I will post here some info from old blogs from my Blogger account, and update some videos and info. I dislike both the Judge and Ron Paul because they are both conspiracists and appear on the Alex Jones show legitimizing this wacko. So what is below is a portion of a larger post, then I will post some challenges a reader wrote and my responses. (Remember, when you see “UPDATE” or “Repost,” what you are seeing is work I did years ago.)
before starting this “funfest,” I will say that one of the best refutations of the truther movement was a video done by fireman and photographer, Steve Spak. I used his mini-documentary for a while, until it was removed from his video account. I tracked him down and we talked over the phone (many years ago now). I asked him why he would pull such a great resource off the internet. He responded that these nutters would come by his work and interrupt his daily life… so he just didn’t want to deal with all the nonsense. I did track down — finally — an interview with Steve where much of this pertinent information comes out. So this is the first time Steve (God Bless Him) is back on my site in what? Seven years? Enjoy:
9/11 Truthers Refuted
I am starting to get some truther (e.g., 9/11 conspiracy theorists) traffic so I will post a Tower Seven resource blog for those who wish to come here and see for themselves (or to send a friend).
The “truther” would have us believe that the building (WTC 7) received no structural damage. This is just not the case. Nor do you hear them mention that…
Tower 7 housed the city’s emergency command center, so there were a number of fuel tanks located throughout the building—including two 6000-gal. tanks in the basement that fed some generators in the building by pressurized lines. “Our working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time,” according to Sunder. Steel melts at about 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit—but it loses strength at temperatures as low as 400 F. When temperatures break 1000 degrees F, steel loses nearly 50 percent of its strength. It is unknown what temperatures were reached inside WTC7, but fires in the building raged for seven hours before the collapse.
Below are some photos that show some of the damage caused by falling debris. What the truthers don’t mention either is that the falling debris from the Twin Towers damaged many of the high-pressure waterlines the fire department needed to fight the fires in WTC 7.
WTC 7 Damage Clearly Seen Here
Another Shot of Structural Damage to WTC 7
There are also video examples of some of this debris actually hitting WTC 7:
Another lie about WTC 7 is that it took under 7-seconds to collapse… showing a similarity to a controlled demolition. Unfortunately, this is just not the case as this next video clearly shows:
I love the truth of a matter; it is the truth that shall set you free, not opinion. Be set free truther’s, be set free.
I want to [post some pictures and a video here that will curb some of the wild thoughts that a) the fire in the WTC-7 was small and contained. And that the WTC-7 was undamaged in the WTC 1 & 2 collapse. This being said, I have got the below from one of the most thorough discussions about WTC-7, and it comes from Debunking911.com. A well done site. This site as well as others can be found in my links section of this blog. You just have to look a bit for them (as I have many… links that is).
Often times this is the photo or scene shown on many of the conspiratorial “documentaries” or sites:
The photos and videos that are not shown can be seen below, they show just how big and massive this fire was that raged in WTC-7 for many hours:
Now I want to show the debris ring and an example (Bankers Trust) of the destruction from the original two towers collapsing:
Now I want to switch gears and repost an old blog on “melting steel, another fallacy of the 9/11 truthers:
Gasoline & Steel
According to the 9/11 Truthers, gasoline doesn’t burn hot enough to melt steel. Remember that the type of heat experienced in the Twin Towers weakened the steel by more than 50%. This aside, what you see below is steel melted by gasoline. Apparently this can happen only in steel beams used in the construction of bridges, but not in buildings. (Watch your volume levels - static)
very interesting indeed
Dayton introduced me to this blog of yours, and I gotta say, nice work.
For many years I followed the New World Order stuff, reading many, many books on the subject, even going so far as to visit the local John Birch Society meeting once-in-awhile, and after many years I came to realize that if you critically looked into the evidences for this giant conspiracy to fool mankind knowingly, it is shown to be wanting.
Currently the conspiracy to fool mankind is backed by liberals, however, when Clinton was President, it was backed by conservatives. For a theory or model to explain every possible outcome and have completely different backers depending on who's in office simply means that it is not a true theory or model because it is so elastic. And this is a conclusion that I came to a while back and had solidified by Michael Medved during his monthly Conspiracy Show (around the full moon). elastic.
Let me point something out though. The difference between the lib/con views of the giant conspiracy to fool mankind is that no leading political figure in the Republican Party accepted these crazy conspiracy myths as real. Today however, you have a huge chunk of the Democratic base accepting many of these wild stories and blame America first mentality, as well as many Democrat senators and representatives mentioning these crazy ideas.
Its funny, I can show someone proof that "X" didn't happen, but "B" in fact did. They will simply respond that that too was a cover up meant to fool the general public, e.g., me. There is no debating such a person. In fact, this was the original reason for my creating a MySpace, was to challenge a few of my oldest sons friends on this exact matter.
As for us Christians . . . I use to think that this giant conspiracy would fool mankind into following the Anti-Christ. Now I think the delusion of this theory will drive many people to accept almost anything . . . even a messianic type figure. In other words, it's the conspiracy theory ITSELF that breaks down the critical thinking and road to truth that makes accepting incredible claims without evidence, logic, history, and the like, more common place. Which is why having a healthy eschatology as a Christian is very important.
Sorry for the rant, again, glad you enjoyed.
Mark Joins In
You've got me almost convinced. But three words still ring in my ear.
Building number 7 of the wtc was not hit by a 747, jet fuel or falling debris (aside from the dust that covered most of NYC) but mysteriously caught fire and imploded.
What - magic?
Thank you Mark for your interaction here, it is welcomed.
Actually, building seven was hit by a massive amount of debris from Tower 1 or 2 (I will look into which tower when I get the National Geographic DVD, since that has the best shots of falling debris I have seen yet). What you may not know is that building 7 housed the city's emergency command post. The building was designed to remain operational if power were to be lost. How was this building designed to keep running if power were to go out? This is the part we don't hear too much about:
...There were a number of fuel tanks throughout the building that may have supplied fuel to the fires for up to seven hours. In addition to smaller "day tanks" on each floor, two 6,000-gallon tanks in the basement fed most of the generators in the building..... Two generators, located on the fifth floor, were connected to the fuel tanks in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time”…. (p. 56)
….WTC 7 was built to straddle a Con Edison electrical substation. That required an unusual design in which a number of columns were engineered to carry exceptionally large loads, roughly 2,000 square feet of floor area for each floor. “What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors,” Sunder notes, “it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down.” (p. 55)
(Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can’t Stand Up to the Facts)
Also note that trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed (similarly to WTC 1 and 2) to transfer loads from one set of columns to another.
(The following is added for my new readers): I want the skeptic to look here at the damage caused by debris from the falling Twin Tower to building 7:
Oooops, I guess the building was damaged after all!
Do you work for the government? lol…first off just because people have conflicting theories and haven’t figured out everything doesn’t mean there wrong. Ok I am pretty convinced that 9-11 was an inside job from the videos I have seen and you call people who believe in this wacko…not a very good thing if you want people from the other side to listen to you. I haven’t read everything you said yet…I get headaches when I read. Do you have any google videos or something that I could watch that supports your side?
The best bet is to buy The Learning Channel’s video “World Trade Center: Anatomy of the Collapse”, this is a great resource. Dude, you are talking to a guy that is going to recommend books all-day long… so you may want to find someone else to talk to. Some of the largest demolition companies were approached by the authors of the book I recommend, and they said that it would take two-teams of 75-people (each team) months to plant and strip all the supports columns on three floors. This went unnoticed?
Also, the “Loose Change” people have strange bedfellows… something the conspiracists always try to make connections to in regards to Bush and the oil companies…. I would say for them to look at the log in their eye first:
I am including some edited comments I made from another post to make clear some thinking here:
First off let me welcome you to this site. While I will disagree with you you must keep in mind your opinion is welcome here.
Secondly, did you even read my post? There was a destructive agent involved, and it wasn’t Bush! Could it be… “SATAN?!” No, it was probably the 15,000 gallons of fuel in WTC-7. There are two important things to remember: there hasn’t been a building (1) like the Twin Towers Complex built that had (2) this amount of damage done to them. Keep in mind that the other buildings often used as “caught on fire and didn’t collapse” as proof that the Twin Towers or WTC-7 shouldn’t have were never hit by large debris [and in the case of the TT, planes] and then caught on fire with their particular architecture, 15,000-gallons of fuel in the building, and no water to fight it.
Another important thing to remember is that in those other buildings always mentioned, there was sufficient water to fight the fires and put them out or stop them from spreading. Most of the sites you probably visit do not show the photos and video I will show.
I will first – in the “UPDATE” section [photos shown above] – show the photo most see on conspiracy sites, and then show some video and shots that tell the whole story. But first, let’s review how this is different, than say a plane hitting the Empire State Building:
1) About 15,000 gallons of fuel, some of it high pressured “spouts of flames;”
2) Little to no water pressure to supply the firefighters hoses to fight the fire (damaged from the massive amount of debris from Tower 2);
3) Yes steel used in WTC-7… but no, not same design. The support structure of this building was wildly different than any other building’s design. So the factors of debris, architectural design, and fuel all were a deadly combination to any and all of these buildings.
A well-known leader in the truther movement, has left the movement — but not before creating a fake video that the 9-11 truthers fell for, hook-line-and-sinker. Here are two videos by him:
Here is his first video about leaving the movement:
This is some later reflections (edited just a tad):