Over at TruthMove, where the folks even more responsible than the Truth Action Truthers hang out, a Paul Kenyon posts his proof of the Troof
Such a structure could topple, or buckle in either mode 1 (bend over from the top (unlikely but possible)) or mode 2 (bulge out from the center (less likely)) but should not have fallen straight down as though the earth opened up under it or it had been melted from the bottom by fast acting acid.
Actually, as we look at it in the best videos we have of it, it is not a single column but several columns solidly tied together. The top slender section rose above the several columns below. This made for a strong structure. It stood 20 seconds and I think it should have stood for 20 years...or 200 years of the calm clear weather of that morning if left alone to do so.
Does anyone have a natural scenario that could have made the spire collapse as we see it collapse in the videos? Does anyone have an interpretation of the videos that shows it actually toppled or buckled only we couldn't see it do this?...though the images, though not great, certainly show that it goes straight down.
John Albanese, correctly, laughs at Kenyon, but unfortunately this just encourages him to continue on with his theorizing:
In other words, in straight down collapse of the spire after the 20 second existence of it after the WTC 1 collapse, we have proof of human hands in the spire's collapse. This would be proof positive of foreknowledge, for example, and access for some time to set charges all along those columns...or of some other mechanism deliberately planned and deployed. What we have, then, is inarguable proof that the WTC collapses were not due to the aircraft impacts but that the whole thing was set up as a made for television event for public consumption...The buildings were rigged to collapse...no question. So, where do we go from here? Can we take this to court?
Yes, but I suggest a court where the judge harrrumppphs a lot and says things like "This is highly irregular, but..."
This is the same basic problem the Troofers have had all along; the claim that if you squint your eyes at this grainy video just right, you will have proof positive of an inside job!
Well, Truth Move is apparently full of those jaded types who've been hearing about "conclusive evidence" for years now. They're not interested in evidence, they're interested in "just asking questions" and "supporting the family members". So they tell the guy to take his "evidence" elsewhere. So far, so good. Kenyon claims to be an engineer:
I am a mechanical engineer and have worked as a design engineer for 40 years or so. I know steel fairly well and the way things tend to work and happen in the real world on a classical physics level.
Except, as the Truthers point out, he's not using any engineering ability or calculations but the usual "this doesn't look the way I'd expect it to look". Albanese:
how is it that a mechanical engineer schooled in the sciences and emperical thinking could claim that the spire was unaffected by fire - and was not hit by a plane - while IGNORING the hundreds of thousands tons of debris that fell on it that day?
How can an engineer even raise this question without blueprints that illustrate exactly what the BASE of this spire looked like - and how it may have been compromised?
gee - do you think it is possible the base of the spire was damaged, key joints weakened - and gravity simply brought it down?
Very reasonable points, points that might be brought up with Richard Gage's gaggle, which shows Kenyon as one of their engineers.
But another guy chimes in to support Kenyon, expressing disappointment with the Truth Move folks for not giving this guy more of a chance. And, not surprisingly, that causes one of the chief goofs over there to label him an agent:
I've seen the post above so many times in different forms, it's certainly become a cliche. The cheesy hand wringing. "I am disheartened by the reaction of the people on this site." The sly insults and turnabout. 'There's no point in going on with it.'
So, stop acting like a troll and you won't be treated like one.
But one step further, because I'm not in a great mood, and John inspired me to be honest. This looks like totally transparent trolling to me. Is it 911movement, or screwloosechange? What rock did you crawl out from under?
One more time. We don't have to work at making Truthers look like dolts; it's a given. Kenyon's an idiot, and the folks panning him for his idiocy are right. They're dolts too; they believe in 9-11 Troof while studiously avoiding evidence, which ain't exactly the scientific method. But Kenyon's more of a dope.
Labels: John Albanese, Paul Kenyon, TruthMove