Friday, May 19, 2006

My Favorite New Catch Phrase

Pat linked yesterday to a debunking at the Daylight Atheism, which uses a great phrase "the unexplained sinister assertion" defined as:

some apparently anomalous piece of evidence which the filmmakers state in deeply sinister tones, implying that is an insurmountable problem for the ordinary explanation.

A good example of this is when they describe a demolition conducted by Controlled Demolitions, supposedly the masterminds behind the World Trade Center destruction.

Guess who was allowed into the [ground zero] site? Controlled Demolition, who was also responsible for cleaning up after the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1995. It gets better than that. On July 15th, 2001. Controlled Demolition destroyed two 400 ft tall fuel reserve tanks from the World War II era. The demolition was conducted for no apparent reason, and drew numerous complains from the neighborhood. The site remains vacant to this day and a reason for the demolition has never been disclosed.












So what are they arguing? That Controlled Demolition, in order to prepare for their World Trade Center coup was running around the country randomly blowing up old crap? Does this make sense to anyone? Would it hurt these guys to at least try and make a coherent argument at some point?

To top it off, the story isn't even true. But it sounds really ominous...

23 Comments:

At 19 May, 2006 08:35, Blogger BG said...

I agree with this post. Trying to raise a ruckus with this does seem to be grasping at straws.

 
At 19 May, 2006 08:43, Blogger Jujigatami said...

In the days and weeks after 9/11 basically anyone with a hardhat was allowed to come in to the site to help.

Companies and people came from all over the country. Big frickinn suprise that CDI sent people. So did virtually every other construction company in the city and state.

I remember the hotels let workers stay there for free, gyms (NY Sports, Equinox, and others) downtown set up cots for workers to sleep on and let them use their showers. Churches set up cots for workers. There was a HUGE influx of people that came to help with the recovery and cleanup. Companies flew in workers from all over the country!

I have lots of friends that volunteered to serve them meals, and many are still friends with the workers they met down there, even though they are from different parts of the country.

Construction halted in NY and almost every construction/demolition worker was at ground zero.

NO ONE WAS TURNED AWAY!

Gee, CDI was there... big shock! A company experienced in cleaning up fallen buildings helped to clean up fallen buildings.

Move over Lee Harvey!

 
At 19 May, 2006 09:11, Blogger LT said...

ya know, at first, i kind of enjoyed this debate. I have always thought the Loose Changers were really imaginative, but i was willing to review their "evidence" and debate with them. However, after days on end of the intellectual dishonesty, their refusal to accept opinions of subject matter experts, and the critique of FIRST HAND/EYE WITNESS ACCOUNTS (like BG of you jujigatami) it has become uninteresting. I mean, arguing with a wall gets boring after a while. Its also kinda of like explaining something to a 3 year old.

 
At 19 May, 2006 09:18, Blogger Jujigatami said...

It,

You're right.

Sometimes I feel like god is punishing me by making me argue with idiots.

This is just stuff I had to get off my chest. Things I saw and experienced are discounted, and goddamn it it pisses me off.

I should just let them argue with the voices in their head, but right now I feel the need to counter their idiotic assertions with the truth of what I witnessed that day.

 
At 19 May, 2006 09:27, Blogger LT said...

I was not there on that day. I'm from the south. Even so, I felt the urge to combat this ridiculous and embarrassing "movies" theories. I don't have the personal perspective and involvement that you do, however, I am in the military, have served a year in Iraq, and take issue with citizens of the US presenting as fact, these assertions that foreign groups/organizations use as fodder to promote anti-US images throughout the world. How proud the parents of the producers and supporters of this film must be...

 
At 19 May, 2006 09:36, Blogger BG said...

Jujigatami,

Have you posted on the web your full account anywhere. I can understand how you may of misunderstood, but my beef is probably not with the substance the accuracy of your specifics of what you say you experienced. The concern I had with what I saw you posting related to where you were mixing in conclusions which are debatable beyond just reporting your first hand account.

I would welcome being able to read your full account. If I'm not mistaken you claimed to have seen both planes. The first impact is especially mysterious. It's critical to narrow down just what you are reporting. Most likely you say the results of the first impact, not the actual plane before impact, and the impact as it happened. Tell me if I'm wrong about this.

If I am wrong, and you did see the first "plane", I'd really like to know if you think what you saw was most clear that what the Naudet Bros. allegedly captured.

My contention is that you are giving us the specifics about what you are saying you saw, how clearly, etc., etc.

If you really have extensive eye witness testimony to offer on this (especially the first hit), the value of what you have to contribute is enormous and it should be commited to a historical record in full.

 
At 19 May, 2006 09:38, Blogger Jujigatami said...

I am in the military, have served a year in Iraq, and take issue with citizens of the US presenting as fact, these assertions that foreign groups/organizations use as fodder to promote anti-US images throughout the world.

Yeah, but the first thing the nutbars will scream is "Don't questtion my patriotism!"

Thank you SOOOOOOOO much for serving our country.

You are a hero and I truly appreciate your dedication and sacrifice.

 
At 19 May, 2006 09:50, Blogger dman said...

There is new book out titled:

9 MONTHS AT GROUND ZERO by

Glenn Stout, Charles Vitchers,
Robert
Grey (hope got all names right)

The authors are managers of some of
the largest construction company in
New York City - many of their
employees built the Twin Towers and
were familiar with its structure.
They go into detail on how the
buildings were dismantled including
"the molten steel" brought up by
the nutbar/tin foil types. The
authors detail the numerous "hot
spots" and their dangers caused by
fires burning underground for weeks
Temperatures in some areas reached
1800F (1000C) - hot enough to cause
steel beams to glow. The read hot
beams had to be left aside to cool
often the FDNY was required to
hose them down to cool.

 
At 19 May, 2006 09:56, Blogger James B. said...

Welcome LT. I am in the Army Guard (which I am amazed the moonbats here have not brought up as proof of my complicity). Haven't been to Iraq yet, but they send me all sorts of other places.


Juj, that is the way they work. They discount the hundreds of eyewitnesses that don't say the thing they want, and latch on to the one person whose words might be interpreted to support their theory.

I can understand how it would piss you off. It pisses me off and I was home on my couch watching it on tv. Although a month later I was getting on a plane to Ft. Bragg, so I suppose I am a bit emotionally involved.

 
At 19 May, 2006 10:07, Blogger Jujigatami said...

I've never put it all down anywhere.

I've thought about it many times, but never could seem to sit down and put it all down. Its very painful. I said before, the things I saw that day I wouldn't want anyone to see.

I saw both planes hit. I would commute from NJ. Sometimes I'd take the PATH train from Hoboken, on nice days I'd take the ferry. 9/11 was a beautiful morning, and I took the ferry. I I got off the ferry at the World financial center and began walking to my office on Broadway. To do this, you have to walk DIRECTLY toward WTC1 As I was walking I heard a jets roar. I looked up. Now READ ALL OF THIS, DO NOT TAKE THIS OUT OF CONTEXT!!!!! I expected it to me some sort of military plane since every now and then military jets do fly down the Hudson river. IT WAS NOT. I saw a huge jetliner fly over me and SLAM IN TO THE TOWER!!! I had a PERFECT vantage point.

I didn't know what to do. Should I get back on the ferry and go home or should I go to my office? I went to my office. I found a group of co-workers standing behind our building on Greenwich and Rector street looking at the burning building, and we started talking about what happened. Some saw the crash, and some just saw the fire. The ones that didn't see the crash didn't believe me and those of us that did see it that it was a jetliner. They assumed, as I did before I saw the plane, that it was a private or military plane. They couldn't imagine it was a jetliner. Of course, they didn't actually see what I and the others did.

We all thought it had to be an accident. I was talking about how the buildings are designed to survive a hit like this and how it would be OK.

Smoke was pouring out, debris was flying everywhere, we were joking around saying its like Godzilla has attacked. We were all looking up at the towers. From our vantage point we had a perfect view of both towers (google map 45 broadway and you'll see where I was).

It was then when the second plane flew over us and slammed in to the south tower. the force of the blast knocked a couple of people standing with to the ground.

Thats when we all realized we were under attack.

My coworker looked at me and said "was that another airliner?" I said yeah, I thought it was a US Airways plane, but another coworker said it was a United plane.

For the next few minutes, we were standing there basically saying "Holy Shit!" over and over again, trying to decide what to do now. Thats when we heard another jet. Me and one of my coworkers went to hit the deck, but another coworker (who had been in the Israeli Air Force) said NO, thats an F-16. Sure enough an F-16 flew by.

We realized then and there we were at war.

There's so much more I saw and experienced that day. But I need to stop now, I'm shaking.

 
At 19 May, 2006 10:23, Blogger Jujigatami said...

Juj, that is the way they work. They discount the hundreds of eyewitnesses that don't say the thing they want, and latch on to the one person whose words might be interpreted to support their theory.

James,

I know thats how they work, thats why I feel the urge to confront them with what I saw. Its easy for them to discount someone who is just repeating something they heard someone describe, or something they read somewhere, But I'm firsthand.

I know I'm opening myself up to the nutbars who will try anything to prove what I saw and experienced isn't really what I saw and experienced.

 
At 19 May, 2006 11:33, Blogger nesNYC said...

these assertions that foreign groups/organizations use as fodder to promote anti-US images throughout the world.

All the US had to do was march into Iraq for it to promote anit-US images throughout the world. Call it self inflicted bullshit.

 
At 19 May, 2006 11:39, Blogger nesNYC said...

Temperatures in some areas reached
1800F (1000C) - hot enough to cause
steel beams to glow. The read hot
beams had to be left aside to cool
often the FDNY was required to
hose them down to cool.


That's what the "nutbars" are saying. I'm sure one of you engineering types can come up with an equation that tells us 10,000 gallons of jet fuel cannot cause this. It's pretty solid evidence of another force is at work here. Many have concluded it can only be thermite that caused all that residual heating.

 
At 19 May, 2006 11:47, Blogger nesNYC said...

I know thats how they work, thats why I feel the urge to confront them with what I saw. Its easy for them to discount someone who is just repeating something they heard someone describe, or something they read somewhere, But I'm firsthand.

Ever heard of mass hysteria? That day was especially confusing in NY. BTW, I was in the city as well. And although I didn't see the planes hit or the collapses, I did see the smoke for weeks on end. No one is EVER going to tell me jet fuel cased all that. The smell in Brooklyn was horrible; for weeks on end! We had to shut out windows since I lived right across the river by the Navy yard.

Whatever happened was recording, convincingly and verifiably by firefighter transmissions that many of us have heard. They said secondary explosions were going off all over and not just form the "hole" as you describe. The whole incident has been documented and corroborated by many. We are all left with a pretty clear picture of what really went down. If you have a slightly differing version, that's fine. But to invalidate EVERY documented account as "nutty" smacks of dishonesty or being a victim of mass hysteria.

 
At 19 May, 2006 12:08, Blogger Jujigatami said...

Nesnyc,

You are such a fucking idiot.

The fire burned for weeks. No shit it smelled, and smelled awful.

Could it be that the jet fuel started the fire, and was then an accellerant (ask any fireman what that is) for the tons and tons of other flammable shit in the towers? This same tons of flammable shit then burned for weeks.

Nah, couldn't be, must be the gubmint.

I don't disregard every account as nutty, just the dumbass lunatic CT's that you and your ilk spout as if there were a shred of truth to any of it.

Here's the deal moron, the hole was HUGE! The fire spread both upwards and downwards. This caus4ed backflashes and explosions, not only at the hole, but where the fire spread to. Once again, this is NORMAL.

As for the basement "explosions"

Could it just be that the force of a 250,000 pound plane hitting the building at 400 mph knocked a big piece of something (steel, concrete, whatever) into an elevator shaft? What do you think a 1 ton piece of metal or concrete would sound like in a basement after dropping 50 stories in an elevator shaft? An explosion maybe?

Hey, what do you think the second plane hitting the south tower sounded like to people in the north tower? An explosion maybe? Hey, what does it sound like when a giant piece of debris falls 80-90 stories onto concrete below? An explosion maybe?

You are a dipshit.

 
At 19 May, 2006 12:11, Blogger Curt Cameron said...

nesnyc, I asked on another topic's comment section, whether there was anything in Loose Change that you would actually stand behind as solid evidence (I said it all was provably wrong, and invited you to prove me wrong with a single example).

You wrote:
I did see the smoke for weeks on end. No one is EVER going to tell me jet fuel cased all that.

If anyone ever tells you that, you'll know for sure that person is an idiot. Jet fuel started the fires which caused the collapses, but no one would say that all the smoke for weeks was due to "jet fuel."

Yes, people in and near the buildings reported secondary explosions. This happens all the time in large fires. It does not mean that these explosions were bombs. Buildings are full of stuff that explodes when it burns: coke cans, fire extinguishers, electical transformers, aerosol cans. Also, a strained building makes all kinds of loud noises which sound like explosions. Firefighters report sounds like explosions, but as far as I'm aware, there are none who think there were bombs in the buildings.

 
At 19 May, 2006 12:25, Blogger undense said...

That's what the "nutbars" are saying. I'm sure one of you engineering types can come up with an equation that tells us 10,000 gallons of jet fuel cannot cause this.

I can't explain it if you're going to assume it's the jetfuel that caused this. However, this effect was discovered after the buildings had collapsed and while the steel was buried under piles of rubble.

First, the fact of molten steel existing in the rubble has not truly been established other than through eyewitness accounts, some of which are incorrect attributions:

http://911myths.com/html/leslie_robertson.html

But let's assume there was some discovered in the hot spots. Let's also note the disparity that some claimed the steel was glowing rather than molten, which implies a liquid flow. We don't know the actual temperature of the steel because, afaik, nobody made any scientifically valid measurements. No matter though, because there is still a relatively simple explanation.

The alleged "molten" steel reported was buried under rubble. It was discovered in known hotspots where fires had been ongoing for a week or much longer. So the steel in trapped under rubble which restricts the airflow. However, the rubble was not air tight. A solid containment vessel would be required for that to ensure a complete burning off of the oxygen in the air. Instead there were holes, cracks, and voids. As the fires burned underground, heating of the air would mean the air expands in localized areas. As that air expands a pressure differential is created which tends to bring fresh air into the rubble pile to replace it from another area, because gas tends to seek equalibrium. Since the air entering through voids and cracks would be a resticted flow it would also be a relatively high-speed flow. That high-speed flow would stoke the fires in some of the localized areas, greatly increasing the temperature to levels that could be capable of heating steel to a molten state.

iow, the rubber pile, in effect created small, localized blast furnaces.

Do I have any proof this actually happened? No, but it is a possible explanation and nobody has any proof of molten steel existing either.

 
At 19 May, 2006 12:28, Blogger Alex said...

Jujigatami, thanks for sharing that. Reading your words brings back all the thoughts and feelings of that day as if I were watching it all unfold for the first time. On 9/11 I was about 5 days back from a 4 month tasking with the military, so I'd slept in that day. I remember waking up to a glorious morning...just in time for a friend to call me, yell "TURN ON THE NEWS", and hang up. I had just enoug time to see the pictures of the first tower burning, and think "holy shit...", before the second plane hit. I should point out here that I'm Canadian...but as soon as I saw that, my first thought was "we're at war". During that morning I remember going through a dozen different emotions, and a hundred different theories about what the next move would be, but never was there any doubt in my mind that the US would act decisevely against the scum who had done this, and that I would be there fighting right beside your men. That's probably the only thing that held me together during those first few days.

 
At 19 May, 2006 17:17, Blogger shawn said...

" No one is EVER going to tell me jet fuel cased all that."

Yeah, man, none of the Trade Center itself burned, just the jet fuel. We should build all our buildings out of rubble from the WTC, we'd never have to worry about fires again.

 
At 19 May, 2006 20:25, Blogger BG said...

Jujigatami,

I appreciate your first-hand description.

I'm not saying a word trying to dispute anything that you said.

There are quite a number of follow up questions many people might have, but I'm not trying to make this a debate about anything you have said in your account.

 
At 19 May, 2006 21:04, Blogger BG said...

Jujigatami,

I am linking to a 37 page pdf about the events of 9/11 surrounding the wtc. My point in linking to this is to demonstrate the areas of discussions to the had about 9/11 and NYC that shed doubt of the govt. story of what happened, yet I would be interested to see if you agree: they don't contradict anything in your version of the events, nor postulate ideas that you, based on your first-hand experience should reject out of hand.

See what you think: Mysteries of the Twin Towers

A Survey of the Available Evidence
On the Collapse of the World Trade Center
Rodger Herbst; BAAE, ME
Rev. 6, January 2006

 
At 20 May, 2006 07:05, Blogger BG said...

Here's an interesting new vid:
How Indeed Did The Twin Towers Collapse?

 
At 24 May, 2006 15:40, Blogger Rousseau said...

As a student of politics I do not find surprising at all the high levels of education correlates to acceptence of the government's position. Their is a long and well developed academic (and quite mainstream) literature that the heaviest dose of nationalisttic indoctrination is directed at the most prominent (i.e. educated) members of our society. Who will argue that to gain real access and influence in the American system access to cash and economic resources is a nesscessary (but not sufficient) condition. Thus, convincing those who posses in reality only the ability to participate as 1/1,000,0000th of vote count once every several years or write a letter to their representative that the government operates for and in their interestes is rather inconcequential for maintaining a solid political strucutre in any society. More important however are the educated classes whose compliance is essential. Think about it, most revloutionaries hail from an upper class background (i.e. Castro, Lenin, Ho Chi Mihn, Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Marx, Engels).

Further, as a student of politics I am cosistently amazed at how well this indoctrination operates. True or not, the sheer revulsion to the claims (if completley unfounded and rediculous as claimed on this site, an extensive and well thought out site dedicated to debunking it is also ridiculous)provides sound evidence of well trainded minds fine tuned by the American education system. If I made a movie claiming that the world was flat, would a web site be needed to debunk it? I don't know if the guys are totally right but my studies in politics makes me far more atuned to the claim that individuals can and do act with a reckless abandoned to achieve what thay felt would validate them personally, for whatever reason. It as if you all beleive that our leaders are some kind of special people not prone to the destruction, lies, and folly that permeates that records of political leaders thoughout the ages.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home