Monday, November 20, 2006

The Grand Unified Theory

The Holy Grail of modern physics has been the pursuit of the Grand Unified Theory, which ties quantum mechanics in with Einstein's Theory of Relativity and other physics' theories, but now we find that the 9/11 deniers are in hilarious pursuit of the same thing, their very own Unified Demolition Theory:

Dr. Wood also hangs her hat on the notion that such weaponry was necessary because had the full weight of the towers crashed into the concrete "bathtub" foundation of the complex, it would have irreparably ruptured. She may be mistaken however in assuming that would have flooded all lower Manhattan -- however, that certainly would have flooded underground gold vaults which were being burgled at the time.

Taking into account the latest paper by Dr. Wood and Dr. Reynolds (linked here) long with research by others, including Dr. Ed Ward and Rick Siegel, we can construct a unified theory of how the controlled demolition was pulled off:

The towers were built to come down, with a truss system that could set off a "pancake collapse" given the right stresses to the system. A Bush-connected security firm left the building virtually wide open to everyone from Swedish art students to agents planting further explosives in the months preceding the event. On 9/11 itself, small fifth-generation micro-mininukes in the towers' subbasements (a notion discounted by Wood & Reynolds) went off coincident with the alleged "plane crashes," acting as high-tech cutting charges, significantly weakening the core columns for the destruction to come. Radio signals went out to set off the planted conventional explosives, and then during the 10-second demolition and collapses -- and in the clouds thereafter -- directed energy weapons were used to pulverize as much of the buildings as possible.

The most hilarious part is pointing out the fact that flooding would have interfered with stealing the gold. Yeah, like a 110 story building falling on your head wouldn't have got in the way! Conventional explosives, not just mini-nukes, but micro mini-nukes, and directed energy weapons. You can't get much more unified than that!

By the way, if you watch the Fetzer video (from the previously mentioned Tucson speech) he suggests that WTC7 was destroyed because it held Enron records (yeah, those guys got off easy) and because that it where the energy weapons were hid.

26 Comments:

At 20 November, 2006 06:08, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

http://www.infowars.com/
articles/sept11/
firefighter_
describes_molten_metal
_ground_zero_like_foundry.htm

Yeah, I'm back. Any one care to debunk this hero's eyewitnesses accounts of molten metal at the WTC site flowing like rivers of lava?
James, Pat, I'm suprised you guys didn't jump all over this! ;)

I can't wait to hear the explanation for this.

As far as space beam weapons and 9/11: that is just ridiculous IMHO.

Oh yeah, the guy on Mancow/Fox does make an error about damage to WTC 7. I thought I might point that out as well.

 
At 20 November, 2006 06:24, Blogger Manny said...

I'm still waiting to hear how molten metal of any kind is more indicative of an explosive or short-lived incendiary than it is of anything else.

 
At 20 November, 2006 07:06, Blogger remdem said...

As far as space beam weapons and 9/11: that is just ridiculous IMHO.

Yeah, it's ridiculous to rational people, but it seems to be gaining some currency recently.

 
At 20 November, 2006 07:21, Anonymous Anonymous said...

LMAOOOOO

This is absolutely hilarious.

What an elegant and parsimonious theory! William of Ockham would be proud.

 
At 20 November, 2006 07:28, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

I'm still waiting to hear how molten metal of any kind is more indicative of an explosive or short-lived incendiary than it is of anything else.

It certainly isn't indicative of a hyrdo-carbon fire. I would research what kind of explosives turn steel and metal into molten metal and go from there.

 
At 20 November, 2006 07:33, Blogger Lying_Dylan said...

during the 10-second demolition and collapses -- and in the clouds thereafter -- directed energy weapons were used to pulverize as much of the buildings as possible.

LOL!!

 
At 20 November, 2006 07:57, Blogger Manny said...

It certainly isn't indicative of a hyrdo-carbon fire. I would research what kind of explosives turn steel and metal into molten metal and go from there.

That's just it. What you're suggesting is irrelevant. It might be relevant if people had described solidified blobs of previously molten material. But if they're describing molten material days after the attacks and one thought that was relevant one would want to research what could cause the material(s) to stay that hot for that long. The initial heat source is immaterial unless one posits that it continues to deliver heat for a very long time. None of the CTs posits that. And of course there's abundant evidence that an ordinary office-materials fire can cause such melting under some circumstances.

 
At 20 November, 2006 08:03, Blogger MarkyX said...

I never heard of a single controlled demolition firm ever mentioning of "pools of molten metal" after they bring down a building.

However, common household fires do contain pools of molten metal.

 
At 20 November, 2006 08:34, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Manny did you even watch the video?

The initial heat source is immaterial unless one posits that it continues to deliver heat for a very long time. WHAT??

Ok fair enough on the other part of the conclusion issue. Research what items turns steel and metal in to rivers of molten material that flow like lava and then figure out what in the WTC would have caused that. It wasn't jet fuel and furniture at the bottom of a debris pile.


And of course there's abundant evidence that an ordinary office-materials fire can cause such melting under some circumstances. Can you point me to the evidence that ordinary office material fires can turn steel into molten metal that flows like lava?

Based upon the firefighter's testimony, maybe, and yes James I stress maybe, Dr. Jone's controversial molten steel picture description was accurate.

I never heard of a single controlled demolition firm ever mentioning of "pools of molten metal" after they bring down a building.
True enough, so what does?

However, common household fires do contain pools of molten metal. Which would be what? Tin foil melted? Can you post the evidence? Would this metal be steel and iron structures commonly found in homes?

 
At 20 November, 2006 08:49, Blogger Lavoisier said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 20 November, 2006 08:53, Blogger Lavoisier said...

Molten metal does not equal molten steel. There are many different types of metal in the world.

 
At 20 November, 2006 09:29, Blogger default.xbe said...

Ok fair enough on the other part of the conclusion issue. Research what items turns steel and metal in to rivers of molten material that flow like lava and then figure out what in the WTC would have caused that. It wasn't jet fuel and furniture at the bottom of a debris pile.

and it wasnt explosives and it wasnt thermite

explsoives dont melt metal and thermite wont keep it hot for weeks

a normal office fire, however, is more than sufficient to explain the heat present, and i have yet to see any evidence of actual motlen steel anywhere

 
At 20 November, 2006 10:02, Blogger Alex said...

You're just not getting this "burden of proof" thing, swinger. If you think there was molten metal, and you think it's significant, it's up to YOU to find proof, and come up with a theory. Why should we waste our time debating with you about it? It's the equivalent of you standing beside a car wreck and saying:

"...hah! there's brake fluid all over the ground. one of the vehicles must have been sabotaged!"

Well, prove it. Your conjecture and insinuation doesn't mean shit. We only humour you out of boredom most of the time. If you REALLY want to prove your case, you first need a logical theory, and then need to tie your "proof" into that theory. So far you've utterly failed to do that.

 
At 20 November, 2006 11:43, Blogger Stevew said...

thank you
Lavoisier
If there was molten metal it was AL and not steel. At the time there was so much dust and debris, I dought if anyone giving a passing view could say what it was. Did any one gather a sample and take it to a lab? Brent Blanchard has a great take on this and he has been doing it for 20 years. Few if any of these eyewitness's has any experience in this area. What was the firemans name, I never saw it. It is strange that crapike this comes out 5 years later. Where was it 6 mos. after 911?

Does anybody know what combustal material was in the towers? I have seen oil fires turn steel into plastic like

http://www.debunking911.com/truck.htm

 
At 20 November, 2006 11:57, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

I have a question. How, on gods earth, did we ever survive as a civilized nation before "video"? It seem that, according to the truth movement, the only evidence worth looking at are videos. i guess before the camcorder, corruption was the norm in all areas of life, science, criminal investigation, etc...cause ya know, video is where its at man.

As for the Unified Dimwit Theory,

We should email this to every MSM outlet, so before they interview these nuts, they can read it out to the public...great ratings, comedy always works.

LOL
TAM

 
At 20 November, 2006 16:53, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Artistic Macrophage said...

I have a question. How, on gods earth, did we ever survive as a civilized nation before "video"?


Clearly, TAM, life on earth and human civilization existed prior to video recording and playback devices.

What you are leaving out is some evaluation about how issues of evidence and justice were handled prior to video. It seems entirely reasonable and safe to say that the opportunity for fakery, cover-up, injustice, mis-direction, all of this has been with human existence for quite a long while. It's a safe bet that it continues in many forms every day.

However, saying that things have been faked before has no direct bearing on whether they were faked, or there have been lies about 9/11.

Are you good so far?

So, if there weren't videos of the events that are seemingly authentic, we'd all be SOL in terms of having a basis to evaluate the claims as to what happened.

As I've said before, if you told me that the video I've seen of WTC 1,2, and 7, and the video and the pictures of the Pentagon were fakes, the basis that I would have to doubt the official story of 9/11 would shrink enormously.

So, yes, video is important.

Think about what you are saying. Look at any number of items involving modern technology that impact a search for justice.

Let's say you were falsely accused of Paternity. Would you embrace using DNA to prove your innocent? How would you feel about those who argued: DNA, we didn't need that analysis to get to justice in the old days.

You don't have a leg to stand on with your pseudo-argument.

 
At 20 November, 2006 17:54, Blogger Alex said...

Wow, you're RTFO bud. You talk about how great DNA analysis is, but you and your buddies claim that the DNA analysis done on the victims of 9/11 is unreliable. What the hell is wrong with you?

So, yes, video is important.

Yeah, but it's not the end all and be all. Intelligence and knowledge are a bit more important. Any idiot can look at the tape of WTC7 and say

"OMFG DEWD THAZ LYKE T00000TALY A DEMZORLISHON!!!11!one"

It takes a much more in depth study of the structure of the building and the type of damage it suffered to explain why it collapsed the way it did. Except retards like you will never believe the actual cause of the collapse because it would hurt your ego too much to admit just how ignorant you really are. It's much easier to keep insisting that the video "cannot be disputed". Videotapes are useful, but they're only one tool of many.

 
At 21 November, 2006 04:24, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

I did not say that video does not help in investigating. My point is that the truthers use it as the holy grail, and in many cases put it above all other evidence.

DNA is not video, but rather it is a scientific method of determining the genetic fingerprint.

If you actually understood my point, you would see I am correct.

On one side you have the scientific community that uses physical evidence, scientific application, witness testimony, photographic evidence, and Video evidence to make determinations on things, then...

On the other side you have the "truth" community who say that the videos are paramount. When ever we ask for proof, we always get "go watch this video". It is pathetic, and if you wonder why the scientific community wont take the truth movement seriously, you can start there.

TAM

 
At 21 November, 2006 06:07, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Stevew You are going to actually question the firefighters credibility on the issue? You don't think they have experience with heat and steel?

It is strange that crapike this comes out 5 years later.
Eyewitness reports from heroes is now crap? You should be ashamed! Would you make these comments about our heroes if they were describing something that might support the OS? Nevermind, I know the answer.

MacIt seems that, according to the truth movement, the only evidence worth looking at are videos. Wasn't that a large part of the NIST examination?
Lets not forget eyewitness accounts and the audio recorded from that day!


Except retards like you will never believe the actual cause... Alex quit rehashing this really, because we don't know what brought down WTC 7 yet and it is still a theory as to what brought down 1 and 2. When the NIST can release all the information, including the computer models they won't release now, so the items can be independently verified and placed in the public for peer review, then I think you might have an arguement. At this point you are arguing one theory over the other. And I'm sure in order to counter something that doesn't fit into your OS, its back to the name calling retarded remarks. Brother, you are so predictable and sometimes I wonder why I even respond to your non-sense? BTW, why do you care anyway? Aren't you a Canuck? Shouldn't you worry about your own country?

Mac On the other side you have the "truth" community who say that the videos are paramount. Do you really understand the truth community at all? (Ok, I know you do. ;)
You know darn well they don't just rely on video, but all of the other items you mention. Come on Mac, I know you are smarter than that to make a comment like that.


BG, this is the type of response we can expect when some controversial evidence arises that brings to question the official story. There is never a 'middle ground' or a 'hey maybe there is something there that needs a closer look' or 'hey things don't quite add up', etc. That is too bad.

I know I'm comparing apples and iron crosses but I can see the same type of discussion at the local pub in Germany circa 1944.

"Yeah Hans you see that smoke coming from the woods? It really smells bad.", asks Dedrick.

"Sure, Dedrick, the Nazis are burning the towns trash over there.", replies Hans.

"Well how do you know that?" asks Dedrick.

Hans replies,"Because they told me so."

"But my grandmother's Jewish friend said they were burning bodies over there!" exclaimed Dedrick.

Hans replies, "You retarded moron they wouldn't do that besides they said they were burning trash! Do you see any trash in town? Of course not, it is all at the dump being burned. That is why it smells so bad you retard!"

Dedrick says, "But my cousin who helped build some of the buildings at the camp showed me pictures of some of the ovens he worked on. Since when did they start burning trash in ovens?"

Hans in frustration replies, "You wienerschnitzel! Stop asking questions. They are burning trash. I don't care what your grandmother or your cousin says. Did your relatives attend the University at Frankfurt to learn how to build structures? NO! So they are retards too! If you don't believe me go ask the rest of the folks at the pub."

Dedrick without hesitation goes to ask the locals and returns to Hans.

Dedrick states, "Hans, maybe your right. Everyone else in this place said they were burning trash and told me to stop making trouble. Hans, one guy even said we should be thanking the Nazis that saved us from the threat of the Jews and the Communists"

Hans, with a victory smile on his face exclaims, "See I told you so!"
"Now sit down and shut up and drink your ale, you retard."

The next day when Hans returns to meet his newly retarded friend he comes to realize his friend is no where to be found. Asking around, the barkeep tells the story of Dedrick being taken away by the Nazis to help burn the towns trash.

 
At 21 November, 2006 11:31, Blogger Alex said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 21 November, 2006 11:40, Blogger Alex said...

Swinger, you're so retarded it' painful to watch. You do realize that your little story had absolutely nothing to do with what we're talking about, right?

Eyewitness reports from heroes is now crap?

No, THIS is the crap:

Molten metal found in the basement of the WTC suggests that the commonly used explosive thermite may be responsible for the collapse.

That sentence is right after the video clip in your article. I have no problem taking the firefighters statements at face value. I'd LIKE to talk to them in person, to make sure you asshole aren't taking their statements out of context AGAIN, but otherwise I have no problem believing them. But you idiots are unbelievable. You watch the clip, and right away, it's "AHA! THERMITE THERMITE THERMITE THERMITE!". No considering alternate explanations. No need to prove the presence of thermite. You don't even bother applying common sense, which would tell you that thermite would NOT cause this, nor can you even write one sentence without making a mistake (thermite is neither common, nor an explosive). Like I said, so retarded it's painful to watch.

 
At 21 November, 2006 11:55, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Alex you silly motherfucker you... At one point in the opening post did I point to all the blabbering bullshit you just typed?
Any one care to debunk this hero's eyewitnesses accounts of molten metal at the WTC site flowing like rivers of lava? Now go back and read the post and you can delete the last bit of bullshit you just typed and deal with the molten steel flowing like rivers of lava statement that is on the video which I assume you watched. Skip the thermite bullshit and deal with the statement the heros make. By misdirecting the aissue you totally make an ass out of yourself.

 
At 21 November, 2006 11:56, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

And another point, I don't give a shit what is typed after the video, it is what is in the video that I refer to. Stay on task you ADD Canuck!

 
At 21 November, 2006 12:00, Blogger Alex said...

You STILL don't get it, do you? What are you, a throwback to a different era? Do you have callouses on you knuckles? Listen numbnuts, I don't need to address the guys statements because they're 100% irrelevant to any discussion about the collapse of the WTC. Steel being molten 3 weeks after the collapse has nothing to do with why the buildings collapsed. You may as well start "asking questions" about why firefighters were there weeks after the collapse. Their presence "proves" that the WTC was demolished by firefighters, right?

Geezus Swinger, I know you don't have much gray matter in that empty shell of yours, but try and use what little you've been graced with. Either show us evidence for a demolition, or don't, but stop with the idiotic "I'm just asking questions" act.

 
At 22 November, 2006 08:58, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Steel being molten 3 weeks after the collapse has nothing to do with why the buildings collapsed.

You don't find that the least bit suspicious?
Has nothing to do with the attacks? WTF you silly motherfucker, you've got to be kidding me! The molten steel was found by the firefighters shortly after the attacks and apparently remained that way for some time. Now what praytell would cause steel to liquify like that if one, it wasn't jet fuel and furniture? If it is something else, then perhaps that something else helped the global collapse of the towers. If I had concrete evidence I would surely show you. I can't believe you don't find that suspicious at all.
But I'm like the NIST, it is all theory.

 
At 22 November, 2006 11:17, Blogger Alex said...

No it's not suspicious you idiot because any method used to demolish a building relies on show and concussion, not "melting". Even thermite wouldn't cause "rivers of steel". Unless, ofcourse, you buy into the Gremlin Demolition Theory, in which case it's quite possible that 5,000 gremlins with tiny thermal lances melted the supports of the WTC and made it fall down on top of them. If you DON'T buy the Gremlin Demolition Theory, then what exactly are you suggesting here?

Then again, you're the same idiot who thinks that the moon landing, the OKC bombing, and the JFK assassination were also "suspicious", so I'm not sure why I'm wasting my time debating this with you.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home