The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has released its long-awaited report on the collapse of World Trade 7 following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. “Our take-home message today is that the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery,” NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder told journalists at this morning’s press conference in Gaithersburg, Md. “WTC 7 collapsed because of fires fueled by office furnishings. It did not collapse from explosives or from diesel fuel fires.”
So the Zionists used IKEA Furniture in place of C4? DIABOLICAL!
This isn’t exactly news. I remember very early on (I’m talking in the days after 9/11) that there were reports that what the planes crashing into the towers basically compressed all the furniture and anything that could burn together. The jet fuel acted as lighter fluid. The wind at that altitude helped create a rush of air, sort of like a forge.
Which proves the whole thing had to have been planned months in advance, because that IKEA stuff is a bitch to assemble!
I imagine most Ikea furniture burns slow with a green flame.
The truthers really do think this report vindicates them, and they are legion. A good example is the Digg thread, which is awe-inspiring.
Well let’s see - there’s four of us, and you’re retarded.
I fear you may have misunderstood something.
Check this out:
“NIST’s recent “scientific” analysis of the collapse of WTC 7 reminds me of what The Iceman (Ice) in the movie Top Gun said about Mavericks claim to have been 2 meters away from the MiG28’s canopy while in a 4g inverted dive where his co-pilot Goose took a picture of the Mig pilot. BULL *****!”
Wow! Talk about an overwrought way to getting to the phrase bullshit!
Also, wasn’t Maverick telling the truth?
Yeah, ICEMAN was just sexually frustrated by his unrequited love for GOOSEMAN.
Just goes to show you, the Truthers’ issues aren’t really about facts of the matter. Their campaign is rather the product of deep seeded psychological issues which, quite unconsciously, overthrow their reason. It’s actually quite pathetic. They deserve our pity.
Several digg threads, and in each of them the comments criticizing the Inside Job people have big negative scores.
Clarify this if possible (I don’t want to read the looney Digg threads)–doesn’t the finding refute what the Truthers believe?
Absolutely, as far as I can tell. The clever trick, if that’s the right way to put it, was that the Truther who started the most epic of those threads spun it something like this: “Report claims new phenomenon brought down building.”
This made it look like the report indulged some inventive new physical hypothesis. However, it was just the first time 9/11’s set of circumstances occurred, so well-understood processes applied in a unique way. But because the headline is “new phenomenon invented by NWO-lackey investigator-shills” or whatever, the Truthers wade in to cry “vindicated!”
“Truthers” thrive in the same way creationists and other conspiracy theorists do: by memorizing a library of “gotcha” questions that only a deep and systematic knowledge of the science at hand can readily answer. The bright side of this, however, is that it always implies that the mainstream position is the one supported by an adequate hypothesis, which they are trying to crack.
I just watched the Mythbusters episode on the moon landing today and I really wish they could do a 9/11 episode, too. It was really great to see them busting the kind of false, but truthy sounding assumptions these kinds of conspiracies rely on.
I actually disagreed with their tackling of the shadows myth, though. I mean, it was good enough for busting the myth, I guess, since it does demonstrate that there are other possible explanations for non-parallel shadows besides multiple light sources. But I think they could have gone the extra step and demonstrated what is actually happening in that photo, which is merely a simple combination of linear perspective and camera optics.
Basically, perspective makes things seem to diminish in the distance. This means that parallel lines actually seem to converge as they move away from you (most people learn this in grade school art class, but apparently not crazy moon conspiracy theorists). Camera lenses with short focal lengths also tend to exaggerate perspective–especially on objects near the perimeter of the frame. And short focal length lenses are almost certainly what the astronauts had on their cameras, since those lenses have a wide field of view and are the photographer’s tool of choice for panoramic landscape shots.
So what is actually happening in that shot is that all of the shadows are parallel, and at an angle to the camera, as seen in the close rocks. But the apparent angle of the rock shadows is exaggerated by their closeness to the camera, and the apparent angle of the lander shadow is diminished by distance. You could easily replicate this effect by taking a camera with a short lens outside and shooting some objects by sunlight on a flat surface. You’d need to replicate the actual scale of the photo, though, which the Mythbusters’ model failed to do.
Looks like the Truthers have a friend in the white house.
Mr. Jones signed a statement for 911Truth.org in 2004 demanding an investigation into what the Bush Administration may have done that “deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen, perhaps as a pretext for war.”
His name is listed with 99 other prominent signatories supporting such an investigation on the 911Truth.org website, including Code Pink co-founders Medea Benjamin and Jodi Evans, comedienne Janeane Garofalo, Democratic Rep. Cynthia McKinney of Georgia and others. He's identified as the executive director for the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights on the statement, which he founded before going to the White House. [The statement is available here. Mr. Jones is number 46.](http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633)
The Washington Times is referring to Obama’s ‘Green Jobs Czar’ Van Jones.