Podcast Interview With James & Pat
James and I had the honor of being interviewed by "Tom Paine" of the Anglospheric group blog Silent Running. The interview is included on this week's edition of the Shire Network News, which features bloggers from the UK, Australia, Canada and the United States, including friend of this blog, Damian Penny (who suggested that Tom interview us). I recommend strongly that you listen to the entire podcast--it's terrific, with a biting wit and smart commentary--but if you're in a rush be sure to check out Tom's thoughts on Ned Lamont's new commercial featuring Kos starting at about 13:58 (falling out of your chair funny). Our segment begins at 23:40.
I know I speak for James when I say that the interview was as entertaining to give as it is to listen to. "Tom" is a fascinating individual and after the interview was over we had a wide-ranging conversation for over a half hour (fortunately on his dime). Thanks, Tom, and thanks Damian! Tom tells us he has 3,000 weekly listeners; make that 3,002 and counting.
posted by Pat @ 10:17 AM
68 comments
68 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Your appearance on the podcast was indeed cool. Enjoyed hearing the voices and the story behind this blog.
With reference to the Podcast with Tom Paine, (no reflection on you guys, because I have not way to know):
Let's see, how would you describe the political viewpoint.
100% Bush Support (check)
100% War on Terro Support (check)
100% Making fun of Cindy Sheehan and Liberals (check)
100% Making fun of Legal standards such as Cruel and Unusual Punishment (check)
Now I ask anyone, why would such a dedicated progaganda operation be interesting in having a rah - rah session with bloggers who wanted to cover up 9/11 Truth.
Hmmmm.
The American Military would never "cover up" a major disaster of a large plane crash, would they?
On December 12, 1985, 248 members of the 3/502 Infantry of the 101st Airborne Division perished on an Air Arrow crash near Gander, Newfoundland. They were on their way home to spend the holidays with their families and friends after completing a peacekeeping mission in the Sinai Desert. The following pictures show the very touching memorial park that has been built in their memory called "Silent Witnesses".
Link
Today Doonesbury Cartoon about 9/11:
Link
It is a generally conservative podcast, BG, no denying it. I am generally conservative myself, with a bit of a libertarian streak--reluctantly pro-choice and pro-drug legalization, but solidly behind Bush in the WoT.
So, from bg we learn that "silent running" is a "dedicated progaganda operation" and that those in charge of this blog want "to cover up 9/11 Truth" but bg doesn't want this to reflect on "you guys, because I have no[] way to know."
Amazing -- claiming that people want to "cover up" the truth by contributing to a "dedicated propoganda campaign" is not intended to reflect badly on their character. This from the guy who thinks that the comments on this blog should be moderated to filter out cheap ad hominem attacks.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
FatOllie,
I respect your comments, FO.
Don't know if it matters to you, but I would say the same thing(propaganda operation) of my blog, of this blog, of Air America, and the New York Times. In the case of Tom Paine, the fact that the propaganda in aligned with a government which is practicing lying to its citizens about 9/11, lying to justify an illegal war, has practiced torture as a policy, and continues to thumb it's nose at the constitution... I have to say I'm proud to proclaim the connection.
Also, thanks for correcting the English of my previous comment.
100% Bush Support (check)
And? Ad hominem.
100% War on Terro[r] Support (check)
Something any sane individual should support.
100% Making fun of Cindy Sheehan and Liberals (check)
Sheehan isn't a liberal, she is a radical. As a classical liberal myself, I find it insulting that the term is hijacked by herself and others like her.
On December 12, 1985, 248 members of the 3/502 Infantry of the 101st Airborne Division perished on an Air Arrow crash near Gander, Newfoundland.
Red herring and post hoc logical fallacies in one post, you're doing better.
I think my point of of the Bush Admin neglecting following the Contitution is a bit more than ad hominem. It not like I'm saying he's got a big nose. It's not even him I'm attacking... it the Govt. of which he is a figurehead, spokeman and defender.
Sometime I imagine what it would be like to be in his shoes, an exposed fraud who has to go out and "catapult the propaganda". This is the phrase he himself used.
The ability to wake up everyday and lie well should not be the chief area of expertise for the Executive of our great Nation.
bg, my point was that you seek to discredit Paine by using his support of Bush. That's ad hominem (attacking the person instead of his points).
Shawn,
If we were trying to argue a logic point about Loose Change, or we were trying to argue whether a particular statment or point made the Tom Paine was true or false, I would agree with you.
I wasn't arguing any particular statement or group of statement were true or false.
I was arguing on a level that does resolved to simply applying a quick rule of logic. You don't want to deal with that, so you go off on this tangent.
Rather than carrying on this inane back and forth, let me just share something that jwas emailed to me today.
For those of you have have nothing but scorn for people you call CT's, nut jobs, let me share with you what an MD emailed to our 9/11 news group today:
who is this david hawkins of 'scholars' ?
He likes the remotely controlled planes disintegrating
nano-technologicalally and instantaneously as they 'enter" steel and
concrete Towers "like a kife thru better".
Congratulations, Professor Hawkiins ?
You get the semi-annual "William of Ockham" platinum-electro-bronzed
'gold' cup for the most parsimonious and simple explanation of what we
are supposed to have seen on 9/11.
According to you, they just vaporized the "planes" in the very instant
these aluminum Boeings collided with the Towers ...
.. ?
Certainly, that is a more "economical" explanation than the more
painful and realistic likelihood that the video material Prof. Hawkins
in faithfully relying on and exptrapolating from is .. none other
than... you guessed it !!!
CNN ... MSNBC ... maybe a little FOX thrown in ..?
I furthermore direct you, Prof. Hawk-eye, to the apparent blatant
contradictions, physical inconsistencies and sheer visual absurdities
BETWEEN the varian versions of "video evidence" you are so religiously
relying on.
......
Would someone please explain to me just where Mr.Hawkins is coming
from on this ?
He proceeds to identify a "rogue element within the CIA" as the
culprits ...
Hawkins loves the official media accounts of the "war games" like
Amalgam Virgo or Global Guardian, he doesn't even have a clue
that the stupid games were all choreographed and could THEMSELVES have
been easily SIMULATED (via computer) in REAL-TIME ...
Has Hawkins ever particpated in a real EMPE ?
Does he not recognize that all these things can be simulated and
"faked", as long as you have a population glued to their TV sets for
their next moment-to-crisis-laden-moment visual revelation of "truth"..
Hawkins .. don't you fucking get it yet ?
The drills were "exercises"; part real, part "simulated".
Look how easy it was FOR THE CONTROLLED MEDIA NETWORKS to just
broadcast fake VIDEO of PLANES CRASHING INTO TOWERS..
no matter how physically absurd, scientifically impossible or mutually
inconsistent such sloppery and fakery might LATER be exposed as..
But I sure am relieved that Prof. Hawkins has relieved us all of the
need to go any further than "a rogue element of the CIA" ..
using some kind of explosively rigged Boeing-like planes,
as far as nailing down the evidence and perps for our 9/11
indictments, arrests and trials.
Guess that gives poor persecuted Michael Hayden a pass, doesn't it ?
I listened to the audio from the beginning to the end of the interview with our intrepid duo. Much of what I heard, I'd consider to be fair comment from a right of center perspective. Some (the whole banning the Bible thing and the comments about the Texas death penalty cases) is way over the top and can be fairly characterized, in my opinion, as propaganda. Still, I don't think calling this a "dedicated propaganda operation" is fair. There's a lot more to their broadcast than propaganda. I think the portion of interest to this blog was quite good.
As for correcting errors: if I quote something, it should be exact and in context. If it's not, for whatever reason, I feel required to note it. I tried to be as subtle as possible; I don't do spelling/typo flames and am as likely to commit those types of errors as anybody.
In case I'm not making it clear, one of the many people who doubt the govt. story, is pointing out one particular "9/11 Researcher", who is a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. He seems to be promoting what seems to be a clear story to insure not be taken seriously.
but solidly behind Bush in the WoT.
Enjoy that while it lasts. You will soon join the ranks of the 88% that don't.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
FO,
I respect your thoughts. If we had a true conservative as a Pres, I might even support her / him.
bg wrote:
"I was arguing on a level that [resolves] to simply applying a quick rule of logic. You don't want to deal with that, so you go off on this tangent."
What rule of logic is that? You seem to me to be arguing that:
1) Shire is bad because they espouse right-wing points of view.
2) James and Pat are bad because they run a blog designed to "cover up 9/11 Truth."
Therefore, the bad Aussies had a "rah-rah session" with bad James and bad Pat so that they could all be bad together. It appears to me to be a pretty much obvious ad hominem argument. But perhaps your definition of "logic" does not match my definition of "logic" for all possible values of "logic."
FO,
I think my words play on several levels at once. I don't claim to be an artist at this, but the ability to work on many levels seems to be the hallmark of political rhetoric as it is openly practiced. If you look at Pres. debates, etc. etc. the frequency of ad homiem attacked is out the roof.
However, I think my words express a point this is obvious, and because it is so obvious it's worth pointing out since it can be overlooked. There is an entire infrastruction of media outlets that constantly scour for news that they can craft to fit into a particular niche of their programming. Given the niche of Tom Paine, it's not at all surprising that our fearless blogger here are greeted as saints by Mr. Paine.
FO,
I think my words play on several levels at once. I don't claim to be an artist at this, but the ability to work on many levels seems to be the hallmark of political rhetoric as it is openly practiced. If you look at Pres. debates, etc. etc. the frequency of ad homiem attacked is out the roof.
However, I think my words express a point this is obvious, and because it is so obvious it's worth pointing out since it can be overlooked. There is an entire infrastructure of media outlets that constantly scour for news that they can craft to fit into a particular niche of their programming. Given the niche of Tom Paine, it's not at all surprising that our fearless bloggers here are greeted as saints by Mr. Paine.
4:06 PM
Murray, the guys on here seemed to actually be rabid anti-government types, which actually makes them righties (like the militia folks). They don't care what party is in power, it's the government that they hate.
Shawn and Murry,
You both have me way wrong as far as politics. I love my Country. I feel fortunate to have been born here. I grew up on a diary farm, and believe Govt. has a huge ability to overreach. And I support fiscal conservatism. Now aged 48, I never imagined that parts of our Intelligence Services, parts of our Military, and other small pockets of in other powerful places could have cooperated in the treachery that the evidence points toward.
I would have been much more resistance to believing anything was awry about 9/11 if I hadn't been suspicious activity of the Clinton Admin. I had specific concerns about Waco, Ok City, Vince Foster, Ron Brown, not even mentioning Mena, ARk drug operations. I believe there is a continuity from crimes during the Clinton admin and 9/11.
I believe Hillary is serving the same Masters now that she was serving then, and that Bush is serving those Masters.
My Uncle died as a fighter Pilot. I believe in the Constitution. Sometimes, as hard as it may be for some people to believe, I think Pat Buchanan sounds like a genius compared to the average Bush Republican.
I, too, am wary of government overreaching, as I favor small government. But that doesn't mean I have to make ridiculous assertions about one of the most clear cut events in human history.
I have no personal witness or evidence that can contradict you thoughts, Shawn.
If the reports of molten metal for more than a month after the buildings fell are well sourced, and you believe those reports to be true, and you are unaware of how physics does not allow that to happen as a result of plane impacts, kerosene fire, fire from building materials, you are beyond reaching.
I really don't mind you sapping back at me if you feel the need, but I have to say,
Your ignorance and stupidity offends me deeply.
If the reports of molten metal for more than a month after the buildings fell are well sourced
And aluminum accounts for this. They're not well-sourced either, they're hearsay.
Your ignorance and stupidity offends me deeply.
That's terrible, as I'm smarter and more well-informed than you. But I like the psychological defense mechanism.
I get you at every turn, yet you keep coming back.
I respect your right to reply, and a personal attach was in order.
Moving beyond that, I apoligise that I just didn't ask you what you know.
Now that you don't believe reports of molten steel, I withdraw my comment. If you think it was melted aluminum, I completely understand why you don't see a problem with the official story in this area.
I thought the reports of molten steel were, excuse the pun, iron clad.
I think I could bring extremely reliable evidence proving the molten steel. The evidence includes infrared photography from the sky providing a heat map of the wtc area a week or so after 9/11.
I'm betting your aren't even interested in looking at the evidence, am I right?
As you talk about how knownlegable you are, have you already thoroughly surveyed this evidence and found it lacking. Of course you and I both know that you have not.
But, rather than jumping to conclusion as I did before, have you look at it?
Now that you don't believe reports of molten steel, I withdraw my comment. If you think it was melted aluminum, I completely understand why you don't see a problem with the official story in this area.
You obviously haven't read thorough debunkings. The report of the steel was a hearsay ("friend of a friend told me" type deal) report. Someone told someone they saw molten steel and that person was then quoted. I have no doubt there were molten metals in the footprint.
So you make a personal attack on me (one, that for any sane individual reading these comments, has no basis in fact) and don't expect one in kind? You've shown yourself to be a retard in comparison to me. You don't even understand the most basic principles of logic.
Murry/Shawn,
Check this out BYU Analysis
This web page has a link to a vid showing the molten steel.
I have seen who liquid aluminum looks like. This would never be mistaken for aluminum.
Murry, look at this and tell me and tell me this substantial evidence is a piece of crap, which is what you just said my info is.
Sorry about the gross errors above in my post above
Here's a Link
to the vid in case you don't want to go find it.
The metal point is interesting, however that site gets almost everything else wrong (and makes at least ten logical fallacies). The "squibs" point has been debunked completely, and really should never come up again.
heat map here"
Article about fires still burning 12 weeks after 9/11!
Shawn,
See you say anything I say is "interesting" seems like a home run.
I should quit now.
Maybe your problem was, Shawn, was that you trusted the Popular Mechanics debunk copied below:
"Melted" Steel
CLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."
FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."
"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.
But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.
"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
---------------------
This is pure unadulterated hooey.
This is pure unadulterated hooey.
How so? It passes scientific and logical rigor.
Ok, Shawn, you deny squibs,
We disagree.
Leaving squibs behind, let's look at evidence of themate or themite in this vid
Pay Attention!
are you going to argue this forever for reason of you best interest aside from the truth?
Shawn,
This is pure unadulterated hooey.
How so? It passes scientific and logical rigor.
Shawn,
If you have engineering degree, you need to get your money back.
If you have a materials science degree, you need to sue the Bastards.
I know you won't find this addressing the point. I'll explain tomorow in a link because it does takes some time to crave thru the BS.
Ok, Shawn, you deny squibs,
We disagree.
And you shouldn't disagree, none of the videos show squibs. The picture of the WTC7 with squibs on the side is a compressed image, bringing out pixels.
I saw the video from the site you sent me to earlier. Doesn't seem odd at all. Why would a thermite explosion so small (in comparison to the building) be able to take it down? It far smaller than the plane's explosion and its ensuing fire.
I know you won't find this addressing the point. I'll explain tomorow in a link because it does takes some time to crave thru the BS.
I've seen the "debunking" of the PM debunking. It's a load of "hooey".
My degrees are in the soft sciences, but that doesn't mean I can't read reports. Hundreds of engineers agree with PM's take. Few oppose it.
The question is, assuming those reports are accurate, what DOES account for those hot-spots?
Explosions certainly don't. I've yet to see C4 cause fires at all, let alone melt steel and keep it molten for days.
Thermite also wouldn't account for it, or, at least not any quantity of thermite that could have been set in place. Thermie burns damn hot, but it also burns really quickly. Since it's most basic composition is just iron oxide and aluminum, I suppose it may be possible that the airplane alluminum and the rust from the collapsed struts could have been compressed together to form MORE thermite....but that's so unlikely that I feel retarded even mentioning the possiblity.
Another possibility is simple friction and kinetic energy. A building collapsing in on itself has a hell of a lot of potential energy, which translates into kinteic energy the moment is starts to fall, and is converted at least partialy into thermal energy on impact. You'd have to consult a scientist and/or demolition specialist for more info on that, I'm certainly not qualified to give accurate figures about the ammount of thermal energy which would be created in such a manner.
I think the most likely explanation is a combination of factors, just like the collapse itself. If the buildings simply caught fire, they almost certainly wouldn't collapse. If a 747 hit WITHOUT causing any fires, they may not have collapsed. But put those two together, and you've got disaster. Ditto for the heat signature. First you have the fire generating heat, which heats up the steel and concrete pretty good. Next you've got thermal energy released by the collapse of the building. Finaly you've got several tons of rubble compressing the hot steel, and keeping it contained in a very small area for several days.
Your next step BG, assuming you actually beleive in this theory, should be to check whether other collapsed buildings have ever generated such a thermal signature. Unless, ofcourse, you're one of the "I'm not trying to prove anything, I'm just asking questions" crowd.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Shawn,
I don't claim to really know much about you. I don't mean to be condescending in writing this.
If you are like most people, you find it unbelievable that the media could be in on the cover up. Believe, the idea that mainstream TV, newspaper are all shutting down the truth does sound like the plot of a "B" movie.
The fact is the Popular Mechanics piece was a sham. The mainstream media's treatment of the newly released Pentagon vid is a sham.
The 911 Commission was a sham
Deal with it.
If you are like most people, you find it unbelievable could be in on the cover up
Do I find it unbelievable on the face of it? No. But after all the evidence is shown, it's obviously unbelievable.
The fact is the PM piece was a sham.
Wrong.
The mainstream media's treatment of the newly released Pentagon vid is a sham.
I agree with that. I was very disappointed with the video.
Alex,
Prof. Jones at BYU say themate (thermite with sulfur?) is the most likely explanation. You aren't up on Scholars for 9/11 Truth.
I don't claim to know.
I need to find the link where he lays it out.
Here's the Link to Jones stuff on thermate.
Here's a comprehensive debunk web page of the PM article. It has a link that goes indepth in the Molten Steel issue.
Dude, you are not going to convince me with any "evidence" that said the fires in the towers were "oxygen starved".
There are GAPING HOLES in each building. Unless the towers were equipped with some invisible Star Trek force field, I'm 100% positive that air was getting to those flames.
With respect to the PM articles, I should make sure and clarify here. The PM article isn't really dealing with the molten steel left over... it dealing with the fires causing steel to lose strength. So the debunk is about that.
I admit that I'm going over what I consider plowed ground. If I've missed something or gotten something wrong, I'm sure you let me know.
As a concluding note, I realise any conclusions about areas to be questioning about 9/11 are only as good as the evidence they are based on.
If I found out that the heat map was faked, and the video that I posted that showed thermite-burning like dripping steel was a fake, I would have to back off being such a determined jerk on some of this stuff.
Yep, that Jones guy is talking out his ass. I mean, he obviously understand thermite, how it's manufactured, what it's effects are, etc. What he's forgetting, just like many of you nuts do, is SCALE. Sure, thermite does melt steel. But you're telling me thermite is responsible for causing the thermal signature we see in that air-shot of the WTC complex. Do you have ANY idea how much thermie you would need in order to do that? If you packed both aircraft full of thermite, and nothing else, MAYBE you could get that sort of thermal signature. Probably not even then. So the question becomes, how the fuck did they get all that thermite in the building? In addition, ofcourse, to all the C4 they brought in to collapse the building?
That's the problem with your CT's: the more you try to explain things, the more complicated and impossible it becomes.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
chad,
It's understandable if you are NOT an engineer, especial a fire engineer. I'm not, but I know a little this.
Have you ever used an acetelyne torch.
Kind of like welding, except you have two hoses connected to the torch. you adjust the mixture of pure oxygen and not butune... i can't remember what the primary fuel is but it's like propane maybe.
I spent some time in engineering school (chem e)
Back to the topic.
The atmopshere is 69% nitrogen. Maybe the remaining is mostly oxygen. So, when you have ignition atmosphere, not all the air around is oxygen that can feed the fire.
It is extemely common during ignition of any kind, that unless you have forced air or even better pure oxygen, you have what is calle an oxygen starved fire. It does mean at all that it stops burning.
It only means it won't burn with the heat and efficiency that it would with a ready source of more oxygen.
I'm not feeding you a load. I really think I'm explaining this right.
The Hearst-owned Popular Mechanics magazine takes aim at the 9/11 Truth Movement (without ever acknowledging it by that name) with a cover story in its March 2005 edition.
Ad hominem.
Sandwiched between ads and features for monster trucks, NASCAR paraphernalia, and off-road racing are twelve dense and brilliantly designed pages purporting to debunk the myths of 9/11.
Ad hominem, red herring.
The article's approach is to identify and attack a series of claims which it asserts represent the whole of 9/11 skepticism. It gives the false impression that these claims, several of which are clearly absurd, represent the breadth of challenges to the official account of the flights, the World Trade Center attack, and the Pentagon attack. Meanwhile it entirely ignores vast bodies of evidence showing that only insiders had the means, motive, and opportunity to carry out the attack.
Strawman, the article obviously couldn't cover every single point the conspiracy idiots make.
The article gives no hint of the put options on the targeted airlines, warnings received by government and corporate officials, complicit behavior by top officials, obstruction of justice by a much larger group, or obvious frauds in the official story.
Strawman, all those points have been debunked elsewhere.
This article has a page of Editor's Notes, "The Lies Are Out There," written by James Meigs, whose previous columns have praised military technology (such as the UAVs used in Fallujah).
Ad hominem, red herring.
Moreover, glaring errors in the article -- such as the assertion that there was only a single interception in the decade before 9/11/01 -- don't inspire confidence in PM's "professional fact checkers." It echoes the discredited assertions of official reports such as the FEMA WTC Building Performance Study and the 9/11 Commission Report, and provides no evidence that it is anything but a well-orchestrated hit piece to perpetuate the 9/11 cover-up.
Post hoc.
Predictably, the article makes no mention of evidence that war games were planned for the day of 9/11/01. See Multiple War Games on 9/11/01 Helped to Disable Air Defense.
Red herring.
The towers fell straight down through themselves maintaining radial symmetry,
The towers were 95 percent air. They had nowhere to go but down.
The towers' tops mushroomed into vast clouds of pulverized concrete and shattered steel.
Strawman to assume PM should have to debunk this ridiculous claim.
The collapses exhibited demolition squibs shooting out of the towers well below the zones of total destruction.
No they didn't. Debris jets out from the floors above collapsing, pushing air out. Only idiots think there are squibs. Ignoring of Occam's Razor.
The collapses generated vast dust clouds that expanded to many times the towers' volumes -- more than occurs in typical controlled demolitions.
Which would help debunk this site's claim that there was a controlled demolition. Why they would include this as evidence of demolition is beyond me.
The towers came down suddenly and completely, at a rate only slightly slower than free fall in a vacuum. The flat top of the North Tower's rubble cloud revealed in these photos show the rubble falling at the same speed inside and outside the former building's profile, an impossibility unless demolition were removing the building's structure ahead of the falling rubble.
Completely false. The debris falls well below the top of the collapsing tower. It would be the first time in history that something fell faster than something "slighty slower" than free fall.
The explosions of the towers were characterized by intense blast waves that shattered windows in buildings 400 feet away.
Affirming the consequent.
The steel skeletons were consistently shredded into short pieces which could be carried easily by the equipment used to dispose of the evidence.
And? This is another strawman. PM shouldn't be expected to debunk claims that aren't out of the ordinary.
Eyewitnesses reported explosions before and at the outset of the collapses.
Strawman. Explosions are normal in buildings on fire.
WTC 7 Collapse
Here the article cites 911review.org, a site that promotes discrediting ideas but purports to speak for the 9/11 skeptics' community. The article simply repeats the site's claim that "the video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to fire, but rather a controlled demolition," without directing the reader to where they can see videos, such as on WTC7.net. The article makes no mention of the facts that skeptics most often cite as evidence that the collapse was a controlled demolition:
The building collapsed with precisely vertical fashion.
The building collapsed at almost the rate of free-fall.
The building collapsed into a tidy pile of rubble.
None of the points are out of the ordinary. Strawman.
PM uses this part to backhandedly promote the Pentagon Strike flash animation, which appears to serve the same function as this article: discrediting skepticism by associating it with sloppy research and easily disproven ideas.
Another strawman! The conspiracy theories aren't skepticism, they're psuedoskepticism. And they're characterized by sloppy research and easily disproven ideas.
Fourteen logical fallacies and at least a half dozen errors of fact or assumptions.
Alex,
Nobody is saying themate did ALL the damage. It's a pretty safe bet that there were explosives.
Some say mini-nuke. I have no background to make any comment on this (nuke) , except there were elevated levels of tritium measured. I don't claim to know enough in this area to speak definitely.
The earthquake measurements prior to the WTC building pieces hitting the ground point to explosions that cause signicant richter scale activity.
"The atmopshere is 69% nitrogen. Maybe the remaining is mostly oxygen."
Actually it's 78.1% nitrogen, 20.9% oxygen, 0.9% argon, and the rest is trace gasses.
And the rest of your explanation is nonsense. What you describe is NOT an oxygen starved fire.
"Nobody is saying themate did ALL the damage. It's a pretty safe bet that there were explosives."
That's my point. Put your two explanations together and you need something like 30 tons of C4 and thermite. How did they get it all in there? Plastic grocery bags carried by mexican janitors?
"Some say mini-nuke. I have no background to make any comment on this (nuke) , except there were elevated levels of tritium measured."
Tritium has nothing to do with nuclear explosions. Tritium is a radioactive substance commonly used to illuminate compass dials, and various parts of military weapons/equipment. You used to be able to buy tritium paint at one point.
"The earthquake measurements prior to the WTC building pieces hitting the ground point to explosions that cause signicant richter scale activity."
And that has exactly what to do with the thermite? Stop jumping topics.
Follow up after web lookup:
Air is the mixture of gases that surrounds the Earth. The composition of the earth's atmosphere varies with altitude, but at sea level contains approximately 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen by volume.
An oxygen-deficient atmosphere contains less than 19.5% oxygen by volume.
An oxygen-enriched atmosphere contains more than 23.5% oxygen by volume.
Alex,
What Jones is talking about has nothing to do the the popular "backdraft" oxygen starved fire scenerio.
YOu and Chad are clueless about the meaning of this in physics and combustion.
What the fuck? Are you retarded? How did this conversation go from "they used thermite" to "the fire was oxygen starved"? Can't you maintain ONE FUCKING LINE OF THOUGHT for more than 5 minutes at a time?
How buildings that were 95 percent air were oxygen starved is beyond me.
Heh, that's not quite right Shawn. A better way of looking at it though is you have a wide open space demolished by a fucking airliner, and you've got windows blown out on most sides of it, with decent sized winds outside due to altitude.
What do you get?
Hardly an oxygen starved fire. It'd be closer to a furnace.
Here's a passage that I found pre-2001 where the phrase "oxygen starved" is being us in the context that Jones is using it:
Is Hydrogen Hazardous? Two Views
I was both pleased and dismayed to see the little article in the July 2000 APS News concerning the role of hydrogen in the Hindenburg explosion. I am pleased because the article makes it clear that the material the ship was made of burned well without need for an accelerant (obvious to most people familiar with fire that have watched the video). I am dismayed because although hydrogen was not the only culprit in the Hindenburg disaster it was a major player. This is not made clear in the article. Hydrogen is a wonderful fuel. It has the highest energy density of all chemical fuels. It is not significantly more dangerous than gasoline if handled properly, but it is VERY HAZARDOUS!! I regularly do demonstrations of hydrogen explosions in the introductory chemistry courses I teach. Balloons that have just hydrogen in them do not burn with the classic hot blue flame, but with a yellow flame because they are oxygen starved and do not get as hot. Thus the arguments about the amount of visible light emitted do not exonerate the hydrogen. Hydrogen was definitely a fuel for the fire, but because of the amount in the dirigible much of it had to mix with the air before there was oxygen available for combustion. It is also likely that a hydrogen leak into a region where there was a spark and some oxygen started the fire.
Jonathan Gutow
This is taken from: http://www.aps.org/apsnews/0800/080009.cfm
Note that the idea that a reaction is oxygen starved has nothing to do with the air being "cut off" because of obstruction which goes to what Chad original brought this subject up about.
Chad never said anything about the oxygen being cut off. Learn to read.
And this still has nothing to do with your thermite theory.
What the fuck? Are you retarded? How did this conversation go from "they used thermite" to "the fire was oxygen starved"? Can't you maintain ONE FUCKING LINE OF THOUGHT for more than 5 minutes at a time?
Thermite:
A thermite reaction (a type of aluminothermic reaction) is one in which aluminium metal is **oxidized** by the **oxide** of another metal, most commonly iron **oxide**. The name thermite is also used to refer to a mixture of two such chemicals. The products are aluminium oxide, free elemental iron, and a large amount of heat. The reactants are commonly powdered and mixed with a binder to keep the material solid and prevent separation.
Since Thermite gets it's oxygen from an internal source, it need not be present in the atmosphere to ignite.
I can't believe there are actual 9/11 conspiracy nuts on here.
What color is the sky in their world?
The steel melted because of the firestorm effect. Cyclonic winds turned the inside of the towers into a blast furnace where ordinary combustables reached thousands of degrees.
Jesus Christ, people!
Clinton was a Rhodes schollar and he couldn't get away with getting a blowjob from a fat chick. And G. Dubya is supposedly able to pull off this massive attack in public and leave only this tiny amount of ridiculously equivocal "evidence." Please. I've met the man. He ain't the sharpest knife in the drawer.
"Since Thermite gets it's oxygen from an internal source, it need not be present in the atmosphere to ignite."
No Shit Sherlock! Wow. Like, I had no idea. It's not like I've worked with thermite before or anything.
And your explanation has dick all to do with oxygen starved fires. You and BG sure do make a cute couple though.
So explain to me BG, 'cause you're the expert on this topic.
Why would there be less oxygen in the air around the holes in the twin towers than there would, say at ground level? Or in Central Park? Or in your head?
Are you implying that if you keep throwing wood on a campfire it will still weaken because of lack of oxygen?
I'm really not understanding this at all because, last I checked, the atmosphere was a constant mixture of these gases. There isn't more of one or the other in certain spots (like around the 80th floor of WTC2) although I wouldn't put it past you people to make such a claim.
Post a Comment
<< Home