Comments on: WTC 7 Was Imploded, and Microevolution Never Leads to Macroevolution

By: James A Pacella

James A Pacella — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 23:53:29 +0000

I’m not an engineer , so I can’t debunk these ridiculious theorys using physics, but I did find an argument from logic.

This is what I wrote on a Digg thread about this topic.

The “people” (not sure what else to call them) who believe in this conspiracy nonsense have to explain one thing….

Why have Islamic Jihadis of our time, brought up under the mentorship of Al-Bana and Qutb, both of whom, before 1950, had identified the United States as the main impediment to the eschatology of Sunni Islam, willingly allowed the United States to make them into scapegoats at the cost of their ability to achieve their religious goals undisturbed?

Hmmm?

All the crap about physics and studies and this agency or that agency is meaningless if it can’t explain why the devout pious Muslims engaged in Jihad, while bloodthirstily ravaging countries all over Africa and Asia, have allowed themselves to unjustly be slaughtered by Western militaries in silent service to the gov’t of the great Satan?

So then some brainless leftist responded with

“Retardo strikes again! According to you, Physics and scientific studies are crap, but what is really important is to understand Islamic Jihad? Oh and by the way, yes, we are people. What species are you?”

So I responded with

If I understand you nutty people’s position on this is that

- You are not advocating a theory as to what caused 9/11
- You are only “questioning” the official record because of what drugs make you believe are plot holes.

So , in order for the “official story” (aka reality) to be a lie, then it must be false that Al Qaida did it.. and to show that Al Qaida didn’t do it, you must explain why they think they did do it.

So you see.. as you claim yourself, you’re not saying what caused caused the buildings to fall.. just “questioning”..

If you cant account for Al Qaida taking ownership for the attack, then you can’t claim the official story is false.

QED

By: John

John — Mon, 16 Apr 2007 21:28:06 +0000

Im an FDNY fireman. I was there on 9/11 and for months afterwards. I was there when WTC 7 collapsed. 7 WTC collapsed due to failure of the building’s steel support structure directly related to fire impingment. Steel is very strong but will fail under extreme heat conditions. For example, A 100′ section of steel I beam expands 9 1/2 in. when heated to 1100 deg. F. Rosie should educate herself before she makes grossly incideous and completly inaccurate statements. Read Collapse of Burning Buildings By Chief Vincent Dunn (written long before 9/11/01) and educate yourselves. Dunn retired as a Deputy Chief with 42 years of service in FDNY.

By: Chris Richmond

Chris Richmond — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 10:15:49 +0000

The first time in history steel was melted by fire? wow…

A few million blacksmiths and swordmakers throughout the centuries will be shocked…

Ironically, steel is almost by definition required to start its life(having been converted from iron) in a state melted by fire…

By: Nomolos

Nomolos — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 09:17:52 +0000

In fact, I know someone who believes in the full gamut of 9/11 conspiracy theories and in young Earth creationism.
I suspect he is not alone, there are plenty of right wing crazies who strongly distrust the government, after all.

He also believes that the moon landings really happened, but all the video footage from them was made by Kubrick on a soundstage somewhere or the other.

By: John Cunningham

John Cunningham — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 15:02:00 +0000

The thing that always strikes me about the 9-11 conspiracy buffs is their inability to extrapolate. If they are correct, and BusHitler was willing to kill thousands as a way to create a push for war, why stop on 9-11? wouldn’t the admin then go on to a steady campaign of truck bombs, subway bombings, etc.? 30 or 40 truck bombs would have created a massive demand for martial law, suspension of habeas corpus, allout attack on Islamic states, etc.

By: Shannon Love

Shannon Love — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 13:29:48 +0000

In both cases you have people beginning with a conclusion, and then trying to fabricate a rational for that conclusion. Anti-evolutuionist begin with conclusion based on faith and then try to interpret scientific evidence so as to arrive at the conclusion mandated by their faith. Political conspiracy theorist begin with the idea that their political opponents are corrupt and then try to interpret events du jour to demonstrate that corruption.

To be mischievous, I should point out that the very first evolutionist did the same thing. In the mid-1700’s, long before any scientific evidence existed, atheist such as Diderot begin to propound proto-evolutionist ideas in order to support their support their atheist world views. Like creationist today, they began with their faith and then tried to create a rational to arrive at the conclusion mandated by that faith. This effect persist to this day when you see Leftist embracing evolutionary theory in the very vaguest terms so they can use it undermine religious authority but then reject its application to the study of human behavior because it contradicts the central tenets of their political beliefs.

By: Methinks

Methinks — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 21:28:33 +0000

What? You mean Rosie O’Donnell’s years and years of pontificating on TV doesn’t qualify her as an expert in physics? Shocking!

Sorry. I couldn’t help myself.