...it's not dark yet, but it's gettin' there...

April 04, 2007

Truth Kook Caught On Video By Yours Truly

When I heard crazy Rosie O'Donald shooting off her ignorant bullshit about WTC Building 7, I was reminded of my trip to Ground Zero in July 2003.

As my friend and I walked around the site, we saw a guy standing next to a sign with a bunch of literature. He kept talking about how the WTC was really made up of seven buildings, not just the towers. I thought, "How nice, he's not political at all, he just wants to give people a little history while they tour the site." He kept repeating the exact times that the buildings came down with special emphasis on Building 7. I thought that was odd, but it wasn't until recently that I remembered him and realized that he was a friggin Truther, defiling the scene with his craziness.

On the video I shot, you can't really see him until the very end. In the last frame, I think he's to the right of center, half hidden behind the dude in the white shirt.

Posted by annika, Apr. 4, 2007 | TrackBack (0)
Rubric: annikapunditry


I had to watch it multiple times. It's like trying to analyze the Zapruder film.

Posted by: reagan80 on Apr. 4, 2007

I guess I don't know what this is about. It reminds me of Louis Farrakhan and all the goofy stuff he said during his Million Man March speech. I had a conspiracy theorist carpet cleaner visit our house once. He showed me how you can fold a bill (can't remember if it was a $1 bill or what) so that the Twin Towers are clearly visible, "proving" that our government was involved in the incident. Whew! What do you say to that? Here's your money; you need it to pay your mental health bills.

Posted by: Joules on Apr. 4, 2007

It's clearly the result of the ongoing meth epidemic. Tweekers are all nutjobs. The drug fries their brain. Coinkydink? I think not! Excepting Rosie of course, she's just an angry dyke.

This film is another Annikan ploy to boost her up the ladder of YouTube hits.

Posted by: Casca on Apr. 4, 2007


Are you referring to the facts concerning the reasons building 7 came down although it was not actually hit very hard?

I thought it was a clearly understood by now that Rudy G. brought it down? Not that most people would put it that way,( but I, a Rudy denigrator do,) but it was his facility, (built on his watch and with his hand pushing it)that, once ignited, led to the total destruction of the building. So, it is only a stretch of a certain type to say that had it not been for Rudy's grandiosity, building 7 would still be standing.

The facility in question was the Office of Emergency Management. I know it well since the plans for the facility landed on my desk. A contractor who was bidding the entire project asked that I bid on the woodworking component. The set of drawings depicted a facility that was so over the top and, even to our woodworker's eyes, ill conceived that I had to be restrained by cooler heads from sending it off to the Daily News. I wanted to begin an investigation as to who was getting rich off of it and who was so dumb that they would place 5000 gallon diesel fuel tanks and generators on the 7th floor and the facility on the 23 floor with great views of the Hudson. Hurricane resistant shutters were proposed for the windows among a myriad of other brain dead ideas. Mostly though, after we laughed at the functional problems we laughed a different kind of laugh at the costly, extensive and totally frivolous woodwork that was called for. If this was supposed to be an emergency facility why did it need a Bubinga paneled conference room when painted sheetrock would have been perfectly reasonable? The rest of the job was quartered cherry, stained and lacquered; again, Formica would have been fine. The bid was nearly 300,000 dollars for a job that could have been done for less than50 thousand in wood working.
So, I don't know exactly what this fellow at GZ was pitching to you, but if this was it, he is correct: Some stupid Motherfker at city hall pushed a pet project of the mayor's and the not so unforeseen consequence was that it contributed to the destruction of the city rather than to the orderly recovery.

Posted by: strawman on Apr. 5, 2007

Straw, I think the point is that some screwy folks believe the US government brought WTC 7 down with explosives. And (in one version of the Conspiracy Fantasy) that Giuliani was the one who gave the order (the dominant fantasy has the owner - Silverstein - ordering the Fire Department to set the explosives off, but there's a subset who believes it was Giuliani's order).

Anni, those dumbass fantasy dwellers have been hanging around Ground Zero quite a bit. Some of the other blogs - Screw Loose Change, etc - have members who occasionally go out to counter them when they're in the area. But it's hard to take time out of your life to fight obsessive stupidity, so it's not like there's someone to counter those folks every day. And yeah: "Defiling" is the proper term. "Desecrating" is another one I favor.

Whoops, back to Straw - Respectfully, minor, tiny nitpick: Saying WTC7 wasn't hit "very hard" may be a bit misleading. Engineers' opinions were that the damage from falling debris, as extensive as it was, by itself may not have been enough to bring the building down without the presence of the fires. So in a way, you're correct: It wasn't hit very hard in the sense that "hard" means "enough to bring the building down all by itself". But the damage was extensive enough to where the fires were able weaken everything else to the point of collapse. Sorry to nitpick, but there're folks out there who keep on insisting that the damage to WTC 7 wasn't bad at all, so only controlled demolition could account for it's fall. I wanted to draw the distinction between "not hard enough by itself to account for the collapse" and "hardly damaged at all". I know what you're saying, I'm merely clarifying for some others who may come along and stumble across this post and think "Hey, someone who believes in controlled demolition!"

Posted by: ElMondoHummus on Apr. 5, 2007


I don't disgree with any of what you say. I used "not hit too had" to mean as you say, not enough to collapse it but certainly plenty of damage. Without the diesel fuel fire it certainly would be standing until it went the way of the Deutch Bank building scheduled for demo due to contamination.

Posted by: strawman on Apr. 5, 2007

The bottom 10 floors of WTC7 were severely damaged.

Posted by: Mark on Apr. 6, 2007

True, Mark. Again, I'm trying to draw a distinction between "hit hard enough to fall from the act of being hit by debris alone" and "hardly damaged". Too many folks out there continue to insist that WTC 7 was "hardly damaged". While it may not have fallen without the fires (I need to soften the "wouldn't have" stance; will explain why in a minute), there was severe damage done; Fire Chief John Norman describes the edge of the south face as "heavily damaged", and also repored a "huge gaping hole" in that face.

Also: Going back over the testimony of the involved firefighters, I see that there were many battalion chiefs who judged that WTC 7 was going to fall, and a few of them don't attribute that suspicion to fire damage. Rather, they talk about structural damage alone. The last stuff I've read in debates have pretty much followed the NIST line that all the WTC buildings (1, 2, 7, and the others not involved in conspiracy fantasies) fell due to a combo of fire and damage, not one or the other alone. But going over the testimony I haven't read in months brings back to the fore that many firefighters were talking about impact damage, or effects from them, not fire weakening.

I need to review all that stuff again sometime soon. I'd forgotten that early testimony.

Also, Straw brings up the diesel tanks. I though they were in the basement myself (need to look that up again), but regardless, everyone knew they were there. Recorded testimony references the cut diesel lines which fed the fires for hours, and also records the fact that firemen were taken away from firefighting in order to concentrate on human rescue operations, thus explaining why they weren't ever put out. All this is ignored by the conspiracy fantasy pushers in favor of claiming "controlled demolition".

Posted by: ElMondoHummus on Apr. 6, 2007