MB Civic

This entry was posted on Monday, September 18th, 2006 at 10:05 PM and filed under Articles. Follow comments here with the RSS 2.0 feed. Skip to the end and leave a response. Trackbacks are closed.

3 Responses to “Enough of the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories, Already”

1. Ian Alterman said:

   Of course, Rothschild completely ignores the fact that there are as many well-respected, progessional engineers and physicists who support the alternative theories of all of the events as there are those who support the government’s theory. Indeed, although he sarcastically says that anyone with a year of college physics is “an expert” here, he neglects to say that one only needs a year of college physics to learn (i) that the fundamental laws of physics must apply to all physical situations, and (ii) that, based on the laws of physics, the government’s scenario is phony – no matter how many FEMA, NIST or other engineers and scientists claim otherwise.

   For example, it is physically – using that word in its literal scientific sense – impossible for a building to collapse at free fall speed unless the ENTIRE interior structure has been completely compromised. Yet the twin towers each had an internal core comprised of 47 vertical steel columns that supported the weight of the floors. The towers absolutely, without argument from any source, fell at free fall, or very near free fall, speed. This means that the 47 internal vertical columns had to have been COMPLETELY compromised – all the way from the 110th floor down. Since even the official reports on the collapses acknowledge that the impact and fire zones were limited to perhaps 10 floors in each building, there is no reason whatsoever for the 47-column interior core of the building to have been compromised BELOW the impact and fire floors. You don’t need any more than a year of college physics to know this.

   Second, simply Google any straight science or physics site – i.e., one having nothing to do with 9/11 or partisan politics – and simply get the basic scientific information on how and at what temperatures steel melts. You will find that (again, using the literal, scientific definition of the term) it is physically impossible for steel to melt – or even be seriously compromised – at the temperatures at which diesel fuel burns, even given the initial fireballs. And this is LITERALLY first-year college physics.

   Rothschild and those who simply cannot wrap their minds around the possibility that 9/11 was a “false flag” operation – and that members of our government do, without question, have the “smarts” to pull such an operation off, especially given that much of the initial “legwork” was already done for them (another subject) – will use any amount of smoke and mirrors – and outright lies – to support their failing position on the events of 9/11.

   As for the argument that a conspiracy so vast would HAVE to have had a “leak” from someone, that is simply bogus. We still don’t know all of the details of the JFK assassination, despite the number of people who would have had to have been involved. It all relies on plausibility, deniability and misdirection.

   Finally, Rothschild is absolutely lying about the Larry Silverstein quote. and it does not matter how vehemently or how many times Silverstein now claims that he didn’t say what he said – or didn’t mean what we heard. If you listen to the quote – and it is easily findable online at almost every 9/11 truth and alternative theory site – you will not be able to apply Rothschild’s claim of “saving firefighters” to the quote. All you need to do is listen to Silverstein, watch his movements, and pay attention, and you will see – and hear very clearly – that Silverstein was absolutely using the word “pull” to connote a controlled demolition. No other meaning is even minimally plausible. As well, even had Silverstein not made that statement, Rothschild repeats the canard that “25% of the building” was missing from one side. Setting aside that there are conveniently no photos of that side of the building, if that were the case, and the building collapsed “naturally,” it would not have collapsed (i) at free-fall speed (again!), or (ii) perfectly within its own footprint. Indeed, if 25% of the building was missing from one side, the building would have collapsed to that side – not in a perfect top-to-bottom collapse.

   These are just a couple of the outrageous fallacies – and outright lies – that Rothschild would like everyone to believe. Yet science – yes, science – and one’s own eyes and ears belie his claims.

   As an aside, Rothschild uses the scientists from FEMA, NIST and Popular Mechanics to support his claims. FEMA is hopelessly compromised vis-a-vis the Bush Administration, so its report is obviously going to agree with the official story. Similarly, NIST relies heavily on government grants and contracts, so it, too, is almost certainly compromised. As for Popular Mechanics, I invite all of you to do your own quick and simple research as to its ownership and political bent.

   Finally, it is instructive that Rothschild makes no mention of the 9/11 Commission Report, especially since that is the sole supporting evidence of the “official story” of 9/11. Rothschild dares not do so since he knows that the Report is so bogus as to defy support from any reasonable person. Setting aside the numerous conflicts of interest of many of the Commissioners – and the fact that Bush neocon pal Philip Zelikow was the Executive Director of the Commission, and thus “guided” where it would go and whee it wouldn’t – we now have the startling revelation from the two Co-Chairs of the Commission, Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton, that the Report was “compromised” due to the “non-cooperation, obfuscation and lies” of the Bush Administration, and individuals and agencies thereof.

   Peace.

   Posted on 19-Sep-06 at 2:17 pm | Permalink
2. Mike Blaxill said:

   Well said Ian .. just wanted to second that pretty much all of the “experts” who stand behind the official version work for gov’t contractors.

   This is something that’s not going away no matter how much push back there is – no matter how many “liberal” commentators from the “Progressive” decide to hurl insults. My guess is that Dems don’t want to be on the wrong political end of this argument seeing as critical mass is a ways away.

   Posted on 19-Sep-06 at 5:22 pm | Permalink
3. Ian Alterman said:

   Mike:

   Thanks for the support. Yes, I agree that, unfortunately, until there is far more open-mindedness and support for alternative theories, few Democrats are likely to jump on the “staged event” theory bandwagon.

   That said, I think the 9/1 truth movement is getting somewhere, since the “attacks” against it – e.g., the ABC propagandrama, articles like Rothschild’s, and even a new comment from Bush that conspiracy theories “aide the enemy” – have increased radically of late. The movement simply needs to remain active and vocal as it rides out this storm.

   We may never get a true “smoking gun,” but the circumstantial evidence is already solid enough to provide “reasonable cause” to suspect foul play…

   Peace.

   Posted on 20-Sep-06 at 9:42 am | Permalink