Well, I guess that was one hell of figment of my imagination I watched slam into the second of the WTC towers the morning of 9-11. Heck of a consipiracy the goverment's got going there - all of us watching several news chanels simultaneously who saw it all happen. I guess Hollywood must be in on it too. Maybe the sequence was filmed by George Lucas at ILM?
Posted at 2005-06-14 17:32:42 [PermaLink]Not to mention the 1000's of actual bystanders/witnesses who were there. Must be some kind of CIA mass-hypnosis machine!
What a world.
Boudica:
We must be suffering from the same delusions. Maybe I didn't witness that second plane flying into the WTC after all.
As Damian stated, the Zerb isn't anti-semitic, just not the sharpest knife in the drawer. Several years earlier, the Star's resident moonbat, Michelle Landsberg, also promoted the conspiracy theory. In this case the author was Barry Zwicker.
BTW - Mr. Reynolds keeps referring to jumbo jets hitting the towers. I believe both planes were Boeing 767's, not quite a jumbo jet but don't let that get in the way of a good story.
BTW - Little Green Footballs covered this story. One of the commenters stated the following regarding Prof. Reynolds which may explain a lot:
"I was hoping this would slide under the radar until Morgan came to his senses. The reason: the good professor is a relative. Age, stress, and a possible grudge against the government have combined to cloud his judgment and cause him to make a public spectacle of himself.
Not a bad old guy in most respects, but really, really off his chair on this one.
(see #42)
Re: "Maybe the sequence was filmed by George Lucas at ILM?"
Didn't he also do the Apollo moon landing?
Well I wouldn't let Zerb totally off the hook about being an Anti-Semite as this isn't the first time she has used questionable sources and considering her hatred of Israel, we cannot be sure if this very dim witted moron is not indeed an anti-semite..
But, we do know that she is a vicious little idiot without a spark of intelligence.......a casual glance at her columns and appearances on the Mother Corp will prove that....
You know, the incredible thing is that has stunned as this 'woman' is, she may not be the worse columnist at the Red Star.....that might be the resident Jihadist Maroon Siddiqui!!
You have to love the unintentional irony of her post: "Reputation Go Bang!"
Posted at 2005-06-14 19:38:04 [PermaLink]Back in Feb/March 2003 PBS aired an excellent doumentary about the collapse of the Trade Centre.
All the support for the towers was provided by the exterior walls. The interior floors "pancaked" because they had absolutely no structural function. Nonetheless, when the top stories began to buckle they took the whole building down with them. That's why the collapse ALMOST appears to be a controlled demolition.
It's an excellent documentary, by the way, with good computer graphics and great explanations by building engineers.
John P,
The exterior walls did carry significant weight, but the centre core carried a huge portion as well.
And yeah, tons of burning jet fuel poured onto concrete & reinforcing damaged by tons of hurtling aluminum which had itself begun to ignite...
...and there goes a "controlled demolition" of Zerb's credibility.
The problem is, she's getting paid. If she were actually made to account for the accuracy of her work, she'd be flipping burgers. (I hear Licks' in the Beaches hires extra during the summer.)
"The problem is, she's getting paid. If she were actually made to account for the accuracy of her work . . . "
Well, just use the trackback feature whenever you reference her blog. Ping her post (if you have haloscan installed). Put your comments in the first 100 words of your post and they will show up on her blog, in spite of her comments not being enabled.
Also, I don't see where Reynolds de-facto states that there were no planes or that the building was for certain "pulled". I think he's just pointing out the holes in the official theory.
And the "guilt by association" method you use to discredit one of his references is precisely the same logic used by conspiricists, you know, Kerry and Bush are Skull & Bones. I've done it in the past myself. But still, the guy has a solid arguement buttressed by some decent research. Instead of denouncing it, what are some alternate explanations that people have not explored? Denouncing one of his references in order to get people to throw the baby out with the bathwater - that's what that is.
Finally, WTC 7 was most likely pulled. You can find video of that on the net easily enough. No plane hit it (as far as I can recall) - why did it have to fall? If that building was indeed pulled, then that casts a bit of doubt on WTC 1 and 2. The way I read Reynolds, that's what he's saying. I mean, Lewrockwell.com is not the same as whatreallyhappened.com or americanfreepress.com.
Hey, Kevin Michael Grace says that Zerb has a "good mind", and is "the best Canadian media columnist", so she must be a genius :-) His judgement being so notoriously sound and all...
"Better to say that Zerbisias is a journalist with a good mind and a nice style who has taken the media as her subject. And she induces seizures in Damian Penny, Charles Johnson and that miserable ilk, which is all to the good."
[External Link]
Once again, Damian, you knows I luvs ya, but... you are being WAY to nice to AZ. Making excuses about how maybe she didn't know the truth about the site she was soucing... Um, it's her job to know that, to research stuff (I've tried to explain the concept of WhoIs to her, evidently to no avail) before publishing it in Canada's largest circulation paper.
She also believes that many popular "right wing" bloggers in the US are being secretly paid by think tanks. I'd love to know who she is talking about, and I'm sure those bloogers would like to know why their checks haven't arrived.
"Lewrockwell.com is not the same as whatreallyhappened.com or americanfreepress.com."
Really? Try a search on "Lincoln" on his site and see what pops up.
[External Link]
"Finally, WTC 7 was most likely pulled. You can find video of that on the net easily enough. No plane hit it (as far as I can recall) - why did it have to fall? If that building was indeed pulled, then that casts a bit of doubt on WTC 1 and 2."
Aaron, consider the possibility that thousands (or millions?) of tons of falling steel and concrete may have impacted the ground with enough force to destabilise neighbouring buildings. Really, conspiracy theories should be your *last* resort.
The collapse of the World Trade center towers was not caused by a controlled demolition - oh noes - it was caused by the gigantic super-conducting magnets installed by Bush that attracted the planes.
/From Boortz
"Also, I don't see where Reynolds de-facto states that there were no planes or that the building was for certain "pulled". I think he's just pointing out the holes in the official theory."
I did not get that impression from reading Morgan's comments, but maybe I didn't read it closely enough.
There is considerable evidence that the "no planes" and "controlled demolition" theories are a crock. Some questions that I would like the conspiracy whackos to answer are:
1) If 9/11 was a government plot, it was risky enough without a controlled demolition being a part of it. What purpose would be served by a controlled demolition? Just planes hitting the WTC,the Pentagon, and possibly the White House or Capitol would be enough to piss most Americans (and many non-Americans) off. Why add a risky controlled demolition to it? Without meaning to be flippant about a tragic day, wouldn't a c.d. be overkill?
2) When were the explosives planted? Do the whackos believe that it would be a simple, clandestine task to attach explosives to the infrastructures of the buildings? How was this done without arousing suspicions?
3) It seems that most controlled demolitions that I have seen start at the bottom and move upward. The "demolitions" at WTC start at the top (or near the top) and move downward. How is that explained if it was a c.d.?
The whackos, as is the wont of most whackos, also do not look at all sides. In "102 Minutes" by Jim Dwyer and Kevin Flynn, the authors report frantic e-mail messages and phone calls from people in the upper floors in the minutes immediately preceding the collapses reporting that floors and ceilings were starting to buckle inwards. In the photo section of "City in the Sky" by James Glanz and Eric Lipton there is a picture of the South Tower taken twelve minutes before its collapse. It clearly shows floor trusses beginning to buckle.
Yeah, I know. E-mails and phone calls can be made up and pictures doctored. The beauty of being a conspiracy whacko is that he/she can never be proven wrong.
Not one to fuel the conspiracy theories, but I thought WTC 7 was deliberately destroyed -- it was structurally unsound from debris and fire damage so it was brought down before it fell down. I _thought_ I remembered hearing that in the media at the time of the attacks, but I guess I was mistaken. Wikipedia has this entry about WTC 7:
[External Link]
Destruction of 7 World Trade Center
On the morning of September 11, the North Tower of the World Trade Center (1 WTC) across Vessey Street collapsed, showering 7 WTC and neighboring buildings with debris.
7 World Trade Center collapsed hours later, at 5:20pm. Firefighters had abandoned the building, and let the fires burn. As little could be seen from outside, and no-one was able to observe what happened within the building, the cause of the collapse is disputed. The sprinkler systems may have failed when water pipes were damaged from the 1 WTC debris. A total of 160,000 liters (42,000 gallons) of diesel fuel were stored in five tanks within the building, which some believe could have fueled the fire, causing the steel skeleton to weaken and finally give way, as is reported to have had happened in the twin towers. In addition, the building's unusual architecture may have contributed to its collapse. It was built on top of an existing Con Ed substation, such that the building was cantilevered over the substation at the fifth floor.
These [External Link]engineers and material scientists also disagree with the nutcases on the WTC collapse. I guess the Journal of Materials must be In On It.
But, as others have said, no evidence in the world can dent the belief of the self-reinforcing true-believer.
I guess the gummint had to shoot all those people who were seen by relatives etc. boarding the four aircraft in question that day, too, to make the illusion stick. Really, this "theory" is a bad seventies movie -- Capricorn One, to be precise.
(BTW, to me any jet with two passenger aisles is a "jumbo", but that's a layman's definition.)
And I remember the teevee people that day discussing whether WTC7 would need to be pulled down because of all the damage it sustained due to burning jet fuel and the debris and shock waves from two 100-story buildings collapsing next door. I'm pretty sure the discussion was rendered moot when WTC7 collapsed of its own accord later that day.
I'd call Bush-conspiracy-mongering a religion, except that these moonbats would then want tax exemption. Oh, wait, they already have them -- 99% of them are either Moslems, academics, or nonprofits.
When you think about it, the only conspiracy theory that would work, given the above discussion is the outlandish idea that the real WTC planes were crashed in the Atlantic, that the WTC collapse was a controlled demolition, and that the planes were holograms.
Occam's Razor dictates that this is out of the question.
Oh, and Lew Rockwell is an adherent to the Conspiricist version of history. Google 'conspiracy' on his site. But most of it agrees with giving credence to conspiracy theories that have a decent amount of evidence, hence the content.
But Damian's arguement seems to be associating perceived anti-semitism with an all-out discrediting of the content of the sites mentioned. Associating 9-11 skeptics with Nazis is a bit of a stretch. Lew Rockwell and America Free press generate their own content, so yeah, maybe there is a bias. But WRH, even if anti-semitic - links to OPC - Other People's Content. If he linked to, say, the Official 9-11 Report, would that mean that the Report is anti-semitic?
An article about Mike Rivero, editor of WRH:
[External Link]
The Zerbisias Article Damian mentions:
[External Link]
It just begs the question then - the "conspiracy theorist conspiracy theory" - that sites link to some good stuff but throw in a few links to anti-semitic content or "alien space nazis" in order to discredit the entire content, when it is not produced by the site.
Something to think about. I mean, the real paranoids believe that most of these sites are doing just that.
[External Link]
I reccommend reading "The Terror Timeline" by Paul Thompson, to get a real picture of all the events surrounding 9-11. Its availible online at www.cooperativeresearch.net, but the book version is easier to swallow. It's based exclusively on news reports, in chronological order, and covers topics like the Bin Laden Family, the ISI, Saudi Arabia, the highjacker's backgrounds, as well as the day of 9/11 and the events that followed it, as well as many other topics. Some conspiracy theorists are really out there, but the government has definatley lied about 9-11 and continues to do so.
Posted at 2005-07-06 10:13:29 [PermaLink]So everyone knows, the man who owned the whole world trade center complex, which he took out a brand new huge insurance policy one month before 9/11, said on public access tv in New York that he ok'd the fire department to "pull the building", the being world trade 7. He admitted that they pulled the building.
Posted at 2006-06-28 08:48:31 [PermaLink]![[External Link]](http://www.google.com/custom?sa=Search&cof=LW%3A500%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.lewrockwell.com%2Flewroc1a.gif%3BLH%3A93%3BAH%3Acenter%3BAWFID%3A65dad07a461e3427%3B&domains=lewrockwell.com&q=lincoln&sitesearch=lewrockwell.com){kind=link}