Sunday, February 11, 2007

More Proof Of the Troof

Paul Thompson (apparently) has posted a copy of an advertisement for Command & Conquer: Red Alert, which features prominently an explosion at the World Trade Center. Apparently this is considered like the Pilot for the Lone Gunman on TV; a precursor or warning.

Of course, the World Trade Center was well-known to be a terrorist target before Red Alert was released, and the explosion appears to be near the base of the towers, so its relevance to 9-11 is questionable. However, to save the Deniers some time, here are some other pop culture references to 9-11. First up, Two-Face muses about his next crime from Batman #441, 1989:



(Note: Click on pix to see them larger)

Wonder Woman crashes into the World Trade Center well before Mohammed Atta (around 1982) in this panel:



Judy Wood's Star Wars Beam Weapon gets a workout in 1940:



And here's the famed trailer for the first Spiderman film:



Update: More pop culture references here.

Update II: Thanks to JREFer Graham2001 who pointed out some other pop culture references. First, here's the plot summary for the 1978 Spiderman movie:

At the New York State University, one of Peter Parker's tutors has accidentally given three students all the materials they need to create an atomic bomb. While Peter Parker tries to find out what's happened, the police suspect him of the crime, and Peter has to deal with an attractive journalist determined to get an interview with Spider-Man. Then dastardly millionaire Mr. White shows up, and will stop at nothing to get his hands on the atomic bomb. Spider-Man must defeat this scheming villain and stop him blowing up the World Trade Centre.


A hip-hop band had planned a November 2001 release to include a picture of them blowing up the World Trade Center.

Here's a card from one of those "Magic The Gathering"-type card games:

Labels: , ,

48 Comments:

At 11 February, 2007 10:55, Blogger BG said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 11 February, 2007 12:51, Blogger Tom said...

So it was Wonderwoman!

I don't think anyone saw that coming.

 
At 11 February, 2007 12:56, Blogger James said...

I bet thats where Judy Wood got her theory from..

 
At 11 February, 2007 14:54, Blogger default.xbe said...

the wonder woman thing kinda puts a new twist on the CGI planes theory, they had to digitally add them into the camera footage because the real planes were invisible

 
At 11 February, 2007 15:04, Blogger Falco98 said...

http://tinyurl.com/39rqpe

it was da hulk!!

 
At 11 February, 2007 15:57, Blogger BG said...

Visibility 9-11 Welcomes John Albanese

 
At 11 February, 2007 16:00, Blogger FX9 said...

hey guys, i was wondering what youre thinking about this video:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/6104

 
At 11 February, 2007 16:43, Blogger Alex said...

Typical twoofer trash.

 
At 11 February, 2007 16:58, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

I saw that video. That guy needs to see the full video clip of the firefighter's discussion of molten steel under the rubble pile. Too bad jet fuel and office combustibles don't burn that hot. Hmmmm I wonder what would turn steel into molten steel flowing like lava.

Maybe Cyclops from the Xmen did it!

The OS just like the fiction in those comics you showed.

 
At 11 February, 2007 17:12, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Hey Pat, maybe the National Security Establishment should hire comic book authors. It seems these comic author's didn't 'fail to imagine' attacks on the WTC, unlike those in power on 9/11, at least according to your theory.

 
At 11 February, 2007 17:29, Blogger Alex said...

Hmmmm I wonder what would turn steel into molten steel flowing like lava.

Put enough twoofers in one room, and I'm sure they'd produce enough hot air.

 
At 11 February, 2007 19:04, Blogger shawn said...

Hmmmm I wonder what would turn steel into molten steel flowing like lava.

Do you morons understand this doesn't help your thoeries either? If there's molten steel (the firefighters most likely saw molten metal and just used "steel" as "meatl") it doesn't give any evidence for a controlled demolition.

The OS just like the fiction in those comics you showed.

I know you're retarded, but can you folks understand that there is no "official" story. Invoking it is a logical fallacy.

 
At 12 February, 2007 00:27, Blogger Der Bruno Stroszek said...

Swing, do you really, seriously think that the explosives used in controlled demolitions can melt steel? How do you manage to tie your shoelaces in the morning without injuring yourself?

 
At 12 February, 2007 00:56, Blogger FX9 said...

der_bruno , maybe you can explain what you mean??
u mean to say, even explosives cannot melt steel??
Aha, yea, this kinda reminds of the 'would have needed such huge amounts of bombs that it is unrealistic' argument, against CD.
soooo, explosives cannot melt it. but office fires can?
yuuk

 
At 12 February, 2007 05:18, Blogger Alex said...

Explosives don't melt shit, they shatter it. Congratulations, you're yet another victim of Hollywood Misinformation Syndrome! You know how in the movies a hand grenade will create a fireball the size of a small city? Yeah, they don't really do that. Nor does Arnold Schwarzenegger actually posses thermonuclear claymores. It's all a load of bullshit. Explosives don't produce any fire at all, and not much heat either. Their energy is liberated primarily through concussive force.

Now that you've been educated, you can go back to your twoofer website, and spread this information far and wide so that I will never again have to explain it! 17,538 times is enough, thank you very much.

 
At 12 February, 2007 06:20, Blogger FX9 said...

well, thermate certainly can achieve this. doing a little word-game here?...

 
At 12 February, 2007 06:21, Blogger FX9 said...

alex, *what* was it then , that caused it, in your opinion?
the jet fuel?

 
At 12 February, 2007 07:02, Blogger Stevew said...

LOL Alex maybe you will have to explain it 17,538 and one times for the uneducated to understand

 
At 12 February, 2007 07:18, Blogger FX9 said...

funny how you guys pretend to be able to explain something even NIST can't ... im curious. So what caused the molten metal?

 
At 12 February, 2007 07:45, Blogger Alex said...

Thermate's not an explosive, nor is it used for demolition.

As for your other question:

1. There's no evidence of molten steel, other than the testimony of ONE MAN, who mentioned it in an offhand fashion, and who was never subsequently contacted to expand on his comment.

2. There is no evidence of molten metal of any sort, although there is evidence of very high temperatures.

3. There are many possible explanations for the high temperatures at ground zero. The initial fires and a continued burn are certainly part of it. The massive amounts of potential energy released in the collapse would also have added to it through friction, torsion, and compression.

4. The question of the high temperatures is purely academic, and as such is of limited value. It's a curiosity more than anything else. The real studies focused on the mechanism of collapse because that's the part of the event that the engineering community needs to learn from. Finding out the cause of high post-collapse temperatures has no value other than to try and shut up a bunch of lunatics, and it wouldn't be effective even at that. Even if we had a definite explanation for the temperatures, people like you would just start complaining about something else that's every bit as vacuous.

To sum up: Thermate not an explosive, no molten steel, no molten metal. High temperatures present, explanation uncertain, and nobody cares all that much.

 
At 12 February, 2007 07:47, Blogger Alex said...

Steve, I know I'll end up explaining it at least another 20,000 times. The "heat by explosive" theory is what James Randi famously refers to as "an unsinkable rubber ducky". No matter what I try, it just keeps popping up again.

 
At 12 February, 2007 07:51, Blogger 911_truthiness said...

NIST is an organization committed to finding the truth and more importantly finding ways of preventing another building from falling if such a thing happen again. Unlike the truthers who have it easy, they make multiple wild allegations with out any proof. Truthers throw shit against the wall to see what sticks, and even the stuff that does not stick get picked up again an thrown again. NIST deals in facts and that take more time then pulling something out your ass.

Have you really thought about how illogical what you are saying is, that not only were explosives used to bring down the towers but that the step of loading enough extra explosives or whatever metal melting compound was done to make rivers of melted steel in the towers basement?

WHY? What would be the purpose? If you did use explosive to bring down the towers then what is gained by melting some steel after the fact?

UNLESS the melted steel if it did exist (funny never saw any pictures of these so called rivers) is in fact a product of furnace effect created by the rubble and lots of burning office material.

Was this stuff steel at all? Remember the towers were clad top to bottom aluminum.

Point is there are plenty of better, more logical explanations for melted metal at the site.

 
At 12 February, 2007 08:58, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Shawn, what makes you think you know more than those who worked endlessly trying to search for survivors? The national heroes stated exactly what they saw. NASA imagery supports their story as well as other witnesses. And the evidence sure doesn't support the OS in fact it supports the creed that something other than jet fuel and damage caused the collapse.

The question is, what turns steel into molten steel running like lava? And it ain't jet fuel and office supplies. The OS'ers disregard this issue by stating there was no molten steel, contray to all of the evidence.

Maybe Thermite Jones is on to something.

And I know it isn't explosive devices nor did I push that in my post which is why I asked.

LIAR ALERT:


Thermate's not an explosive, nor is it used for demolition.
ALex is in no position to testify to the use of thermate in the destruction of buildings. He may tell you about how it cuts through the steel of tank barrels like butter, but gosh darn it, it can't be used in buildings because...well because ...errr because I said so!

WHY? What would be the purpose? If you did use explosive to bring down the towers then what is gained by melting some steel after the fact?
I'm not an expert, but IMHO, a terrorist would use explosives to blow the concrete support structures in the sublevels which is apparently what happened, and something to cut the steel structure above to weaken the integrity of the steel core and to cause a total collapse. You wouldn't want to use traditional explosives as used in a traditional CD scenario as you could see the tell-tale sign of 'lights' on the floors, etc. You want the impression of fire and structural damage to be the sole reason for collapse. Everything else is Orwelled and never reported on again or for that matter never investigated by the proper authorities.

Explosives don't produce any fire at all, and not much heat either.
ROFLMAO! Now time for your education session to cure your stupidity..

http://www.military.com/soldiertech/0,14632,
Soldiertech_Explosives,,00.html

Check out the huge 'fire ball' as well.
Explosives are categorized into two groups: "low" explosives, such as black powder and ammonium nitrate, and "high" explosives such as TNT and RDX, capable of leveling buildings. With low explosives, the explosion spreads through the material at subsonic speeds through an accelerated combustion process. These types of explosions are used to move things, such as rock or rubble. In this case, large quantities are used.

High explosives on the other hand, are used to break things down to their very molecular structure -- useful when cutting steel beams, cratering, and penetrating reinforced concrete. These types of explosives are powerful, with very high propagation rates that spread using supersonic "detonation." High explosives are driven by the breakdown of the actual molecular structure of the material.

There are a vast array of commercially available explosives, including your run-of-the-mill dynamite, nitroglycerine and picric acid -- but the military doesn't use just any explosive. In order to be used in a battlefield situation, military explosives need to have a few key characteristics.

Stop being stoopid, Alex, and educate yourself. And your comment about no one cares is to be expected from a Canadian who has no stake in the events of 9/11. As an American, I do.

1.There's no evidence of molten steel, other than the testimony of ONE MAN, who mentioned it in an offhand fashion, and who was never subsequently contacted to expand on his comment.
Alex failed to watch the video as there were numerous firefighters sitting around the 1 firefighter telling the story.

2.There is no evidence of molten metal of any sort, although there is evidence of very high temperatures. Another lie that ignores all of the evidence on video, in print, and falling from one of the towers.

3.There are many possible explanations for the high temperatures at ground zero.
Don't confuse high temperatures for temperatures that are high enough to melt steel, show up on NASA imagery, and last for months.

4.The question of the high temperatures is purely academic, and as such is of limited value. Of course it is pure scientific as well considering nothing in the towers could burn that hot, and if there were, that might have a little something to do with other buildings that might collapse from fire. Nice try to 'brush it off' as being unimportant when it is of the utmost importance. Something caused that evidence to appear, and no investigation has been done to determine what it was.

Most of you OS'ers are just like the Nazi's. If you repeat a lie often enough, it will soon become truth.

 
At 12 February, 2007 09:01, Blogger FX9 said...

"1. There's no evidence of molten steel, other than the testimony of ONE MAN, who mentioned it in an offhand fashion, and who was never subsequently contacted to expand on his comment."

well, the FEMA report reports it.
why?

 
At 12 February, 2007 09:02, Blogger FX9 said...

and btw, its total crap that theres only one guy who has reported that... dozens of first-responders have

 
At 12 February, 2007 10:15, Blogger Alex said...

God you're retarded. That fireball isn't from any explosive. In order to achieve that sort of effect you need some sort of fuel. That's how Hollywood makes their fireballs - strap a block of C4 to a propane tank, and you'll have a great fireball, but the C4 by itself looks nothing like that.

Your entire post was so replete with mistakes, lies, and logical fallacies, that if I were actually inclined to take you seriously, I wouldn't know where to start correcting you.

The biggest thing that exposes you for a fool? Once again you're trying to say that your layman opinions are worth more than the testimony of an expert - in this case me. You're the most obnoxious ignoramus I've ever come across. You're literally too stupid to realize how stupid you are.

 
At 12 February, 2007 10:25, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

Your entire post was so replete with mistakes, lies, and logical fallacies, that if I were actually inclined to take you seriously, I wouldn't know where to start correcting you.


ROFLMAO! Call me Nostradamus, but somehow I thought that woudl be your reponse. As far as the explosive part, feel free to correct the source as I'm sure they will laugh at you as much as I have today.

Care to take on FEMA and their report on molten metal?

The greatest thing about your reponse is, you can't correct me because it is a military website. And I'm the fool?

Since I'm so foolish that you can't even correct my information how about FX9?

 
At 12 February, 2007 10:27, Blogger Alex said...

FX:

well, the FEMA report reports it. why?

They don't. If you really think they do, then please, feel free to link to the part of the report which makes this claim.

and btw, its total crap that theres only one guy who has reported that... dozens of first-responders have

Once again, feel free to link to their testimony. I'm only aware of one. There certainly could be more that I'm not aware of, so I look forward to your response.

Also, have you taken steps to contact these people and verify their statements? Keep in mind that a lot of the time, people will mistakenly use a phrase which does not accurately describe what they are talking about. Follow-up interviews are essential in order to verify the accuracy of unusual initial statements. That's a very basic aspect of any investigation, yet as far as I know, no twoofer has actually followed through with it.

 
At 12 February, 2007 10:29, Blogger Alex said...

As far as the explosive part, feel free to correct the source as I'm sure they will laugh at you as much as I have today.

It's not the source that's the problem, it's your own stupidity. The site simply doesn't say what you think it says. Which is actually nothing new for you. There's been DOZENS of times where you've linked to sites which you think support what you're saying, when in fact they are either irrelevant to what you're talking about, or they outright contradict you. Like I said, you're literally too stupid to realize how stupid you are.

 
At 12 February, 2007 11:25, Blogger BG said...

SD,

Nostradamus.

 
At 12 February, 2007 14:50, Blogger shawn said...

NASA imagery supports their story as well as other witnesses.

NASA imagery shows molten steel? That's new.

 
At 12 February, 2007 15:39, Blogger Swing Dangler said...

It's not the source that's the problem, it's your own stupidity. The site simply doesn't say what you think it says.

ROFLMAO, ok, Chief what does it say?

There's been DOZENS of times where you've linked to sites which you think support what you're saying, when in fact they are either irrelevant to what you're talking about, or they outright contradict you.

Care to support that statement with evidence?

Shawn, you know exactly what I mean. The NASA imagery supports the extreme temperatures that were required to turn steel into molten steel. Nice try at the twist though.

 
At 12 February, 2007 16:22, Blogger Cl1mh4224rd said...

Simple question for the idiots: What form of therm[i|a]te is capable of keeping iron or steel in a liquid state 6-8 weeks after it's been used to destroy the towers?

 
At 12 February, 2007 17:13, Blogger Stevew said...

Alex you are wasteing your time
All he does is make claims and never gives specifics as to how this could be done to counter what has been put forth by CD experts as usual. He loves to talk the talk but has never walked the walk.
He knocks you and others yet gives nothing to show his expertise in anything but BS

 
At 12 February, 2007 17:20, Blogger Alex said...

ROFLMAO, ok, Chief what does it say?

It talks about the difference between low and high explosives. Which has zero to do with heat output, or "fireballs".

Care to support that statement with evidence?

No. There's an example of it in this very thread, which is more than good enough. Since, as I have already pointed out, you are too stupid to understand what you're doing wrong, there's really no point in me providing extra examples. If a monkey can't figure out how to play the piano, I'm not going to bring him 20 new pianos and hope he can play one of those. You are hopeless.

 
At 12 February, 2007 17:21, Blogger Alex said...

Oh, I know Steve. That's why I never bother going into much detail with him. There's no point. He's the kind of idiot who could spend 30 years arguing that 2+2=5.

 
At 13 February, 2007 00:44, Blogger FX9 said...

"Simple question for the idiots: What form of therm[i|a]te is capable of keeping iron or steel in a liquid state 6-8 weeks after it's been used to destroy the towers?"


Aha, you mean to say thermate can never do this, but office fires can??
Or, to put it different, it seems to be a simple question to *you*, so im sure you can enlighten us as to what caused it

 
At 13 February, 2007 06:13, Blogger Stevew said...

Bingo Alex :)

 
At 13 February, 2007 07:39, Blogger default.xbe said...

Aha, you mean to say thermate can never do this, but office fires can??
Or, to put it different, it seems to be a simple question to *you*, so im sure you can enlighten us as to what caused it


office fires can smolder for weeks, even months, as this happens the unburned material will get hotter and hotter, and when it finally does get enough to burn it will burn even hotter than that (the only "limit" to how hot something can burn is the temperature at which other chemical reactions begin to occur) so an office fire fueled by wood, paper, plastics and other fibers can certainly explain the high temperatures, and is fully consistant with how long the fires were burning

thermite/thermate on the other hand, burns out quickly, a lack of oxygen cannot slow it down as its not a combustion reaction and doesnt require free oxygen, in order for thermite to burn for weeks or months you would needs literally hundreds if not thousands of tons of the stuff, because as soon as it burns out it would immediately begin cooling and any steel melted by it wouldnt stay molten for very long

 
At 13 February, 2007 10:17, Blogger FX9 said...

i think we can both agree that thermate would certainly cause the whole mess to reach much higher temperatures, initially.
Its obvious there were office fires. We dont have to argue over that. See, its not *either* thermate *or* office fires, as office-fires are obviously a given fact we both agree on (that they happend, i mean).Ok then, see the problem with your explanation?
You say *only* office fires can cause this (well, of the two things), but *not* when thermate is involved ?
Now you have to explain this further. *Without* thermate, it would reach much higher temperatures in the long run than *with* thermate involved?
Is this really what keeps you believing the official story?

 
At 13 February, 2007 11:17, Blogger Alex said...

Without thermate or with thermate, it wouldn't make any difference. Do you understand just HOW MUCH fuel there was on those floors? Do you have any concept of how large those buildings were? You would require literaly TONS (as in thousands of kilograms) of thermate to make any difference to the overall temperatures. And the fact remains that there is ZERO evidence of ANY thermate actually BEING there!

 
At 13 February, 2007 11:31, Blogger Stevew said...

Thermite is an incendiary, a vastly different product to HMX and RDX which are military explosives like TNT that can be used in civilian demolition projects. Thermite is a slow-burning product in comparison, does not explode, and, is never used in demolition of buildings. It can be used to melt horizontal pieces of steel, because it produces molten iron at up to 2,500 degrees centigrade, which flows onto the target and melts it. It cannot be used to melt vertical structures, because the molten iron simply flows past the target. Thermite is used to quietly destroy military equipment such as artillery (by inserting it down an up-pointing barrel), but more regularly in construction, for example, to weld rails together.

We have to believe that the conspirators had researched controlled demolition so badly as to decide on the use of thermite. Now, Jones estimates that “Roughly 2,000 pounds of RDX-grade linear-shaped charges” would be sufficient to bring the building down, and such a quantity of explosive might conceivably have been hidden in each of the towers. But the quantity of thermite required to produce this stream of molten metal is much greater.
107 Kg of thermite is required to produce 54 Kg of molten iron, and the stream of molten metal flowing from the impact zone (if iron) has been estimated at thousands of kilograms. Even if the stream is only 1,000 kg of iron, then 2,000 kg, or two metric tonnes, of thermite would be required. But the CD hypothesis implies much more than this. For a start the thermite would have been distributed over the proposed target floor for initial collapse, so it would be very difficult for the molten iron products to pool in one place and pour out.
http://www.jnani.org/mrking/writings/911/king911.htm#_Toc144445988
Secondly, the CD hypothesis agrees that the floor(s) of impact of the plane could not have been exactly predicted, so every, say, 5 floors, another couple of metric tonnes of thermite would be required. The whaks to make it appear that the planes somehow initiated the collapse; cutter-charges could have been pre-placed at numerous spots in the building, since one would not know exactly where the planes would enter. Even if only the top half of the building were so prepared, then we would anticipate 2 metric tonnes x 11 locations or 22 tonnes. If the mass of stream of molten metal were estimated at more like 10,000 kg of iron then the figure goes up to 220 tonnes of thermite. We have to believe (a) that the conspirators were ignorant enough to attempt to use thermite, and (b) could insinuate between 22 and 220 tonnes of thermite, plus charges, plus radio firing systems, into each tower.
If in addition, thermite is required by the CD hypothesis to account for the molten steel in the basement after collapse, then we have to add an addition two tonnes of thermite for every tonne of molten iron. The problem for the CD theory is in fact that no reliable estimates exist of the amount of molten metal, if any, in the basements.

In Brent Blanchard's paper he devotes section 5 to the issue of thermite and molten metal. His team spoke directly to operators who cleared Ground Zero, and he concludes: 'To a man, they do not recall encountering molten structural steel beams, nor do they recall seeing any evidence of pre-cutting or explosive severance of beans at any point during debris removal activities.'

There has never been molten steel in any building demolition because the charges are hi explosives. The force and heat are directed to the girder and disapate quickly. Now they say it was thermite but never say how or when it was planted or why it is never used in building demolition. Thermite burns hot and would have had little effect on the colapse because explosive demolition happens very fast. Thermite is just a buzzword for the whaks because they think it sounds impressive.

 
At 13 February, 2007 12:01, Blogger FX9 said...

well, look, im not sure if thermate was involved. but i find it sorta strange how you guys argue that *huge* amounts would have been needed to take the towers down, when on the other hand, you believe it didnt take any 'help' from planted devices at all.
Alex, do you mean to say the jet fuel is what caused all this?

 
At 13 February, 2007 12:21, Blogger Stevew said...

There were no planted devices period and the toofer's only offer opinion, speculation and conjecture to support their views.
We have yet to see a list of their experts that support the CD theory

 
At 13 February, 2007 13:00, Blogger FX9 said...

"We have yet to see a list of their experts that support the CD theory"

for a start, go here:
http://911proof.com/10.html

 
At 13 February, 2007 14:28, Blogger Stevew said...

"that's exactly what it looked like and that's what happened" on 9/11"
These are the same whaks that have been debunked over and over. Saying it and proveing it are 2 very different things so where is there proof?
There is not a single CD company in the world that agrees with CD period.

 
At 13 February, 2007 16:44, Blogger Alex said...

for a start, go here:
http://911proof.com/10.html


*sigh*

Do you realize that you're arguing like a creationist?

Funny story...the "intelligent design" movement came up with a list of names of all the scientists who agree with intelligent design. The list was something like 200 people.

So, just for fun, the scientific community started Project Steve. Basically, it was a list of all the scientist named Steve or Stephanie, who disagreed with the creationists. It was a funny little joke that quite clearly demonstrates just how ludicrous making these lists really is.

So you've got what, maybe 10 "experts" on your side? Yippe. NIST has 10,000 on theirs. I could spend the time explaining to you why even those 10 that you have are not reliable, but why should I? If you're willing to believe 10 experts over 10,000, well, obviously you're not really interested in the truth.

 
At 16 February, 2007 18:16, Blogger Falco98 said...

oh geez. an "anti-propaganda" video. now i'm a looser i guess!!!
gag me.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home