Tuesday, December 04, 2007

Alex, Alex, Alex...

He should have stuck to suggesting five minute strikes. Alex Floum is back at 9-11 Blogger with a spot of debunking of Judy Wood's laser beam. Unfortunately, he makes a thorough hash of it right from the start:

The main argument of folks pushing the theory that the Twin Towers were brought down with directed energy weapons is that conventional explosives (like thermite) could not have pulverized the concrete into dust as observed in videos of the event.

Conventional explosives like thermite? But thermite is not an explosive, it's an incendiary. After a video clip of the south tower collapse, he shows us explosives blowing up what appears to a be a large earthen berm, which is a pretty cool video actually except that he gives us no context and (of course) cannot claim it was blown up by thermite. Then we get several more videos of explosions of dirt piles. Look, explosives can turn dirt into dust! Who would have guessed?

He closes with this:

The above videos show conventional explosives (they are examples of a method called "cast blasting", which is very low-tech. Cast blasting just means that holes are pre-drilled and explosives placed in the holes).

So that's how they did it! They just drilled holes in 110 concrete floors and placed explosives in them. Brilliant! And nobody noticed this?

The comments are, if anything, even worse. John A Mitchell from France contributes this bon mot:

Useful video but I am not completely convinced. Sure, on the outside that is what we saw. But in the interior, the back bone supporting columns, the elevators, filing cabinets, computers etc were reduced to dust. Can you imagine the energy to do that ! The amount of energy can be calculated by the science. A small atomic bomb could have done the job with less preparation and giving the sufficient energy ?

Hoverer the small parts of bones found on surrounding roof buildings would be explained by explosions that you have shown.

Well, Professor Jones shows up and admirably has none of this latter nonsense:

John states: "But in the interior, the back bone supporting columns, the elevators, filing cabinets, computers etc were reduced to dust. "

I challenge that statement, and ask for references to back it up. Really -- the statement requires evidentiary support, not unsubstantiated repetition.

Au contraire, mon ami, I have photos of an intact brief case, calculator, wallet, the antenna which was on the North Tower, and steel columns (in pieces, yes -- explosive do that).

But no mention that thermite has been wrongly described as a conventional explosive.

You know the funniest part about this? I agree that Judy Woods' laser beam is an absolutely loony idea, so I should by rights be on Floum's side in this matter. But he's not trying to debunk it and accept the quite rational idea that any pulverization of the concrete occurred because the building collapsing (or more precisely, because of it hitting the ground) instead he's got his own theory which is only marginally less insane than Judy's.

I feel like I'm listening to a bunch of knuckleheads arguing over whether Randy Moss or Marvin Harrison is the better passer.


Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home