Arguments Regarding the Collapse of the World Trade Center Evaporate Upon Inspection

George Washington's picture

Washington’s Blog

Preface: Bill Black writes today that Wall Street apologists say that calling for prosecution of Wall Street fraud is like saying the Twin Towers were brought down by controlled demolition.

Now that Bin Laden has been confirmed to be dead, it has been established that Saddam Hussein was not behind 9/11 (one of the main reasons for the Iraq war), and Iran
has been accused of having a hand in 9/11 - potentially forming the
basis for a war against Iran - it is time to revisit some important,
unanswered questions.

This essay does not argue that bombs brought down the Twin Towers or World Trade Building 7, even though many top structural engineers believe that is what happened, and people could easily have planted bombs in the trade centers without anyone noticing and without the conspiracy being discovered.


It simply addresses the frequent argument that fires caused the metal
to sag, which brought down the 3 buildings, and that the case is closed.


The Fires at the World Trade Centers Were NOT Very Hot

The
government agency in charge of the investigation of why three buildings
collapsed on 9/11 - the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST) - says that paint tests indicated low steel temperatures -- 480 Fahrenheit -- "despite pre-collapse exposure to fire". NIST also said that microstructure tests showed no steel reached critical (half-strength) values of 600 Celsius (1112 degrees Fahrenheit) for any significant time.

Numerous top fire protection engineers have said that the fires in the World Trade Centers were not that hot. For example:

  • A
    mechanical engineer with 20 years experience as a Fire Protection
    Engineer for the U.S. Departments of Energy, Defense, and Veterans
    Affairs, who is a contributing Subject Matter Expert to the U.S.
    Department of Energy Fire Protection Engineering Functional Area
    Qualification Standard for Nuclear Facilities, a board member of the
    Northern California - Nevada Chapter of the Society of Fire Protection
    Engineers, currently serving as Fire Protection Engineer for the city of
    San Jose, California, the 10th largest city in the United States
    (Edward S. Munyak) says that the fires weren't big enough to bring down
    Building 7:



In addition, Thomas Eager, a
Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems at MIT and a
defender of the official story, concluded
that the temperatures in the Twin Towers never exceeded 800 Celsius
(1472 degrees Fahrenheit). Eager pointed out that, contrary to popular
belief, jet fuel from the planes did not increase the temperature of the fires.

Structural engineer Antonio Artha notes:

Fire and impact were insignificant in all three buildings.

Structural engineer Graham John Inman points out:

The fire on this building [World Trade Building 7] was small & localized therefore what is the cause?

Thermal
images also suggest that the temperature of the steel in the north
tower at the time of the fire was not much more than 250 degrees Fahrenheit (and see this).

The Argument Evaporates Upon Inspection

Defenders
of the "official" version of 9/11 say, in rebuttal, that the fires
didn't have to be that hot, because - while not hot enough to melt steel - they were hot enough to cause the metal to sag.

It
is irrelevant (and beyond the scope of this post) whether or not their
argument is correct. Specifically, since even defenders of official
story admit that the fires were not hot enough to melt steel, then it is
impossible to explain the huge quantify of molten steel which was
observed under Ground Zero for months after the attacks (see next
section, below).

Indeed, not only was structural steel somehow melted on 9/11, but it was EVAPORATED. Specifically, as the New York Times reports, an expert stated about World Trade Center building 7:

A
combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might
have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But
that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to
have been PARTLY EVAPORATED in extraordinarily high temperatures.

(pay-per-view).

Note that evaporation means conversion from a liquid to a gas; so the steel beams in building 7 were subjected to temperatures high enough to melt and evaporate them.

It is simply impossible that fires from jet fuels and office materials could do that.

Molten Metal Under Ground Zero for MONTHS After Attacks

There was molten metal under ground zero for months after 9/11:

  • See also witness statements at the beginning of this video.

The
fact that there was molten steel under ground zero for months after
9/11 is very odd, especially since firefighters sprayed millions of
gallons of water on the fires and applied high-tech fire retardants.
Specifically, 4 million gallons of water were dropped on Ground Zero within the first 10 days after September 11, according to the U.S. Department of Energy's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories:

Approximately
three million gallons of water were hosed on site in the fire-fighting
efforts, and 1 million gallons fell as rainwater, between 9/11 and
9/21 ....

The
spraying continued for months afterward (the 10 day period was simply
the timeframe in which the DOE was sampling). Enormous amounts of
water were hosed
on Ground Zero continuously, day and night:

"firetrucks
[sprayed] a nearly constant jet of water on [ground zero]. You
couldn't even begin to imagine how much water was pumped in there,"
said Tom Manley of the Uniformed Firefighters Association, the largest
fire department union. "It was like you were creating a giant lake."

This photograph may capture a sense of how wet the ground became due to the constant spraying:

Moreover, the fires were sprayed with thousands of gallons of high tech fire-retardants.

It was not the collapses which caused steel to melt. Specifically, a professor emeritus of physics has proven that the collapses themselves could not have melted steel. And Brent Blanchard - a recognized expert in controlled demolition - stated in a telephone interview with physicist Steven Jonesv that he has witnessed hundreds of controlled demolitions, but has never seen molten metal at any of the demolition sites.

So how does NIST explain the molten metal? It denies its existence:



Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
BarrySoetoro's picture

Two things to remember about truthers:

1. Very few, if any of them, have actually had sex...and by sex I mean with another human being (some 'alone time' with internet porn doesn't count).

2. The whole pathetic truther movement is all about hating Jews.

 

indio007's picture

Get over yourself. It's because we hate our freedoms. 

:/

BarrySoetoro's picture

Whatever you say, little Hitler.  You don't have the first clue about freedom.  You're about as likely to know what to do with freedom as you are to know what to do with a woman.  When's that next Call of Duty game coming out?  You should probably go get in line now so you'll be the first one in your 'gang' to get it.

DaveyJones's picture

you call us bizzare then trace it to nazi sympathizing and a lack of sex. If you served Barry and you're not a troll, then I sincerely thank you for your sacrifice and I'm sorry it was all for a lie. That was not your fault. You are not the first nor will you be the last solider lied to by their "leader." But please quit turning your anger at the wrong people. Even if we we're wrong, isn't questioning our government and investigating their actions the democratic process you put your life on the line for? This empire is falling apart and so are its principles and people need to hang together.

BarrySoetoro's picture

I never served in the armed forces.  I'm just an old, broken-down firefighter.

Magnum's picture

George Washington, you have to love the well-written shills here selling the government story.  I've noticed whenever a guy like Richard Gage gets any kind of mainstream press, there are inevitably a host of very articulate supporters of the official conspiracy theory who make online postings.  

Here a newspaper did some investigative work and found that an out-of-state red light camera VP was posting anonymously as a local citizen in support of the cameras.  Check it out, add this to your files:

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20110517/BLOG48/705179793

blindman's picture


Dr Helen Caldicott - Fukushima Nuclear Disaster- You won't hear this on the Main Stream News.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ITrXVJMKeQ&feature=player_embedded

Sunshine n Lollipops's picture

The 'evil-doers' did it. Draw your own conclusions.

Police Commissioner Jacobs's picture

How many billions of dollars were made by contractors in the Afghanistan and Iraq wars? Alfalfa Schweitzer was murdered over a $10 debt. It amazes me that anyone would seem shocked that nearly 3,000 people could be murdered for billions.

BarrySoetoro's picture

If I may use the same shoddy, loose, illogical standard of evidence that is being applied here, I can pin pretty much any murder that's occurred in your town in the last 10 years on you.  And not only are the people here happy to crutch themselves on a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, they're willing to take it a step further and embrace an ante hoc ergo propter hoc approach...

What say you, Commish? 

Dr. Cordell's picture

Brilliant straw-man there.  Bush is evil and greedy, therefore 9/11 was a massive conspiracy.

I have no problem believing that 3,000 people would be murdered for billions of dollars.  None whatsoever.  But that doesn't prove anything about who is responsible for 9/11.  The two most logical answers are:

1) Al Qaeda highjackers, acting on orders from Osama bin Laden.  Bush (more likely Cheney) uses this as the perfect opportunity to use the Iraq war plans he has been working on since day 1 in office.

2) Al Qaeda highjackers, as part of a false flag operation. 

If you are going to believe there is a conspiracy, you have to prove that the added complexity would produce added benefit.  Suppose the buildings were actually brought down by explosives, and had they not been "detonated" the WTC would still be standing.  Casualties from the planes and occupied floors alone would still be 500+.  That wouldn't be enough to accomplish the goals of the operation?  As if the American public would be any less traumatized by only 500 people perishing after airliners flew into crowded skyscrapers.

 

Magnum's picture

You've got now thousands of licensed architects, engineers, physics teachers, scientists with Phds, chemists and now a growing number of demolition experts.  They all present very important discrepancies to the official story, presented in a scholarly manner, and the response to this is "only morons don't believe muslims did 9/11 with boxcutters, you moron and stuff, come on it's all morons".  How stupid does it get.

Dr. Cordell's picture

There is a large degree of difference between "discrepancies in the original story" and controlled demolition of the WTC.  Scrapping together a bunch of kook scientists making claims outside their areas of professional expertise doesn't prove anything. Choose not to believe the official government report, fine.  But you can't explain how the government has managed to keep the remaining 99% of structural engineers and architects silent about the "impossible" collapse of the WTC without explosives. 

Professional scientists disrupt proven theories for a living.  Unless you wish to claim that the conspiracy has touched every other scientist/architect/structural engineer in the world?  There is a reason no credentialed scientists have spoken out, because the conspiracy theory makes no sense.  Log onto any creationist website, and you will find reams of "scientific" evidence disproving evolution presented by scientists with real degrees from real universities.  Simply finding professionals to buy into a pile of nonsense does not change the facts.

It is wholly apparent that Bush used 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq and Afghanistan.  I would even go so far as to entertain arguments that the 9/11 hijackers were employed by the CIA unknowingly.  If the CIA were to plan a false-flag operation to foment a war in Iraq, that would be the ideal way to do it. No hijackers left alive, and a public that wouldn't even think to believe that the CIA was behind the operation and not Osama bin Laden.  But the CIA orchestrating a massively more complex version of the same conspiracy, involving planted explosives in 3 buildings, remotely guided planes and cruise missiles?  It makes no sense on its face, because the extra complexity does not net any further gain. 

RexZeedog's picture

You frigging imbecile moron wankers. Anyone who believes the 9/11 truther crap deserves a kick in the nuts.

You assholes need to read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center

You frigging asshole morons.

DaveyJones's picture

a few more cuss words and you'll overcome the physics

bubba1231's picture

Anyone who believes in 9/11 conspiracy theories is just a plain moron.  There really isn't much else to add - you are simply not bright.  And you are traitors too.

blindman's picture


you're right. the official conspiracy theory should
be dropped in favor of a criminal investigation done
by independent, unbiased investigators who know the
difference between the varying kinds of evidence, laws
of physics verses presumptions and fantasy and rational
arguments concerning cause and effect verses hysterical
emotional accusations with favorable resource and geopolitical
implications.
we could use the facts presented as they are as a starting
point and no more theorizing to press self interested agendas.
funny that the government doesn't accept something that
obvious and simple.
hmmm. ?
and as i remember, former president bush initially suggested
henry kissinger to head up the investigation.
funny? in a very tortured way me thinks.

bubba1231's picture

Anyone who believes in 9/11 conspiracy theories is just a plain moron.  There really isn't much else to add - you are simply not bright.  And you are traitors too.

chunga's picture

The "official" explanation on what happened to the Murrah building in Oklahoma city is also worthy of suspicion.

danimal's picture

If its a conspiracy, what happened to flight 93 in Penn? Who was flying it, remote control? How do you explain the phone calls describing what happened on that flight? Why not shoot it down and look good if you're a gov conspirator? Also, how many people would need to participate in such a consiracy? Is it credible you could find enough people to do all this AND keep quiet? It's just not likely. Also, where are the pics of molten steel? Eyewitness testimony, especially in high stress situations, is highly unreliable.

wintermute's picture

George. You are an economic genius. I read your sharp-witted, fantastically well researched articles on the burning FIRE economy with enthusiasm.

Please leave the 9/11 conspiracy madness alone!

Consider one thing: the energy expended in seconds when the buildings collapsed was the stored energy expended in years of construction via cranes. This energy was enough to turn acre-sized concrete floorplates into fine dust in the blink of an eye. A lot of steel in the WTC was certainly melted and evaporated and recondensed afterwards.

You know how stupid Cramer is on economics. Well, giving oxygen to the conspiracy theorists makes you seem cramer-like in this area which is clearly not your expertise.

DaveyJones's picture

If all it takes is "stored energy expended in years of construction via cranes" to collapse a high rise building in downtown manhattan directly into its footprint, then why is controlled demolition such a well paid expertise?

chindit13's picture

Here's my latest conspiracy theory:

All the "truthers" who have gravitated to this site are paid shills, psy-op types, disinformation agents and sock puppets.  Their task is to discredit the entire site by making it appear to be a collection zone for the Batshit Crazies, thus making it far easier to destroy any credibility Zerohedge may have in matters related to finance, debt levels, lobbying, etc.  They are doing a heck of a job making Zerohedge a laughing stock.

Yes, from GW to CogDis to David Pierre----all receive checks from Lloyd and Jamie.

Brilliant in its insidiousness.  Of course, like the rest of the paid help, no invites to weekends in the Hamptons.

DavidPierre's picture

shitdip13:

Damn You !!!

I got so excitable at you promise that I just run down barefooted to my old mail box away down the dirt road a'lookin for dem damn cheques... which were... isn't and ain't... in there.

But thanx for you's a puttin myself in the fancy class with the likes of CogDis and GW !!!

Made my day here at ZH Hollow !!!

 

bubba1231's picture

 

GW,

 

Your loyalty is to the constitution???? That is a complete joke. Your loyalty is to the devil. You lie and try to convince other feable minded idiots of that lie. Stop insinuating - who do you think took down the towers. You give comfort to the enemy. And not only to the enemy of this country but to humanity itself. You are a disgujsting, vile person.

That Peak Oil Guy's picture

Whoops, looks like your sock puppet software is malfunctioning!  Duplicate posts!  Better get the coders on that!

TPOG

bubba1231's picture

 

GW,

 

Your loyalty is to the constitution???? That is a complete joke. Your loyalty is to the devil. You lie and try to convince other feable minded idiots of that lie. Stop insinuating - who do you think took down the towers. You give comfort to the enemy. And not only to the enemy of this country but to humanity itself. You are a disgujsting, vile person.

tslv50's picture

 You give comfort to the enemy. And not only to the enemy of this country but to humanity itself. You are a disgujsting, vile person.

tslv50's picture

I still remember when bush went on TV and told us that a group of ultra powerfull rich types had decided to make us feel that we were under attack, and that we were going into the city of london and NY to clean house, followed by an air strike on certain houses around the world, and that we would all be safe in the end. I remember when they tried to break the world economy with asset bubbles and paper WMDs, and bush, followed by the brave obama, arrested the entire staff of the federal reserve and every bank with ties to causing the crash. Where is Obenabernanke hiding? Some people say he is in a canadian cave, all I know is every time he puts out another terrorist threat video, I feel afraid for the dollar. 

TerraHertz's picture

Nice! In return, a fragment from something I'm writing. Set in some future.

"Fifteen dollars, isn't it. No volume discount?"

"Ha ha ha... sorry, no. Well, there is, but unless you're a circus or a marathon...?" He's already filling out the paper strips in the little booklet. She hands him two coins - a small silver tenth ounce, and a larger alloy five dollar that contains one twentieth of an ounce of silver. "I hear they finally executed Bernanke."

"Yeah. I went to watch, but I couldn't get closer than about a 'K away for the crowd. So many happy people! Never understood why they kept letting the bastard lodge so many appeals. Ha! Death by Dollar Printing. They ran the old press full speed, but each bill doesn't give much heat when they burn. Took several hours of cooking him before he stopped screaming. The whole crowd was dancing in arms at the end."

They're silent a long moment, remembering.

"Well, we all lost family and friends in the Troubles, thanks to that evil man..."

"Yes. And the Five Hundred. It's a shame Greenspan died before his sentencing. Really hope they catch Obama." He hands her the slips of paper, and three plastic wristbands to hold them. "These covers are waterproof after you zip them up. Rain makes the ink run. They're registered and you can get new copies for a dollar each if you lose them, OK?"

TerraHertz's picture

It's pleasing to see that despite this thread being such a troll-magnet, all the posters I recognise are clear on what happened. 911 was an inside job by US/Zionist government elements, for profit and political objectives. Everything else simply awaits a genuine investigation (and afterwards, a firing squad with *lots* of ammunition.)

Unfortunately my 911 files are too voluminous (and disorganized) to put online. But here's a tiny sample of links:

http://everist.org/archives/links/911/

Incidentally, there's one small point that few peole get, regarding the molten steel found months later. Steel burns, exothermicly. Put enough steel, with enough oxidizing surface area, packed tightly within a reasonably insulating space (huge rubble pile), allow limited air circulation, and the steel will heat up and burn all by itself. It will heat itself enough to melt, and stay molten due to ongoing heat output. We don't intuitively recognise that 'rusting' is highly exothermic, because you only ever see it going slowly and in small amounts, without adequate insulation to let the heat build up. The hotter the steel gets, the faster the reaction goes. Apparently cargo ships carrying holds full of steel beams or plate have to be very careful of this heat buildup, lest it run away and set fire to the cargo steel.

Of course it helps a lot if the initial rubble pile was mixed with many tons of molten steel resulting from huge amounts of thermite/thermate/nanothermite used to cut massive steel beams to bring down the building.

Just saying. It's important to realize that the molten steel present long after isn't 'inexplicable' and requiring bullshit stories about mininukes, etc. It's simple - the steel in the rubble pile got hot enough to melt and burn, and its own burning kept it that hot. It wasn't a case of massive heat initially at the collapse, cooling down continuously afterwards. Rather it's very likely the initial rubble pile was relatively cool overall, with hot spots from thermite products and burning office materials. But then some areas that had workable arrangements of airflow, insulation and steel concentrations got hotter over over time, resulting in 'large pools of molten steel.'

This can only happen in really huge, dense rubble piles, with large steel-to-non-flammable-crap ratios. Which the WTC buildings provided.

If you want to see this effect for yourself, get a big wad of ordinary steel wool, hold in tongs, and apply a lighter flame to it then blow strongly on the ignition point. Careful! It's VERY hot and drops globs of burning molten steel on the ground. Do outside. Wear solid shoes and non-flamable clothes. Fun though.

Pseudo Anonym's picture

bullshit stories about mininukes, etc.

the presence of thermite/thermate/nanothermite does not make mininukes bullshit stories.  Both nukes and thermite was used.  What you have NOT done is explain how wtc buildings, especially wtc7, turned into dust (pulverized) BEFORE steel started burning exothermicly.  In any case, how did three buildings turned into microscopic dust before the collapse?  That's what I want to know.

credits (redirected from some other zh poster):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFgxqYI28Wc

Bastiat's picture

Exactly!! Where did the energy come from to do that?  If it's asserted that it could come from the impacts of the official pancake collapse, then the energy absorbed by those impacts would have slowed the collapse.  But the collapse was at virtual freefall. It needs astonishing amounts of energy turn that much concrete into dust.  Where did that energy come from?   Not from impact with the ground because it is happening from the top down in the videos. Where did that energy come from?

(Of course the energy generated by the collapse is a ridiculous explanation anyway -- the concrete of collapsing buidings end up mostly in chunks, not dust)

BarrySoetoro's picture

Why should I even bother?  After all, with intellectual giants like Rosie O'Donnell and Charlie Sheen in your corner, what's the point?

capitallosses's picture

Laughing even harder now! Yes, identify me with Rosie and Charlie! That'll shut me up. Thanks, BarrySoetero, a giant among intellectuals!

geekgrrl's picture

This is my proposal: the next time a controlled demolition is planned, say for a Las Vegas casino, let's take a mothballed 747 from Arizona full with fuel and ram it directly into the building. Let's see if it collapses into its footprint, as happened three times on 9/11.

I'd be willing to bet my life that it doesn't fail catastrophically, and I'd be willing to bet my mother's life that it doesn't collapse into its own footprint. Any takers?

tip e. canoe's picture

on a tangent, i think the reason why the deutsche bank building still hasn't been demo'd yet after years of talking about it is because it would just bring up too many inconvenient similarities.

capitallosses's picture

I'll double down your bet, any more takers? I have read a lot but not all of this thread. What a giant laugher! So many Langley trolls here. This sure brought out the disgustingly laughable disinfo bunch! Hahaha, can't stop laughing!

No matter, the truth is coming out, just need a little more time before the majority of the sheeple start catching on. The truth will ultimately prevail.

inca's picture

GW -

Let us make a list of the things that Dr. Wood proves in Where Did the Towers Go?proves not just beyond reasonable doubt, but beyond any doubt whatsoever:

1) That the “official” or “government” explanation for the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11 is, scientifically, false through and through.

2) That the WTC buildings were not destroyed by heat generated from burning jet fuel or from the conventional “burning” of any other substance or substances.

3) That the WTC buildings were not destroyed by mini-nuclear weaponry.

4) That the WTC buildings were not destroyed by conventional explosives of any kind, be they TNT, C4 or RDX, nor were they destroyed by welding materials such as thermite, thermate, or “nano-thermite.”

5) That there was in fact no high heat at all involved either in bringing about the destruction of the buildings or generated by the destruction of them.

http://www.degaray.com/misc/139_WhereHasAllTheRubbleGone.html

inca's picture

GW -

Let us make a list of the things that Dr. Wood proves in Where Did the Towers Go?proves not just beyond reasonable doubt, but beyond any doubt whatsoever:

1) That the “official” or “government” explanation for the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11 is, scientifically, false through and through.

2) That the WTC buildings were not destroyed by heat generated from burning jet fuel or from the conventional “burning” of any other substance or substances.

3) That the WTC buildings were not destroyed by mini-nuclear weaponry.

4) That the WTC buildings were not destroyed by conventional explosives of any kind, be they TNT, C4 or RDX, nor were they destroyed by welding materials such as thermite, thermate, or “nano-thermite.”

5) That there was in fact no high heat at all involved either in bringing about the destruction of the buildings or generated by the destruction of them.

http://www.degaray.com/misc/139_WhereHasAllTheRubbleGone.html

tony bonn's picture

www.ae911truth.org

the molten metal was caused by nanothermite which was designed to burn at extremely high temperatures and which had only been developed within months of its use at wtc....the nanothermite explosives were placed all along the structural beams and points of the buildings just as one does to prepare for a controlled demolition.....

wtc 1,2,7 were all deliberately destroyed by usa intelligence agents perhaps acting in concert with certain foreign intelligence agencies....the bush crime syndicate lead the operation for various reasons which i have explained before...but we must remember that the cia does not operate on its own....it only follows orders from the rockefeller-rothchild axis of evil.....

the steel was carted off to china for meltdown faster than you could say bush is a murderer for the sole purpose of destroying forensic evidence as you do when you destroy the evidence of a crime scene.....

the pancake theory, like the magic bullet theory is imbecility-cum-fucktardedness with the ability to appeal only to an american....

was it policy of the cia to carry out this operation? probably not....but it was manipulated, ordered, and hired to do so by the plutocrats.....

no plane crashed into the pentagon....it was a missle and we have the testimony of ssgt april somebody-or-other who went through the hole and saw absolutely no airplane fuselage or other parts....check to see if she is dead as i am sure she has been murdered since her appearance on the jesse ventura show telling what she saw and didn't see as she escaped the missle attack.....

Selah's picture


Someone should tell President Obama about all this!

Obama will then let the public know and we will finally understand how evil Bush and Cheney were.

Then, maybe, just maybe, Obama will stop continuing THEIR POLICY!

 

 

 

 

Hunch Trader's picture

The only nation to significantly benefit from 9/11 is Israel, who has its enemies decimated by the US war machine. War on terror = war on natural enemies of Israel.

 

blindman's picture


is someone suggesting that criminals
may occupy positions of influence
and power in the spheres of national
government and finance? oh my!
and that they may have commited serious
crimes resulting in the deaths of many
innocent people? it can not be so,
i declare, we have laws and systems in place
to prevent it! good evening.

antidisestablishmentarianismishness's picture

If the dickheads in the govt could pull this off, why couldn't they figure out a way to plant some WMDs in Iraq to prevent themselves from looking like idiots?  It would have been very simple compared to this preposterous scheme.

Oh wait, I bet I know why.  They WANTED to look like idiots in Iraq so people like me would think they're incapable of pulling off any major conspiracies.  Yeah, that must be it. Reverse psychology and whatnot. 

Troops in the streets on Y2K was just a warmup for the real show.  Oh wait, there weren't any troops in the streets on Y2K.  What happened with that, I forget?  More reverse psychology no doubt. Or something. 

blindman's picture


it is easy to pull off shit when your audience can't
think and does not demand evidence. yo.
do you believe a plane crashed in penn.? why?
cause the t.v. said it? a plane hit the pent.?
no evidence but that doesn't matter?

Lady Heather...UNCLE's picture

Hey Plumplechook...fuck off

brodix's picture

So the military spent 50+ years planning for a thermonuclear war that never happened and they needed a new target. The oil companies needed new fields. The banks did the M and A. Unfortunately it's all a massive fail. China gets the oil and we spend our money on a bunch of meat headed defense contractors. Wonder who they will go work for, when the money is worthless? Private security guards here in the good old US of A?

Actually I don't think JFK was a conspiracy, at least not one involving any other shooters. All of the ballistic and acoustic anomalies could be explained if that third shot was a hand made explosive round. This first occurred to me, some decades ago, in reading that of the three shell casings found, two were shiny and one was tarnished. Having reloaded back in the day, that's a big tell. The first two bullets created normal entry, exit wounds, even multiple ones, but the third must have exploded on contact with the back of his head, to create that head wound. Connelly is also quoted, in an interview with Dan Rather, as saying the third shot was much louder than the first two. It would also explain the spike on the dictagraph recording, a seventh of a second after the third shot, which has been attributed to a possible fourth shot. Also why he jerked back, as the explosive out the front would have pushed him back. There were also fragments showing up in the x-rays of his brain, but the recovered bullet was intact, even though it had hit Connelly's rib. The back of the skull isn't sufficient to fragment the type of bullet used. Some years ago, Histories Mysteries did an episode on various people taking pictures of the event and at the end, one of them said he didn't really realize what was happening, until he felt the pressure from the last shot on his face. Never heard that said about a gunshot before.