Mar 30
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.
About This Entry -
Posted by Matt Jones @ 8:43 pm on March 30, 2007 • Filed under: Science, Social Commentary
Permalink: Rosie the Physicist
You can trackback from your own site and follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 comments feed.
Permalink: Rosie the Physicist
You can trackback from your own site and follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 comments feed.
166 Responses to “Rosie the Physicist”
Trackbacks & Pings:
Comments:
-
Anonymous Said:
wHAT EVER DUDE
-
Matt Jones Said:
Nice addition!
-
Anonymous Said:
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
-
Matt Jones Said:
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.
-
Anonymous Said:
Well how does a building fall: Symmetrically? Oh Hey…With a 1/4 chunk pulled out of it?
-
Matt Jones Said:
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.
-
Matt Jones Said:
[T]here’s a clear-cut engineering explanation for why the building fell the way it did. Trusses on the fifth and seventh floors of the building were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another; with the south face heavily damaged, the other columns were likely overtaxed. In engineering terms, the “progressive collapse” began on the eastern side, when weakened columns failed from the damage and fire. The entire building fell in on itself as the slumping east side dragged down the west side in a diagonal pattern.
-
Matt Jones Said:
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...]
-
Anonymous Said:
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
-
Matt Jones Said:
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).
-
Anonymous Said:
So, are you gonna address the points raised or divert?
-
Matt Jones Said:
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.
-
Anonymous Said:
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
-
Matt Jones Said:
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.
-
Anonymous Said:
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.
-
Matt Jones Said:
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.
-
Anonymous Said:
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?
-
Anonymous Said:
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.
-
Matt Jones Said:
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.
-
Matt Jones Said:
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.
-
Anonymous Said:
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.
-
Matt Jones Said:
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.
-
Anonymous Said:
Then you should be willing to view all the data even more.
-
Matt Jones Said:
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.]
-
Tim Said:
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!
-
Anonymous Said:
full time spook?
-
Frew Said:
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.
-
mike steele Said:
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.”
-
Tblakely Said:
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.
-
Anonymous Said:
“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.
-
salmypal Said:
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.
-
Anonymous Said:
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.
-
Jonathan Said:
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.
-
Dave S Said:
Sorry for posting an “anonymous” comment (the 9:53 post). Hit the post button too fast!
-
antimedia Said:
“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.
-
gabe Said:
really man, don’t feed the troll
-
Sebastian Said:
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.
-
Norm Said:
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 assassinationOn 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.
-
apb Said:
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.
-
Anonymous Said:
Jeff king is from Mit: Matt Jones. Does his statements behind the WTC explosion lack educated consideration?
-
Matt Jones Said:
No, he went to MIT:
Jeff King, a 60ish former electrical engineer – graduated from MIT, class of ’74 with a combined Biology-EE major, worked for about eight years in electronics and electro-mechanical engineering. At the moment, and for about the past 25 years, I have been working as a family physician, doing office-based primary care in rural central California.
Not exactly the credentials of an expert (that is from his own page).
-
Matt Jones Said:
I actually sat through this
Well I am glad you did, because I couldn’t. Was too aggravating!
-
Matt Jones Said:
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.
-
njoriole Said:
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).
-
Matt Jones Said:
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.
-
Jim Treacher Said:
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.
-
Joe Baby Said:
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.
-
DJ Said:
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 shipped2. 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 torch3. What is a compound released by your standard acetelyne torch through the process of torching?
a) Cheeze Whiz
b) Thermited’oh (_8{|}
tard
-
joe y Said:
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.
-
Matt Jones Said:
Where did this conspiracy hold their meetings?Yankee Stadium?
No, I think it was largely in AOL chatrooms.
Haha, nice test DJ.
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.
Well said joe y. I completely agree.
Refute him on his own terms by listing your supporting facts and he’ll cry.
Sadly, that doesn’t really work…
-
Matt Jones Said:
I also wanted to point to commenter antimedia’s post: As far as I’m concerned…. Here is a snippet:
In order to surreptitiously wire the towers for a controlled demolition, the government would have had to start the work long before Bush came to office. So now you have a conspiracy involving two administrations and hundreds of people and yet not one single person has come forward to tell the story. Occam’s razor alone says it’s impossible.
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.
-
Sagi Said:
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?
-
Pat Curley Said:
Nice post, Matt! We’ll link over at Screw Loose Change.
-
Anonymous Said:
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.
-
Matt Jones Said:
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!
-
Anonymous Said:
SPOOK
-
Anonymous Said:
HIRED HELP
-
Anonymous Said:
Popular Mechanics IS TIN foil Central… Only good for reading on the toliet!
-
Matt Jones Said:
You are really helping your cause.
-
Matt Jones Said:
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!
-
Anonymous Said:
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.
-
Matt Jones Said:
Yep, must be it.
-
Anonymous Said:
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.
-
Matt Jones Said:
Yep, must be a conspiracy.
-
Anonymous Said:
exactly
-
Anonymous Said:
Matt filters.
Magical thinking, advance thoughts and there you go: your GateKeeper.
Semper Fi
USMC -
Matt Jones Said:
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…).
-
ian Said:
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.
-
thoreau Said:
Is the U.S. a more Socialist country now in 2007 than it was pre-911?
-
steviejimbo Said:
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. -
Matt Jones Said:
@ 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.
-
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.
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. -
joe y Said:
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.
-
K T Cat Said:
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.
-
K T Cat Said:
Man, I need to spell check next time. Sorry!
-
stevezilla Said:
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 -
Matt Jones Said:
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!
Indeed! So annoying. That is why I love using the “Truther” title, the irony make me laugh in the midst of all the ignorance.
-
Voodoo Said:
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. -
TonyR Said:
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.
-
thoreau Said:
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. -
Matt Jones Said:
@ 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.
-
kevin Said:
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.
-
DJ Said:
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?
-
ACE NY Said:
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!! -
thoreau Said:
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? -
thoreau Said:
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?
-
Slartibartfast Said:
Jesus. How many times do these things need to be explained, before the explanations take?
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.
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.
-
Donny Pauling Said:
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.
-
steviejimbo Said:
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, or CAD stuff. It seems to be greatly prone to a “garbage-in-garbage-out” fallacy, in that all of the inputs seemed to be begging the question, so it wasn’t surprising they came to the conclusion they did. That is, they enter the data provided by the Warren Commission’s conclusions, and then eureka! Arrive at the same conclusions. It’s really just a really good graphic explication of the WC report on the shooting, I think.
What made me the most skeptical of the TV program was the utter certainty in which the host – I think he also was a scientist involved in the study – spoke about the testing and the results.
Utter certainty is a vary rare commodity in this world, especially when it comes to science. So I am very wary, very skeptical, of a scientist who is so certain about the results of his test. Remember, scientists aren’t really smarter than the rest of us; they just practice a different trade.
This is a forensics case, dealing with flesh-and-blood (so to speak) people, not just a bunch of vectors.
Voodoo, as an ex-sniper, you know the myriad variables that affect where a bullet goes whena man holds a rifle and shoots.
There’s lots of reasons for skepticism about the official Warren Commission version, which if you read it, does not track as a carefully investigated case, but more like an attempt to quell any fears of a conspiracy with still unknown participants.
The number of shots is one of the big questions. You can’t start out accepting the Warren Commission’s conclusion that only three were fired, and then do a very good analysis of the other questions in the shooting aspect of the case.
No credible WC critic says it’s impossible that Oswald did it – three shots in that old rifle – just that it’s a very improbable event. It’s not, as you say, an easy task for an average shooter. Although the official version does include one miss among the (alleged) three shots.
The pristine bullet: please. Please, that is, read up on what it is alleged to have done and then replicate it. I will give you $5 if you do.
Just as the alarming certainty of many WC critics marks them as maybe looney, maybe just a little off, maybe pernicious, so the same utter certainty expressed by some defenders of the WC is off-putting to me.
I, frankly, am deeply personally wounded – I’m a victim, too – that the JFK mystery gets lumped into such stupid stuff as the 911 conspiracies, which I reiterate seem to be bizarre and pernicious and the realm of idiots such as Rosie O.
One other insight, Mr. Jones et. al: Please don’t believe that train of thought I’ve seen more than once in this thread of postings that “well, if there WAS anything to such and such theory, SOME one would have come forward and talked, etc.”
That isn’t a bad rule of thumb in making an initial filtering of theories; but please: many things remain hidden for many years and centuries among us humans. Don’t have the naive and placid faith that any and all things will be revealed this side of the end of all things. Remember, we’re stuck looking through a glass darkly, here.
Just think of your own family – heck, just think of yourself – and count up all the secrets that you have done a very good job of keeping from just about everybody else. And I bet they go to your grave with you.
There are many things we don’t know about many things – 6,000 years ago, 2,000 years ago, 43 years ago and yesterday. So keep studying, people.
Voodoo: thanks for your post and your service; but I hope you get over thinking that that one TV show “proved” much of anything about the JFK shooting.
If you are interested, two of the best, least polemical, most analytical and convincing books on the JFK assassination in general are “The Last Investigation,” by Gaeton Fonzi – an investigator for the House committee in 1978 – and “Oswald and the CIA” (I think that’s it) by John Newman, a former CIA employee, who simply analyzes document trails in the CIA that convince him Oswald had some strange, low-level imprint and file there that is unexplained by the WC theory.
Fonzi is an excellent investigator and journalist who just took on a very narrow slice of the mystery and finds it too difficult to believe, based on his years of interviews of principals, that Oswald did not have a CIA contact.
FWIW: E. Howard Hunt’s “American Spy,” is just out, and he’s just dead. He denies six ways from Sunday – and not entirely convincingly (he seems to mistake assertion for argument) – any involvement in the JFK assassionation (which many buffs allege, including in courts.) But Hunt had no problem theorizing that at least three other CIA types he worked with may have done it, on a rogue-style basis…And he thinks Fonzi did good work. Again,FWIW.
My bottom line on the JFK thing is, while I’m uncertain about exactly what went down and why and by who, the official, WC, version of events appears too implausible to me -
Matt Jones Said:
Remember, scientists aren’t really smarter than the rest of us; they just practice a different trade.
No offense, but I don’t believe that at all. (Yes this can bring up the issue of what qualifies someone as being smarter… but aside from that, the majority of scientists and engineers are smarter than people in most other fields. I know that is dangerous and un-PC to say, but I am saying it.)
@ Donny: Well the real question is then; how was the private tour of his ranch?
@ Slartibartfas: Indeed! You are much braver (or stupider…heh) than I am! Argh, everything just gets so tedious!
-
steviejimbo Said:
Mr. Jones: about the relative smartiness of scientists…. yes, I can’t believe you would say that.
But I take it from your bio you are a relatively young man. You will learn.
You need to get out more. Hang around some scientists.
And truckers.
Farmers, nurses, teachers, pastors (sounds like you’re headed that way?)
You are really wrong about this. But it is one of the smelly orthodoxies of our day, so it’s not surprising.
Examine your assumption about scientists. Where did it come from?
And to add to my point, intellectual honesty isn’t any more common among scientists than among most professions. And when you tend to spend lots of your life looking at one thing, with a lot of money often in the offing, it can skew your judgments about the data.
Just don’t have such an unblinkered faith in the intelligence and goodness of scientists, vs. other people.
Are they not men? -
Matt Jones Said:
I didn’t say anything about intellectual honesty, I said something about intelligence. There is a huge difference.
My age keeps me from looking at the nature of intelligence in the “real” world? Come on. I don’t say that scientists tend to be smarter just because my degree is in the sciences. Having studied theology (ps. I don’t have any intentions of becoming a pastor) with people from a wide variety, I also know that people from all professions can be extremely intelligent. I never denied that. What I AM saying is that, while often stunted socially
, scientists have a much higher capacity for analysis and reason and pure content knowledge. Obviously this is a HUGE generalizations, one of the smartest professors I have had (and I have had many in various fields) is a theologian and historian (among other things), and I don’t even always agree with him! This is a fairly large digression from the actual topic of the post and will probably just get non-scientists plotting my death, but as far as IQ goes (yes, that is only one measure of intelligence), scientists will tend to be smarter.Your issue with intellectual honesty is completely valid and there is nothing to suggest that scientists are any more honest than someone in economics or history. Ideally the data collected by scientists can be looked at by multiple scientists to keep the rigor of the issue. But that is a completely different issue.
-
steviejimbo Said:
Mr. Jones:
I introduced the topic of intellectual honesty by saying, “To add to my point.” A different issue, a permutation on my original point, that scientists should necessarily be granted extra credulity because of their trade, or their profession.
Guess you weren’t smart enough to pick up on that….
As to your age, or lack of it: All I can say is you have no idea how dumb you will realize you are now then.
Just ask me. -
steviejimbo Said:
should NOT be granted extra credulity . . .
STOOOPID!!!
I feel like a, a , a SCIENTIST!! -
Brian Said:
I really hope that Popular Mechanics did shoddy research because otherwise very important facts were omitted that, if PM had known these facts, would destroy their credibility. I beg you to provide explanations for the following facts since none of the official reports address them (even though the fire protection engineers and materials scientists who studied the samples were, in their own words, “shocked” by what they found and called for further metallurgic investigations).
Fact 1: Metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI revealed that a phenomenon called a eutectic reaction occurred at the surface and caused intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese. One sample, a one-inch column from WTC 7 had been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges — which were curled like a paper scroll — had been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes — some larger than a silver dollar — let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending — but not holes. Blacksmiths used to use eutectic compounds (by welding over fires of sulfur-rich charcoal) to lower the melting point of iron. PM, please provide an explanation for this phenomenon and the chances it could occur naturally (since it wouldn’t be “shocking” at all to find this type of reaction in a controlled demolition where eutectic compounds are commonly used for obvious reasons). You can check these facts in the Journal of Minerals, Metals and Materials (12/01 p18) Worcester Polytechnic Institute paper in Spring of 2002 and Appendix C of the FEMA report.
Fact 2: According to a NY Times article from 2/19/1989 (still available online), WTC 7 was one of, if not, the most redundant structures in the city. In the article, the president of the company is quoted as saying; “We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building’s structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors” and that’s exactly what happened. The same year, to create extra height, workers removed most of three existing floors, using jackhammers to demolish concrete slabs and torches to remove steel decking and girders beneath the concrete. The girders were then cut into sections small enough to fit into a construction elevator. MORE than 375 tons of steel – requiring 12 miles of welding – was installed to reinforce floors. Sections of the existing stone facade and steel bracing was temporarily removed so that workers using a roof crane could hoist nine diesel generators onto the tower’s fifth floor, where they became the core of a back-up power station. PM, please explain why your description of WTC7 makes it sound more like a Jenga puzzle than a highly redundant structure that could easily stand even if entire floors were removed. You can check these facts in the 2/19/89 article in the NY Times titled “COMMERCIAL PROPERTY: The Salomon Solution; A Building Within a Building, at a Cost of $200 Million”.
Fact 3: The various PM pieces always seem to imply that people asking questions don’t realize the amount of structural damage that was done to WTC7. This is very inaccurate as the damage actual makes the collapse more questionable, not less. Danny Jowenko (owner of Jowenko Demolitions who has specialised in the industrial demolition since 1980) claims he is 100% certain the building (WTC7) was demolished using explosives. After many people claimed he didn’t know about the structural damage, he gave a follow-up interview in which he confirmed that he was aware of the damage and that the asymmetry of the structural damage lended support to a planned demolition and made a fire induced collapse less likely. You can check these facts by searching for the various Danny Jowenko interviews on YouTube, Google Video, etc. and his company’s profile a jowenko.nl.
I look forward to PM’s response to why this information is not addressed and anyone’s explanation to the evidence of eutectic compounds. I’m a registered Republican who has been trying to find out these answers since the first official reports came out (long before nutjob Rosie took them mainstream) and, to date, no report, official or otherwise has provided answers.
-
steviejimbo Said:
Mr Jones:
Per Brian: allow me; I owe you one or two.
Mr. Brian: Great points. However, a few minor elucidations may clear things up for you. I hope so.
ON Fact 1: It wasn’t eutectic reactions, it was “You-tick-tick” ; entirely different. But an understandable mistake, what with all the noise and stuff.
And it wasn’t like Swiss cheese, but more like a sassy Camembert.
Gouda hell. Try a chardonnay.
On Fact 2: You’re right. It was one of the city’s most redundant buildings in the city’s buildings, among the erections of New York, New York, building wise, if you’re talking about being redundant, according to the city’s department of redundant buildings department.
Good point.
Fact 3: Hey, if Danny Jowenko says he’s 100 percent sure, that’s good enough for me.
I hope while you continue waiting for the answers like a good registered Republican someone is providing you with restroom facilities, etc.
Gads. -
steviejimbo Said:
PS: Brian: I initially missed one of the most amazing facts of all.
Like, Danny Jowenko ACTUALLY is the OWNER of Jowenko Demolitions????
What are the chances of that??
Don’t tell me that’s a simple coincidence!!!!! -
Voodoo Said:
steviejimbo,
Not to burst your bubble, but a TV show alone didn’t convince me, 26 years of shooting (17 years of it in the military) did. I’m a ballistics expert who knows how bullets act when shot into/through various materials, including flesh. That is why the magic bullet theory never works for anyone who knows anything about ballistics or has a shred of common sense. I believe the documentary was on TNT and made by Associated Television International (I ‘ve been trying to track it down online with no luck…can anybody help find it?).The documentary I watched was no computer-assisted, animated, or CAD stuff. It was forensic analysis followed by a live-fire re-creation by experts in their field. These guys took measurements from the site of the shooting to get the identical distances and angles at the time of the shooting based on all the evidence at hand (using film evidence to determine exact position of the car at the time of each shot, etc.) They re-created in real-life, using a real 6.5 mm Mannlicher-Carcano rifle with the same 160 grain round-nosed fully copper-jacketed military-type bullet Oswald used. The big fallacy of the magic bullet theory is that the shots don’t line up. However, the forensic scientists conducting this re-enactment used the same type limo that Kennedy and Gov. Connally were riding in. Did you know that Connally was sitting in a fold out jump seat that actually positions him several inches lower and offset from Kennedy? When the scientists analyzed the measurements and angle from the book depository with the positions they actually had in the vehicle, the wounds line up like a laser beam made them from the book depository window. They went further and put ballistic gelatin torsos with embedded skeletons the same sizes as JFK and the Gov in the same positions they were in at the time of the shooting. They fired the same rifle/scope combo with the same ammo from the same distances and same angle at the targets while being filmed by high speed cameras. (side note: The first shot was only 50-60yds away. I can train any Joe off the street to make that shot in about an hour. Oswald was a Marine with more than enough skill with a rifle to accomplish all 3 shots required in 8 seconds). The shot the re-enactors fired identically recreated the “magic bullet” wounds. It was in the same “relatively” pristine (slightly bent/stretched) condition as the JFK bullet. Full Metal Jacket military ammo behaves like this. I know this from 26 years of experience in shooting. They also did a test on the show where they fired this same 1963 miltary surplus ammo lengthwise into a telephone pole. It penetrated 4 feet and guess what…when they dug it out, it looked like the JFK bullet too! I won’t go any further into this except to say that their analysis supports the 3 (vice 4) bullet theory and shuts down the grassy knoll theory. Additionally they had access to some of the autopsy photos which directly support their re-enactment as well as the argument that all the bullets were fired from the same location (I saw the photos of the entry and exit wounds…there is no doubt as to which direction they came from). So based on these live re-enactments, I believe that Oswald WAS the lone shooter. If anyone put him up to it, I don’t know.
I believe many of these conspiracy theories come from the fact that many don’t want to/can’t believe that some loser with a $20 rifle could kill the leader of the free world or that 19 islamic fascists from caves in Afghanistan could bring down the twin towers with nothing more than the will to do it and a few boxcutters. If your mind can’t comprehend this then it must compensate by having some larger than life secret government conspiracy responsible for it. That’s not to say that conspiracies don’t exist, just that they are few and far between and they never stay secret for long. Hell, we can’t even keep Top Secret NSA programs to track terrorists out of the press. Do you really think that you could keep the dozens/hundreds of people who would have to be involved quiet for this many years? I’m part of the gov’t and trust me, some of the bureaucratic incompetency I have seen over the years doesn’t make any of these conspiracies remotely plausible. You give the gov’t too much credit….Katrina is a perfect example of this. ’nuff said
-
steviejimbo Said:
Voodoo:
I see you, lying in the weeds, nearly invisible, except for the sun glinting off your GI-scope, your trigger finger slowly caressing the trigger, holding your breath, waiting for the perfect moment…
Good shot.
Thanks for the lengthy and informative response.
Hope you’re not foolin’ about your bio.
I thought a caught a whiff of troll. But not to slander anyone…
I believe I’ve seen that TV show, too…
Wikipedia, by the way, has some excellent stuff on this, as far as I can tell and mentions both TV shows.
Perhaps I’ve been more ignorant about the properties of full-metal jacketed rounds than I thought. My experience shooting comes from hunting.An aside: the “magic bullet theory,” in a perjorative way, refers to the official Warren Commission theory about a single bullet going through JFK’s throat and Gov. Connally’s thorax, wrist and into his thigh. You seemed to be referring to is as a theory of WC critics.
I still can’t believe the “magic bullet” did what Arlen Specter said it did, and looks the way it does. It broke a rib and a wrist bone in Connally.
It appears experts are divided on the issue. It’s hard to rule it out totally; but I have not seen or read about it replicated. Only sort of close. Gelatin don’t really count.
But I will study it some more.
There is a sort of logical inconsistency, though, inherent in this aspect of the WC defenders: if such a bullet would do that, why did it NOT do that when it hit JFK’s head? But apparently it disappeared and according to some accounts, broke into hundreds of tiny fragments in his skull.
Some experts say that can happen with the same kind of bullets,based on hitting a skull, versus being slowed first by flesh before hitting bone. Maybe.
And of course, Oswald/the shooter could have had more than one kind of bullet among the three rounds alleged to have been fired.
It’s worth noting that Gov. and Mrs. Connally went to their grave convinced they saw and/or heard JFK hit in his throat before they heard/felt the bullet that did so much damage to Connally.They could be wrong, sure. But he had WWII experience and was sure JFK already had been hit in the throat before he, Connally was hit.
Another little tangential note: The way WC investigators questioned witnesses seems often to have been shutting down their descriptions of what they saw and heard, and challenging them, correcting them.
A common thing said by several witnesses is that it sounded like “firecrackers.” and I’ve always wondered if that doesn’t refer to the crackle of “ladyfingers,” several going off. Not a single, or two clearly distinct reports… but just wondering.
I totally reject you glomming on to the chintziest attempt to question the motivations of conspiracy theorists on JFK. I know that in my case that is foreign, and it always appears to me to be a cheap replacement for an argument. There are all sorts of Looney JFK conspiracy theorists, and some seem to be driven by a weirdly passionate love for a Camelot that never was.
But it seems to me, using Occam’s razor at this point, the main motivation behind most or at least many of the JFK conspiracy buffs is that there are so many odd and legitimate questions about what exactly went down that day.
Strictly historically speaking,from Caesar to Lincoln to Sarajevo’s Archduke Ferd da Turd, political assassinations usually are conspiracies, not the work of lone nuts. So there’s nothing untoward about theorizing about possible assassination conspiracies; it’s very historical, not hysterical.
Again, sorry to Mr. Jones for starting this thread if it breaks the rules….
In fact, how do you know I’m not part of a conspiracy to take over your blog and . . . rule the world!!! -
the Brain Said:
Anyone with half a brain can see that PM is the most logical explanation. I was in school at Michigan State on Sep 11th, and when the towers fell many of the engineering students hypothisized that the steel had failed due to the heat generated from the jetfuel burning. As to why Rosie can’t grasp the concept of physics and chemistry, perhaps its because she has a degree in arts and thinks that “good vibes” keep buildings standing?
-
David Gillies Said:
A friend of mine who has qualifications in structural engineering made the excellent point that the way in which the towers collapsed should have been utterly uncontroversial. She pointed out that no structure, not even a skyscraper, is designed to last for ever. But when you do want to demolish it. how do you do it? You bring it down vertically. The reason the towers looked like they’d been subjected to a controlled detonation was because they failed in precisely the way the designers intended they should, for which we should be very grateful (if they’d toppled, the death toll in Manhattan could have been a couple of orders of magnitude higher).
All this is moot, of course. We don’t need to reject the Truthers from the standpoint of physics and metallurgy. We can simply ignore them on the basis that no conspiracy of the scale required for the WTC’s destruction has ever been kept secret. Literally hundreds, if not thousands, of people would need to be in on the scheme. And you know what they say: the only way two people can keep a secret in Washington is if one of them is dead.
If Nixon and the CREEPs couldn’t keep Watergate under their hats, how likely is it that ‘knowledge’ of the biggest act of government-sponsored mass murder is restricted to the frothing-at-the-mouth brigade? We can ask the semi-frivolous question: if this was a Bush administration wag-the-dog effort, where are the inter-departmental memos? To make the Truthers’ beliefs even remotely feasible, we would have to assume that no-one involved in the operation had any pangs of conscience, that no-one blabbed, and that no paperwork has come to light. The conspiracy theorists are positing that there exists in the US government a cabal of people so surpassingly evil that they were willing to kill three thousand of their fellow citizens to gin up a spurious casus belli. There’s always been plenty of people sufficiently deranged to believe things of this nature, but it’s a worrying development when we start taking them even semi-seriously. -
Sluggo Said:
Truthers evidently reach their conclusions by employing Murray’s Knot (Gordian’s brother). Only the most complicated explanations are worth pursuing.
-
1charlie2 Said:
WHO, in the demo biz, uses the term “pull” on any building over 3 stories ? In the demo context, “pull” is done by cables to weaken a structure. Though with precision demo, I’m not sure they even do that much any moe.
“Pull it” was nothing more that shorthand for something like “It ain’t worth losing any firefighters over — it’s coming down anyway. Pull that unit of firefighters out of #7 now.”
Oh, and I also want to know how “explosions” cause “rivers of molten metal.” Come on, people, be consistent. I’ve worked with thermite before — it doesn’t go “bang!” even a little.
Or did some evil conspiracist empty out his whole demo toybox ? (muttering “. . . let’s see, 500 kilos of thermite, 50 kilos of C4, 15 breaching charges, caps, detcord, 200 water-tampers, and look! Here’s that fuel-air munition from last Christmas I forgot I had. THAT’ll be fun! Now, I just have to sneak all this crap up to the top of tower 1 and two.”)
Ooo, “traces of thermite” Let’s see, aluminum-bodied aircraft hits steel skyscraper. What’s the odd’s we’ll find aluminum oxide and iron in the resulting mess.
I just wish folks had the “common sense” necessary to see how crazy this is. We can’t keep anti-terror money-tracking off the front page of the NY Times, and some people think THIS could be kept secret ?
result = setGraspOfReality(0);
-
MTinMN Said:
I wonder how many man-hours of work Danny Jowenko, OWNER of Jowenko Demolitions, would say it would take to prep a building like WTC7 for a demolition? How many pounds of Thermite/thermate/explosive? How many blasting caps? How many feet of firing line/detcord? Wonder how they prepped that building for the demo during the 7-8 hours between the first attack and it’s failure? Wonder where they staged the explosives and firing line?(had to be somewhere where the debris of WTC1/WTC2 did not make it inaccessible) Wonder that no-one saw any of that activity?
Maybe they did it in advance. The super-secret demo teams came in in the middle of the nights, prior to 9/11, cut into the sheet rock to get to the steel supports, attached the thermite/thermate/explosive whatevers, rigged the blasting caps and the firing line, patched the sheet rock, and painted/papered it over so that none of the 1000′s workers in the building even noticed it was happening during the day. Yeah, that’s the ticket!
From a practical standpoint, it boggles the mind that anyone could somehow think that even if a demolition was done, that it was somehow physically possible to do in the timeframe given.
And for what motive? Did the collapse of WTC7 really inflame the public? As if the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2, the attack on the Pentagon, and Flight 93 did not already do that. The public NEEDED to have WTC7 come down to stir them up. yeah right.
-
Slartibartfast Said:
Does anyone use thermite to do demolitions? Anyone at all? My guess would be no; that it works too slowly and therefore yields an unpredictable drop. Better to have all your charges cut exactly on schedule, I’d think. Plus, you can’t possibly thermite a building without lots and lots of prep work, not least of which would be stripping fireproofing from steel beams.
IOW, thermite or explosive demolitions; pick one. Tell us your conspiracy theory consistently, and we’ll tell you why it doesn’t work.
-
Matt Jones Said:
I introduced the topic of intellectual honesty by saying, “To add to my point.” A different issue, a permutation on my original point, that scientists should necessarily be granted extra credulity because of their trade, or their profession.
Guess you weren’t smart enough to pick up on that….
As to your age, or lack of it: All I can say is you have no idea how dumb you will realize you are now then.Wow, what a pleasantly condescending comment.
All this is moot, of course. We don’t need to reject the Truthers from the standpoint of physics and metallurgy. We can simply ignore them on the basis that no conspiracy of the scale required for the WTC’s destruction has ever been kept secret. Literally hundreds, if not thousands, of people would need to be in on the scheme. And you know what they say: the only way two people can keep a secret in Washington is if one of them is dead.
I completely agree!
The sad thing is that regardless of what is offered against the truthers, they will always come back with any sort of irregularity and use it as proof of conspiracy. It will never end. Truly sad.
-
Anonymous Said:
Lt. Col. Guy S. Razer, MS, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Retired U.S. Air Force fighter pilot (F-111, F-15E, F-16, B-1, F-18, Mig-29, and Suu-22). Flew combat missions over Iraq. Former instructor at the USAF Fighter Weapons School and NATO’s Tactical Leadership Program.
• Statement to this website 3/25/07: “After 4+ years of research since retirement in 2002, I am 100% convinced that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were planned, organized, and committed by treasonous perpetrators that have infiltrated the highest levels of our government. It is now time to take our country back.
The “collapse” of WTC Building 7 [570 feet tall, 47 stories, and not hit by an airplane] shows beyond any doubt that the demolitions were pre-planned. There is simply no way to demolish a 47-story building (on fire) over a coffee break. It is also impossible to report the building’s collapse before it happened, as BBC News did, unless it was pre-planned. Further damning evidence is Larry Silverstein’s video taped confession in which he states “they made that decision to pull [WTC 7] and we watched the building collapse.
-
Anonymous Said:
Freemasonry
-
Earnest Iconoclast Said:
I firmly believe that the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by Islamic terrorists. I believe this because:
1. It’s true.
or
2. It’s not true and the government successfully pulled off a massive conspiracy to destroy billions of dollars of property and kill thousands in bizarrely complicated ways to achieve a mysterious goal in an overly complicated fashion. I’m not about to mess with this government. It’s incredibly powerful and apparently more than a little insane.
EI
-
Matt Jones Said:
Our friend Anon#1 is back again with more to spew.
It is also impossible to report the building’s collapse before it happened, as BBC News did, unless it was pre-planned.
I love this one.
So let me get this straight: Silverstein, a real-estate investor and developer (and lease holder to WTC7) says that they should “pull it” and it is just done? Who supposedly did this professional demolition? How does Silverstein have so much authority to make that happen?
I’m with Earnest. Or maybe I am a Freemason… I love how Anon#1 keeps mentioning that. Pretty classic.
-
antimedia Said:
Brian (#95), you stated “a eutectic reaction occurred at the surface and caused intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese”. The answer to your question is here.
A eutectic compound is a mixture of two or more substances that melts at the lowest temperature of any mixture of its components. Blacksmiths took advantage of this property by welding over fires of sulfur-rich charcoal, which lowers the melting point of iron. In the World Trade Center fire, the presence of oxygen, sulfur and heat caused iron oxide and iron sulfide to form at the surface of structural steel members. This liquid slag corroded through intergranular channels into the body of the metal, causing severe erosion and a loss of structural integrity.
“The important questions,” says Biederman, “are how much sulfur do you need, and where did it come from? The answer could be as simple–and this is scary- as acid rain.”
Have environmental pollutants increased the potential for eutectic reactions? “We may have just the inherent conditions in the atmosphere so that a lot of water on a burning building will form sulfuric acid, hydrogen sulfide or hydroxides, and start the eutectic process as the steel heats up,” Biederman says. He notes that the sulfur could also have come from contents of the burning buildings, such as rubber or plastics. Another possible culprit is ocean salts, such as sodium sulfate, which is known to catalyze sulfidation reactions on turbine blades of jet engines. “All of these things have to be explored,” he says.
So, while the evidence of eutectic compounds was surprising, it is not a “mystery” in the sense of something that doesn’t fit with the other data. It doesn’t negate the overwhelming evidence that the collapses were caused by a combination of major structural damage to load-bearing columns combined with extensive fires causing deformation of the remaining columns.
Your statement (referring to explosives) “where eutectic compounds are commonly used for obvious reasons” reveals a misunderstanding of the word eutectic. Eutectic merely refers to a process where the mixing of chemicals can lower the flash or melting point of a substance. In the case of the WTC steel, this refers to the mixing of iron oxide and iron sulfide with the steel, lowering its melting temperature. As you can see, there are plausible explanations for it that don’t require the use of any explosives at all. Furthermore, an demolition event doesn’t turn steel into swiss cheese, it severs it.
The statements about the redundancy of WTC7 are meaningless in the face of the damage caused to the building by the collapse of tower one. NIST has not yet completed its report on the collapse of tower 7, but they have this working hypothesis.
The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:
An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;
Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and
Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.
As you can see, the damage done when tower 1 collapsed was below the reinforced floors.
One last thought, responding to a different commenter; the idea that NIST is somehow controlled by the politics of the White House is laughable. NIST has a long and commendable reputation of conducting scientific research into the causes of various disasters (they produced reports on both the 1993 WTC bombing and the OKC Murrah Building bombing, among many others) and politics do not enter in to their reports. For example
Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.
The idea that the large number of experts involved, not only government employees but both commercial experts and independent academic scientists, could all be coerced into producing a “party line” report (of hundreds and hundreds of pages of exhibits, drawings, graphs, and detail analyses) is so far-fetched as to be loony bin material.
Which is precisely why I said anyone who buys this conspiracy nonsense is an idiot. (And yes, I chose the word carefully and deliberately.)
-
Slartibartfast Said:
Jesus. Maybe we should put these idiots together in one room, and let them argue about the exact form of the deception. Because, you see, there were no airplanes crashing into the WTC. The people in those airplanes are still alive, or taken to some remote site and murdered by our government, just so Dick Cheney can make his former co-workers a 1% profit margin.
Once, just once, I’d like to see a conspiracy theory on this that didn’t fall apart the first time it was examined.
Guy Razer…has anyone, anywhere ever heard of Guy Razer before he decided to speak up? If Razer is a former pilot, what on Earth does that have to do about his credibility re: the physics of building collapse? If Razer has an MS in “Aeronautical Studies”, why does that trump my engineering degree?
I mean, if the guy’s the genuine article, what in his resume ought to make me pay him any attention other than that due to a former serviceman who has unfortunately contracted some sort of dementia? Why does Ed Begley, Jr have any say at all about this? Why do people pay a professor of philosophy any attention in matters engineering and scientific? Why does a practicing physician and former building wiring engineer have any cache at all as being “from MIT”? Why does a former DoD mid-level manager get to revise his resume, promote himself to full colonel and call himself the former head of Star Wars, and do so without raising a large number of eyebrows? This is appeal to authority, any appearance of authority.
-
Matt Jones Said:
Thanks for that additional info antimedia, hopefully some will listen!
There are two problems with the “appeal to authority” method of the truthers: 1) the validity of a claim does not follow from the credibility of the source but the actual truth of the claim. 2) When it does come to building knowledge of the topic at hand, credible authorities are important, but they never seem to have the right authorities (eg. pilots or aeronautical studies experts commenting on physics or building structures).
-
Anonymous Said:
cut out what is true leave in what you like: empty and controlled you are.
-
Matt Jones Said:
Another fine addition from the first Anon truther.
-
Anonymous Said:
Popular Mechanics has aliitle problem with their “Citations”. When are you going to get to this: Matt?
Not your traditional way of following the facts back towards the source for Popular Mechanics…They can just get some one to step in for a word or two without giving their workcited page.
Have a nice day :}
-
Anonymous Said:
What?
-
Matt Jones Said:
-
Anonymous Said:
right you know that is good work.
-
Anonymous Said:
APA or MLA: What did they use?
-
Matt Jones Said:
Heh, their website wasn’t a scholarly paper so MLA or APA were quite easily supplanted by a reference list. I am sure their book had a full works cited page. I’m not too worried about it.
-
Anonymous Said:
Come on prove your facts through your source documenation.
Right? -
Matt Jones Said:
I’m feeling pretty good about my position, thanks.
-
Anonymous Said:
Right because you have to except that.
-
Anonymous Said:
Feel?
-
Anonymous Said:
You and I both know that if we tried to calm anything on that scale then the wolves would eat us. But, I see your point of view. :}
-
Anonymous Said:
How does one fight?
-
Matt Jones Said:
Kind of all over the place aren’t you?
-
Anonymous Said:
No
-
Anonymous Said:
Your source is.
-
Anonymous Said:
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.
You lead people into bad places: Matt.
Your Smart, but how can you feel your way through these facts without using proper citations, and sources…anything that can offer more of info on the facts that your “Debunking The 9/11 Myths” is claiming?
-
Anonymous Said:
See Matt, this guy right here feels like you do.
“citations from some of the world’s best in science”
Now, there is a great article that has citations from some of the world’s best in science, engineering and construction found in Popular Mechanics which you could GOOGLE and use that as a compliment to this bog when going up against …
-
Anonymous Said:
Your not feeling like this is important: Matt you are smart.
-
Matt Jones Said:
See here is the thing, I haven’t “felt my way” towards anything. Their science is solid, and PM isn’t the only group that has weighed in on this. There are plenty of places that support the science.
It is the conspiracy theorists that are riding on feelings. Before you even look at the facts, the conspiracies don’t even make sense. Providing a few unresolved issues don’t really stack up against the reality of what went on.
My feelings are that this is quite important and that my position is well founded. At this point I am not too worried about trying to defend myself or PM. If someone tries to prove to me that gravity is wrong, I am not going to be too worried about defending the science there.
-
Anonymous Said:
Consulted: ask, check with, talk to, seek advice from, see, look up, turn to check in.
Did they have coffee and doughnuts. Seemed like they got some real good advice Matt.
-
Anonymous Said:
Popular Mechanics let you down. Next time Trust, but verify.
-
Anonymous Said:
Nice blogging with you, oh don’t forget to delete the clutter I hate to see this come up again.
Semper Fi
USMC -
Matt Jones Said:
I am going to go ahead and leave this up for the enjoyment of others.
-
Mike Adkison Said:
Mr. Jones:
Nice try, but no cigar for you! You are obviously a phony and a shill. You, and many responders here are part of a phony internet network, trying despretely to cover up the truth. There are hundreds of phony websites like yours, probably funded by the CIA. Guess what you little prick: It ain’t working! There are many reasoned arguments here, telling the truth as it really is. You pretend to speak with a greater degree of reason than the people who are onto our lying administration, which you are a part. Better try a little harder and get further instructions from your handlers. Damage control! Go to plan B, plan B I say!
PS: Are you related to John Hinkley? You look just like him.
-
Matt Jones Said:
I really hope you are just being funny. It seems like you are. But since you got here by searching for BushCo designed dealey plaza, I am somewhat worried that you might be serious…
-
Mike Adkison Said:
HA HA, funny, huh?
-
Matt Jones Said:
Well anyone that actually believes what you said would have to be completely crazy, so I am giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you are just making fun of people that actually believe that.
-
Mike Adkison Said:
You are so smooth in your cleaverness. I’m not as cleaver as you, but I am much smarter, and obviously more principled. That hit piece in Popular Mechanics? It was penned by the nephew of Michael Chertoff, our Homeland Security director. The name Chertoff means “Son of the devil”. And this man has dual citizenship and is a citizen of Israel! Just think about that fact. Homeland Security isn’t about security of the United States. It’s about the security of Israel. Americans had never called the US our homeland. It’s what jews have called Israel. And here we are, fighting a proxy war for them. 9/11 was the catalyzing event necessary to get the American people to go along with this. PNAC describes this in their own documents. Homeland Security of the US is a phony enterprise. We have spent a hundred billion dollars for this lousy organization which hasn’t made us a bit safer, yet our borders are wide open and anyone who wants to come here just floods over the borders, arabs included. Put that in your little crack pipe and smoke it pal.
-
Matt Jones Said:
I feel sad for you, I really do. How can you live your life being so paranoid about everything? Unfortunately the reality (that you don’t seem to live in) doesn’t really support your theories.
-
Mike Adkison Said:
Buddy, you’re as phony as a three dollar bill. You’re too obvious! You’re running naked. Better go put some clothes on.
-
Matt Jones Said:
Yep, you’ve really got me there.
-
Mike Adkison Said:
I know pal, you’re a phoney!
-
Matt Jones Said:
So very much so, just waiting for the checks from the CIA to roll in!
-
Mike Adkison Said:
Have fun celebrating Cinco de Mayo with your tv like “friends” You are a smart alec little boy. Any one who has seen how building 7 fell knows it was “pulled”. And you pretend to be reasoned? The plane that was shot down in Pennslyvania was intended to hit building 7. Yes smarty boy, it was shot down. The debris field was miles long, and there was no plane that hit the ground. Just small pieces of it. Counter that with one of your smooth, ninja like retorts, you slimey snakeboy.
-
Matt Jones Said:
Yes, you clearly know me well.
Unfortunately you and your fellow conspiracy theorists don’t have any scientific evidence to stand on. Just wild idea and delusions. I am amazed that people still buy into the crap you guys push, they have been debunked to thoroughly.
-
Mike Adkison Said:
No mr.jones, as I said before, I am not that clever, but I do know you well, and I do know what your game is. That term, conspiracy theorist, just like racist or anti semite is so over used it has lost its efficacy. You are a loser, and so are the people you work for. And if you choose to place a label on me and lump me together with others, then I will do the same with you. I have researched the information and I am very objective in my beliefs. I follow no political party, so you can’t call me an anti Bush liberal democrat. In fact, I voted for the chimperor in the first election so the other scum bag wouldn’t gain office. I have no motive to believe anything other than what is logical and rational. I have made my choice of belief through careful study and rational thought, not by listening to smart alecky little punks using one line quips like yourself. My beliefs aren’t wild, they are reasoned, and I have read what hundred of intelligent people have brought forward with regard to 9/11. The scientific evidence I and others stand on is solid as rock, while you stand in a field of flowers with your giggly high school girlfriends. I am not delusional, as hard as you would like to have others think. Guess what? People aren’t buying YOUR crap, and the subject HASN’T been thoroughly debunked at all. Little boys like you can’t shut the door on the truth. You trying to silence the truth is much like trying to sit on a volcano to prevent an eruption. The end result will surely be a badly burned behind! There are so many phonies such as yourself trying to pass off lunacy as truth that we have to be careful what to believe. Like your name just may not be Matt Jones. It may just as well be David Goldstein. And you may not be in the PNW. You may be sitting in an office in Tel Aviv, consulting your cabala on what to say next. WOW! Way out, huh? Yes, you certainly are. If anyone’s pushing crap it’s YOU sonny boy.
-
Matt Jones Said:
Heh, you folks do always provide for good entertainment. I’m so glad that you know me so well.
That term, conspiracy theorist, just like racist or anti semite is so over used it has lost its efficacy.
So if someone hates a black person (or let’s say… a Jew), they aren’t racist because the terms are overused? Often times someone just is what they are, regardless of how overused the term is.
You are a loser, and so are the people you work for.
Who is it I work for? The CIA? Right. Got it.
And if you choose to place a label on me and lump me together with others, then I will do the same with you.
So what label is that? Which group? The losers group? Yeah, scientists and people who actually know what they are talking about are such losers. I would gladly be lumped with them.
I have researched the information and I am very objective in my beliefs.
So what research is that?
I follow no political party, so you can’t call me an anti Bush liberal democrat.
I don’t recall saying anything about your politics…
I have no motive to believe anything other than what is logical and rational.
And yet you still believe in things that could be explained extremely easily and scientifically but explaine them in an extremely convoluted way.
The scientific evidence I and others stand on is solid as rock
No, it really isn’t.
while you stand in a field of flowers with your giggly high school girlfriends.
Haha, awesome.
Guess what? People aren’t buying YOUR crap, and the subject HASN’T been thoroughly debunked at all.
Gravity doesn’t exist!! Just because people like you don’t like to listen to the science and experts and aren’t willing to let things go, doesn’t mean it hasn’t been thoroughly debunked.
You trying to silence the truth…
And how have I silenced the “truth”? I have actually provided direct links to the nonsense you call “truth.”
There are so many phonies such as yourself trying to pass off lunacy as truth that we have to be careful what to believe. Like your name just may not be Matt Jones. It may just as well be David Goldstein. And you may not be in the PNW. You may be sitting in an office in Tel Aviv, consulting your cabala on what to say next. WOW! Way out, huh? Yes, you certainly are. If anyone’s pushing crap it’s YOU sonny boy.
Wow, you have definitely nailed me. You have really called me out! How did you find out the truth??
And you wonder why people don’t believe the crap you spout.
-
Mike Adkison Said:
Guess what? They do believe it. They don’t believe you. Go put your clothes on and quit running naked like a three year old.
-
Matt Jones Said:
By “they” you mean people that don’t understand science and just don’t want to believe that a few idiot terrorists could cause such a horrible travesty with so much death.
Are you just hoping I am naked or something? That is fairly creepy.
-
Mike Adkison Said:
You claim you know of scientists? Like Michael Chertoff’s nephew? What about what University of Utah physics professor Stephen Jones says? Well, this man’s reasearch means nothing to you, right? You, yourself claim to pick and choose what to believe, right? These scientists you hold up are probably masons who are on the government dole, just like you. I don’t spout crap, I tell the truth. Spouting crap is your forte. And I must say, you think you are so cool, but I obviously am getting under your skin. Even you have a soft spot, don’t you? I wont waste anymore of my time with you. You’re so phony, you’re no fun to play with.
-
Matt Jones Said:
Heh, I love that you think you are “getting under my skin.” This is quite comical to me.
Everything is a conspiracy to you. I am a “phony” because you don’t like what I say and yet you have no basis for your belief… just like your other conspiracies.
-
apb Said:
Hello, Matt -
You’re a better man than I – I just revisited your site, and am amazed at your level of tolerance toward the idiot class. Good counters, but all for naught – the idiot class suffers from hubris that prevents them from learning.
Kind of strange, actually. The idiot class parallels the Islamofascist wack-jobs that perpetrated the deed – the wack-jobs’ beliefs are so strong they’ll never come out of the 7th century; the idiot class’ beliefs are so strong they can’t understand high-school physics and refuse to learn.
Shame.
-
Matt Jones Said:
Heh, thanks. It actually becomes fairly humorous, I ends up being fun to just mock them. After a while you give you trying to reason with them, so why not mock them?
the idiot class suffers from hubris that prevents them from learning.
Indeed. They just cannot comprehed that these Islamofascists could have done what they did, no matter what the evidence, they will look for any little thing, no matter how absurd or far-fetched, and hold on to it so tightly so they don’t have to believe the reality. Makes me think of Lenny from Of Mice and Men.
Post a Comment
My blog design is based on Ikram Zidane's Merdeka Theme and is copyright 2010 by Matt Jones.
24 queries in 1.792 seconds.
Screw Loose Change on 31 Mar 2007 at 9:57 pm Said:
McRyanMac on 31 Mar 2007 at 9:24 pm Said:
Matt Jones’ Random Acts of Verbiage » Seeing The Unseen on 17 Apr 2007 at 8:00 pm Said:
[...] ∙Jesus is Offensive∙Seeing The Unseen∙2007 Family Easter∙A Sense of Scale: The Bodies of the Solar System∙Thinking Blogger Award∙He Is Risen!∙The God of the Bible is also the God of Science∙The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time∙Google Offers Free In-Home Wireless!∙Rosie the Physicist [...]
Hot Air » Blog Archive » Video: Rosie melts down on “The View” on 08 May 2007 at 5:56 am Said:
Matt Jones' Random Acts of Verbiage on 16 May 2007 at 12:21 am Said:
Watching The View without throwing things at my screen
I don’t know how I restrained myself. Ace has posted a few more thoughts on Rosie and her conspiracy theories that I wanted to mention here. First, here is a clip from The View. People, please don’t break anything.
Instapundit.com - March 25, 2007 - March 31, 2007 Archives on 20 May 2007 at 2:57 pm Said:
.:DANEgerus Weblog:. Colonic Conservatism for those whose ignorance tilts Left Comments Page on 14 Oct 2007 at 12:01 pm Said:
Acetelyne Explosion - Dogpile Web Search on 08 Nov 2007 at 4:59 am Said: