Saturday, February 06, 2010

With Savvy Investigators Like These...

I was amused to see this post on 911 Blogger regarding a paper I wrote for the Journal of Debunking 911, over 3 years ago.


I found a new blog today, devoted to debunking 9/11 truth. It contains papers such as this one:

"There Are No Missile Defenses at the Pentagon JamesB"
http://www.jod911.com/There_Are_No_Missile_Defenses_at_the_Pentagon.pdf

Has anyone attempted to tear these guys a new orifice?


Nevermind that a collection of papers, most of which are over 3 years old hardly counts as a "new blog", apparently the quickest way to end the conversation is to actually ask the truthers to present their evidence on the subject, as one of them did:


Please forgive my ignorance, but what is the evidence on missiles defending the Pentagon?

Could you please refer me to what you would consider the best sources on this?


Over a day later, he finally got one response, the very same David Ray Griffin excerpts that I debunked in the paper.

91 Comments:

At 07 February, 2010 01:03, Blogger Pat said...

If only you had named the Journal, the Beneficial Effort to Negate Nine-Eleven Truthers, you might have been noticed before now!

:)

 
At 07 February, 2010 07:25, Blogger James B. said...

Yeah, I am still waiting to be torn a new orifice.

 
At 07 February, 2010 12:29, Blogger Boris Epstein said...

Mr B (or would you prefer that I call you Jimmy),

Regardless of the issue of missiles at the Pentagon (not that it wouldn't make sense to have some and not that references to them have not been made by people who have been to the building) I think if you want to consider Pentagon defenses you would do better to consider that fighter jest were stationed at many a field around the location, the closest being the Andrews AFB and it is a bit strange, to say the least, that fighters based there or elsewhere were not available 24/7 to defend the capital. If that was a fluke... well, that's one strange fluke. If that was intentional... well, that alone could constitute sabotage.

 
At 07 February, 2010 12:41, Anonymous TV said...

Epstein, which of the following two units would you expect to have fighters on 24/7 alert? The 1401 Airlift squadron, the 459 Air refueling wing, Malcolm Grow USAF Medical Center or the 1254 Airlift squadron ?

The question is serious, since these are the only units based on Edwards. Either choose which of these transports you'd expect to be used in a fighter intercept (some evidence would be called for), or admit your argument is rather critically flawed.

 
At 07 February, 2010 12:44, Anonymous NoIdentity said...

Scrambling interceptors is really easy. I do it in Command & Conquer all the time.

 
At 07 February, 2010 13:05, Blogger James B. said...

They didn't even need to use that, according to Griffin army cargo helicopters could have shot down AA77!

Still more evidence that Washington had its own defenses, rather than being dependant on the fighter jets at distant Langley is provided by the description of the "principal missions" of Davison Army Airfield:

[T]o operate a "Class A" Army Airfield on a 24 hour basis, maintain a readiness posture in support of contingency plans, provide aviation support for the White House, US government officials, Department of Defense, Department of the Army, and other government agencies...; and exercise operational control of the airspace.

Davison, which is about 12 miles south of the Pentagon, is equipped with both fixed-wing aircraft and UH-1 and UH-60 helicopters [Hueys and Black Hawks].

 
At 07 February, 2010 13:06, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Scrambling interceptors is really easy. I do it in Command & Conquer all the time."

Yeah, really.

Didn't you ever watch a movie for heaven's sake?

 
At 07 February, 2010 13:27, Blogger Billman said...

Well, the Pentagon probably used up all their credits and resources building UFOs or Jetpacks to take out NOD at the time, and thus was not able to build fighters to scramble and had to wait til their Tiberium miners collected more...

 
At 07 February, 2010 14:09, Blogger Boris Epstein said...

To TV:

The District of Columbia Air National Guard is the component of the United States Air National Guard operating within the District of Columbia. They are also known as the Capital Guardians.

Because Washington, D.C. lacks an Air Force installation with a runway, DC Air National Guard units are stationed at nearby Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland.

The 231st Combat Communications Squadron is due to be deactivated at the beginning of the next Fiscal Year. The DC Army National Guard will be taking over the mission of the 231st.


Now DC ANG contains the 113th Wing whose "primary mission is training of air combat and operational airlift crews for national defense. The 113th also provides a ready response force of fighters for the defense of the District of Columbia area 24/7. Members of the 113th also assist local and federal law enforcement agencies in combating drug trafficking in the District of Columbia on a case by case basis."

Hopefully this answers your question.

Now, as I said before, if the capital were not defended 24/7 that would still be highly suspicious and even suggestive of sabotage.

 
At 07 February, 2010 14:35, Anonymous NoIdentity said...

Or incompetence. Or being outsmarted by terrace.

 
At 07 February, 2010 16:47, Anonymous Marc said...

If you do not know WHERE an aircraft is, you cannot intercept it.

It's called vectoring, and it takes practice. It also takes a system that the USAF and ANG did not have in the air on 9/11/2001: an AWACs. Even the AWACs is not perfect because an AWACs was almost shot down by a confused F-15 pilot on the opening night of Desert Storm. Until a blip on a radar screen is identified it remains a blip. If an aircraft turns off it's IFF signal even the massive NORAD radar cannot identify it unless the USAF has assigned a single radar operator to follow each commercial, private, and cargo plane from take-off. The prime example of this was the two US Army Blackhawks that the USAF shot down back in the mid-90s on the Turkish/Iraq border. The Blackhawks had turned off their IFF boxes, and the AWACs spotted them and paniced. So they vectored two F-15s to incercept, and both Blackhawks were destroyed killing everyone on board.

The Cold War was declared "Over" in 1991, and all of those protocols that you see in those cool old USAF-SAC public relations movies went by the wayside. The USANG was so under-funded in the 1990s that it's pilots were leaving by the bus load every month because they didn't have the money to put their bird into the air.

Many of the fighters that were deployed on 9/11 didn't even have any weapons other than wax bullets.

This is all public information and can be varified by anyone who bothers to get out of their mom's basement and go to a public library.

 
At 07 February, 2010 16:50, Anonymous paul w said...

"Has anyone attempted to tear these guys a new orifice?"

Lol!

Ah, don't you love the macho truthiness of it all?

So strong. So direct. So manly.

and, so funny when it comes from a paranoid, inept, clusterfuck truther.

Beyond parody no longer cuts the mustard. They've moved the goalposts. Again.

 
At 07 February, 2010 18:04, Anonymous NoIdentity said...

How the hell do those jets fly with that giant dish on top of them? It's so funny looking but the technology really is amazing. I guess there's a reason aeronautical engineers are some of the highest paid!

 
At 08 February, 2010 01:07, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

Noidentity: the pilots have been trained in a Chinese circus. Duh!

 
At 08 February, 2010 06:58, Anonymous New Yorker said...

I think Brian Good and Boris Epstein need to get on the same page about which nonexistent air defense system was supposed to be on alert on 9/11.

Personally, I like Brian Good's SAM batteries better. A Patriot Missile battery set up to automatically down anything that gets within its range could probably, on occasion, shoot down planes landing in fucking Philadelphia. Boris' F-15s at least have pilots who could decide which jetliners aren't approaching DC and thus would only shoot down every single Boeing and Airbus landing at Reagan, Dulles, and BWI (and maybe a few at Richmond too).

 
At 08 February, 2010 08:48, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

A moron like Boris doesn’t realize there are up to 4000 aircraft over the US at any time and the only people who know where those aircraft are going or if they’re off course is the FAA controller for that area. Now if one of those planes turns off it transponder or has a malfunction it's the controller job to assess the situation and contact the military if needed.

Simpletons think things work like in the movies, a plane goes off course and red lights start flashing and it known exactly where the planes is headed and exactly what it's intension is. In seconds jets are sent out and they find the errant aircraft with ease.

In reality it's a risk assessment situation, "what are the chances a plane of decent size will hit a Washington building? How much will it cost to defend against this one in a hundred year event? Can that money be better spent elsewhere? Truther kiddies sure love their imaginary world of how things should work over how they really work.

 
At 08 February, 2010 09:01, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Personally, I like Brian Good's SAM batteries better.

Of course that would only move the point of impact of the jet. You shoot it down into one of the neighborhood or other building around Washington, The chance of you getting control of a big jet in a post 9/11 world is almost nil.

Best to spend the money on detecting chemical or bio threats.

 
At 08 February, 2010 09:12, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Been reading The Men Who Stare at Goats and of course the good Major General Albert Stubblebine is a truther. Maybe the Pentagon should hire the major to create a psychic fence around Washington.

 
At 08 February, 2010 12:39, Blogger angrysoba said...

Speaking of savvy investigators, the Truther at the heart of the Hitchens-Gore Vidal bust-up, Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, has written a long and rambling reply to essentially say, Hitchens is a meanie, and not as smart as Gore Vidal and that Hitchens is a conspiraloon too!

I wrote a long and rambling reply in response.

 
At 08 February, 2010 14:14, Anonymous NoIdentity said...

Hitchens? The one who is constantly whining about "Islamofascists" and pushed the Iraq war?
He's one of those authors who is either making my blood boil or cracking me up. I love/hate him. He's changed his mind more than a few times but I respect him for that. The Left hates him for betraying them and the Right hates him 'cus he's still basically a lefty. He doesn't write for anyone but himself, that you can be sure of.

 
At 08 February, 2010 14:56, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

" He doesn't write for anyone but himself, that you can be sure of."

Hitch is that rarest or rare birds: an HONEST reactionary leftist.

 
At 08 February, 2010 16:01, Anonymous NoIdentity said...

I'm double posting because I really want to press this issue with you RR.

1 & 2: collapse initiation: I'd say a 30% chance that (nano-)thermite was involved in this phase. I deem natural collapse initiation quite probable.
1 & 2: collapse progression: I'd say a 50% chance of explosives involved.


I'd love to hear your explanation as to how you think that there is a 30% chance the North and South towers were brought down by explosives. We've already heard petgoat's thoroughly entertaining explanation involving radio homing beacons and Christmas-tree lights.
Also, as far as the collapse progression goes, why is the momentum from thousands of tons of steel and concrete moving not enough to destroy the entire structure?
As Newton demonstrated
Force = Mass * Acceleration. If the mass in question is massive (say, a quarter of one of the worlds largest sky scrapers) if it accelerates even slightly the force it generates is tremendous, easily enough to overwhelm the structural integrity of the building beneath it.
Really now, this controlled demolition nonsense is beneath your dignity!

 
At 08 February, 2010 16:05, Blogger angrysoba said...

"He doesn't write for anyone but himself, that you can be sure of."

But I want him to be a government shill!

Hitchens is a good writer but he does suffer from one of the characteristics of the Truthers. He's very fond of imagining himself privy to earth-shattering stuff that only he knows!

He's good when making reasoned arguments but goes overboard on the shrillness and descends into pardody when taking on one of his hate-figures like Churchill or the Clintons.

 
At 08 February, 2010 16:12, Blogger angrysoba said...

As for Andrews airforce base, does Boris Epstein have any information that contrdicts the 9/11 Commission that Otis and Langley were the only "alert" stations?

F-16s were scrambled later from Andrews with shoot-down orders but they weren't on standby.

Besides, the planes that were scrambled from Otis and Langley went looking for AA11, which they didn't immediately know the fate of.

 
At 08 February, 2010 17:05, Blogger Boris Epstein said...

To angrysoba:

Any AFB status notwithstanding, all I know is that the DC ANG - stationed at Andrews by the way - was tasked with protecting the capital 24/7. Are you saying that effectively they were not prepared or equipped to carry out that task?

 
At 08 February, 2010 17:45, Blogger James B. said...

Hey genius, you do realize that the National Guard is a RESERVE force, right?

 
At 08 February, 2010 17:50, Blogger angrysoba said...

Are you saying that effectively they were not prepared or equipped to carry out that task?


I am saying that there is no evidence I've seen that interceptors could have been airborne from Andrews quick enough to shoot down AA77 (and as far as I know they hadn't been given such an order to do so by that time).

We now know that a civilian airliner was used to ram the Pentagon. But the Air National Guard probably didn't expect such a scenario so weren't prepared for it.

 
At 08 February, 2010 17:53, Anonymous NoIdentity said...

...one of his hate-figures like Churchill or the Clintons.
Or such odious characters as ... Mother Theresa.
He's an ass, there's no doubt about that, but sometimes he is very entertaining and makes some excellent points. Especially about our head-in-the-sand denial of the link between Islam and Islamic terrorism.
Oh but I forgot all terrorism is done by the government and Muslims are just the scapegoat...

 
At 08 February, 2010 18:03, Blogger angrysoba said...

Or such odious characters as ... Mother Theresa.
He's an ass, there's no doubt about that, but sometimes he is very entertaining and makes some excellent points.


Yeah, I agree with that. I certainly prefer him to those who make endless, endless "Before we condemn suicide bombings maybe we should look at why they happen" ruminations which so often assume, as axiomatic and with no evidence, that terrorist attacks must be legitimate.

 
At 08 February, 2010 18:07, Anonymous paul w said...

I thought the points Hitchens made about Mother Theresa were quite valid.

 
At 08 February, 2010 18:11, Blogger angrysoba said...

I thought the points Hitchens made about Mother Theresa were quite valid.



Maybe. He was right that Mother Teresa didn't actually alleviate poverty but she offered a choice:

a) a miserable squalid life on the streets of Calcutta.

b) a miserable squalid life with a roof and a bowl of soup in Calcutta.

Which is better than nothing, I think.

 
At 08 February, 2010 18:18, Anonymous NoIdentity said...

It's perfectly fair to examine the motivations of terrorists; it would be insane not to. We just can't pretend that religion doesn't play a role and chalk it all up to poverty and oppression. The crotch-would-be-bomber is the son of a rich banker with a college education.
So oppressed.

 
At 08 February, 2010 18:21, Blogger James B. said...

Osama bin Laden is rich, Ayman al Zawahiri is a doctor, Mohammed Atta had more education than 90% of the AE911 idiots.

 
At 08 February, 2010 19:32, Blogger angrysoba said...

It's perfectly fair to examine the motivations of terrorists; it would be insane not to. We just can't pretend that religion doesn't play a role and chalk it all up to poverty and oppression.

Sure. But you must know those who say, "Whatever they did it must have been caused by the Western Imperialism." etc...etc...

In other words, the reasons are often assumed without examination.

Didn't Bin Laden give a list of supposed grievances which included Kashmir, Chechnya, East Turkestan, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Palestine etc...etc...?

 
At 08 February, 2010 20:10, Anonymous NoIdentity said...

In other words, the reasons are often assumed without examination.
Exactly. Great examples of this can be found on most truther sites although they usually "if terrorists did this or that they're totally justified because of Western imperialism, The Crusades, Ivan Grozny's sacking of Kazan etc etc"
For example http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2010/02/krazy-kevin-barrett-goes-jihadi.html#links
Krazy/Walt/Spacebarboy/poster-child-for-retroactive-abortion has said the same kinds of nonsense. At least I think he has, it's difficult to decipher his incoherent ramblings.

 
At 09 February, 2010 03:08, Anonymous paul w said...

angrysoba said...

Point taken.

If my memory serves me right (yes, yes, a dubious position, I know) I think one of the issues Hitchens was upset about was her refusal to accept single mothers, or something like that...actually, my memory is receding even as I try and think about it.

That, and a few other issues, and the fact that the media focused on her as some sort of innocent, humble savior.

Whatever, if she helped the destitute, who am I to bitch?

I did read his book about the Clinton's, though.

Ouch!

 
At 09 February, 2010 03:58, Blogger angrysoba said...

If my memory serves me right (yes, yes, a dubious position, I know) I think one of the issues Hitchens was upset about was her refusal to accept single mothers, or something like that...actually, my memory is receding even as I try and think about it.

That, and a few other issues, and the fact that the media focused on her as some sort of innocent, humble savior.



He did raise some legitimate points. I think Mother Teresa had raised money from the Duvalier's in Haiti which Hitchens said was the money of the poor in the first place. She shouldn't have been cosy with dictators but his analysis is a bit forced, I think.

She also took money from Charles Keating. A crook indeed, but I think it was Keating's puritanism that upset Hitchens most.

He also didn't appreciate the fact that she was given the Nobel Peace Prize and that she said in her acceptance speech that abortion was the greatest threat to world peace (!) Well, she was a batty Catholic fundamentalist but not being an intellectual we could probably forgive her whatever nonsense came into her head at the time. She also railed against condoms for the same reason and told the poor to accept or even embrace their poverty.

There was a bit more along those lines which I think Hitchens demonstrates well enough makes her less saintly or at least less worthy of emulation than she's portrayed by her media image but I still couldn't help thinking was a bit thin. Especially given how shrill his denunciations of her sometimes were.

I never did read his book on the Clintons. I also thought he sometimes becomes a bit incoherent when he rants against them.

This video is on George Bush and Bill Clinton.

 
At 09 February, 2010 05:41, Blogger Boris Epstein said...

To angrysoba:

We now know that a civilian airliner was used to ram the Pentagon. But the Air National Guard probably didn't expect such a scenario so weren't prepared for it.

Given that none of the aircraft involved in 9/11 were properly identified I can't say we know that for sure. But let us assume you are right - just for now. What sort of scenario, in your opinion, were the DC ANG pilots prepared for? Against what threat were they ready to defend the capital?

 
At 09 February, 2010 08:17, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

NoIdentity's identity revealed:

"I forgot to switch my name from my "NoIdentity" back to "Marylander" because I was commenting on SLC, whose comment boards are frequented by utter savages, so I use a different handle there than on all other blog sites."

Hello Marylander. Greetings from "utter savage" Roid Rage. =)

 
At 09 February, 2010 08:32, Anonymous Roman Craig said...

angrysoba - you'll have to forgive Boris. He has a real problem with the US Military since they rejected his sorry ass several years ago. Right Boris? You remember that thread - don't you?

"primary mission is training of air combat and operational airlift crews for national defense. The 113th also provides a ready response force of fighters for the defense of the District of Columbia area 24/7. Members of the 113th also assist local and federal law enforcement agencies in combating drug trafficking in the District of Columbia on a case by case basis."

PRIMARY! Their primary mission was training you morons.

It's like the police - their mission is to serve and protect, yet we have crimes all over the place. Not much protection there so must be some sort of widespread conspiracy.

You two fuckwards are nothing but Board entertainment!

 
At 09 February, 2010 09:31, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"I'm double posting because I really want to press this issue with you RR."
No problem, Marylander, I missed it the first time. I apologize.

"I'd love to hear your explanation as to how you think that there is a 30% chance the North and South towers were brought down by explosives. We've already heard petgoat's thoroughly entertaining explanation involving radio homing beacons and Christmas-tree lights."
You misquote me. First, the percentages are meant to convey how likely I think these claims are. For collapse initiation to be caused by (nano-)therm?te, I guesstimate 30%. This number is meant to convey that I'm not too convinced this was absolutely caused by incendiaries or explosives.

For collapse progression (the part which the NIST report didn't address for WTC 1 & 2), I guesstimate 50%. I can't claim to know for sure, so I'm thinking probabilities. I'm not going to bite the speculation-bating, sorry.

"Also, as far as the collapse progression goes, why is the momentum from thousands of tons of steel and concrete moving not enough to destroy the entire structure?"
As Newton demonstrated
Force = Mass * Acceleration. If the mass in question is massive (say, a quarter of one of the worlds largest sky scrapers) if it accelerates even slightly the force it generates is tremendous, easily enough to overwhelm the structural integrity of the building beneath it.
Really now, this controlled demolition nonsense is beneath your dignity!"

You are making claims which are difficult to verify. I'm sure you would agree with me that the WTC was overdesigned, like most structures, by a factor of 3 to 5, with differences in residual capacity between the inner and outer columns. Whether or not there was a tilt, whether or not there was a column-on-column or column-on-floor impact, there has to be an amplified load of say at least 6g. It is reasonable to assume this amplified load is easily supplied. Bazant theorizes a dynamic loading of 31g, I believe, so the lower structure will yield on impact.

However, strangely, in the case of the North Tower, the lower block doesn't seem to yield immediately after being bombarded by the upper block.

Let's just assume that after collapse initiation, collapse will progress. How long will it progress? How will it progress? Will it still progress with significant mass loss? Without mass participation? Will escalating asymmetric failures prevent a continuing vertical collapse?

Bazant's theory has been demolished by both Szamboti and Mackey, regardless of who you believe. I see merit in the arguments of both. However, I would like to see Mackey or somebody else publish their findings in a journal so they can be properly peer reviewed. It's a shame Mackey hasn't done so yet..I'm interested.

 
At 09 February, 2010 09:34, Blogger Boris Epstein said...

To Roman Craig:

angrysoba - you'll have to forgive Boris. He has a real problem with the US Military since they rejected his sorry ass several years ago. Right Boris? You remember that thread - don't you?

Roman, I am not 100% sure what you are referring to. Yes, when I tried to join the US Marines in 2001, right after 9/11, they rejected me because of my age (I was 31 at the time and the age limit for them was 27). I was not offended by this at the least.

Given the infantile tone you opt to use, Roman, I suspect that you are quite young. If that is indeed the case then one day you will perhaps reach maturity and comprehension that comes with maturity.

And it also appears that it is you, Roman, that has a problem with the US Military, not me. You don't expect the US Military to be capable of intercepting a passenger airliner in perfect visibility. As for me - well, while I acknowledge that the US Military does have some logistical and organizational problems, I very much view this sort of task as something the US Military should be able to do with ease. Unless, of course, sabotage of some sort is involved.

 
At 09 February, 2010 13:20, Blogger angrysoba said...

Hello Marylander. Greetings from "utter savage" Roid Rage. =)

Creepy Internet stalker alert!

 
At 09 February, 2010 13:48, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

angrysoba said...


"Well, she was a batty Catholic fundamentalist but not being an intellectual we could probably forgive her whatever nonsense came into her head at the time."

Hmmmmm......

From wiki P

" Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity continued to expand, and at the time of her death it was operating 610 missions in 123 countries, including hospices and homes for people with HIV/AIDS, leprosy and tuberculosis, soup kitchens, children's and family counselling programs, orphanages, and schools."

With over 4,000 members in her order.

Gee, that'd make it the rival of many world-wide corporations.

Some dummy, that god-botherer, eh?

 
At 09 February, 2010 13:53, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"You are making claims which are difficult to verify."

Watch the fucking films, moron.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESaIEVxLnK4&feature=PlayList&p=2EB6DAA9C5931382&index=3

 
At 09 February, 2010 14:19, Anonymous paul w said...

Angrysoba

Yes, good points. I read about it some time ago.

"I also thought he sometimes becomes a bit incoherent when he (Hitchens) rants against them."
Angrysoba

I too become a little 'incoherent' after a few cocktails, as well.

Whatever, none of us are perfect, and I generally like reading his stuff.

 
At 09 February, 2010 14:46, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Insightful post, RR.

Those who indulge Bazant's piledriver model are easily sold. It requires that the top block impact the lower in perfect registration, with no sliding forces, no shearing of lower tubes by off-center upper ones, no punching of holes through floors--all of which would absorb enormous amounts of energy.

[In] the North Tower, the lower block doesn't seem to yield immediately after being bombarded by the upper block.

It's not bombarded by the upper block. The 45 m shortening of the upper block shows that it's coming apart and it's disorganized debris bombarding the lower block.

 
At 09 February, 2010 14:59, Anonymous NoIdentity said...

Stalking makes me feel flattered! I'll admit I'm not comfortable with psychopaths knowing my location even within +/- 1000 miles. You know who I'm talking about, you're not one of the utter savages to whom I was referring. I don't even care about regulars on this blog. I'm more worried about infotards who find their way to this site. You don't have to be a truther to be paranoid!

I'm not going to bite the speculation-bating, sorry.
You're no fun! No homing beacons? :-(

You ask a lot of questions which prove nothing. There are dozens of videos that show enough detail of towers 1 and 2 collapsing to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the structures collapsed because of a mysterious force known as gravity.
The south tower collapsed because of a failure of the outer structure, you can see remnants of the inner core standing, something that would never happen in a controlled demolition. The north tower's failure was in the inner core, even after the bulk of the building hit the ground, large remnants of the outer structure stood intact for several seconds.

North Tower:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlYTZtkTbV4&feature=player_profilepage
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dWBBEtA5bI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=prBgz1aMha4&NR=1
South Tower:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLVTxwxtIDs&feature=related
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/365696/wtc_2_core_took_30_secs_to_collapse/
Some of these are from a documentary the name of which I've forgotten. If anyone knows it please inform me!

 
At 09 February, 2010 15:03, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Anonymous said...
Insightful post, RR."

Another moron heard from.

 
At 09 February, 2010 16:21, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Those who indulge Bazant's piledriver model are easily sold. It requires that the top block impact the lower in perfect registration, with no sliding forces, no shearing of lower tubes by off-center upper ones, no punching of holes through floors--all of which would absorb enormous amounts of energy.

Well, it seems Brian is back to posting as anonymous again. At least he's not babbling about meatballs on forks.

 
At 09 February, 2010 18:16, Blogger angrysoba said...

I too become a little 'incoherent' after a few cocktails, as well.

Whatever, none of us are perfect, and I generally like reading his stuff.


Actually, I agree. I generally like his stuff. He's always entertaining even if I don't always agree with him.

 
At 09 February, 2010 18:34, Anonymous New Yorker said...

I like most of what Hitchens writes, although I vehemently disagree with his position on the Iraq war. But for other things, like calling Mel Gibson an "Australian fascist and ham actor", his coining of the term "chaucerian frauds" to describe people like Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, and his denunciation of Trent Lott for "idle praise for sedition and terrorism", he's one of my favorites. He's generally on the right side of things, and he'll never back down from a fight.

My $.02

 
At 10 February, 2010 06:07, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Creepy Internet stalker alert!"

Why, I'd better break out the binoculars and the fake mustache. One hour photo!

Besides that, angrysoba, if reading the comment section of your blog and subsequently citing it is considered "internet stalking", consider me guilty as charged. Make sure to cuddle up to mr. teddy bear tonight as you cry in your pillow. LOL.

 
At 10 February, 2010 06:19, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"Watch the fucking films, moron."

Oh gee Dorothy, obviously I never have. Any more open doors to kick in, you ol' hero of pantheistic solipsism, time travel & consensual incest?

You do realize you've just cited a "truther" (Rick Siegel) video with a large audible explosion pre-collapse, don't you?

Order it here:
http://www.911eyewitness.com/
LOL.

 
At 10 February, 2010 06:40, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"You ask a lot of questions which prove nothing. There are dozens of videos that show enough detail of towers 1 and 2 collapsing to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the structures collapsed because of a mysterious force known as gravity."
I see (researched) details that contradict that notion, and we could both make our own claims based on the same footage.

"The south tower collapsed because of a failure of the outer structure, you can see remnants of the inner core standing, something that would never happen in a controlled demolition. The north tower's failure was in the inner core, even after the bulk of the building hit the ground, large remnants of the outer structure stood intact for several seconds."
A commercial controlled demolition would share characteristics with a military one, but they need not be identical. In an "unauthorized" building destruction, there is no prerequisite for tidyness: it's optional. I'm sure you would agree that "truthers" argue that the towers were deceptively destroyed.

Note also the differences between collapse initiation and collapse progression: foul play could occur in one, in both, or in none.

Note also that the perimeter column failure of the south tower could have been precipitated by a failing core pulling on the perimeter columns via the trusses.

It's interesting that you say that the core is the primary failure cause in the North Tower. I don't remember what NIST says about that, I'll have to look it up.

As for portions of the inner core standing: Gordon Ross noted that the columns still standing were those furthest away from the elevator shafts, were Gage implies the bombs were placed via elevator upgrades.

Who knows. I don't see much evidence of columns blown up in the photographic evidence available. However I don't see any floors or trusses at all.

 
At 10 February, 2010 08:55, Blogger angrysoba said...

Besides that, angrysoba, if reading the comment section of your blog and subsequently citing it is considered "internet stalking", consider me guilty as charged. Make sure to cuddle up to mr. teddy bear tonight as you cry in your pillow. LOL.

I know where you live.

 
At 10 February, 2010 09:46, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"I know where you live."

Post it, gaijin. You have my full permission to do so. If you knew, you would have posted it instead of being a pussy bluffer. (If you got hold of my IP, may I remind you that an ueberhax0r like yourself should well know that geo-ip is grossly inaccurate)

Heh. Reminds me of that scene in the Exorcist where the demon tells Damian Karras "Your mother is with us", and he says: "If that is the case then you must know her maiden name". Followed by the frustrated demon puking all over him out of spite for having his bluff called. But I digress. LOL.

 
At 10 February, 2010 11:50, Anonymous NoIdentity said...

A commercial controlled demolition would share characteristics with a military one, but they need not be identical.
I didn't know the military had their own way of demolishing buildings. I thought when they blow things up it's usually from 50,000 feet.
The south towers core remained standing as the floors collapsed around it. You can see it in the video. The claim about core failure in the north tower comes from the documentary many of those clips come from. I think it was National Geographic.
I just really don't understand this fuss about the collapse progression. Are we to believe that when the top 3rd of the building collapses it should just fall off to the side leaving the rest of the building undamaged?
Also, do you have anything to support the claim that NIST drylabbed their reports, other than your dislike for the conclusions they reach?

 
At 10 February, 2010 12:38, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Noi, yes, the military standards for CD would be different. You'd expect less concern with the possibility of damage to adjacent structures, for one thing (RR calls it "tidiness").

The reason for the fuss about collapse progression is that its symmetry, totality, and speed are mystifying, and NIST's failure to study these mysteries suggests they're hiding something.

 
At 10 February, 2010 13:16, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

Marylander, yeah, they have demo guys. Not sure they know how to blow up skyscrapers though. Here's a unit deployed in Iraq.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L32KHXtMBDc

Check out "WITH TAGGANT" at the beginning. Do they have without? I think that might bypass bomb sniffing dogs? Apart from that, not all that exciting.

Come to think of it, I haven't done much research into military demolition units.

Jesse Ventura was in the now defunct underwater demolition team of the Navy Seals, iirc.

 
At 10 February, 2010 13:53, Anonymous NoIdentity said...

Not sure they know how to blow up skyscrapers though.
It doesn't help that there is absolutely no precedent for demolishing a building the size of the north or south towers. So there's no way of saying definitively what the collapse of a hundred story building should look like.
Buildings that large are usually intended to stand indefinitely.

The reason for the fuss about collapse progression is that its symmetry, totality, and speed are mystifying
Neither building 7 nor the South Tower were symmetric in their collapses.
It has been states many times on this blog already but it bears repeating that investigators are concerned with the mechanism of structural failure and everything leading up to the point of failure. What happens afterwords is not important unless you're looking for evidence of a secret controlled demolition.
Asymmetry in WTC7:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G86yuunRBIw&feature=related

 
At 10 February, 2010 14:07, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Roid Rage said...
"Watch the fucking films, moron."

Oh gee Dorothy, obviously I never have."

Apparently not, otherwise you wouldn't be making such moronic statements, moron.

"You do realize you've just cited a "truther" (Rick Siegel) video with a large audible explosion pre-collapse, don't you?"

You fucking moron, those "explosive" sounds are the wind blowing across the mike.

HAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!!

What a dope. What a maroon!

 
At 10 February, 2010 14:11, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"The reason for the fuss about collapse progression is that its symmetry, totality, and speed are mystifying,"

No, it's not.

"and NIST's failure to study these mysteries suggests they're hiding something."

No, they're not.

 
At 10 February, 2010 14:26, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Noi, yes, the military standards for CD would be different. You'd expect less concern with the possibility of damage to adjacent structures, for one thing (RR calls it "tidiness").

What point are you trying to make, Brian?

The reason for the fuss about collapse progression is that its symmetry, totality, and speed are mystifying, and NIST's failure to study these mysteries suggests they're hiding something.

Brian, the fact that you're mystified by it just shows how utterly ignorant you are about the topic. I don't know anything about string theory, but I also don't pretend I do, and I also don't claim the experts on string theory are lying when they come up with theories that contradict my own ignorant ideas.

 
At 10 February, 2010 18:08, Blogger angrysoba said...

Post it, gaijin. You have my full permission to do so. If you knew, you would have posted it instead of being a pussy bluffer. (If you got hold of my IP, may I remind you that an ueberhax0r like yourself should well know that geo-ip is grossly inaccurate)



It's part of a Hitchens line: "I know where you live. I know where your children go to school." during debates with religious folk.

Anyway, where's the pea soup, BLEEEEEEUUUURGHHHHH!!!!1!

 
At 10 February, 2010 23:22, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"You fucking moron, those "explosive" sounds are the wind blowing across the mike."

LOL!!! Of course Rick Siegel himself doesn't know that!!

And when the tower collapses, lots more of that "WIND" is blowing across the microphone!!!

Gawd...you are one legendary retard!! ROFLMAO!!! Thanks for making my day =)) You kookloon ultra-nationalists are self-defeating, just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself! ROFL!! Don't burn your tongue in McDonalds! Classic..what a wonderful moron you are! =)

 
At 10 February, 2010 23:50, Blogger bjorn said...

RR
I honestly want to know why you throw the "ultra-nationalist" epithet around.
Even LL isn't a true ultra-nationalist. He just doesn't believe that our intelligence services our capable of "crimes."
The kind of person you are bitching about would excuse crimes by our intelligence services even if evidence of those crimes were rubbed in his face. You know, someone like me.
NoIdentity AKA Bjorn, seriously I'm not Swedish I don't remember why I picked that name!
But I do hope to bicker endlessly with you! Please?

 
At 11 February, 2010 00:52, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"The kind of person you are bitching about would excuse crimes by our intelligence services even if evidence of those crimes were rubbed in his face."

Hmmm...looking for an example of such a person.

Yep. Lazarus Long. No enhanced interrogation techniques required. Ask him about torture. Ask him about Iraq. Fuck it, ask him anything.

He'd choke his mother in the flag if it pleased the brownshirts whose Orwellian millionaire media parrots and circle jerk "book" authoring pseudo-intelligentsia have infected his little walnut brain way past the point of no return.

He's the archetypical flagsucking, redneck, dimwitted, trailer park mullet, brainwashed, mentally handicapped, vindictive, inquisitional, intolerant, jingoist, militaristic, deceitful, narrow-minded, warmongering, totalitarian, batshit crazy ultra-nationalist, who would actually do those things you accuse him of merely denying.

That's just the way part of America is. Polarized and indoctrinated into exceptionalism, xenophobism and moral self-justification. It's WASP culture. It descends from the negro-lynching troglodytes who populate the Southern rural areas. It's a disease of the mind brilliantly tapped into by the nationalist propaganda apparatus, by both political parties, however the Republicans more so than the Democrats. The Democrats are just weasel merchants of compromise.

In any case, evolutionary miscreants and missing links such as Lazarus Long thrive off this phoney right-wing left-wing dichotomy, because such simplistic binary machinations provide easy mechanisms for pigeon-holing and scapegoating.

The roots of the problem lie in the religion of flag and state: instead of symptoms of unity, they represent sacred artifacts of the religious orthodoxy, and as such dissent is heresy. Ape-like personalities crave ape-like hierarchies, for it provides them with the comfort of predictable circumstance and a system free of contradictory inputs. The ape does not think for himself, but follows the leader and attacks those who don't.

The pathology of an incest-glorifying foot soldier of ignorance and knowinglessness is difficult to pin down, but it boils down to fear and amnesia: at some point an extremist pawn forgets why he defends certain dogmas at all cost, including dignity, justice and truth; he just knows his cult requires him to.

 
At 11 February, 2010 01:10, Blogger bjorn said...

RR
Are you not going to Email me? :-(

 
At 11 February, 2010 01:17, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

Ha ha ha, social engineering...wonderful.

Are you out for the cheese there, fox? =)

 
At 11 February, 2010 01:18, Blogger bjorn said...

....what?

 
At 11 February, 2010 01:21, Blogger bjorn said...

I'm not your enemy. If you're really that suspicious of me you could create another E-mail account and use it. Come on now! Paranoia! :-)

 
At 11 February, 2010 01:25, Blogger bjorn said...

'O raven, you do have a voice, but no brains to go with it!'
:-( You attribute malice where this is none. Only intellectual curiosity. What cheese is there to be stolen via Gmail?

 
At 11 February, 2010 02:22, Blogger bjorn said...

I just realized that my Email address, BR1648@gmail isn't readily available from my blogger profile.
You're not afraid that I'm going to steal your cheese, eh Roid Raven?

 
At 11 February, 2010 04:42, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Roid Rage is still babbling in defense of conspiracy theories that he personally does not believe in, correct?

Jeez, Roid Rage, there have got to be some better blogs for you to speak out your adolescent far-left anger issues than here. Have you tried Z Magazine?

 
At 11 February, 2010 05:27, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"Roid Rage is still babbling in defense of conspiracy theories that he personally does not believe in, correct?"
(A) There was a criminal cover-up
(B) They probably let it happen on purpose, facilitating terrorists from the cave into the building.

"Jeez, Roid Rage, there have got to be some better blogs for you to speak out your adolescent far-left anger issues than here. Have you tried Z Magazine?"
Do they have people anywhere as much fun skirmishing with? Where are the creative insults from the OCT side? I feel a bit neglected.

 
At 11 February, 2010 14:08, Anonymous New Yorker said...

(A) There was a criminal cover-up

Of what? Evidence, please.

(B) They probably let it happen on purpose, facilitating terrorists from the cave into the building.

More of the "living in caves" bullshit. Mohammed Atta was not living in a cave. Neither was Khalid Sheik Mohammed. Neither was bin Laden until (what a coincidence!) days before the 9/11 attack.

It's also a total coincidence that bin Laden had Ahmed Shah Massoud (all the "truthers" suddenly ask themselves, "who?") assassinated 2 days before the attack.

Do they have people anywhere as much fun skirmishing with? Where are the creative insults from the OCT side? I feel a bit neglected.

I don't know. Also, there is no "official conspiracy theory". There is reality and there is fantasy.

 
At 11 February, 2010 16:41, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"Of what? Evidence, please."
Hmmm, I thought we agreed there was a cover-up, whether incompetence or something more sinister. Do you still deny there was a cover-up, after all those sourced quotes I posted from Keane, Hamilton, Farmer, Cleland, Kerrey, etc., 9/11 commission staffers, and people such as Bob Graham? I don't think "set up to fail" speaks particularly well of the truthfulness and accuracy of a final report, do you? You can come back at me and say: "that doesn't mean there was a conspiracy"...completely neglecting that a cover-up is a conspiracy.

It's also a total coincidence that bin Laden had Ahmed Shah Massoud (all the "truthers" suddenly ask themselves, "who?") assassinated 2 days before the attack.

Not me. I actually know someone who fought in the Northern Alliance. Do you?

And could you please source me as to the allegation that Bin Laden did it?

 
At 11 February, 2010 16:59, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I don't know. Also, there is no "official conspiracy theory". There is reality and there is fantasy."

Correct. The reality is that the official narrative is a conspiracy theory, the fantasy is that it is not.

 
At 12 February, 2010 06:35, Anonymous New Yorker said...

I thought we agreed there was a cover-up, whether incompetence or something more sinister.

Well, it appears there was an attempt to cover up incompetence that failed. There sure as hell isn't any cover-up of an inside job.

Not me. I actually know someone who fought in the Northern Alliance. Do you?

Well, you're not a typical truther. You appear to be arguing from a devil's advocate position in order to piss off the "kookloon ultranationalists" hiding in your closet.

And could you please source me as to the allegation that Bin Laden did it?

See?

Correct. The reality is that the official narrative is a conspiracy theory, the fantasy is that it is not.

False.

 
At 12 February, 2010 07:30, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

"Well, it appears there was an attempt to cover up incompetence that failed. There sure as hell isn't any cover-up of an inside job."

Yeah, you must know about the facts you don't know because they were covered up. This means the stories about incompetence you've been told by the same people that lied to you probably still hold water.

Ergo, criminal complicity by anyone in the US government is unthinkable ... Right? Wow. You must feel safe. It's not like these people consciously lied to go to war for oil or anything.

Or sent some senators SOME FUCKING ANTHRAX in order to GET A FUCKING UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAW PASSED.

FUCKHEAD.

Nah. Saddam did it. He met Atta in Prague. No wait, he had nukes. No wait, he had other WMD. No wait..he's a bad man, and we need to export democracy!

Make sure we honor Valerie Plame for pointing out our flaws!

Woops. 3000 soldiers DEAD. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's DEAD.

THOSE WMD's GOTTA BE SOMEWHERE.

HA HA What a thigh-splitter there George. Give us another one!

"Well, you're not a typical truther. You appear to be arguing from a devil's advocate position in order to piss off the "kookloon ultranationalists" hiding in your closet."

Yeah, they're all imaginary. I'm fucking imagining things. Which is why Shat Turdley says the WMD's were a "mistake" and torture is FUCKING A-OKAY.

Or Troy Sexton, the crazy loon who is ACTUALLY ON MEDS after being arrested some more. Haven't you heard? You people encouraged him. You endorsed him. Now you should be ashamed for him.

"See?"
See what? See through your ridiculous dodgery? Source me. Can you work with Google? Or do you only watch the fantasy news reports created by the voices in your head, bumble brain blubber butt?

"False."
True.

As true as you are a lying, sniveling cowardly mass murder apologist scumbag who can't handle the whole weight. This is where you belong, right here with Pat the torture/illegal war apologist, Troy Sexton the child abuser and Lazarus Long the kookloon ultra-nationalist motherfucker

Have a drink from Uncle Sam's "fountain of love" and choke in it, worthless lying piece of spineless garbage.

 
At 12 February, 2010 08:00, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

You see chucklefuck, this is the REAL story, the one you aren't telling:

Though it is not widely reported, the Northern Alliance releases a statement the next day: “Ahmed Shah Massoud was the target of an assassination attempt organized by the Pakistani [intelligence service] ISI and Osama bin Laden.” [Radio Free Europe, 9/10/2001; Newsday, 9/15/2001; Reuters, 10/4/2001] This suggests that the ISI may also have had prior knowledge of the attack plans.

http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a090901massoudkilled#a090901massoudkilled

The ISI AND Bin Laden.

ISI.

.....


>>>>ISI<<<<

>>> This suggests that the ISI may also have had prior knowledge of the attack plans. <<<

Another one in a long line of reports implicating the ISI in 9/11 and support for Al Qaeda/Taliban in general. Did you catch that, you worthless overconfident nincompoop?

 
At 12 February, 2010 11:27, Anonymous Anonymous said...

RR, don't waste your energies on New Yorker. It seems that lying on the internet under a pseudonym gives him some kind of thrill. I know it's hard to let a brazen lie stand, but it's better just to refuse the bait.

 
At 12 February, 2010 16:37, Anonymous paul w said...

As true as you are a lying, sniveling cowardly mass murder apologist scumbag who can't handle the whole weight. This is where you belong, right here with Pat the torture/illegal war apologist, Troy Sexton the child abuser and Lazarus Long the kookloon ultra-nationalist motherfucker

Have a drink from Uncle Sam's "fountain of love" and choke in it, worthless lying piece of spineless garbage."


Excellent reply, RR.
Thoughtful, mature and reasonable.
I think it typifies the truther mindset.
Well done.


PS did you note the sarcasm?

 
At 12 February, 2010 16:39, Anonymous paul w said...

PSS Seek professional help

 
At 13 February, 2010 06:51, Anonymous New Yorker said...

I get the feeling Roid Rage doesn't like me. That's too bad, he could've learned a thing or two from his older, wiser, more intelligent elders.

I still hope you'll take my advice and not call the guys on your high school football team fascists and closeted homosexuals so you don't end up stuffed in a locker.

Also, what you wrote about anthrax is false. Sorry. I know reality is hard to face when you've got serious mental health issues, but you eventually have to do so.

RR, don't waste your energies on New Yorker. It seems that lying on the internet under a pseudonym gives him some kind of thrill. I know it's hard to let a brazen lie stand, but it's better just to refuse the bait.

I've never lied, Brian. You know this.

 
At 13 February, 2010 07:25, Anonymous petgoat said...

Roid Rage,

Pay no attention to "anonymous" at 11:27. His name is Brian Good and he's been posting here for a year, mostly to tell us that smoldering carpets were responsible for the smoke at the WTC. He's in his mid-50s and lives with his parents, which should give you an idea of the type of intellect we're dealing with.

Elsewhere, he's obsessed with Willie Rodriguez and Kevin Barrett and was banned from Wikipedia for vandalizing their pages. He also stalked a married woman in the bay area named Carol Brouillet.

His most unintentionally hilarious posts were a series at Democratic Underground detailing his "meatball on a fork" theory of how the WTC collapsed. He became a popular target of ridicule for his absurd drawings that were supposed to show his "model" but left everyone scratching their heads over what the collection of scribbles that a 4-year-old might make were supposed to mean.

 
At 13 February, 2010 09:07, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

Poor,poor pitiful NY,er.The simple sap is on a jihad to bust brian Good's balls over stalking and harassing someone as he does the exact same thing to Good.And none of the 9 debunking boobs here at Nutcase Central have the heart to tell him to just shut up.In the words of the immortal Michael Ray Richardson:Pat and JoggingBoy,"your ship be sinkin'"!

 
At 15 February, 2010 10:55, Blogger Triterope said...

In the words of the immortal Michael Ray Richardson:Pat and JoggingBoy,"your ship be sinkin'"!

Micheal Ray Richardson?

The guy who was banned from the NBA for drug use and suspended by the CBA for making anti-Jewish remarks?

Seems like the kinda guy you'd look up to.

 
At 18 February, 2010 03:34, Anonymous Roid Rage said...

Anti-semitic remarks? What bullshit. He's almost revering Jewish people. Read your own goddamn links, traitor boy.

If somebody said: "FUCKING KIKE".

Now that would be an anti-semitic remark.

 
At 18 February, 2010 16:26, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

Hapless,feckless,cement headed and intent on crashing their ship full of space cadets with the vicious and failed "Jew Hater" slur thrust upon all and sundry who disagree with Imperialist America and her voluminous depradations.Trite,Dopey and slavish in his Cultist genuflections comes up bone dry with this one.Thanks for illustrating neatly that you don't know the difference between shit and shinola!

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home