What's Up With What
Our old buddy Boloboffin demolishes Building What.
“In any other situation, [the collapse] would be played over and over on the news.” Technically true. However, on a day when four passenger jets are hijacked and flown into buildings, when one of those planes is crashed after a passenger revolt, when two huge office buildings collapse, when Manhattan is evacuated, the collapse of a 47-story building just isn’t the hot news item it normally would be. It still was covered. It still was played over and over again on the news — not to the extent the Towers were, but it was covered by the new media. End result: Highly misleading.
Read it all. I am particularly amused to hear that they're still clinging to Kevin McPadden's ridiculous claims.
Labels: Building What
posted by Pat @ 9:08 AM
11 comments
11 Comments:
I am particularly amused to hear that they're still clinging to Kevin McPadden's ridiculous claims.
They'll cling to anything that pads the presentation out to a length where they can charge money for it.
I really think that's all it is at this point.
What's ridiculous is that now I'm seeing truthers pushing the full collapse video with the east penthouse collapsing, a clip that was out there but they wouldn't link to because it kind of disproved their IT COLLAPSED IN SIX SECONDS HERPA DERP FREEFALL SPEED CLUNKITY CLUNK canard, as more proof that building 7 was demolished. Guided by the pied piper of troof, of course, Alex Jones.
Now we've got truthers seriously telling you to watch the video and turn the audio up as high as possible to totally hear the booooooooooom that totally means the building was explosively demolished by super-silent ultramegananothermite.
Thanks, Pat!
It looks like we've got an interesting situation on our hands, though. Pat Buchanan's website has linked to the Building What campaign, even embedding the commercial. Buchanan is now apparently a 9/11 Truth advocate. On the one hand, pointing this out might give AE911Truth exactly what they want - a lot of publicity. On the other hand, it would all be 100% bad publicity, shades of Jerome Corsi. Anyway, I'm going to post about it over at .info, but whether you want to pass that info along to others is your call. :D
Wait, wait, wait! I read the FAQ at buchanan.org, and Pat doesn't run the website, nor is it an official website any longer. It's run by a Linda Muller, and Pat doesn't decide content. I think he ought to get his hand back in, though...
That website has come up before. Apparently it used to be an official Buchanan website. Buchanan fired the staffer who managed it, but, bizarrely, let her keep the domain. She now uses it to promote her own conspiracy nonsense.
WTC-7 wasn't a big story because most Americans understood that when the twin towers fell all of that steel and concrete caused a lot of damage.
I was suprised that more didn't come down.
Actually, more did come down later. WTC 4 and 6, if I recall correctly. They had to be demolished.
I think WTC isn't really a big deal with people because it happened so much later in the day. Also, no one died there. Really, the only reason troofers talk about it so much is because it was an afterthought on that day and not a lot of people really know about it. Troofers get the chance to craft a narrative almost from scratch without disrespecting the deceased as much, plus it allows them the key opportunity to act and feel superior to the rest of the general public with their extensive knowledge on the subject, which potentially gets them in the door with all their other nonsense.
Wow, this person has really done their research, looked deeply into 9/11 and found all these anomalies! (...via reading nothing but Alex Jones websites and watching a bunch of youtube videos, but let's not let that get in the way of teh twoof!)
the only reason troofers talk about WTC7 so much is because it was an afterthought on that day and not a lot of people really know about it.
I think the "pull it" thing is the biggest factor. It's a confirmable statement that can easily be twisted into an admission of conspiracy, said by a rich guy with an overly Jewish name. It fits their fantasies so perfectly.
The "pull it" thing is a total red herring, beloved by nutters like Kevin Barrett (who told Russia Today last year that it was a "confession" and that Mr. Silverstein profited by $20 billion on the towers' demise. $20 billion from a $7 billion insurance payout. Pretty neat trick!
What's striking about building 7 is that asymmetrical damage can cause symmetrical collapse, considerable fudging in their claims of thermal expansion, the totally unbelievable claim that the interior of the building can be hollowed out, leaving 600 foot perimeter columns standing with no roof and no lateral support whatsoever showing no signs of distress until all of a sudden you get a symmetrical orderly collapse from the bottom up just like a controlled demolition.
You just hate Kevin Barrett because of this.
Post a Comment
<< Home