Last year, right before the anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, I wrote a vitriolic column entitled "Taking a Piss On the 9/11 Conspiracy Nut Jobs." Not exactly subtle, but that was on purpose. As we near another anniversary, I am rerunning the column. I believe it is important. The "Truthers" are some of the vilest people in the country. So I'd like to stick them with a cattle prod.
The article, in it's entirely, can be read after the jump.
We are rapidly approaching the seven year anniversary of one of the darkest days on this great country's history. A day that can still cause me to choke up when I see that horrible footage.
Just thinking of those homemade flyers that were pasted on church fences in my Greenwich Village neighborhood, asking in desperation "Have you seen ____?" makes me upset. It was gutting seeing those flyers. It was horrible hearing the machinery clearing out the rubble at Ground Zero at three in the morning.
The terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001 changed this country. A country that I love. As the seven years have gone by, and our nation has struggled to maintain a proper course, an obnoxious and vulgar group has continued to recruit believers. Those that believe that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job and an elaborate conspiracy.
Listen carefully: There is not one shred of evidence of a conspiracy.
None. Zero. Zip. Squadush.
I wish to release some of my frustration and dismantle any notion to the contrary.
As with most of the nutty conspiracy theorists, the groups grab odd coincidences, wild speculations, out of context quotes and imagination, then shuffle them like a deck of cards and put them together to "prove" a devious collusion. The practice is no different than the chaps that look at Nostradomus's "prophecies" and say, "see, if you take this word and switch these two letters, then flip this letter upside down, it says 'Bush is the Devil.'" I'd like to smack those dopes upside the head.
If there was any proof of conspiracy, it would be the largest news story in history. Not posted on the internet along with Chupacabra sightings. The ironically self-named "Truthers" will tell you that the story is not being reported because the media is controlled by the government. Moses smell the roses... If that is the case, then how did the Watergate, Iran-Contra, Monica Lewinsky, Grover Cleveland's illegitimate son, Whitewater, Alberto Gonzales' dismissal of U.S. attorneys, Thomas Jefferson diddling Sally Hemmings and other Presidential scandals slip through the cracks?
You're telling me that not one young, ambitious reporter doesn't want to report this "conspiracy" and win a Pulitzer Prize? When Watergate began to unspool, it did so in the pages of the Washington Post. Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman, wait, no ... that's not right ... Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein (there, that's better) dug up proof of slush funds, hush money, paper trails, witnesses and had a high ranking government informant - Mark "Deep Throat" Felt - come forward. There was actual evidence to go along with suspicion.
Any evidence along those lines for a 9/11 inside job? Nope.
Real publications such as Time, Newsweek and Popular Mechanics publish articles disproving the lunacy. But facts, logic and common sense are not as sexy as government conspiracy.
It is good to question our leaders. It is good to question our government. However, there is a not-so-fine-line between questioning and crazy. A line these loons left miles behind them as they grabbed bullhorns and started yelling about conspiracies on YouTube.
Last January I had some visitors here in Manhattan. I played tour guide for a few days. We were downtown to see Wall Street and Trinity Church and popped over to Ground Zero. There was a couple of these jokers handing out flyers and yelling their nonsense. Annoyed, I decided to have my fun and engaged them in an argument. As they spouted their swill, I kept poking dump-truck-sized-holes in their points. One after the other. Then I kept at it, showing how insane their claims were by just repeating them. The calmer and more rational I was, the more angry they became. When the tourists were laughing at them and cheering me on, they were even more enraged. Now they're screaming at me and wanting to fight. (Not a good idea, pally.) I continued to laugh. The tourists continued to cheer. Now, if you are going to debate with me, you need more than your "facts." I am going turn your argument into verbal Swiss cheese and make you look stupid. (Humble, I am not.) You better have more in your quiver than "this couldn't happen" and "that is impossible."
Here are some of the ridiculous claims of the conspiracy theorists. Things that "couldn't happen" or are "impossible."
Claim: There is no way that jet fuel can burn hot enough to melt the steel in the World Trade Centers. Therefore, the fires from the planes could not be the cause of the Tower's collapse.
Reality: Jet fuel burns at 800 degrees to 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel melts at somewhere in the ballpark of 2,750 degrees. However, the steel did not have to melt like candle wax to cause a collapse. According to the American Institute of Steel Construction, steel loses 50% of it's strength at about 1,000 degrees. In addition, the jet fuel was not the only substance burning. In extreme heat, steel can expand, then sag, then crack, then give way.
Claim: As the Towers collapsed, we see small explosions firing outwards ahead of the collapse. Showing additional explosions or "squibs" to help facilitate a controlled demolition.
Reality: During the collapse huge pockets of air were being forced down at amazing rates. The force pushed out the air as the floors of the building were, as engineers call it, "pancaking." All the pressure of the collapse rushing down began to pop out windows, shooting debris sideways. A controlled demolition has evenly spaced charges, not sporadic ones randomly firing.
Claim: World Trade Center 7 could not have fallen from the damage incurred from the falling Towers and fires inside the building. WTC 7 was taken down in another controlled demolition. This was done - and I'm not making this up, some people believe this - because a "headquarters" was in the building 7 overseeing the operation and the conspirators needed to eliminate the evidence.
This is one of the favorite questions the nuts will ask. When you begin to hammer their "ideas," they'll say "Oh yeah, then how did Building 7 fall down?" It's a tactic taught on junior high debate teams. Deflect a question with a question. Before the reality, a common sense question; If there was a need for a base of operations to coordinate the operation, why put it in a building that you would need to destroy when you could set up shop in any one of dozens apartments that overlook the area? Doesn't it seem more trouble than it's worth to blow up a whole building when you could hide your activities in a penthouse? We could be cooking up meth or plotting to assassinate the cast of The View in our Upper West Side flat and nobody would know. In addition, if you knew that by the time building 7 went down that the world's media would be focused on the area, why would you blow it up with everyone watching? Not a very stealthy plan.
Reality: A combination of fire and intense structural damage contributed to the collapse of building 7. The fall was what engineers call a "progressive collapse." Video shows cracks in the building's façade just before two of the penthouses fell into the building, starting the fall. A rapid chain reaction occurred from there.
Claim: Right before the jets hit, there was a "flash" indicating a missile fired from the modified jets.
Reality: For crying out loud. What actually happened is that at that speed, when objects collide, there is a transfer of kinetic energy that can cause a flash. Common sense question; So, as an airplane is flying at about 500 miles per hour, one could fire a missile perfectly timed to less than a hundredth of a second before impact at the exact spot the explosives are planted? Really?
Also, if there was a missile strapped to the belly of the plane, how did the pilots and aircraft crew not see a freaking missile attached to the plane before takeoff? They do what is called a "walk around" before every flight, checking the exterior of the plane for any abnormalities. A missile may have caught someone's attention.
Claim: Never before has steel structured buildings collapsed due to fire.
Reality: Also never happened before; two jumbo jets full of thousands of gallons of combustible fuel crashed into buildings. What makes you think you could predict exactly what would happen? By that logic, every house fire would be exactly the same. Go ask your local firefighter that question. Fire is an unpredictable beast.
Claim: The Pentagon was not hit by a Boeing 757 but by a missile because the hole in the building is not big enough.
Reality: Now we get into the really stupid. Do you think there would be a perfectly-punched airplane shaped hole like when Bugs Bunny runs through a brick wall? Number of eye witnesses on the record who say they saw a plane hit the Pentagon = about 150. Number that saw a missile = a bagel. The nuts will tell you that there isn't plane wreckage found. Absolutely wrong. There are dozens of pictures of wreckage. (Maybe after the crash some conspirators made their way onto the site with wheelbarrows and planted to debris.) Then they'll say there wasn't enough wreckage. So, by your same logic, any debris from a missile? Nope. Any evidence of a missile or unmanned drone? Absolutely not.
I've read the theories of military planes being used in the attacks. "It wasn't an airliner, there wasn't any windows." (Of course a row of windows was found in the rubble.) Any photos of those "military planes?" No? Common sense question; If this was an elaborately planned event and you needed to make it look like commercial jets, why risk a military jet being photographed?
There are beliefs that the people on the hijacked planes were taken to a facility and unloaded, or that they were conspirators themselves. Damn any of you that believe that. I hope you say that to one of the grieving families of those that died in the crashes and they kick your teeth in.
One of the most amazingly moronic theories is - again, there really are dopes that believe this - that NO planes hit anywhere. What we saw was doctored CGI footage on television and photo-shopped pictures. What thousands saw in lower Manhattan was a "hologram" projected into the morning sky. Common sense question; Were there technicians planted at every local news station and every network to doctor the footage? Someone faking the thousands of still photographs? Was Industrial Light and Magic hired to create the illusion? This one is almost too dumb to mock. But if a photo that nobody cares about of a shark jumping out of San Francisco Bay attacking a helicopter pilot can be shown to be fake, I'm pretty sure the most covered news story in history would have a few people examining photographs.
A hologram in the sky and faked footage is more plausible than hijacked airplanes crashing into the Towers? Bollocks.
Common sense question; If you already had the buildings wired with heavy explosives and Al Qaeda set to take to fall, why crash airplanes in the first place? Doesn't that provide a wildly difficult operation where too much can go wrong? Why not blow up the buildings and name the patsies?
How many people do you crackpots think could be in on this? With absolutely no concrete evidence, this is one thing that kills these paranoid delusions. Three people can keep a secret. If two of them are dead. If you listen to these idiots, there would be the White House staff, government officials, explosives experts, explosive manufacturers, pilots, people planting bombs, Pentagon employees, Saudi's, Jimmy Hoffa, military officials, the cast of Lost, CIA, FBI, Secret Service, salvage companies, do I really need to keep going? When we talk about hypothetical "impossibilities," here's mine; No group that large can either keep a secret or not leave a paper trial or a money trail or a trail of breadcrumbs. Dozens if not hundreds involved and nobody comes forward to cut a deal for immunity and name names? Not one guilt-ridden conspirator or patriotic staffer? Maybe Oswald didn't act alone when he killed Jack Kennedy in '63. But if you think it was more than a half dozen involved, you're out of your mind.
People talk. They want to tell others they are in the know. That they have the skinny. The scuttlebutt. Sometimes for vanity, sometimes out of duty. But a group of more than twenty-five people keeping a secret this big would rival the odds of being struck by lightening while a shark chomps your leg off and your winning lottery numbers are being called on the six o'clock news.
Final common sense questions; Do you really think there was a few dozen guys dressed in UPS uniforms were sneaking around the World Trade Center building for weeks planting explosives? Then airplanes could hit the spot where the explosives are planted to start the demolition? If you do, I have the deed to the Brooklyn Bridge and am considering selling. Let's talk.
All this being said, this is the main reason I hate these people. Those that spread this unsubstantiated nonsense. Why I hate a sonofabitch like James Fetzer at "Scholars" for 9/11 Truth and the hacks that made the laughable Loose Change "documentary." (One of the producers of that film is a guy named Korey Rowe. I never trust a man named Korey spelled with a K. Under any circumstances.) The half-cocked theories are really about selling books. And DVD's. And collecting fees for lectures at conspiracy conventions. These swine are profiting off this garbage. Taking advantage of the natural human desire to know more than you are supposed to. It's why the gullible buy tabloids with the headline "Inside Brangelina's Relationship!" The tabloid rags are not inside anyone's relationship.
The motivation for the distribution of these crazy-go-nuts theories is greed masked by phony patriotism. If there wasn't money to be made, these jokers would slip into the shadows.
It is my belief that we must question any of these poisonous elements that are making money off their claims.
The banshees scream "why won't the government answer my questions? Why won't they release the black box recordings?" I'll tell you why. Because that would give credibility to these fringed elements of lunacy. Why address the irresponsible and delusional?
My friends, there is reason to question the direction of our country. There are real issues that should be debated so the public can make their own educated opinion. The empty anomalies and ridiculous speculation about our government cooking up the worst disaster on American soil is not one of them. When the crazies shout questions about not enough bones found in the Flight 93 crash site and claim the Saudi hijackers are still alive, don't bite. Only ask for evidence for any of their claims. Sure, a few odd things don't have an answer. But no claim of government collusion dealing with the terrorist attacks on 9/11 has any merit.
What happened on that horrible day, unfortunately, is 19 hateful, delusional, religious zealots hijacked airplanes and managed to crash three of them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Like the iceberg that sunk the Titanic, sometimes a seemingly innocuous enemy can take down a mighty opponent. That infamous maritime disaster started with a few holes popped into the hull from a still iceberg. Two and half hours later, the mighty Titanic was gone.
You want to write books about UFO's and Sasquatch and The Loch Ness Monster, fine. That's funny. It's harmless storytelling. But when we talk about 9/11, you are dealing with thousands of families that were damaged by that day. That day created widows, widowers and orphans. Friends of mine were there. One who I love dearly that couldn't even talk about it. I know cops that lost friends. I was there when a celebrity who will remain nameless (That's how he or she would want it. He or she is not Oprah, only doing good deeds when the cameras are rolling) delivered new fire trucks to a station and saw the brave firefighters weep in gratitude.
America still stands. She has not sunk into the dark ocean. She is still here. Those that produce this swill are not Her ally.
Selah...
Just thinking of those homemade flyers that were pasted on church fences in my Greenwich Village neighborhood, asking in desperation "Have you seen ____?" makes me upset. It was gutting seeing those flyers. It was horrible hearing the machinery clearing out the rubble at Ground Zero at three in the morning.
The terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001 changed this country. A country that I love. As the seven years have gone by, and our nation has struggled to maintain a proper course, an obnoxious and vulgar group has continued to recruit believers. Those that believe that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job and an elaborate conspiracy.
Listen carefully: There is not one shred of evidence of a conspiracy.
None. Zero. Zip. Squadush.
I wish to release some of my frustration and dismantle any notion to the contrary.
As with most of the nutty conspiracy theorists, the groups grab odd coincidences, wild speculations, out of context quotes and imagination, then shuffle them like a deck of cards and put them together to "prove" a devious collusion. The practice is no different than the chaps that look at Nostradomus's "prophecies" and say, "see, if you take this word and switch these two letters, then flip this letter upside down, it says 'Bush is the Devil.'" I'd like to smack those dopes upside the head.
If there was any proof of conspiracy, it would be the largest news story in history. Not posted on the internet along with Chupacabra sightings. The ironically self-named "Truthers" will tell you that the story is not being reported because the media is controlled by the government. Moses smell the roses... If that is the case, then how did the Watergate, Iran-Contra, Monica Lewinsky, Grover Cleveland's illegitimate son, Whitewater, Alberto Gonzales' dismissal of U.S. attorneys, Thomas Jefferson diddling Sally Hemmings and other Presidential scandals slip through the cracks? You're telling me that not one young, ambitious reporter doesn't want to report this "conspiracy" and win a Pulitzer Prize? When Watergate began to unspool, it did so in the pages of the Washington Post. Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman, wait, no ... that's not right ... Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein (there, that's better) dug up proof of slush funds, hush money, paper trails, witnesses and had a high ranking government informant - Mark "Deep Throat" Felt - come forward. There was actual evidence to go along with suspicion.
Any evidence along those lines for a 9/11 inside job? Nope.
Real publications such as Time, Newsweek and Popular Mechanics publish articles disproving the lunacy. But facts, logic and common sense are not as sexy as government conspiracy.
It is good to question our leaders. It is good to question our government. However, there is a not-so-fine-line between questioning and crazy. A line these loons left miles behind them as they grabbed bullhorns and started yelling about conspiracies on YouTube.
Last January I had some visitors here in Manhattan. I played tour guide for a few days. We were downtown to see Wall Street and Trinity Church and popped over to Ground Zero. There was a couple of these jokers handing out flyers and yelling their nonsense. Annoyed, I decided to have my fun and engaged them in an argument. As they spouted their swill, I kept poking dump-truck-sized-holes in their points. One after the other. Then I kept at it, showing how insane their claims were by just repeating them. The calmer and more rational I was, the more angry they became. When the tourists were laughing at them and cheering me on, they were even more enraged. Now they're screaming at me and wanting to fight. (Not a good idea, pally.) I continued to laugh. The tourists continued to cheer. Now, if you are going to debate with me, you need more than your "facts." I am going turn your argument into verbal Swiss cheese and make you look stupid. (Humble, I am not.) You better have more in your quiver than "this couldn't happen" and "that is impossible."
Here are some of the ridiculous claims of the conspiracy theorists. Things that "couldn't happen" or are "impossible."
Claim: There is no way that jet fuel can burn hot enough to melt the steel in the World Trade Centers. Therefore, the fires from the planes could not be the cause of the Tower's collapse.
Reality: Jet fuel burns at 800 degrees to 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel melts at somewhere in the ballpark of 2,750 degrees. However, the steel did not have to melt like candle wax to cause a collapse. According to the American Institute of Steel Construction, steel loses 50% of it's strength at about 1,000 degrees. In addition, the jet fuel was not the only substance burning. In extreme heat, steel can expand, then sag, then crack, then give way.
Claim: As the Towers collapsed, we see small explosions firing outwards ahead of the collapse. Showing additional explosions or "squibs" to help facilitate a controlled demolition.
Reality: During the collapse huge pockets of air were being forced down at amazing rates. The force pushed out the air as the floors of the building were, as engineers call it, "pancaking." All the pressure of the collapse rushing down began to pop out windows, shooting debris sideways. A controlled demolition has evenly spaced charges, not sporadic ones randomly firing.
Claim: World Trade Center 7 could not have fallen from the damage incurred from the falling Towers and fires inside the building. WTC 7 was taken down in another controlled demolition. This was done - and I'm not making this up, some people believe this - because a "headquarters" was in the building 7 overseeing the operation and the conspirators needed to eliminate the evidence.
This is one of the favorite questions the nuts will ask. When you begin to hammer their "ideas," they'll say "Oh yeah, then how did Building 7 fall down?" It's a tactic taught on junior high debate teams. Deflect a question with a question. Before the reality, a common sense question; If there was a need for a base of operations to coordinate the operation, why put it in a building that you would need to destroy when you could set up shop in any one of dozens apartments that overlook the area? Doesn't it seem more trouble than it's worth to blow up a whole building when you could hide your activities in a penthouse? We could be cooking up meth or plotting to assassinate the cast of The View in our Upper West Side flat and nobody would know. In addition, if you knew that by the time building 7 went down that the world's media would be focused on the area, why would you blow it up with everyone watching? Not a very stealthy plan.
Reality: A combination of fire and intense structural damage contributed to the collapse of building 7. The fall was what engineers call a "progressive collapse." Video shows cracks in the building's façade just before two of the penthouses fell into the building, starting the fall. A rapid chain reaction occurred from there.
Claim: Right before the jets hit, there was a "flash" indicating a missile fired from the modified jets.
Reality: For crying out loud. What actually happened is that at that speed, when objects collide, there is a transfer of kinetic energy that can cause a flash. Common sense question; So, as an airplane is flying at about 500 miles per hour, one could fire a missile perfectly timed to less than a hundredth of a second before impact at the exact spot the explosives are planted? Really?
Also, if there was a missile strapped to the belly of the plane, how did the pilots and aircraft crew not see a freaking missile attached to the plane before takeoff? They do what is called a "walk around" before every flight, checking the exterior of the plane for any abnormalities. A missile may have caught someone's attention.
Claim: Never before has steel structured buildings collapsed due to fire.
Reality: Also never happened before; two jumbo jets full of thousands of gallons of combustible fuel crashed into buildings. What makes you think you could predict exactly what would happen? By that logic, every house fire would be exactly the same. Go ask your local firefighter that question. Fire is an unpredictable beast.
Claim: The Pentagon was not hit by a Boeing 757 but by a missile because the hole in the building is not big enough.
Reality: Now we get into the really stupid. Do you think there would be a perfectly-punched airplane shaped hole like when Bugs Bunny runs through a brick wall? Number of eye witnesses on the record who say they saw a plane hit the Pentagon = about 150. Number that saw a missile = a bagel. The nuts will tell you that there isn't plane wreckage found. Absolutely wrong. There are dozens of pictures of wreckage. (Maybe after the crash some conspirators made their way onto the site with wheelbarrows and planted to debris.) Then they'll say there wasn't enough wreckage. So, by your same logic, any debris from a missile? Nope. Any evidence of a missile or unmanned drone? Absolutely not.
I've read the theories of military planes being used in the attacks. "It wasn't an airliner, there wasn't any windows." (Of course a row of windows was found in the rubble.) Any photos of those "military planes?" No? Common sense question; If this was an elaborately planned event and you needed to make it look like commercial jets, why risk a military jet being photographed?
There are beliefs that the people on the hijacked planes were taken to a facility and unloaded, or that they were conspirators themselves. Damn any of you that believe that. I hope you say that to one of the grieving families of those that died in the crashes and they kick your teeth in.
One of the most amazingly moronic theories is - again, there really are dopes that believe this - that NO planes hit anywhere. What we saw was doctored CGI footage on television and photo-shopped pictures. What thousands saw in lower Manhattan was a "hologram" projected into the morning sky. Common sense question; Were there technicians planted at every local news station and every network to doctor the footage? Someone faking the thousands of still photographs? Was Industrial Light and Magic hired to create the illusion? This one is almost too dumb to mock. But if a photo that nobody cares about of a shark jumping out of San Francisco Bay attacking a helicopter pilot can be shown to be fake, I'm pretty sure the most covered news story in history would have a few people examining photographs.
A hologram in the sky and faked footage is more plausible than hijacked airplanes crashing into the Towers? Bollocks.
Common sense question; If you already had the buildings wired with heavy explosives and Al Qaeda set to take to fall, why crash airplanes in the first place? Doesn't that provide a wildly difficult operation where too much can go wrong? Why not blow up the buildings and name the patsies?
How many people do you crackpots think could be in on this? With absolutely no concrete evidence, this is one thing that kills these paranoid delusions. Three people can keep a secret. If two of them are dead. If you listen to these idiots, there would be the White House staff, government officials, explosives experts, explosive manufacturers, pilots, people planting bombs, Pentagon employees, Saudi's, Jimmy Hoffa, military officials, the cast of Lost, CIA, FBI, Secret Service, salvage companies, do I really need to keep going? When we talk about hypothetical "impossibilities," here's mine; No group that large can either keep a secret or not leave a paper trial or a money trail or a trail of breadcrumbs. Dozens if not hundreds involved and nobody comes forward to cut a deal for immunity and name names? Not one guilt-ridden conspirator or patriotic staffer? Maybe Oswald didn't act alone when he killed Jack Kennedy in '63. But if you think it was more than a half dozen involved, you're out of your mind. People talk. They want to tell others they are in the know. That they have the skinny. The scuttlebutt. Sometimes for vanity, sometimes out of duty. But a group of more than twenty-five people keeping a secret this big would rival the odds of being struck by lightening while a shark chomps your leg off and your winning lottery numbers are being called on the six o'clock news.
Final common sense questions; Do you really think there was a few dozen guys dressed in UPS uniforms were sneaking around the World Trade Center building for weeks planting explosives? Then airplanes could hit the spot where the explosives are planted to start the demolition? If you do, I have the deed to the Brooklyn Bridge and am considering selling. Let's talk.
All this being said, this is the main reason I hate these people. Those that spread this unsubstantiated nonsense. Why I hate a sonofabitch like James Fetzer at "Scholars" for 9/11 Truth and the hacks that made the laughable Loose Change "documentary." (One of the producers of that film is a guy named Korey Rowe. I never trust a man named Korey spelled with a K. Under any circumstances.) The half-cocked theories are really about selling books. And DVD's. And collecting fees for lectures at conspiracy conventions. These swine are profiting off this garbage. Taking advantage of the natural human desire to know more than you are supposed to. It's why the gullible buy tabloids with the headline "Inside Brangelina's Relationship!" The tabloid rags are not inside anyone's relationship.
The motivation for the distribution of these crazy-go-nuts theories is greed masked by phony patriotism. If there wasn't money to be made, these jokers would slip into the shadows.
It is my belief that we must question any of these poisonous elements that are making money off their claims.
The banshees scream "why won't the government answer my questions? Why won't they release the black box recordings?" I'll tell you why. Because that would give credibility to these fringed elements of lunacy. Why address the irresponsible and delusional?
My friends, there is reason to question the direction of our country. There are real issues that should be debated so the public can make their own educated opinion. The empty anomalies and ridiculous speculation about our government cooking up the worst disaster on American soil is not one of them. When the crazies shout questions about not enough bones found in the Flight 93 crash site and claim the Saudi hijackers are still alive, don't bite. Only ask for evidence for any of their claims. Sure, a few odd things don't have an answer. But no claim of government collusion dealing with the terrorist attacks on 9/11 has any merit.
What happened on that horrible day, unfortunately, is 19 hateful, delusional, religious zealots hijacked airplanes and managed to crash three of them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Like the iceberg that sunk the Titanic, sometimes a seemingly innocuous enemy can take down a mighty opponent. That infamous maritime disaster started with a few holes popped into the hull from a still iceberg. Two and half hours later, the mighty Titanic was gone.
You want to write books about UFO's and Sasquatch and The Loch Ness Monster, fine. That's funny. It's harmless storytelling. But when we talk about 9/11, you are dealing with thousands of families that were damaged by that day. That day created widows, widowers and orphans. Friends of mine were there. One who I love dearly that couldn't even talk about it. I know cops that lost friends. I was there when a celebrity who will remain nameless (That's how he or she would want it. He or she is not Oprah, only doing good deeds when the cameras are rolling) delivered new fire trucks to a station and saw the brave firefighters weep in gratitude.
America still stands. She has not sunk into the dark ocean. She is still here. Those that produce this swill are not Her ally.
Selah...
Stumble This
Reddit!
Good piece.
Hey, the part of me who wanted to see Dick Cheney fry for treason hoped that some evidence for a massive conspiracy would come to light. But you are exactly right, none did. Just imagine for a second what kind of revolutionary turn of events would have come had it been a conspiracy; Epic.
Conspiracy theorists are cut from the same cloth as the church. Religion and conspiracy theorists both offer proof where there is no proof, and use wild speculation in attempt to capture the minds of people to further their own agenda. Conspiracy theorists, however, are much less evil than the church because they stop short of consecrating the soil at ground zero with the blood of the disbelievers.
JW, I think we'd get along really well. I bet you and I could go back and forth for hours about shit. Unfortunately we probably think and act very similarly, so a good many conversations would fizzle out quickly. After all, who wants to argue with somebody when you are both arguing for or against the same position?
I digress. My theory is that not enough people in the world are willing to say "offer me better proof" and even if they do they have a hard time distinguishing MORE proof from BETTER truth. I can understand why people in the 12th century didn't request better proof about God and religion, the tyrannical church czars would have offered proof in the form of an axe blade to the skull. Even though we are out of the dark ages, in some ways it is hard to tell. Despite all advancement in academia and technology people are still reluctant to ask for better proof. This becomes a very long and dangerous cycle when one rationalizes why they do what they do with an unfounded or disillusioned beliefs. One can perpetuate their actions through beliefs, and perpetuate their beliefs through actions. This is further exacerbated when one justifies their attitudes and behavior based on a set of beliefs in which they are unwilling to ask for better proof.
It is hard for me to take people seriously, and I will tell them something to that effect vis a vis. I get no better pleasure than accepting engagement from somebody who obviously feels very strongly about something and saying that I refuse to give serious consideration to anything they themselves haven't seriously considered. That really chaps their ass. Anyways, I got a little long winded, but thanks for reading it to the end.
conspiracy theorists are weak minded assholes. it's easy to be one. that is why i can't stand any of them, ever. if it wasn't for the good graces of most rational free thinking people, those fuckers would have mud-holes stomped in their asses every time they spewd their vile tales.
thank god i've never had any of them try and explain their theorys to me in person. i honestly don't think i could control myself. for these fuckers to go on the way they do with no regard for the people that died and the loved ones who lost someone is not open for debate in person with me.
i try and stay outta debates like this because it's impossible to debate with haters. they are gona hate no matter what the facts or proof say.
thanks for re-posting this JW.
jimbo, you're all right man.
Thanks guys. And yeah, Jimbo, I have no doubt that we and a lot of the Loyal 77 could hang out and shoot the breeze for hours.
JW
Here's one I don't get: Wood burns at 451º, correct? And yet a house fire will easily top 2000º. How is that possible? I mean, in order for that to happen, wouldn't you need to have a secret government agent with Thermite™ at every house fire in the world?
It's the "TM" after thermite that made that amazing, Limbo.
The difference in temperatures between the ignition temperature of wood and the temp inside a house fire at first appears confusing, but can easily be explained.
A house that is made of wood floats. But what also floats? Yes, a coconut. So, if your house burns at 2000 degrees, it may be made of coconuts, deposited by migrating swallows. But obviously, not African ones. And therefore, should burn.
I detect sarcasm, but let's pretend this is a legitimate question..
Structural fires act like a nice mix between pressure cookers and convection ovens. As fires progress air temperature increases and pressure goes up. Additional heat is generated by the energy of the air pressurizing. Eventually the pressure will blow doors open and shatter windows outward. At this point the fire is starved for oxygen, and enthalpy takes over from here. This is the infamous "back draft" where a massive quanta of oxygen rich air rushes into the fire and instantly igniting releasing immense energy easily reaching temperatures in the thousands of degrees. Furthermore, most structures are not completely empty. Other materials add to the overall temperature of a structural fire.
Learned quite a bit about how fire behaves (or doesn't) reading this:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112488253
Which is an interesting story in and of itself.
When nuts on the right cross bred with wacko's on the left, you get "theories" like this.
But at least they have a common ground of craziness.
Since we're being nostalgic:
"Wow, Thanks Johnny for basically doing a cut & paste, regurgitating all the same drivel that can be found on countless websites and offering nothing new or relevant to this discussion other than expressing your own anger and ego.
You've stooped as low as the "truthers" by even wasting your time along with the loyal readers of this blog."
Sorry about that Johnny.
You made some good points and I was being a douchebag.
I wish people would stop creating agendas from this tragedy and just reflect with reverence and respect.
No worries Chad. None at all, pally. We all know my ego being kept in check would be a full time gig and a Herculean effort.