WTC slappy-fight in my local paper

[HeyLeroy]

Several weeks ago this letter appeared in my local paper, THE WINDSOR STAR:

More research needed on 9-11 building sites: As the shock and awe wears off, almost half of America now suspects U.S. government involvement in the 9-11 atrocities. Common sense is prevailing in the perception that three steel and cement towers could collapse in pulverized dust from isolated kerosene fires. I urge the Windsor Star and readers of this paper to begin researching and reporting the facts surrounding the World Trade Center building collapses in New York over five years ago. Canada must come down on the right side of history on this issue. COLIN BILODEAU
:words:

To which I responded:

Reading Mr. Bilodeau’s letter I agree the World Trade Center towers were not destroyed by isolated kerosene fires. Both towers were struck by 150 ton jumbo-jets traveling at 714 kph and 874 kph. This explains the presence of aviation-grade kerosene, or, jet fuel. Call me naïve, but when I witness two 300,000 pound planes strike two buildings, and those buildings collapse, it’s likely because of the planes. The physicists, mathematicians, metallurgists, structural, mechanical, civil and chemical engineers who’ve studied this agree.
He states almost half of Americans believe in US government involvement in this atrocity. He’s mistaken. The most recent Scripps-Howard survey shows 36% of Americans believe the US government was either “very likely” or “somewhat likely” involved.
How was the government involved, exactly? I’m no fan of George Bush, but I can’t believe he attempted to murder 20,000 US citizens and did murder almost 3,000.
To think explosives were used is absurd. It sure didn’t work in 1993.
At 133.8 meters, Detroit‘s Hudson building holds the world record for tallest structural steel building ever imploded. After a 21 person crew took three months to investigate and another four to prepare the implosion design, a 12 person crew took 24 days to place 1,240 kgs of explosives in 4,118 separate charges, lay over 11,000 meters (seven miles) of detonation cord, and torch-cut the building’s steel beams. WTC One and Two were 3.1 times taller than the Hudson; tower Seven was 1.46 times taller. When the exterior walls were looked at in cross-section, two-thirds of the surface area was outside of the buildings, precluding access. How big were the crews that rigged those buildings? How long did it take? Those buildings were open 24/7. Did no one who worked there notice the fresh drywall and paint used to conceal the explosives?

Today, this was published:

World Trade Center collapse dialogue needed: Thanks to The Windsor Star and Larry Lxxxxx for helping advance the dialogue on 9-11. Mr. Lxxxxx's well-thought-out arguments overlook a few known facts. WTC 7 was not hit by an airplane and collapsed inexplicably late in the afternoon of 9-11. The planes did not knock down WTC 1 and 2. As we all saw they both took the impact as they were designed to do. The resulting fires could not generate the energy required to cause the utter destruction that was Ground Zero nor the molten iron that glowed red for weeks after the event. Mr. Lxxxxx's knowledge of the Hudson tower demolition should give him insight into how these towers could come down at freefall speeds without a hint of resistance in the structure. The burden of proof of "if" or "how" an inside job was pulled off is not on our shoulders. Any rational analysis of what we all saw on 9-11-01 reveals the only conspiracy theory we should be concerned about now is the official account of these events. COLIN BILODEAU
:words:

This idjit needs a serious verbal spanking, and as much as I'd love to write a rebuttal, I have too many other irons in the fire right now to take the time to reply. (Those irons are gonna glow for weeks!:D) Besides that, many of you here are far more eloquent and better versed on the subject than I.

I've said before that I live in Canada, and the troofer beliefs haven't infected us as deeply as in the US. Let's keep it that way.

If any of you would care to respond, here's the linky: http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/letters.html

Limited to 300 words, but the'ye a little bit flexible if the letter is well-written (I once had one published that ran to 304). They will consider letters from anywhere.

Thanks.

[Spins]

I think someone needs to invite him here.

[HeyLeroy]

I agree, but I don't wanna call the guy on the phone or anything. Who knows what he'd think? Last thing I need is a visit from the fuzz. I'm just hoping that someone can respond to his letter in the paper so the fence-sitters in my city can see the rational arguments many of you folks here can put forward rebutting this line of thinking.

[Crazycowbob]

I don't know if this has been posted here before, but it may be of some help.

http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html

It is a very well spoken peice on how and why the towers fell, with much of the blame resting in how the towers where constructed in the first place. I found the info in it very helpful in keeping some fence sitting friends from leaning towards the CT side. :)

Edit: Forgot to mention, the towers were NOT traditional steel frame buildings, and cannot be compared to one in regards to the likelihood of collapse and the effects of a plane hitting them, something a lot of CTers seem to forget...

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

I don't know if this has been posted here before, but it may be of some help.

http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html

It is a very well spoken peice on how and why the towers fell, with much of the blame resting in how the towers where constructed in the first place. I found the info in it very helpful in keeping some fence sitting friends from leaning towards the CT side. :)

Sadly I am sure there are some who could create a conspiracy from that piece of info - the original architects and builders were clearly in on the plan.

[Horatius]

Sadly I am sure there are some who could create a conspiracy from that piece of info - the original architects and builders were clearly in on the plan.

You clearly haven't been reading enough of the CT threads (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=57426).


And let me just apologize in advance for linking you to that.....

[HeyLeroy]

If anyone is thinking of replying and needs my name (the xxxx's) PM me.

(ETA)What bugs me is the arrogance and inanity of his statements:

WTC 7 was not hit by an airplane and collapsed inexplicably...
...they both took the impact as they were designed to do...
...the molten iron that glowed red for weeks...
...at freefall speeds without a hint of resistance...
and the stupidest one of all:
The burden of proof of "if" or "how" an inside job was pulled off is not on our shoulders.
:words:
YES IT IS, YOU MORON!!!

[Horatius]

If I didn't know they wouldn't publish it, I'd suggest just sending that :)

[HeyLeroy]

If anyone cares to reply, let me know and I'll keep a watch out for when it goes into the paper.

[Twilek]

Molten "iron"? I haven't been in here much in the past couple weeks, but I think that's the first I recall seeing it called iron. Aye-yi-yi.

Gah, I wish I had the time right away, he seriously needs it. I already had a response to a CTist published in the Montreal Gazette and fortunately didn't have to keep up the dialogue because there were no counter-responses published after it (I have no delusions that none were received, however).

[Aoidoi]

World Trade Center collapse dialogue needed: Thanks to The Windsor Star and Larry Lxxxxx for helping advance the dialogue on 9-11. Mr. Lxxxxx's well-thought-out arguments overlook a few known facts. WTC 7 was not hit by an airplane and collapsed inexplicably late in the afternoon of 9-11. The planes did not knock down WTC 1 and 2. As we all saw they both took the impact as they were designed to do. The resulting fires could not generate the energy required to cause the utter destruction that was Ground Zero nor the molten iron that glowed red for weeks after the event. Mr. Lxxxxx's knowledge of the Hudson tower demolition should give him insight into how these towers could come down at freefall speeds without a hint of resistance in the structure. The burden of proof of "if" or "how" an inside job was pulled off is not on our shoulders. Any rational analysis of what we all saw on 9-11-01 reveals the only conspiracy theory we should be concerned about now is the official account of these events. COLIN BILODEAU
:words:
Point by point rebuttal in op ed seems problematic at best, given the lead time and space restrictions. I'm not so good at the whole brevity thing, but here's an attempt (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on any of these point).

WTC7 did not "inexpicably" collapse, it was heavily damaged by falling debris and unchecked internal fires. WTC1&2 were heavily damaged across multiple floors by the impact of 2 fully fueled planes, which spread burning jet fuel throughout those floors and others. The loss of numerous support structures coupled with raging fires which lead to weakening the remaining supports eventually resulted in the collapse. The utter destruction at ground zero was due to two enormous buildings collapsing, which would have looked much the same regardless of the fire. The burden of proof does indeed rest on the shoulders of those who don't believe the official explanations, as those are thoroughly documented in the NIST report and elsewhere, while the counter-arguments are nebulous and ever changing, and thus arguing against them become and exercise in nailing jello to a wall.


Ok, probably need a better closing. And maybe opening. And probably middle, since I sure didn't cover everything. ;)

[Twilek]

I like the jello comment.

[HeyLeroy]

Aoidoi, that's really good. Send it in! Maybe add "Regarding Mr. Bilodeau's letter"

WTC7 did not "inexplicably" collapse, it was heavily damaged by falling debris and unchecked internal fires. WTC1&2 were heavily damaged across multiple floors by the impact of two fully fueled planes, which spread burning jet fuel throughout those floors and others. The loss of numerous support structures coupled with raging fires (which led to weakening the remaining supports) eventually resulted in the collapse. The utter destruction at ground zero was due to two enormous buildings collapsing, which would have looked much the same regardless of the fire. The burden of proof does indeed rest on the shoulders of those who don't believe the official explanations. Those are thoroughly documented in the NIST report and elsewhere, while the counter-arguments are nebulous and ever changing, and thus arguing against them become and exercise in nailing jello to a wall.

Here, I fixed a typo and shortened a sentence.

http://www.canada.com/windsorstar/letters.html

[Pidge]

Nitpick:

...and thus arguing against them become an exercise in nailing jello to a wall.

[HeyLeroy]

This was in today's paper.

WTC 'conspiracy' centred on erroneous information
Re: World Trade Center collapse Dialogue Irrelevant.

This letter is with regard to Mr. Bilodeau's letter in which he claims a conspiracy was behind Sept. 11. I am in high school, and have heard much talk about a 9-11 conspiracy. I would like to debunk one of the most radical conspiracy claims,(He's never been here, obviously!) which states the fact that steel melts at 1,525 C, and jet fuel burns only to 825 C, making it impossible for the buildings to collapse. This may be true, but simple research(YAY!) shows that steel loses 50 per cent of its strength at 648 C, rendering it with almost pipe-cleaner-like qualities.

I am assuming the majority who believe in a conspiracy behind 9-11 have seen Loose Change, in which some college kid analyzes old news footage, zooms in on grainy video stills and tries to uncover an entire plot by reading old, unclassified government news releases and then posts the video on the Internet, complete with spooky/mysterious-sounding music.

For this video to be taken seriously, you must also believe that thousands of FBI agents, firefighters, demolition experts, scientists, CIA, rescue workers, police, airline pilots, NSA, air traffic control and the entire Bush administration kept it a secret.

These claims are absolutely ridiculous and insulting to those who lost loved ones on that sorrowfully historic day.

Shame on anyone who spreads thios propaganda based on a video created by a convoluted college student.

R.H.

Maybe there's hope for this world, if high-school kids are showing this kind of critical-thinking skills.

Should I try to find this kid and send him here? I think he desereves a medal or somethin'.

[Kiwiwriter]

This was in today's paper.

(He's never been here, obviously!) (YAY!)

Maybe there's hope for this world, if high-school kids are showing this kind of critical-thinking skills.

Should I try to find this kid and send him here? I think he desereves a medal or somethin'.

That's one smart and mature high school kid. I hope his teachers recognize that.

[The Almond]

That's one smart and mature high school kid. I hope his teachers recognize that.

My nephew and I had this exchange over Thanksgiving
Me: You know, some people think the WTC towers were blown up with explosives.
Nephew: Really?
Me: Yes, they think the planes couldn't have caused enough damage.
Nephew: That's silly.
Me: Why is that?
Nephew: I saw the video in school, the collapse started right where the planes hit, how could it have been bombs?

He's 14, and he's already smarter than Dylan Avery and Jason Bermas combined. I suppose there is hope out there for the younger generation.

[uk_dave]

(evil laughter over a background of ominous pipe organ music)

Ha! And some said those chemtrails would never work.......

muhahahahahahaha

[HeyLeroy]

More to WTC collapse than we're being told: Thank you for publishing the letter by R. H. and for the opportunity to respond to his thoughts and what I hope is an (sic) continuing dialogue among his peers. Research into this subject extends beyond passively watching of Loose Change (sic) and passing judgement. I would refer you to the research of theologian Dr. Ray Griffin and the peer reviewed work of Dr. Steven Jones, as well as the process of the scientific method and logical thought. The "pipe-cleaner" hypothesis has been proven false both by the NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) and by a Dr. Jones, whose work is widely available on-line. This hypothesis was also tested during a debate with editors of Popular Mechanics and disproved based on the integrity of 85 to 90 per cent of the building. This hypothesis would require the simultaneous failure of tens of thousands of structural fittings in three buildings. Remember the WTC towers came down at free-fall speeds. Not possible. This also leaves WTC 7's collapse into its own footprint unexplained. The official account being proved false only means that the truth has yet to be revealed. The burden of proof of "if" or "how" is not on our shoulders. Lastly, I would suggest that the greatest tribute to the victims of 9-11 is to thoroughly investigate these events. COLIN BILODEAU
:words:

This guy is getting annoying with his lies.

[uk_dave]

Oh well, if a theologian says so......