Building Wut Unveils Ad
LOL! The usual bit about how "nobody knows that another building, which was not hit by a plane, collapsed that day." I have always said that Building 7 is a thin reed to build popular support for the Troof, for the simple reason that it takes too many logical leaps to get to the point where it fits in with the conspiracy theory.
Note as well that the Troofers have scaled back their fundraising objective without quite mentioning it. Let's do the math again. At 9-11 Flogger, we are exhorted to "watch the ad that one million New Yorkers will see," and reminded that each $750 donated will result in another 10,000 seeing the ad. So to get the one million viewers, they will need to air 100 ads. Times 750 is $75,000, which is roughly $15,000 per week, which they only missed by about 35% in the first week.
It is interesting to see more of a side view of the collapse (at about 16-17 seconds in), because it refutes Box Boy's claim that the collapse was symmetrical, and straight down through the path of most resistance.
posted by Pat @ 9:16 AM
19 comments
19 Comments:
I would be interested in what SLC authors / followers would put forward as a mathematical measurement to use to validate a claim of a collapse being symmetrical / asymmetrical
I would be interested in watching you get punched in the face BG.
What kind of math do you want? Obviously the math in the final report on WTC-7 is over your head, so are we talking regular math or Sesame Street math?
"1-2-3-FOUR-FIVE-6-7-8-NINE-TEN----eleven-twelve"
Great tune!
Wait, building 7 collapsed? I never knew. This changes everything. Now the nonsensical bollocks otherwise known as the 9/11 Truth Movement suddenly makes perfect sense.
From this moment on, I'm going to quit my job, grow a beard, move into my mother's house, and blame everything on the Jews.
It sure beats the only other 9/11 TV ad I ever saw, in which a fast-talking unemployed janitor gives a miserly pinch to the air as he says "We owe this much to the victims of 9/11".
snug.bug?
Only a sick MFer would choose that handle.
An update on Kurt Sonnenfeld: Link
I have always said that Building 7 is a thin reed to build popular support for the Troof, for the simple reason that it takes too many logical leaps to get to the point where it fits in with the conspiracy theory.
Yes, but that doesn't usually bother conspiracy theorists. The technique is to:
a) Produce something that confuses or disorients the listener or viewer which somehow, no matter how tangentially, creates doubt in the viewer/listener about a well-documented event.
b) Offer a Vastly More Implausible explanation for the event while the viewer/listener is still confused.
You nailed it, angrysoba.
Bravo!
I would be interested in what SLC authors / followers would put forward as a mathematical measurement to use to validate a claim of a collapse being symmetrical / asymmetrical
That's a fair question. I imagine such a calculation would hinge on how many pieces the structure broke into, and what angle the piece(s) assumed on their way to the ground.
But are you aware of anything in structural engineering literature that addresses whether a "symmetrical collapse" even means anything? Apart from inventing and repeating the idea, AE911Truth has presented no data to indicate its significance.
Hey, BG. Ask your truther pals if they can produce data and math on the difference between a symmetrical and a asymmetrical controlled demolition.
Anyone watching that commercial would be forgiven in thinking that those people lost their relatives in building 7. Troofer deceit? I think so.
I actually worked this out the other day (I was bored).
I counted AE911's petition. They have something like 230ish licensed engineers on it (not counting people who just have degrees... yes, a degree in electronic engineering means your opinion counts for something. NAWT!).
There are 2,500,000 engineers in the USA apparently. 500k of these are software/computer type engineers, so we'll say the proper figure is 2,000,000.
230/2,000,000 = 0.01% of engineers in the USA.
Yes, 99.99% of engineers in the USA have zero problem with the idea that jet fuel, office materials and fire can weaken steel and cause a building collapse.
Way to go truthers. Somebody else can work out the percentage for architects.
Anyone watching that commercial would be forgiven in thinking that those people lost their relatives in building 7.
I thought the same thing.
And this approach is deceitful for another reason: the testimonies hide the true purpose of the commercial until about 8 seconds in. During those first few seconds all we hear are plaintive pleas for justice for the dead of 9/11... which any American would react positively to, and get them paying attention to the message.
It's deceitful. And damned effective.
Whoever they hired to produce this commercial did a good job. I have to give them that. They polished this turd about as well as it can be polished.
Note also the rapid-fire truther lies: "1200 architects", "official explanation" and my personal favorite, "a third tower." Each of which is used once in passing, as though the issue were no more complex than that. Granted, it's a 30-second commercial and they can't go into the kind of detail these complexities demand. But this approach is also consistent with Truther's usual m.o.: keep the bullshit coming fast and furious.
So it's a slick commercial, but how many people will ever see it? 10,000 people and one viewing of a commercial isn't diddly-squat. They do not have enough money to run the ad enough times, or to a large enough audience, to generate real attention.
Like the NYCCAN ballot initiative, this may be an instance where quiet failure is preferable to "success" for them. I sure wouldn't want to be the New Yorker who tricked other New Yorkers into going to a conspiracy website on the anniversary of the event.
gowakeupelil wrote: "99.99% of engineers in the USA have zero problem with the idea that jet fuel, office materials and fire can weaken steel and cause a building collapse."
Is that a fact? How many of those engineers would be willing to sign a statement to that effect?
Bug, that would be like asking 99.99% of the world scientists to sign a statement stating the world is not flat.
Look! Mr. "meatball on a fork" is back to impress us with the breadth and depth of his dishonesty and stupidity.
So tell us, psycho-stalker for 9/11 troof, how many Google mail accounts did you manage to create?
And remember, aunt fancy, I'm just askin' questions...
Is that a fact? How many of those engineers would be willing to sign a statement to that effect?
Probably none. Despite your persistent delusion, it's just not common practice for scientists to go around expressing their agreement with the consensus.
Post a Comment
<< Home