 2007 at 9:57 pm
March 31st, 2007 at 10:09 pm
steviejimbo Said:
“I did not mean to imply the Warren Commission was part of a conspiracy; merely that if the offician version is wrong, then more than one shooter was required. Ipso faxo, a conspiracy, at some level, by someone.”
To pour gas on this fire: I’m an experienced active duty SOF military sniper (so I won’t be using my real name….sorry). I believed for years (with the info I had seen at that time) that steviejimbo was correct that more than one sniper was involved in the assassination. However, I recently watched a show (I believe it was on the discovery channel) that definitively puts the Kennedy two shooter conspiracy to rest in much the same way as the PM article puts the 9-11 conspiracy down. The forensic scientists recreated the shooting with new evidence and data not previously released. They used the same rifle/scope combo and the same ammo Oswald used. A clothed target made of ballistic gelatin and a human skeleton were the target. They shot from the same distance and angle Oswald had from the book depository. It was 3 shots (not 4) in 8 seconds….very do-able by your average shooter. Additionally, they actually walked/timed the routes Oswald took after the shooting. The results they got were exactly the same as what happened in the actual shooting and aftermath to include a pristine bullet. Bottom line: as with most of these conspiracies, they fall apart when analyzed using scientific methodologies.
P.S. They also shut down the grassy knoll shooter theory as well through scientific analysis.
March 31st, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Everybody knows that 911 was orchestrated by Bushitler and Rumsfilled who not only planted the explosives to kill 3000 Americans on 911, but also on the levees in New Orleans so they could mercilessly massacre black people.
The world was a peaceful place and only recently became plagued with terrorism after neocon sorcerers like Paul Wolfowitz and Karl Rove invaded Iraq.
March 31st, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Gentlemen,
James Madison said that standing armies lead to debt, taxes and tyranny. Thomas Jefferson said that central banking was a greater threat to our liberties than standing armies. The Bible says, “that the love of money is the root of all evil.” So it is very conservative to be very skeptical of perpetual war for perpetual peace and the centralization of power that is and has been going on for the last hundred years. The U.S. has been on a war footing since WWII and we now have near total government from smoking bans to federally subsidized day care. The greatest threat to your liberties is from our own government and “conservatives” like Limbaugh, Hannity, Savage, Hewitt, countless blogs and websites are now in favor of total government(because of the war, of course)and just give lip service to Constitutional Government. Remember the Constitution was instituted to limit government, not the citizens.
April 1st, 2007 at 12:19 am
@ Voodoo: Thanks for the additional insight there!
@ TonyR: I thought everyone already knew that!
@ thoreau: I am ALL FOR small governments! I do think it has gotten too large. I am willing to deal with that when it is needed which is why I hope the struggles in Iraq can be settled as soon as possible. Hopefully then there can be a reduction in the government’s size. We will see I suppose, and it will take a long time, I know that.
April 1st, 2007 at 12:24 am
Don’t forget history, there are still people out there who think FDR allowed Pearl Harbor to happen. It just goes on and on with these nut jobs.
April 1st, 2007 at 7:57 am
Thoreau, care to name any in the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy who have contributed to your big gummint idear? Or is it all the fault of conservatives?
How about takin your 6.2% bullshit New Deal Social Security Tax and shoving it up your Walden Pondhole?
April 1st, 2007 at 9:11 am
I love it, the Bush crew are so smart and crafty that they masterminded the greatest attack on the US ever to convince us stooges
to go get Saddam and yet, they forgot to plant the evidence of Saddam’s involvement in 9/11 or the WMDs! D’oh!!
April 1st, 2007 at 9:19 am
Mr. Jones,
I am sure you are a well meaning guy, but even if Mr. Bush is the kindest, sweetest, most just man to ever live, what about the Presidents and Congresses that follow? By your logic as long as there is a crisis we will become progressively more restricted in our liberties and our properties and incomes will become so highly taxed and/or manipulated away until we love Big Brother. Remember even if the Republicans are good(show me the evidence) the Democrats now have Congress and possibly soon the Presidency with greatly expanded police powers. This is a government that pays for abortions, doesn’t enforce immigration laws, has increased spending ruinously since 2000. The history of the world shows that governments are the citizens worst enemy, we need to do as John Quincy Adams and other Founders advised: Be friends of Liberty everywhere, guardians only of our own. Avoid foreign entanglements. A Republic if you can keep it, Madam. Eternal Vigilance is the price of Liberty. No foreign nation will ever conquer this country, it will die by our own hand. If we don’t start watching what is going on here and reducing Leviathan than we won’t be free. If the Muslims hate us because of our freedoms, it makes perfect sense to take our freedoms away for our own protection. But then who protects us from our protectors?
April 1st, 2007 at 5:26 pm
DJ dear friend, on my football team I am not concerned with the other teams troubles, I want to know who’s blocking for me. We know that liberals are Bolsheviks, but when the so called “conservatives” are pouring gasoline on the fire is it wrong to point it out? My whole life(I am 45) until 2001 the conservatives were told that someday they would control the government and it would be downsized, well it has doubled in the six years of Republican control. So why you would like to savage me, when I am on your side is beyond me, unless you truly believe that this group of politicians is on your side and this other group is against your interests and you have to support your party right or wrong. How about holding your side to the highest standards and if they ever live up to them they would win every election. Don’t Republicans lose when they act like liberals, every time?
April 1st, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Jesus. How many times do these things need to be explained, before the explanations take?
Anonymous is anonymous. The Unabomber was anonymous. Therfore, Anonymous aspires to the the Unabomber’s heir!
Or, tell you what: when you’ve gone through middle school science class, possibly these silly notions you’ve acquired will begin to appear as stupid as they really are. You may also want to read up on logic. Possibly not, but if you’re taking requests, this is one of mine.
Oh, and a hot tip: if you’re going to troll a complete stranger’s blog with crap, you’d do well to be up to date on the very latest crapola: it’s thermate, not thermite. No, actually, thermate is soooo last year.
Matt, if you want to see the entire range of argument, as well as the techniques, I suggest you leaf through the comments here. If you get bored of it halfway down and decide to quit, you’re a smarter man than I am.
April 1st, 2007 at 6:16 pm
I’ll admit it: I did it. I planned the whole thing. Dubya asked me to do it, though. He said he’d give me a private tour of his ranch. That was all I needed to motivate me.
Go ahead… DON’T believe me. But I did it and I have to admit it to all of you to clear my conscience.
April 1st, 2007 at 6:59 pm
Voodoo and Mr., Missster JONES..:
I didn’t mean to open a Pandora’s can of worms here…. oh, OK, I DID! - but since voodoo poured gas on it, lets beat the little critters to death before they suffer as much as this tortured metaphor…
Maybe you were being kind, Mr. Jones, in referring to the “insight” voodoo provided.
Voodoo you love, I guess.
But I think a better description of his posting is that he watched a TV program and got convinced of something.
If it’s the same one I saw recently, the main guts was a computer animated replication of the Dealey Plaza shooting. There is not any, as far as I know, “new” “previously unreleased data,” in this case. Just more ways to crunch the data. I’m not expert in these fields, and I obviously have my own leanings in this case, but I was not convinced much by the computer-assisted, or animated