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

April 11, 2007

Bill Whittle's Newest

If you're like me, who waits impatiently for each great essay by Bill Whittle to come out, wait no more. The newest one is up! In it, Bill hits upon the motivation I've always suspected was the driving force behind the popularity of conspiracy theories: self-esteem. Or rather, the lack of it.

[M]ost normal people do not look at life from within a pit of failure and despair. Our lives are measured by small successes -- like raising children, serving in the military, doing volunteer work at your church – or just doing the right thing in a thousand small but important ways, like returning money if someone makes you too much change.

These are simply the small, ordinary milestones of a life of value. They give you a sense of identity.

But if I didn’t have that sense of identity rooted in my own small achievements, I wonder how likely it would have been for me to grab onto that sense of sudden empowerment, of being an initiate in some arcane club of hidden wisdom. I wonder what might have happened to me if being the Holder of Secret Knowledge had been my only source of self-esteem…the one redeeming landmark in a life of isolation and failure. Indeed, I wonder what power such a worldview would have over me if I could believe that behind the scenes lurked vast and unknowable dark forces – forces that could topple a president and perhaps even explain why a person of my deep, vast and bountiful talents was not doing a whole lot better in life?

When I uploaded my footage of the Truther at Ground Zero on YouTube, I intentionally checked the "no comments" box. For some reason, YouTube still submits comments for my approval and sure enough some idiot upbraided me for not drinking his particular flavor of kool-aid. I don't remember his exact words, but it was something like, "stop watching American Idol and do some research." I had to laugh at the irony of that.

To paraphrase Penn Jillette of Penn & Teller, "and where did you do your hard hitting data research... in your ass?"

Posted by annika, Apr. 11, 2007 | TrackBack (0)
Rubric: annikapunditry


Oh, I don't know... what couldn'you learn by listening to Simon? He seems to have a pretty keen insight into reality.

Posted by: Casca on Apr. 11, 2007

...a friggin Truther, defiling the scene with his craziness.

You could shut up almost all of these loopy 'Truthers', meaning put an end to all of their "craziness", if you'd explain why WTC-7, which was not hit by an airplane loaded with fuel, not burning furiously, and had what appeared to be only not-exactly-fatal-looking superficial structural damage on just the south face (caused by falling north tower debris), later globally collapsed -- WHOOSH! -- right into its own footprint, in what looks exactly like a controlled demolition/implosion. None of the official reports do this; here is your big chance.

And when you're done with that, explain the HUGE spike in short side options trading on several adversely affected companies in the immediate days before 9-11. If all of that was just a coincidence, then it was what they call a helluva coincidence, and it would be interesting to see an intelligent estimate of the odds on that -- to quantify the 'helluva' part.

Disclaimer: I don't claim to know the answer in either case. But I would like to. And I think it is the responsibility of the investigating body, meaning the Bush administration, to provide them. So I don't have to accept things on faith. Which I'm not very good at.

Posted by: eh on Apr. 11, 2007

I guess you're right, "eh". Bush obviously is behind this grand conspiracy to take us to war. Now take your pills, and lay down for a while.

Posted by: Casca on Apr. 11, 2007

Oh, come ON!!! Those canards have been answered time and time again all over the place!

WTC 7 did NOT fall into it's own footprint! For the love of God, that's the same argument made about WTC 1 & 2, and debunked then! How the hell do you explain the damage to 30 West Broadway and the Verizon building - two buildings across the streets, one to the west, the other to the northeast - if WTC 7 collapsed into it's own footprint?

And no, it did NOT "look like a controlled demolition". Since when has CD began at the top like that? You're buying into the fantasies tossed by Loose Change and 9/11 Mysteries, you're not questioning for yourself. Study controlled demolition, and note the obvious differences!

And what do you mean by the fires "were not burning furiously"? Do you not know about the diesel tanks for the emergency generators in the buildings? And did you not know that there were no firefighting efforts the whole time, since the firefighters were pulled off of fire duty to be put on human rescue duty? What... after hours of being ignored, fueled the whole time by severed diesel lines, catching office furniture, drywall, papers, carpet, ceiling tiles, and all other things present in an office environment, it was just smoldering? No. The fires were indeed "burning furiously". Read the firefighter interviews for the truth of it.

"only not-exactly-fatal-looking superficial structural damage on just the south face"

Oh, the 10 story gash you mean? Or 20, depending on the source? And why are you ignoring the bulging, and the other indicators of structural failure? Are you once again only listening to Loose Change, or 9/11 Mysteries with your brain on "record" instead of "analyze"?

For the love of God, try studying what actually happened. The damage from the falling towers plus the fires raging unfought was what brought down WTC 7. Not debris damage alone, not the fires alone, but both together. For other readers (because I'm sure this has been presented to this conspiracy fantasist before, and he's ignored them, like all of them do, and just ran here to find a fresh audience), start with these links:



... and once that's digested, visit the JREF and Bad Astronomy forums for extended debates on individual topics such as these. You'll see quickly that 9/11 WTC conspiracy fantasy is full of much energy but little content.

About the short sells: I'll just cut and paste from a different forum, where I answered this before:

The unexplained put-options that were placed on the air carrier, immediately prior to the crash?

Nothing unexplained about it at all:

“The market was in bad shape in the summer and early fall, and you know there were a lot of people who believed that there would be a sell-off in the market long before Sept. 11. For instance, American Airlines was at $40 in May and fell to $29 on Sept. 10; United was at $37 in May and fell to $31 on Sept. 10. These stocks were falling anyway, and it would have been a good time to short them.”


From Snopes:
“…further investigation has revealed that the trading had no connection with 9/11. A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades.”


Also see: http://www.911myths.com/html/selling_ual.html

So... you don't know the answer in either case, huh? Then why the hell didn't you look? You're telling me you're willing to just buy into the fantasies tripped over on YouTube or loosechange.com without careful thought? You're telling me you couldn't find what I found in less than 5 minutes of Googling?? Which hardly counts as real research??? I don't believe it. You're parroting conspiracy fantasy nearly word for word same as the fantasy sites, and in the same guileless way that every single other fantasist does everywhere else, citing long debunked canards in the guise of "asking questions". And the thing that disgusts me is that you all, once debated into corners, flee to other forums and regurgitate the same damn questions you got answers to before. And got proven wrong at before. And you all still pitch them as if you haven't heard any explanations for them!

If anyone doesn't believe me that these answers are easy to find, go here:


... and in the JREF and BAUT forums, go back a year or two. Watch the same old crap come up over and over and over again, sometimes worded differently ("'faster'" than freefall", then "near freefall"; "WTC 1 and 2 fell onto it's own footprint", then "WTC 7 fell onto it's own footprint"), sometimes just set aside for a few months, then dusted off and asked again, as if never asked before (molten steel, hole in Pentagon too small for airliner). And then go to other sites that mention 9/11 conspiracy fantasy for the first time. You'll see the same questions asked with the same mistakes made each and every time! The WTC 7 stuff has been answered months ago. The Short sells Snopes article was written last December. And you couldn't find it??

Get real. We may joke around and just have fun at this blog, but no one's dumb enough to buy your fantasies. Sell elsewhere. Try debating reality here.

Posted by: ElMondoHummus on Apr. 11, 2007

Hey, wait a minute there.

I want to believe all the canards, because, if they are true, then George W. Bush, who is clearly responsible for planning and executing this fraudulent attack on America (and is profiting from it) is clearly a genius!!

Debunk that; then explain why there is no Santa Claus or Good Fairy.

Posted by: shelly on Apr. 12, 2007


The WTC 7 stuff has been answered months ago.

Sorry, but this is false. Or better said, you have to take a LOT on faith to totally buy the superficial official explanations, which are basically a lot of hand-waving.

I said there was superficial damage on the south face of WTC-7. I also said it was not significant in relation to the structural integrity of the entire building. Both of these statements are true; certainly no official report proves otherwise. Question: Why didn't WTC-7 kip at the point of damage, i.e. like a hinge, and collapse in that direction, meaning to the south? Think of what happens when a tree is chopped down -- if will fall in the direction of the wound unless made to do otherwise. Yet WTC-7 did not do this; instead it collapsed globally straight down -- WHOOSH! -- right into its own footprint. A truly remarkable failure in a modern highrise building barely 10 years old. A (seemingly synchronized) failure that exactly mimics controlled demolition. Just another coincidence of the 'helluva' variety? Perhaps. But when the 'helluva' coincidences start piling up (e.g., including the complete failure of the air defense system), skeptics -- among them nutcases, to be sure -- start speaking up.

To Casca:

I was careful not to say anything about what the explanation(s) might be, or who might be "behind" it, meaning in the sense of some sort of 'conspiracy'. But as usual this is not enough for someone like you, someone who insists on constructing straw men -- all the easier to blow down, I guess.

Posted by: eh on Apr. 12, 2007

Another strawfuck sock, like will. eh, who cares.

Posted by: Casca on Apr. 12, 2007

It's no use debating a truther. Eh says he's not good at accepting things on faith, yet just the opposite is true. It's not about truth at all, it's about a need to feel smarter than the rest of us. "ha ha I know something you don't." or "ha ha you all are the dupes and I'm the only one who questions the truthiness of things." Like I said, its motivated by a weird need for self-esteem, and thus cannot respond to logical reasoning.

Ever notice that truthers always avoid stating their theory of why? You can see this demonstrated without exception whenever they call Michael Medved's show. When asked, they always say something like "I don't claim to know the answer." and "I think it is the responsibility of the investigating body, meaning the Bush administration, to provide them."

The reason they do this is to avoid self contradiction. It is most important for them to maintain their self-created superiority over the rest of us dupes by claiming that they are the only ones who aren't merely accepting what is told to them. Yet if they claimed to know all the answers that would be a self contradiction because they would then be admitting that they accept things on faith too, only from a different, kookier source. Thus, their only option is to say I don't know, all I want is an investigation.

So let me get this straight. 9/11 was an inside job, but all they want is for the guys who impliedly did it to investigate themselves? That makes perfect sense. About as much sense as a government that is so evil, secretive and skilled at manufacturing evidence (though it had only been in office for 8 months) successfully pulling off the greatest swindle in all of history, in order to start the Iraq War, yet that same government was unable or unwilling to slip a few WMDs into Iraq, just to seal the deal! About as much sense as believing the conspirators would not be satisfied with the destruction of the twin towers and just had to, HAD TO have WTC7 too. Because everybody knows the flattening of the twin towers alone would not have been enough of a pretext for whatever they were plotting. Americans would have said "hey they only blew up buildings 1 & 2, we can't invade Iraq over that. Now if they'd blown up bldg 7, THAT would be a different story!"

But like I said, its a self esteem problem, so common sense and logical reasoning will never have an effect on these kooks. They only answer questions with questions because TO question is their goal. Its what makes them feel good.

Posted by: annika on Apr. 12, 2007

Bravo, Annika! BRAVO!

Posted by: reagan80 on Apr. 12, 2007


As the resident contrarian, a word Kashe confuses with sock, around here I have, along with Mr. Mondo, written about the explanation for the collapse a week ago. Diesel fuel, fella, 2 or 3 5000 gal tanks stored on the 7-9th floors. I know this since I had a copy of the plans for the "Emerengcy Whatever" office that Rudy built there not that anybody denies the tanks were there. No doubt about it, the building was damaged but would not have fallen were it not for the added fuel.

But, can anybody tell me where the wings went on the plane that hit the Pentagon? And where is a simple photo of the burning hulk of the plane or the engines? They don't burn and would be lying there like big charred sauerbraten? I have a hard time matching the damage on the building with the framework and dissapearance of the plane.

Posted by: Strawman on Apr. 12, 2007

If you think the "official explanation" is a lot of hand waving, then you cannot even justify your own explanation, which contains far more hand waving than anything said by the government. And yes, this was answered months ago; you're just not paying attention to the answers.

"Why didn't WTC-7 kip at the point of damage...

For the same reasons WTC 1 and 2 didn't. As Blanchard said, they followed the path of least resistance:

"A tall office building cannot be made to tip over like a tree. Reinforced concrete smokestacks and industrial towers can, due to their small footprint and inherently monolithic properties. However, because typical human-inhabited buildings (and their supporting elements) are spread over a larger area and are not nearly as rigid, the laws of gravity case them to begin collapsing downward upon being weakened or tipped off center to a certain point. Blasters are well aware of this and often rely on this principle in designing upper-floor charge patterns to maximize breakage and in predicitng debris drop zones"

On top of that, you're still wrong about "collapsing on it's own footprint". 30 West Broadway and the Verizon building were damaged by WTC 7. That alone proves you wrong. You guys just transferred the fantasy about WTC 1 and 2 falling "on it's own footprint" and transferred them to WTC 7, thinking that it's lack of treatment by NIST will allow your fantasies free play. It's wrong for WTC 7 for the same reason it's wrong for 1 and 2: Because it's wrong to think about a skyscraper as a homogenous, single structure. And you guys refuse to acknowledge that!

And no, WTC 7 does not "exactly mimic" controlled demolition. Again, you parrot conspiracy fantasy without thinking. You do not know anything about CD. There has been exactly one - one - controlled demo expert (Danny Jowenko; you guys keep trying to use him as an "expert" for your side) who even allowed for the possibility of CD being used, and what comprised the entirety of his research? A single viewing of one video tape.

And he wasn't told about the fires within.

Save for him, there are no - no - demolitions experts who believe CD was used. None. Zero. And even in Jowenko's case, he's refused further contact or comment. Some expert testimony, huh? He refuses to have anything else to do with you guys.

It does not "exactly mimic" controlled demolition. The collapse started at the top and was not symmetric. To pretend that there was light damage and that the fires had no effect is to ignore all the testimony from the firefighters on scene. One example:


Transcripts of testimony here, in an ongoing project to centralize interviews and other pieces of testimony regarding 9/11 here:


Look through that and try to tell me that the firefighters thought the damage was light enough to disallow the possibility of collapse. They knew, because they saw all the damage, and the extent of the fires. You've seen pages on the internet. Who's to be believed?

And please: Coincidence of the "helluva" variety? You speak as though those "coincidences", mistakes (yes, there have been mistakes in the NIST and FEMA reports), and to you guys odd phenomena build up to a cohesive narrative. They do not. You cannot construct an internally consistent story from the canards the conspiracy fantasies purport. To reflect reality, a narrative must add up and explain observed phenomena, and conspiracy fantasy does not. Not to mention the fact that all of them depend on the ludicrous Deus ex Machina of government planted explosives, which no one can explain how they got emplanted. And you call the real story "hand waving"! Try again.

On top of that: Your pose about "not (saying) anything about what the explanation(s) might be, or who might be "behind" it". BullSHIT. There's only one target for your criticism, and you leave room for only one implication. So don't lie. Casca's bullshit detector's far better than mine, and mine when off over a year ago when I first saw the so-called truth movement's lies. You guys always say you're just asking questions everywhere you try to pitch your fantasies, you guys always you just want to find out "who's behind it", and your lies are as transparent as glass. If I said "Do you still beat your wife", am I "just asking questions"? You're so transparent, it's ridiculous.

Like I said, Anni, same old stuff, over and over and over from these guys. They stick to scripts better than parrots and answering machines. Which is their failure; they cannot process the contradictions rife in their fantasies. Yet they try to pose as honest researchers, when honest research shows the errors and failures of logic rife in their fantasies. It's ridiculous.

Come up with something new, EH. No one's had to do anything but link answers already given in the past to debunk you guys. You're not even arguing anything new; everything you've brought up has been answered in the past. You're not even trying. Come up with something new or go away. When all someone has to do is see Debunking 911, 911 Myths, JREF, BAUT Forum, or Screw Loose Change for an old response to answer you guys, it's pretty much proof you're not even trying, let alone thinking. Come up with something new.

Posted by: ElMondoHummus on Apr. 12, 2007


I don't put much stock in the pyso-bable of this guy Whittle and his self esteem base argument for conspiracy theorists.

I have a simple, more sociological argument.
Since the assignation of JFK the idea that the government or some government protected nefarious cable, could be operating in this country has gained credibility. The explanations offered to support the single shooter theory of the crime are so unbelievable that an entire generation had its faith in our government eroded. And like a virus the dis-belief has spread. A certain segment of the country (I think it is pointless to try and paint them with Whittle's esteem driven drivel) will always be skeptical, will always string together anomalies, coincidences, and the inept, defensive words of government media managers to construct a different vision of an event. Ultimately I think less harm is done by the people who go too far with conspiracy theories than by the people who blindly believe the bullshit.

Skepticism is a healthy quality in a society; just ask Mr. Jillette and Mr. Teller. Also, the site www.csicop.org is a good place to find info on "theories" and hoaxes.

Posted by: Strawman on Apr. 12, 2007

Oh, Straw, come on!!


Fine. No wings. You got me there. Only engines, wheel rims, landging gear parts, a door...

... and bodies:

"Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

Sorry. I can't explain the wings. All I can say is that there's wreckage from a plane traced back to the Flight 77 757.


Does EH want to try to peddle the claims that Pop Mech's been debunked? Go ahead. Everyone else: Go read some of these debunkings. Jim Hoffman's in particular is particularly laughable; I haven't seen anyone concede so much of an opponents stance and still try to claim it's wrong. Go read those "debunkings" for yourself. Tell me if any actually say "Here's why PM is wrong (insert argument)", rather than "that's a lie" (no following support), or "this can also be true (at best, plausible alternate possibility; at worst, tortured logic)".

Posted by: ElMondoHummus on Apr. 12, 2007

airliner wings are basically thin fuel tanks. i would be more suspicious if the hole in the pentagon did show the outline of wings.

Posted by: annika on Apr. 12, 2007


Thin and flimsy (not too flimsy ofcourse) is the name of planes from top to bottom. And I know much about them. (father was the master sgt in charge of a B-17 bomb group in '44 and son an aeronautical engineer) But I would expect to see SOME small effect on the limestone on either side of the major hole, caused by the wings. The hole is 50-70 feet narrower than the tip to tip wing span and they HAD to hit the facade but there is, from the photo's I've see, no associated damage not a broken window nor carbon staining from the fire (they were full of fuel). I do not claim any conspiracy I just don't see the evidence of a 757. It is strange. I say no more.

Posted by: Strawman on Apr. 12, 2007

Eh says he's not good at accepting things on faith, yet just the opposite is true.


Look, I'll make it as simple as I possibly can for you: I have not accepted anything. I make a quite simple statement: the government, despite the resources available to it, including technical resources, has so far failed to give a credible, convincing explanation of why WTC-7 suffered a catastrophic global collapse, a collapse that looks identical to what one would expect if it was toppled via controlled demolition, something that normally takes weeks of expert planning and precise execution.

Take a look at a video of it.

It's not about truth at all, it's about a need to feel smarter than the rest of us.

I suppose this is a convenient ad hominem for you; how am I supposed to prove I have no need to "feel smarter" than anyone? Or that my self-esteem is above a certain threshold.

Posted by: eh on Apr. 13, 2007

And regarding the integrity of this administration: Where are those Iraqi WMDs, anyway?

Posted by: eh on Apr. 13, 2007

"the government, despite the resources available to it, including technical resources, has so far failed to give a credible, convincing explanation of why WTC-7 suffered a catastrophic global collapse, a collapse that looks identical to what one would expect if it was toppled via controlled demolition, something that normally takes weeks of expert planning and precise execution."

You just contributed to debunking yourself. How did they do it if it takes weeks of expert planning and precise execution? They didn't have that timeframe after the planes hit Towers 1 and 2.

And how exactly does it look like "controlled demolition"? The Penthouse fell first, remember? CD starts at the bottom. And a majority of the debris fell to the southeast, with a significant minority falling to the northeast and west to damage 30 West Broadway and the Verizon building respectively. That's controlled demolition? An asymmetric collapse?

The building fell just like it was supposed to, given the damage and knowledge of where the fires were at.

And why are you making it sound like the investigation is finished by complaining that they haven't "...a credible, convincing explanation of why WTC-7 suffered a catastrophic global collapse" yadda, yadda?

"After the June 2004 progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC towers. With the release and dissemination of the report on the WTC towers in October 2005, the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse resumed. Considerable progress has been made since that time, including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new documents related to WTC 7, the development of detailed technical approaches for modeling and analyzing various collapse hypotheses, and the selection of a contractor to assist NIST staff in carrying out the analyses."

(Source: NIST FAQ on WTC investigation... sorry, had to TinyURL it, the mu.nu filter rejected the post for wtc-dot-nist-dot-gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm)

So in other words, they're not finished yet.

Or is the emphasis in your criticism on "credible" and convincing? Which parts are not credible? For now, I'll just stick with the *hypothesis* in the FAQ (there's too much in the drafts to tackle here). What's not credible about these working hypothesis?

  • An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;
  • Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and
  • Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

Granted, these are not conclusions yet; as I said, the study isn't finished. NIST wants to release their findings by early this year (and it's getting towards mid-this-year, so they'd either better hurry or announce they're going to miss the deadline). But... your gripe was about the conclusions (however temporary and subject to change they are) that have been released to date ("...the government... has so far failed to give a credible, convincing explanation of why WTC-7 suffered a catastrophic global collapse"). So let's deal with some summary conclusions released to date. What's wrong with the 3 broad strokes released in the NIST FAQ? What's not "credible" or "convincing" about them?

"Look, I'll make it as simple as I possibly can for you: I have not accepted anything."

Bull. You keep parroting conspiracy fantasy. You do not look up facts to dispute in the actual NIST or FEMA reports, and you don't even try to tackle what was said in non-governental publications, like Zdenek Bazant's paper in Journal of Engineering Mechanics "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? - Simple Analysis". Admittedly that's on towers 1 and 2, but I thought you hadn't accepted anything yet. Or, do you accept that the findings on 1 and 2 are correct? Either way, you don't actually say what in their current and ongoing findings you don't find "credible" or "convincing"; as if you don't care what the details are, you only seek to criticise the ones making the report. Shoddy. What exactly do you disagree with? Put forth.

You know, for not having accepted anything, you sure do manage to hew the line of "questions" that other conspiracy fantasists keep purporting ("looks exactly like controlled demolition/implosion", "not hit by an airplane loaded with fuel", "(fires) not burning furiously", "only not-exactly-fatal-looking superficial structural damage", "explain the HUGE spike in short side options trading"...). You've yet to raise a point that isn't part of their mythology. You haven't brought up molten steel, pyroclastic flow, or Silverstien's "Pull It" comment yet, so I'll give you credit for not gushing those old canards, but have you truly come up with any independant thinking? I don't see it.

Posted by: ElMondoHummus on Apr. 13, 2007

Oh.. regarding the WMD's: You're correct. They're not there. How does that put explosives in the Twin Towers or WTC 7 without "weeks of expert planning and precise execution"?

Posted by: ElMondoHummus on Apr. 13, 2007

"And regarding the integrity of this administration: Where are those Iraqi WMDs, anyway?"

Governmental incompetence does not a sinister conspiracy make.

Posted by: reagan80 on Apr. 13, 2007


Still clinging to the "we're just stupid" myth?

Posted by: Strawman on Apr. 13, 2007

Aw, how cute. Eh's little theories about WTC 7 are falling apart under scrutiny so he flings out something about pre-war intelligence on Iraq's WMD program.

...and when people expend enough effort dealing with that, he'll probably find something else or go back to WTC 7 and pretend the previous facts presented that threaten his theories never existed.

ElMondoHummus: You have the pattern of behavior pretty well described. Sad thing is, it's all a matter of endurance for these folks. They'll keep spewing, dodging, weaving, firing chaff and flares and return until people get tired of their antics. Then they claim victory.

Posted by: Patrick Chester on Apr. 13, 2007

Still clinging to the "we're just stupid" myth?

Why not?

Posted by: reagan80 on Apr. 13, 2007

Well, Patrick Chester, their pattern of behavior is so unvarying. It's not too hard to discern it.

You know: The funny thing is the inconsistency of the fantasy. Eh here keeps on saying "looks exactly like a controlled demolition" or "exactly mimics"... but when Popular Mechanics (among others) pointed out the inconsistencies apparent when you compare what you expect to see out of CD with what actually happened to the WTC Complex, the argument suddenly becomes "Oh, that wasn't standard CD". In other words, it looks exactly like CD. Unless it's convenient for the argument to say it doesn't.

I think Jim Hoffman was one of the purveyors of "it's not standard demolition". I have to double-check that.

Anyway... it's completely predictable behavior. Eh isn't even on the level of the JREF antagonists. Heck... he's not even on the same level as the Screw Loose Change trolls knowledge-wise. Although, I have to admit, I do give him many points for civility; he's trying to argue rather than harangue, and unlike some of the SLC antagonists, or worse yet, the opposition at 9/11 Conspiracy Smasher, he's not stooped to reckless ad hominem. So regardless of how empty the arguments he makes are, I willingly give credit where it's due, and he deserves credit for not flinging excrement like too many other fantasists stoop to. No, the WMD post wasn't s*** slinging, not compared to the low idiocies posted elsewhere. It was empty, dumb, and irrelevent, but it wasn't poo-shooting.

So there is that.

Posted by: ElMondoHummus on Apr. 16, 2007

eh: The government has given such an explanation. You just don't like it.

"Watch a video and it'll look just like a controlled demolition" is not convincing if people look at it and say "well, no, it actually doesn't". (Cf. ElMondo's immediately preceding post.)

(The other problem being, why would they want to blow up WTC-7? What would an evil government conspiracy gain by collapsing an empty WTC-7 building? What's the motive?

Hell, if they were evilly conspiring to kill Americans to gin up support for a war, wouldn't they have flown the planes into and then blown up the WTC towers when they were full of people? To gin up even more anger and support?

Even accepting the conspiracy premises, this doesn't make any sense.)

Posted by: Sigivald on Apr. 16, 2007

How to Convert to M4R? M4R Converter can provide you the best answer. Using M4R Converter, you can convert various video and audio formats to M4R format such as AVI, MPEG, WMV, MP4, H.264, Avchd, MKV, RM, MOV, Xvid, 3GP, WAV, WMA, RA, M4A, MP3, and so on. No matter you are a veteran or beginner, you can make your own special iPhone Ringtone. Here is a guide shows you how to convert files to M4R and make a iPhone ringtone.

Posted by: helen on Aug. 23, 2009

DVD to Pocket PC help you easily and fastly convert dvd movies to video/audio formats wmv, wma, mp3 Pocket PC supports which are compatible with your Pocket PC like HP iPAQ, Dell Pocket PC, General Pocket PC.

Posted by: helen on Aug. 23, 2009