9/11 Mysteries alters Rick Siegel's original WTC footage

I started to watch Screw 911Mysteries, but I found a lot of captious ad hominum style arguments being made almost immediatley. That kind of thing really reduces my faith in the film maker. As the video went on I found many of the debunking points being made were not really showstoppers.

They were things that could be and are discussed in more detail than either 911Mysteries or Screw911Mysteries give to them, for example, what is or is not an oxygen starved fire. To be fair to 911Mysteries they do a much better job on this point than the debunker. When Screw911Mysteries points out a couple of fires that it maintains are obviously not oxygen starved yet are billowing black smoke. I find it unconvincing.

Another issue is Screw911Mysteries citation of the fire at the McCormick center as a refutation of the oft cited fact that steel framed high rise buildings have never collapsed due to the effect of fire. The McCormick center was a gigantic low rise convention center style building whose roof collapsed after eight hours of uncontrolled blazing. The aftermath can be seen here.

www.chipublib.org...

Here is an account of the fire:

A janitor noticed smoke coming from the back of a booth about 2:05 a.m. Within 5 minutes the entire booth was involved and the fire department called at 2:11 a.m. The fire department responded rapidly, entering the building and ordering a second alarm at 2:16 a.m. Nine alarms were struck, bringing 500 persons and 94 pieces of fire equipment. Initial attempts to fight the fire were frustrated by an almost immediate failure of the water supply. By 2:53 a.m. firefighters were able to establish a relay from hydrants 1/4 mile away and the first fire boat arrived, but by then the whole building was involved in the fire and the roof had started collapsing. The fire was struck out at 9:46 a.m. with only parts of the lower level and the theater undamaged.

Although this building was steel framed. It is vastly different from the WTC. As you can see from the photo after the fire, much of the building (up to the roofline in fact) is still standing. This speaks volumes about the integrity of the people who made Screw911Mysteries.

Bottom line: I haven't watched all of Screw911Mysteries. I have better things to do with my time.

But you will spend your time watching 911 mysteries that is for the most part a proven hoax? I don't understand.

It's very late here and I'm not quite up to debating anyone who is even caffiene alert.

Just let me say in 911Mysteries defense that it follows the broad lines of the well trodden path of a myriad of assertions that dispute the official government version of what happened on 911. When I first watched it, about the only thing in it that I hadn't heard before was the explanation of how thermate "shaped charges" are used to cut steel beams. I just think of it as a good round up of the 911Truth movement's position. Of course one can quarrel and quibble with many points.

As far as Screw911Mysteries goes, to be fair to them, they did confirm what I had suspected regarding the "two isolated pockets of fire" reported in the South Tower. Many 911 truthers place too much emphasis on that fireman's radio call. In the past I admit to having browbeaten friends with it. I will not use the info in that way again. Thankyou Screw911Mysteries.

Cutting to the chase. I don't think I'm wrong when I claim to be a reasonable person. Immediately after 911 I was outraged that Canada (I'm Canadian.) didn't rush to the side of our oldest friend, ally, and largest trading partner. Later I was puzzled that President Bush seemed to be fumbling around about the reasons for the war in Iraq.

I was more of a red-neck than Bush. My idea was that the whole region was a nest of rogues, so you just go in, find the biggest rogue, and put the boots to him, in order to scare the crap out of the rest of them. I thought the president should have said it in just those terms.

The more I looked into things that happened that day, the more I began to see the truth. A collapse in the uper twenty or thirty floors of buildings like the towers would, if the core failed, create chaotic asymmetrical destruction on the upper level of the building. I do not believe a to-the-ground collapse is possible without explosive assistance.

To me as a person who has built things, it's just common sense. 911Mysteries represents that point of view (perhaps inadequately).



[edit on 15-6-2007 by ipsedixit]