Catcher in the Argot

Sunday, November 19, 2006

Yes, I like penguins


I drew this picture almost 20 years ago (minus a few months).
I found it recently and have been using it as a Halloween avatar at a few forums.

To the “911 Truth” Organisations

In just the first 10 pages of the results of a Google search for “911” and “truth”, I found a total of 28 organisations with both “911” and “truth” in their name and/or web address.


911Truth.org
Scholars for 9/11 Truth
911sharethetruth.com
ny911truth.org
The British 9/11 Truth Campaign
Veterans for 911 Truth
911truth.ie
911truthseekers.org
9/11 Truth LA
SF 911 Truth
911 Truth Radio
911fortheTruth.com
canadawantsthetruth911.blogspot.com
911truthmovement.org
pilotsfor911truth.org
911revealingthetruth.org
911truth-tucson.org
Vermont 9 11 truth
911 Truth Totnes
dc911truth.org
Sac Valley 9/11 Truth Pages
The 911 Truth Movement: News (911movement.org) (“No events for this month”)
911truthnow.org
911truth.co.uk
911TruthAction
Oxford 9/11 Truth
911truthintoaction.com
boston911truth.org
People’s Front of Judea
Judean People’s Front
Popular People’s Front of Judea (Oops, how did those last three get in there? ;) )


To those averring to be spreading “911 Truth”, what are you all doing, besides spreading misinformation, bad science, bad logic, lies and paranoia?

Where is your much-called-for investigation?

What are you doing about setting the investigation in motion?

What type of investigation are you calling for?

If you propose an independent investigation, who do you believe to be suitably independent to conduct it, and how do you plan to bring the alleged criminals to justice?

If you propose a criminal trial, where are all your lawyers, demolition experts and structural engineers presenting evidence to Courts of your mythological ‘controlled demolition’?

What is the consensus of “what really happened” – MIHOP or LIHOP; planes or no planes; passengers or no passengers; *therm*te or micronukes or C# or Star Wars Beam Weapons?

How can you all be telling the truth if you cannot agree with each other on what happened, or how it happened?

Where are your whistleblowers, each of whom would stand to make millions in royalties and commissions from publishing, film and public appearances, much more than a puny government ‘shill’ would earn, and each of whom could afford more bodyguards than George W. Bush himself?

Where are your parliamentary screenings of “Truth” videos?

Where are your transcripts or even rumoured reports of parliamentary discussions or even inadvertent mentions of the ‘the cover-up of the inside job’, despite the hosts of reporters present at every session and following every move of the politicians? For that matter, where are your investigative reporters?


These are just some of the general questions which I have for the 9/11 “Truthers”.

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

Impotent ‘Explosives’ and Steven Jones’ Self-Contradictions.

I was reading Steven Jones’ paper again (well, conspiracy theorists will keep referring to it) and I thought in the interests of newbies to 9/11 CTs and for the record, I would write something addressing one of the main players in the Twoof Moovmint, instead of playing whack-a-mole with minor 9/11 deniers’ faulty reasoning.

In his most recent paper, in the September edition of the Journal of 911 Studies, Jones actually claims, “unlike WTC7, the twin towers appear to have been exploded “top-down” rather than proceeding from the bottom – which is unusual for controlled demolition but clearly possible, depending on the order in which explosives are detonated.”

However, he then proposes, “pre-positioned explosives provide a plausible and simple explanation for the observed detonations followed by complete building collapses”

My initial quote appears after he refers to the following picture:
http://physics911.net/9-11%20Picture7%20(squib1).jpg

Jones comments: “North Tower during top-down collapse. Notice mysterious horizontal plumes far below pulverization region. Unlike WTC7, the twin towers appear to have been exploded “top-down” rather than proceeding from the bottom – which is unusual for controlled demolition but clearly possible, depending on the order in which explosives are detonated. “

He then refers to the following eyewitness accounts of ‘explosions’ which he somehow believes support his argument that explosives were used:

- "“For instance, at the start of the collapse of the South Tower a Fox News anchor reported:
There is an explosion at the base of the building… white smoke from the bottom… something happened at the base of the building! Then another explosion.”
(De Grand Pre, 2002, emphasis added.)”

- "“And Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory provides additional insights:
When I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, ..I saw low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.
Q. Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?
A. No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me… He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too... I mean, I equate it to the building coming down and pushing things around, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever."
(Dwyer, 2005, Assistant Commissioner Stephen Gregory FDNY WCT2 File No. 91 10008.)”


If these are explosives (not explosions), they have no effect on the collapse at all. Why?
A) the basement examples occur well before the top-down collapse has commenced, and cause no visible structural damage to the towers’ integrity;
B) the few tiny ‘squibs’ occur well after the progressive collapse has commenced and cause no demonstrably visible total structural failure.

How can anyone in their right mind say that these examples are evidence of explosives used to demolish the towers? If they are explosives, they serve no purpose, and are as much use as a teapot made of chocolate.

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

Quite happy, all things considering.



This made me happy the other day. It's nice to do other things besides debating 9/11 conspiracy theorists.


Yesterday was my 15th wedding anniversary. We had a very long lunch and had fun afterwards watching the Melbourne Cup with friends. I was a bit sozzled by the early evening and had an early night after dinner.


I'm also enjoying the recent thread at the JREF forum called The Troofers dist... dixt... dictionary. It lists new words describing elements of the 9/11 "Truth Movement".

My contributions so far:

exspurt (n): 1. one of the members of the pee-er (q.v.) reviewed 'Jurinal (q.v.) for 9/11 Studies'. 2. anyone with a website who's compiled lots of ahumptions (q.v.) and coinvidences (q.v.).

evidense (n) : 1. misinterpreted data. e.g. photos of steel beams cut during the clean-up said to be evidence of umplosions (q.v.) such as *therm*te ; 2. coinvidence(s) (q.v.), ahumption(s) (q.v.).

dodgic (n) : thought process and reasoning used by twoofers. Involves attempting to change the subject when faced with facts that destroy their assertions (usually by starting a new discussion, or posting heaps of links or pasting complete articles of ahumptions irrelevant to the matter at hand). Also involves the Oddus Operandi of the 'Truth Movement":

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...9&postcount=29

"Take your message to the 'net
Remain steadfast in your conclusions, even in the face of evidence to the contrary
Under no circumstances make a concrete claim
Tell them you are, "Just asking questions"
Hope they don't notice your logical fallacies
Make sure you post lots of pictures
Overlook any evidence that doesn't support your hypothesis
Veil your lack of comprehension by link dumping threads
Evade calls to show your work, for you know you haven't done it
Meddle with quotes so they say what you need
Equate your opponents with shills and mouthpieces
Never admit that you might be wrong
Tell everyone you know, even if they're not interested."
(- Arkan Wolfshade.)