Monday, January 29, 2007

9-11 Denial As Multi-Level Marketing?



Anybody remember those bumper stickers in the 1980s reading, "Lose Weight Now--Ask Me How!" Well, looks like some of the Deniers are using the same technique. Note the sign that the guy sitting down is partially obscuring? It looks like it reads, "9/11 was an inside job and I can prove it! Ask me how."

Labels: ,

23 Comments:

At 29 January, 2007 14:38, Blogger BG said...

a modified Boeing 747-400F known as the Airborne Laser, will test-fire its low-power laser in flight for the first time as part of a long-term test phase at the Air Force Flight Test Center at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., according to an Air Force report.

 
At 29 January, 2007 14:43, Blogger Critical_Thinker said...

I was at the Washington protest. It was mostly anti-war, the 9/11 skeptics were few, I would say a few hundred of them showed up. Overall, there was more then 120,000 people.

 
At 29 January, 2007 15:04, Blogger BG said...

Interesting info, critical thinker.

For anyone who is following the Stadtmiller - Jones feud, Alex talked today about 44 minutes into this 1 hour audio

 
At 29 January, 2007 15:17, Blogger gb said...

Article called JOOOOOOOZ ON A PLANE! Think about it!

 
At 29 January, 2007 15:44, Blogger BG said...

Try this audio link instead.

 
At 29 January, 2007 15:53, Blogger shawn said...

I was at the Washington protest. It was mostly anti-war, the 9/11 skeptics were few, I would say a few hundred of them showed up. Overall, there was more then 120,000 people.

The people who think 9/11 was an inside job aren't "skeptics".

 
At 29 January, 2007 15:56, Blogger Alex said...

120,000? Not that I've looked into it much, but the estimates I've heard say maybe 25,000 if that. Where are you getting your numbers? Those commies at ANSWER aren't the best source for any sort of facts....

 
At 29 January, 2007 17:41, Blogger Simon Lazarus said...

Here's my question: You have this march filled with socialists, Marxists, and other assorted leftwing fruitcakes of the worst kind. Why would a Troother, a fellow fruitcake, need to prove to these other nuts that he is as nuts as they are?

After all, if you are in an asylum, do you have to prove to the patient next door that you are nuts? Isn't the whole place nuts?

 
At 29 January, 2007 17:42, Blogger Simon Lazarus said...

Overall, there was more then 120,000 people.

That's saying that the "Million Man March" was a million people.

Sorry, but the DC police estimate the crowd at between 10,000 and 40,000.

The Fruitcakes of the Left estimated there to be half a million.

Yep - that's the ticket.

 
At 29 January, 2007 18:30, Blogger ConsDemo said...

The Denier dipshits show up at pretty much any event that is vaguely anti-Bush. Most of those attending are reluctant to get on their case because they would perceive it to be defending Bush. A lot of them don't realize failing to distance themselves from these stupid conspiracy theories risks tainting legitimate crticism of Bush.

 
At 29 January, 2007 19:55, Blogger texasjack said...

I had my first encounter at a local college of someone handing me a "Loose Change" DVD. I came prepared--I promptly gave him a "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest" DVD in return.

 
At 29 January, 2007 22:43, Blogger 9/11 Questions said...

I want him to prove that 9/11 was an inside job to me. Wonder what he would say...

 
At 29 January, 2007 23:11, Blogger Alex said...

Now you too can discover the secrets behind September 11th for the low-low price of only 3 easy payments of twenty-nine-ninety-nine! But wait! If you act now, we'll throw in a free copy of the Protocols of Zion! That's right! This handy pocket-sized copy of the Zionist blueprints for world domination is our gift to you! That's a twenty dollar value, ABSOLUTELY FREE!

 
At 30 January, 2007 05:42, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

I'm suprised all of you OS'ers didn't show up handing out copies of the 9/11 Commission report and the competing theories from FEMA and the NIST as well as the different models of the flight of 77 from the NTSB and the 9/11 commission. Now there is some evidence to counter the unofficial conspriacy theories.

 
At 30 January, 2007 05:50, Blogger shawn said...

Now there is some evidence to counter the unofficial conspriacy theories.

"Unofficial conspiracy theories" should read "fantasies".

 
At 30 January, 2007 10:25, Blogger Cl1mh4224rd said...

Swing Dangler wrote: ". . .the competing theories from FEMA and the NIST. . ."

As far as I understand it, the NIST report supersedes the preliminary FEMA report.

 
At 30 January, 2007 12:46, Blogger pomeroo said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 30 January, 2007 12:47, Blogger pomeroo said...

The reason the loony-lefties came up with the number 120,000 is that people were getting a little suspicious of those crowds of 150,000 that ALWAYS seemed to materialize for hate-America festivals. I doubt there were as many as 25,000 at the latest surrender rally. Al jazeera used to routinely label any group of insurgents or terrorists killed by American weaponry a "wedding party." The practice grew so ridiculous that they finally stopped going to that well. Apparently, we've perfected wedding-seeking munitions.

 
At 30 January, 2007 12:51, Blogger pomeroo said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 30 January, 2007 12:51, Blogger pomeroo said...

Newcomers should understand that Swing Dumpster is a fraud who understands perfectly well that the preliminary FEMA Report does not "compete" with NIST's later, far more comprehensive report. A competition is characterized by, well, competing views. FEMA acknowledges the primacy of the NIST Report.

 
At 31 January, 2007 09:54, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Pomeroo-

Source of Information for Plan Development:

Formulation of the NIST investigation plan drew upon many sources of information from within and outside NIST. These include external experts and groups (industry, academia, and government), FEMA/ASCE Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT) members, the Building Performance Study report of this team (FEMA Report 403, May 2002), NIST experts in building and fire safety, and the public-at-large. NIST held a public meeting in New York City on June 24, 2002 to gather comments and suggestions on the scope of the NIST investigation detailed in this plan. This plan has been refined based on that input, incorporating many of the suggestions received.

So it appears the NIST relied upon the FEMA reports and their investigators to arrive at a totally different theory. Of course that is all dependent upon the data that is tweaked to fit the desired outcome.

Lets examine FEMA's website and what they have to say about the NIST...

Additional Studies about the World Trade Center Building Performance

In addition to FEMA's building performance study,
notice that FEMA doesn't mention their report being 'replaced' by the NIST, but in addition. Scratch one for Pom.

the Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has played a leading role in investigating the WTC disaster. Under the National Construction Safety Team (NCST) Act, signed into law in October 2002, NIST is authorized to investigate major building failures in the United States. The NIST investigators will establish the likely technical causes of the building failure (Not THE cause but most likely cause, leaving other causes open for investigation)
"Already there is near-consensus as to the sequence of events that led to the collapse of the World Trade Center."-- Shankar Nair, a contributor to the NIST investigation, 9/19/2001
Notice the pre-determined conclusion in place before any investigation.

The day after the attacks, AP's headline was fire caused the collapse. Again, pre-determined.
The point being there were already pre-determined reasons for the collapse before any scientific investigation began. Shame.


... and evaluate the technical aspects of emergency response and evacuation procedures in the wake of such failures. The goal is to recommend improvements to the way in which buildings are designed, constructed, maintained, and used.
Source:http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/
mat_fema403.shtm

Newcomers should understand that Swing Dumpster is a fraud who understands perfectly well that the preliminary FEMA Report does not "compete" with NIST's later, far more comprehensive report. A competition is characterized by, well, competing views. FEMA acknowledges the primacy of the NIST Report.
And the fatal flaw in NIST's report:
Its presumption that "collapse initiation" will automatically lead to "global collapse" is unfounded.

Now explain to me the fraud that the FEMA is referring to?

Newcomers will notice that both Federal Organizations have different theories for collapse. \
Pomeroo doesn't appear to understand the difference in theories...
FEMA-Pancake collapse. The only problem with models showing this type of collapse is the huge-Truss Failure theory.. core still remains standing. OOPS! (NOVA Program)

The Kitchen Sink/Column Failure Theory, by NIST

Blames collapses on series of alleged events:
* Stripping of insulation by plane crashes
* Sagging of floors
* Bowing of columns
* Column instability transmitted by hat truss

Is held up as the definitive explanation and has now REPLACED FEMA's Pancake theory. Both are variants on the Progressive Collapse theory.

Now explain to me again, Mr. Pomeroo where the fraud is? Because it appears by your own words that you do not know the difference between FEMA's theory and NIST's theory.

And for an excellent view of all the different theories read the following:

Theories Purport to Explain the Unexplainable

All theories to be taken seriously must explain the collapses of the Twin Towers as the result of some chain of events triggered by the jet collisions. To this end a variety of "theories" have been advanced. They range from vague notions of forces too immense to imagine, to partial explanations with huge gaps filled in by hand-waving, but are nevertheless dignified by publication.

* Core meltdown is more a notion than a theory. It is invoked through comparing the heat of the building fires to that of nuclear power plants, and supposes that the fires melted the structural steel. This theory can be used in conjunction with a pancake theory, but usually the idea of core meltdown is so compelling by itself that the pancake scenario isn't required. Since the core meltdown theory isn't endorsed by any official government report, it is frequently used in straw-man attacks against challenges to the official story, as in articles in Scientific American and Popular Mechanics .

* The progressive collapse theory is the root of all the official building collapse theories. The mass of the overhanging part of the building simply crushes the part underneath, accelerating as it falls. The two major variants of the progressive collapse theory are the and the truss failure theory, endorsed by FEMA, column failure theory, endorsed by NIST.
o The column failure theory holds that the fires weakened the columns on at least one floor sufficiently to cause the columns to buckle, and the upper section of the building to come falling down. To explain how all the columns on one level could suddenly collapse, column failure theories sometimes feature collapse initiation theories.
+ The creep buckling theory explains how the weakening of some columns due to heat could cause them to buckle, starting the spread of a kind of buckle contagion through the remaining columns.
+ The progressing column instability theory is apparently very similar to the creep buckling theory, but allows the columns to spread failure contagion without buckling. This theory is a key ingredient in NIST's Global Analysis .
Once the columns fail in unison, it is still necessary to crush the rest of the tower from top to bottom.
+ The pile-driver theory supposes that the top of each tower acted like a giant battering ram, crushing the intact portion of the tower from top to bottom.
o The truss failure theory blames trusses under the floors, which are more easily heated than columns, and/or their connections to the columns. The failure of the floor trusses precipitates a chain reaction of floors falling on one another, which in turn leads to total building collapse. The truss failure theory is better known as the pancake theory. To explain how a whole floor could fall, despite uneven fire stress, requires a truss failure contagion theory.
+ The zipper theory explains how all of the trusses on a floor could fall in rapid succession because of a domino-effect failure of their column connections. The zipper theory is much easier to understand if one erases, as did NOVA , the perpendicular cross-trusses and floor pans, and imagines the floor as a series of parallel trusses resting on weak angle brackets.
Once the first floor falls on the second, it must somehow exceed the design loads of the one below, which should have been able to easily absorb the impact of the first floor falling about nine feet, especially if it didn't fall all at once. Theories that explain this generally blame some aspect of building design and/or materials.
+ The angle bracket theory helps to explain the cascade of floor collapses below the fire zone by suggesting that engineers forgot to apply standard engineering practices when designing the column connections of the floor trusses. Mis-describing the welded steel shelves that supported the truss ends as angle brackets helps us imagine this.
Once the floor diaphragms have started to pancake down between the core and outer wall, it is still necessary to dispose of the dense steel grid constituting the outer wall, and the steel lattice of the core structure. This requires some form of sudden column failure theory. Such theories are usually only implied in tellings of the truss failure theory. Sections of the outer wall and core structure are supposed to immediately collapse from lack of lateral support once the floor diaphragms fall away. Since the perimeter wall and core structure were easily self-supporting except possibly in high winds, sudden column failure theories usually take some liberties in describing the architecture of the perimeter wall and core structures.
+ The column splice failure theory has the outer wall breaking up along column splice connections between the three-story-high by three-column-wide prefabricated sections. This theory is easier to accept if one forgets that every set of three column splice connections was surrounded on both sides by six continuous column spans, bound to the spliced columns above and below by horizontal spandrel plates four feet high.
+ The freestanding core column theory has the core columns suddenly buckling catastrophically due to lack of lateral support from the floor diaphragms. This theory depends at least on the core columns being freestanding, as the FEMA Report allows, in contrast to construction photos that show them to be cross-braced by horizontal beams and diagonal trussing.

* The shockwave theory postulates some unspecified "shockwave" which travels ahead of the crushing mass, breaking up the building. Shockwave theories tend to be found in amateur attempts at accounting for the building collapse.http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/
collapse/index.html

 
At 31 January, 2007 19:58, Blogger Richard said...

Swing your a moron. I like how you get on NIST for having ideas before they experiment. If your for example, AN EXPERT, then I think you can throw out a few ideas before experimenting.

Also, for the love of god, drop the stupid "They only looked at the collapse initiation and not the global collapse." That's like saying:

"They only investigated the head on 80mph car crash up to the point of impact, why didn't they study what caused the destruction of the vehicle!?"

 
At 01 February, 2007 22:26, Blogger Alex said...

The guy's an idiot. He also complains about NIST using FEMA data to arrive at a different conclusion. What exactly is wrong with that, he doesn't explain. Ofcourse, those amongst us who are more intelligent (read 99.999% of the population) can guess at his insinuations. He seems to think that using someone elses data to come to a different conclusions invalidates your conclusion because it is different than the one reached by those who compiled the source data. Unfortunately for him, that's not how we do things in the real world.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home