Monday, April 2, 2007
Fire and steel
Try as I might -- because I really prefer to ignore Rosie's rants because she's so mean-spirited and out of control and so factually wrong (Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was imprisoned in 2003 not 1993 eight years before 9-11, GWB does attend funerals and visit families of soldiers killed in Iraq, the NYT did cover the anti-war demonstration in January and there were not 'hundreds of thousands' in attendance, Cheney never voted against gay rights, Osama's name is not Obama, disliking the Dixie Chicks' remarks is not even remotely the same as the HUAC hearings, etc., etc.) -- but now that she's perpetrating the same crazy science about the World Trade Center as the conspiracy theorist I met on the train in October, I must first say that if the government had done this to make some twisted point seeking favor from the multitudes, the very last thing on earth that they would have destroyed would have been the epicenter of their 'financial empire' even if they were so hateful and callous as to be willing to sacrifice thousands of citizens' lives. Second, read Dadvocate's amusing and succinct reaction and, finally, read Popular Mechanics point-by-point analytical piece on the physics and science of the destruction.

Labels: , ,

Permalink | | posted by jau at 9:22 AM


4 more:
Anonymous Anonymous — at 1:56 PM, April 02, 2007:
Check out the new book by Dr. David Ray Griffin “Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory”

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&EAN=9781566566865&itm=2

Also, check out the Senior Military, Intelligence, Law Enforcement, Government Officials, Professors, 9-11 Survivors and Family Members who have expressed significant criticism of the 9-11 Commission Report and/or allege government complicity in 9-11 found here:

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/


-
 

< home >

Blogger DADvocate — at 4:14 PM, April 02, 2007:
It's very easy to question 9/11 Report, Warren Commission, etc. And, I'm sure there are errors and incostistencies because many of the people involved in the report are not well qualified for the type of investigative work done for it. But there's not a boogeyman under my bed.

The bottom line is fire DOES melt steel.
 

< home >

Blogger jau — at 4:50 PM, April 02, 2007:
Totally agree, Dad. Plus, it's impossible to judge pre-9/11 accurately because now we know what can happen. It's like watching people die from uncleanliness in the 1400s - now that we know how important soap and water are. If only all the suspicion and anger could be used to GOOD effect!
 

< home >

Blogger Dick Stanley — at 11:09 PM, April 02, 2007:
Of course fire can melt steel. How does this overweight dimwit imagine it got to be steel in the first place? Although the PM article says the jet fuel inferno didn't actually melt the girders, but only weakened them so they could no longer support the weight above them. Weight crashing into weight, etc. The simplest explanation, is usually the right one.
 

< home >


Post a Comment

< home