Those “squibs” conspiracy theorists are always pointing to are not proof of controlled demolition and the proof is here. Those “blasts” begin with a brief spurt, then increase, which is the reverse of how explosives work. There is also the fact that in a controlled demolition, large amounts of explosives are placed on ALL floors- this is true even for small buildings. In addition, a lot of those squibs are just tiny little wisps of smoke. Furthermore, once the floors above the damaged areas began to collapse ( due to the fact that the damaged areas could no longer support the weight), there’s no way the lower floors could have survived the impact. Continue Reading »

As fellow blogger, Gribbit, reminded us by e-mail today, Christmas is, in fact, NOT over…there are 12 days to Christmas and today is the third. (Did everyone get their three french hens?) So to honor the third day of Christmas, here is a little video. Yes, the singing is bad, but be sure to watch to the end. (hat-tip, Political Toast)

The 9-11 “Truth” Movement insists the fact that the owner of WTC 7, Larry Silverstein, took out insurance on building 7 shortly before 9-11 is proof of a conspiracy. However, if you go here, you’ll see the problem. The first problem is rather obvious- after the World Trade Center was the target of terrorism in 1993, only a complete idiot wouldn’t insure it against terrorism. Furthermore, the towers were insured against terrorism BEFORE the 1993 bombing, as the insurance company had to shell out over five million dollars after that bombing occurred. Continue Reading »

The 9-11 “Truth” Movement has at least three false claims about WTC security on 9-11.

The first false claim is that security was lightened just before 9-11 and the bomb-sniffing dogs were removed. However, the truth can be found from the following quote, found here:

Continue Reading »

Conspiracy theorists often wonder why Flight 77, the Boeing 757 that crashed into the Pentagon did not leave an “airplane-shaped” hole in the Pentagon.The answer’s this: lay off the Roadrunner cartoons.  The fact is a speeding aircraft slamming into a concrete wall won’t leave an imprint of itself. Daylightatheism.org (which is run by a LIBERAL) provides a picture showing severe damage to the Pentagon.

Continue Reading »

Conspiracy theorists often say that the collapse of World Trade Center 7 was proof of controlled demolition as no planes hit it. However, this isn’t quite true- while it did NOT suffer damage from an airliner impact, WTC 7 DID suffer impact damage- it was damaged by debris from the collapsing north tower. Building 7 was 400 feet away from the north tower, but when you take into account the fact that the Twin Towers were 1300+ feet tall, 400 feet within easy reach for the collapsing tower. In addition, if you go here  and scroll down, you’ll see a diagram showing the debris zones, and some pictures of other damaged buildings in the area. Oh, and as to why those other buildings, didn’t collapse, the reason is this: they never caught fire. It was NOT the fire alone that did damage; it was a COMBINATION of the impacts, the dislodging of the fireproofing by said impacts (the plane impacts for WTC 1 and 2 and the debris impact for WTC 7), and the large, unfought fires that caused the collapse.

There are other problems with the “truther” claims as well. For example, as we see here, in Loose Change, Dylan Avery claims all the buildings around WTC 7 remained intact, while WTC 7 fell straight down into a little pile in six seconds. This could not be further from the truth. The fact is that the nearby Venison building at 140 West Street was severely damaged by the collapse of the Twin Towers. Furthermore, 30 West Broadway (Fiterman Hall) which was across the street from WTC 7 was damaged so badly that it had to be demolished. There’s also the fact that WTC 7 did NOT fall straight down- it fell to the southwest, and took longer than 6 seconds- seismic readings indicate an 18-second occurrence. Oh, and as we see from the previous site, the WTC 7 collapse was NOT sudden.

As we see here, the statement that WTC 7 suffered only small fires is also false. The pictures near the bottom of the page indicate problems with the 9-11 “Truth” Movement’s claims.

Regarding the “pull-it” theory, Silverstein was NOT referring to demolition of the WTC 7 but to the firefighting team. Before someone brings up the video Alex Jones uses with regards to WTC 6 being pulled, go here and you’ll see Alex Jones doesn’t give us the whole truth. In demolition terms, “pull” means to pull the building down with cables. Brent Blanchard of Protect confirms that here and states that a similar operation on WTC 7 would have been logistically impossible. Blanchard further states that, since Silverstein was talking to the fire commander (something even the CT’s acknowledge), they had to be talking about the firefighters as anything else would violate the emergency workers ethics regarding their safety, not to mention the fact that it would create a major liability issue.

We received this by e-mail, with a request to help spread it all over the web…so we’re doing our part! (Very good poem.)

Poem by
Sharon Steege

I don’t know who they are
Saying I can’t greet the crowd
The way that I want to
Can’t say CHRISTMAS out loud.

I walk into a business place
See things that I rather not see
But dare I not say CHRISTMAS
And ask for a “holiday” tree.

What happened to freedom of speech
And living in the land of the free
How can they take my CHRISTMAS money
But can’t say MERRY CHRISTMAS to me.

Men and women have given their lives
So we could still go free
I wonder how they would feel
At saying HOLIDAY TREE.

Come on AMERICA let’s wake up
Don’t let our freedom escape
If they get by with doing this
What else will they take.

This is starting to get out of hand,
And I’ve begun to keep track
Well I’ve just about had enough
I’M TAKING CHRISTMAS BACK.

So MERRY CHRISTMAS AMERICA
I hope this gets all over the net
If we all stand united and take freedom back
‘Twill be our best CHRISTMAS YET!

Dylan Avery, the producer of Loose Change tends to compare apples to oranges (as do most members of the 9-11 “Truth” Movement) and the evidence can be found here.

Avery compares the 1945 Empire State Building B-25 bomber crash (he originally said it was a B-52, which didn’t exist in 1945, but corrected the mistake in the second version of Loose Change) to 9-11. As you can see from the table at the above link, a B-25 has a much lower fuel capacity than a 767. Cruising speed is NOT the same as maximum speed. If you drive down the freeway at 65 MPH, that’s cruising speed- if you floor it, that’s maximum speed. There’s also the fact that the Empire State Building and the World Trade Center had totally different designs. Specifically, the Empire State Building had concrete enclosed steel columns arranged in a grid on each floor, while the WTC was designed with exterior steel columns connected to the core by lightweight steel trusses.

Other differences are: 1) The Empire State Building crash occurred in thick fog ( see this reference); the WTC crashes took place on a clear day, 2) The B-25 only hit one floor; the planes on 9-11 hit multiple floors of the north and south towers, and 3) The Empire State Building crash was an accident and 9-11 was deliberate.

Avery compares other skyscraper fires here. He ignores the fact that there were multiple “firsts” on Sept. 11, such as it was the first time anyone had deliberately flown into skyscrapers at high speed, and the first time any 100+ story buildings collapsed near WTC 7.

He compares the 1975 WTC fire, but doesn’t mention that the ’75 fire was mainly on the 11^th floor and a cable shaft, and firefighters had full access- not to mention the fact that in the 1975 fire, no planes had crashed into it. He also compares the Windsor Building fire to the WTC fires, but neglects to mention that the Windsor tower also had a slightly different design than the World Trade Center, such as a concrete core, instead of steel.

Another fire he compares the WTC fires to is the 62-story First Interstate Bank Building in L.A, which was fought the entire time, had better quality fireproofing than the WTC, and didn’t have fireproofing dislodged from an airplane impact. The fireproofing at WTC was rated for two hours of continuous fire WITH fireproofing. Remove the fireproofing and you’ve got a problem (reference).

In addition, observe the test results cited at Debunking 911’s site, a test by the NIST often cited by conspiracy theorists to prove their point. They point to the three asterisks that indicate that failure didn’t occur. Look at the test results, and you’ll see that the conspiracy theorists leave out the fact that all four of those tests had fireproofing on the trusses, while some of the trusses on 9-11 had the fireproofing dislodged by the airplane impact.

What to do with all those Happy [non-specified] Holiday flyers?

Conspiracy theorists state that jet fuel doesn’t burn hot enough to melt steel. Granted, this is true, but that argument is a straw man for one simple reason, found here. The steel did not need to melt, it only needed to weaken, and the fires, which in some cases were up to 1,100º F ( 593º C) which is more than enough heat to cause such weakening, resulting in the eventual collapse. The fact of the matter is that steel loses 5 %of it’s structural integrity at about 650º F (34º C), and can lose up to 90% of it’s strength at 1,800º F (982ºF), but even assuming a maximum temperature of 1,000º F (538º C), that is still more than enough reason for sufficient damage to result in an eventual collapse (refer to Skeptic.com). Continue Reading »

• Articles on FHK by Victor Chabala
• Real 9/11 Facts

I live in Southern California( Specifically, San Diego County), I enjoy reading, movies, and just hanging out with my friends, and I can’t abide a complete lack of common sense, and a complete lack of common sense will often evoke a rather sarcastic response from me.

My pet peeves are impatient drivers, especially tailgaters, parents that won’t discipline their kids, and people who talk during movies.

Steven Jones claims to have found evidence that thermite was used to collapse the World Trade Center. However, if you go to this site, you’ll see that this conclusion came from a test he ran on what he claims is some WTC dust and steel. Jones states he found mostly iron, with low amounts of chromium, manganese, and fluorine. They also found some aluminum and sulfur, which they state are expected from thermite reactions. This is technically true, but he fails to consider other sources for aluminum and sulfur.

There are problems with his claims, the first of which is where the steel actually came from. Jones claims the steel was sent directly to him, which creates a problem as that would be indicative of an unverifiable chain of custody. There’s no evidence that Jones’s correspondent gave accurate information as to the origin of the steel samples. Continue Reading »