TRUTHERISM: A REBUTTAL

Below is an article by Koran burner Ann Barnhardt supporting the gov. story on 9/11.  My rebuttal will be in italics.

 

Trutherism: The Total Loss of Discernment

 

Posted by Ann Barnhardt - September 11, AD 2011 9:52 PM MST

 

I gotta tell you, I've just about had it with these 9/11 truthers. If there is one phenomenon in our sick, sick culture that sums up how far gone and utterly damaged we are as a people, it is 9/11 trutherism. It pretty much covers everything: self-loathing, antisemitism, zero knowledge of rudimentary physics (as a function of our decimated education system) and a general inability to think logically, coupled with a truly adolescent tendency to worship cults of personality found on the internet. So, I have some things that I would like to say.


Oookay, she definitely has her opinion... she's willing to burn a Koran on video and provide a detailed map to her house to death threaters....
 
1. It is a miracle that the Twin Towers stood for as long as they did. Those buildings PERFORMED. If you had laid out a scenario to me before 9/11 in which two fully-loaded and fully-FUELED 757 or 767s were crashed into the upper thirds of those buildings at full-throttle, I would have guessed that the force of the impact would have caused the buildings to buckle and snap at a point below the impact, and then the portions above would have instantly collapsed, taking the entire building and all of its occupants out within a matter of seconds.

Actually, modern skyscrapers are mandated by law to withstand not only the impact of a jumbo jet, but the resulting fire.  Even the Empire State Building took the impact of a B-25 bomber during World War Two but the design of the WTC was of a outer shell attached by the floors to a thick central steel column.  There was NO CHANCE the impacts alone nor coupled with fire would've damaged the WTC to the point of structural failure... which didn't happen so what did?

I suspect that this is what the musloids thought, too.

This statement will factor in later...
 
The fact that the buildings were able to absorb those impacts and that the structure was robust enough to hold the higher floors in place for over an hour is, in retrospect, a triumph of engineering. Pretty much everyone below the impacts was able to get out. It could have been so much worse. It could have been 30,000 dead.

 Or 300,000 if according to the gov. story OBL wanted to maximize casualties-say, why DIDN'T the WTC towers topple off to the sides into Lower Manhatten?  If his Al Qaeda flyboys were such crack pilots to have dodged the most advanced air defenses in the world for over an hour before expertly piloting jumbo jets with computer overrides for safe flying, fly them into those towers... why not go the extra effort and try to topple them like so many redwood trees?


2. Bad things happen to steel when exposed to prolonged, intense fire. Having a fricking fully-fueled 767 burning inside a skyscraper constitutes a prolonged and intense fire.

Wrong.  Jet fuel, essentially kerosene, will rapidly burn out the carpet, furniture and other interior combustibles leaving... concrete and thick steel.  Fire can have all the air you can supply it but without fuel-kerosene or flammable materials-it peters out.  The audio of the 9/11 First Responders were stating the fires were dying out and they could knock it out, no problem.
 
So does any other building sitting and catastrophically burning for hours on end.

A skyscraper in Madrid, Spain a few years later did just that Ann.

I have especially magnified contempt for people who claim to be "engineers" arguing that an inferno isn't sufficient to "melt steel". Real engineers (and apparently mildly well-read commodity brokers)

"Apparently mildly well-read commodity brokers"-thanks for not admitting you're an 'expert'.
 
know that the steel needn't be anywhere near the MELTING point to fail in a structure. It didn't need to get to the LIQUID stage. The strength of steel is massively reduced when it is heated to temperatures that are nowhere near melting to liquid. The strength profile nosedives at temperatures that would result in little-to-no visible change.

Depends on how much steel, the length of time the fire had to work, and the structure being attacked.  Once again I will remind that the WTC was designed to withstand this kind of attack.
 
3. Do you have any fathom how much energy would be required to make a building fall in any direction OTHER than straight down? And that energy would have to be applied WHILE the collapse was happening. In order for those buildings to fall "off axis", there would have to be a constant, massive energy application to one side of the structure for the duration of the collapse in order for the axis of gravity to be overcome.

Maybe you should do some mild reading of demolition techniques.  9/11 looks so much like a demolition job it strains credulity to think we both saw the same thing, and come to different conclusions.
 
You show me ANY demonstration of an object falling in any vector other than toward the center of the earth without a massive outside energy application, and we'll rename Newtonian physics after you. Seriously. Most people in this nation couldn't pass a 5th grade science test.

You're forgetting about the design of structures, what causes structures to fail, potential for different collapse vectors based on what fails, or is blown out of the way.  By gov. theory the WTC had every right to have fallen like a tree and ought to have but both 110 story towers collapsed onto their own footprint.  The ONLY way that happens if if the ENTIRE underlying structure is BLOWN OUT SIMULTANIOUSLY.  The way steel works and doesn't... entertaining the gov's theory... for both buildings to do what they did would take astronomical odds... without some help at the bottom.

Police and Fire at the scene reported explosions.  If the steel is supposedly failing hundreds of feet up it wouldn't have registered at the basement.  Remember: some radical sheik was provided with a bomb by the FBI for the very purpose of blowing up the WTC several years before and topple them into each other.  Didn't work...

For that matter explain WTC 7-no plane hit but it too 'structurally failed' into it's own footprint.
 
4. Speaking of 5th grade science, have we forgotten about potential and kinetic energy? How much potential energy is there in a super-massive skyscraper? What happens when you convert that potential energy into kinetic energy in the space of a fraction of a second? I'll tell you what happens. That building is going to fall, pancaking, straight down VERY, VERY FAST.

High explosives and thermite are wonderful tools, aren't they?  Just before the towers were 'pulled' molten steel was seen cascading well away from the fires.  Thermite was at work...
 
5. What kind of sound do failing steel joints make? Explosive sounds.

Again, the explosions-and they were MASSIVE-were at play and started at the BOTTOM.
 
6. How, exactly, does a nefarious cabal rig three of the largest and most heavily trafficked office buildings in the world to collapse without ANYONE seeing or hearing any of the drilling and installation of the explosives or the required MILES of wiring that would be required to demolish said buildings?

Time, discretion, disguise.  That this happened on the day NORAD had it's biggest air defense drill ever, that once four jet liners were simultaniously hijacked that said air defenses were ordered by Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld to STAND DOWN... you do that math.
 
7. If this is the result of a controlled demolition, how did they get the explosives on EXACTLY the right plane to correlate with the jet impact?

Not on the plane.  The crash with hot jet engines meeting spreading jet fuel would do that.  At least at the impact point.
 
Additionally, how were the wires leading to the explosives able to function after being exposed to a jetfuel inferno for over an hour? Why didn't the wires and their casings melt? In other words, explain this picture:



The explosives and the thermite were well below the impact points-where they needed to be to bring the towers down onto their footprint.  IF the WTC HAD HONESTLY STRUCTURALLY FAILED IT WOULD'VE TOPPLED, NOT PANCAKED.

8. If the muslims who are clearly heard on the audio recordings of air traffic control didn't crash the planes, who did?

Modern jetliners have remote control override systems meant to thwart hijacking.  Obviously they weren't used.  And if the gov is lying about other aspects of 9/11, why trust what could be potentially actors?

Discernment....
 
9. If a missile hit the Pentagon, how is it that hundreds of people saw a plane hit?

Yeah, where IS the footage?  Why is it still classified?  And are the statements trustworthy?  Being from the Pentagon, I dunno...
 
10. If remote-controlled missiles hit the Pentagon and/or the World Trade Center, where are those planes and all of the people who boarded them?

One account-one of the hijacked airliners landed at Clevleand Hopkins Intl. Airport and the passengers disembarked at gunpoint by the FBI.  So who knows?
 
11. If musloids didn't execute 9/11, why do they take full credit for it? Are the musloids in cahoots with "DA JOOOOOOS"?

Which 'musloids'?  

Seriously, your hatred of Muslims-yes they can give a lot of reason to hate them given their more backward tribes and sects love of both child rape and stoning their burka'd women/slaves for begging for food.  A lot of them however would like to have joined the Western World, except they got blamed for this attack so, Iraq got pushed back about 50 year or so.  Afghanistan-forget it.  

I won't get into the Jewish aspect of 9/11 now.  I will touch on this American need to make some group into the scapegoats.  Americans need some brand of nigger to bomb, murder and subjugate and the past decade it's been MOOSLIMS.  Meanwhile, the opium is flowing from Afghanistan-guarded by our troops-and Iraq's a basket case.  If the MOOSLIMS had honestly perpetrated 9/11 we've avenged ourselves.  Now we get to brace for the honest backlash instead of al CIA da.
 
In my experience, 9/11 truthers tend to be not very bright, antisemitic and generally creepy people, most of which follow Alex Jones in a truly disturbing, cultic fashion. I have even severed business relationships over this, because not very bright, racist (in this case against Jews - and rabidly so) and creepy is a recipe for dishonest dealings and thus financial risk to me. No thanks. Go away. Don't let the door hit ya where the Good Lord split ya.

I have my issues with Alex Jones.  I do.  But every race on God's Earth is guilty of something.

I believe you're guilty of swallowing whole a lie that has murdered millions and has turned our once much freer America into the police state we were warned about.