Blog Rating

Friday, October 26, 2007

Is It Too Much?

I recently attended a 9/11 truth meeting. I didn't go because I needed to validate what I already believe, I went because I was curious about who else would be there.

The small group that came out was an accurate reflection of the community I live in. Most of the people were hard working, professional, 30 something white adults. No asians or hispanics (I was the only A.A.).

The demographics really don't matter I think apathy is equally distributed among all classes and races.

The expert, I forgot his name, was armed with a power point laser and many facts.


Temperatures required to melt steel, eye witness accounts, and an incredible amount of interviews of people who were there when the towers fell.

I am going to be honest , I knew something was up when Oliver Stone did a movie on it.

JFK anyone?

He, the expert, even whipped out a U.C. Davis study on particulate matter spread throughout the boroughs and what type of explosive is likely to break down a substance to that fine state.

The clincher, for me , is/was Tower 7.

There she sat, all alone, no one paying attention to her.

She caught fire and fell.



Nary a bit of damage to her neighbors.


I am one of those guys who beleive in conspiracies; it goes with the territory when you live or have lived above or around the law.

By definition a conspiracy is a plot involving more than two people carried out unbeknownst to everyone else. I can PLAN to throw a surprise b-day party; it turns into a conspiracy when the recipient is on a pacemaker and surprises might kill him/her.

Evil also seems to be a necessary ingredient for the working definition.

O.K. back to the meeting.

When he finished his case it was time for question and answer. Most people nervously shifted in their seats throughout the presentation- a good indication he was hitting some nerves. But there were a few, arms crossed, furrows browed scratching their necks and ultimately voicing their displeasure that he would present these facts and make such assertions.

There was one particularly interesting exchange:

"so you are trying to say our government killed 3,000 people"?

"No, I'm not- what i am saying is the explanation we have been given does not add up with the physical evidence"

"You mean to tell me you think those buildings could have survived being hit with a jumbo jet"?

" Sir,there is no other evidence that a fire, especially on the upper floors, could ever topple a building in the manner the towers fell".

"What a nut job"

At this point a retired structural engineer spoke up in defense of the 'expert'. He argued in his favor clearly explaining the discrepencies to the uncomfortable member of the group.

It didn't sink in, in fact, he waved off the engineer, he gave him- 'the hand'!.

Regardless of the facts, despite the obvious eyewitness testimony this issue will forever be labeled as just another conspiracy.

It is sad that we live in an era where conspiracy is par for the course. It comes down to which is the worst.

I honestly think those buildings were wired for a controlled demolition when they were first attacked- as a failsafe, in the event something like that happened again and the towers became a threat. Our government will never be able find the words to explain why. People would want to know what else is wired.

Speculation, conjecture- requirements for the seasoned theorist.

Remember all the other experiments and programs the government, our government, has been caught carrying out under our very noses.

Don't be afraid.

Just come to terms with the idea.

You could be a lab rat.


adrienne Wilborn said...

tuskeegee anyone? yeah dave you're on point with this one


Anita said...

i'm someone who has been convinced since day one that this had to be a controlled demolition. i was standing on franklin street and west broadway in manhattan at the moment the towers collapsed and that was the first thing that came to my mind. watching the burn, i had initially been expecting the upper floors to topple down (which would have been equally as horrifying and probably have caused double the devastation on the ground).

but it seems it's become politically incorrect to discuss these theories with "smart people" ... it seems that most have moved on to other issues, the war, etc. plus, it doesn't entirely help that the proponents of the theories are sometimes on the ... hmmm ... how shall i say, rabid? side. and some of the theories they propose for the "missing" plane at the pentagon are, to me at least, a little off the wall. so, in the end, there are some extremely valid points to consider, but you kind of have to pick and chose among them.

who could have done it? very good question. i think, as well, that the average person would rather not know, as in 'ignorance is bliss' ...

interesting post.

no_slappz said...

Ah. Another site where 9/11 conspiracy screwballs gather.

It means nothing that someone was standing near the World Trade Center towers when they fell. Proximity does not impart engineering knowledge of falling structures.

The towers collapsed straight down for one of the most well known laws of physics -- INERTIA.

There was NO force to cause them to fall any other way but straight down. In fact, if they HAD toppled to the side, or behaved differently than they did, THEN there would be an inexplicable situation in need of serious analysis.

The Towers were 95% air. They were not solid like tree trunks, or even as solid as the Empire State Building, which was designed and built on much different principles.

World Trade Center #7 housed two large diesel fuel tanks. One in the basement and one on the second floor. Falling debris from Tower One crashed into Tower 7 and ignited the fuel in the tanks which burned all day and weakened the truss system supporting the structure. When the central truss system was sufficiently weakened by the heat, the entire building fell in. Textbook all the way!

Footnote: my office was on the 47th floor of Tower One. But I didn't learn a thing about physics from my experience that day. I learned it in engineering school and on construction sites. People who have babbled about controlled demolition destroying the WTC have absolutely no idea what they are talking about, and have obviously never been near a blasting operation.

It is an unfortunate aspect of skillful story-telling and insufficient knowledge that it is so easy to fool millions of people with preposterous tales.

David B. Dancy said...

Slappz your inertia argument is elementary- at best.

If you really care I suggest you consult a few engineers on the subject.

I think they actually have expertise in these areas- thats what I did.

no_slappz said...

dbd, you wrote:

"Slappz your inertia argument is elementary- at best."

Oh. Then you are concluding that one of Newton's three most famous laws does not apply to this situation because it is a well known idea? It is discarded due to its fame and "elemantary" nature?

Based on your other posts, I'm pretty sure you don't really understand inertia any better than other subjects you've touched on. But if you read about it, and think about it in relation to the Trade Center Towers, you might begin to see that it explains the straight-down fall of all the structures.

You wrote:

"If you really care I suggest you consult a few engineers on the subject."

Like I said, I have an engineering degree and I've worked as an engineer. Therefore, I consulted myself AND some experts without political agendas. The Towers fell as they did due to Inertia, as any physics or engineering student can demonstrate.

You wrote:

"I think they actually have expertise in these areas- thats what I did."

The 9/11 conspiracy screwballs have lifted comments by engineers from their contexts and recast them in ways to suggest a range of ridiculous explanations for the collapse of the Towers.

Like I said, if the Towers had fallen in any manner other than the manner in which they fell, then reason for suspicion would exist.

You have said you believe a government conspiracy was behind 9/11, and you said you believed there was a government conspiracy behind the assassination of President Kennedy. You reached your position on Kennedy due to seeing Oliver Stone's movie.

With these admissions you present yourself as an easily fooled person. If someone tells you a good story, you'll believe it.

Then you extend your dive into the world of make-believe with your assertions about global warming. The planet may be warming, but no one knows exactly why, and, more importantly, no one knows where it will lead. So far in human history, every doomsday scenario that has ever arisen has failed to harm humanity. There are more of us every day. And for those who live in democratic, capitalistic economies, living continues to improve, year by year and generation by generation.

David B. Dancy said...

You cannot be adept with legos and claim to be an engineer. Erector sets don't count either.

You are a (nerd) blog expert that loves debate I am flattered to have your attention.

Evidence of my very broad appeal.

David B. Dancy said...

No Slappz say- "Oh. Then you are concluding that one of newtons three most famous laws does not aplly to this situation."

Three most famous laws? I have to re write it for the sheer entertainment. Since when is Newtonian physics the standard for design and study. Although many of his discoveries have helped along the human race, he merely scratched the surface. People were still trying to explain Brownian motion. Have you ever heard of Heisenberg or Bohr or de Broglie? You would have mentioned them instead. I do not think you are an engineer.
I'll end it here. Any more rebuttals are pure waste of my time unless of course respond again.
I think you just might.
I have consulted my DSM-IV; I am now absolutely positive you will not respond. (Could it be reverse psychology?)

Herb said...

The only way for WTC -7 to collapse in the manner in which it did - straight down at free-fall speed - would be for all the vertical support columns to fail at nearly exactly the same time.

Fire has never been known to damage a single column of a steel-framed skyscraper, let alone induce a collapse.

dwight said...

Slappz original comments are nonsensical, especially coming from an 'engineer'. His argument (I think) is essentially that gravity was the only force acting on the towers. Inertia, the tendency of mass to resist a change in velocity, has little to do with his point. Do not hire this person to design anything. It will fall apart faster than his arguments.