The pernicious impact of moneybags Jimmy Walter

[JackRiddler]

And now the rich fool who has been running an attempted hostile takeover of the 9/11 truth movement goes all the way. (Assuming by the way he is a rich fool and not an operative pure and simple.)

No planes at the Towers. Every media snippet, every photo a bluescreen edit.

http://www.reopen911.org/bluescreen.htm

In my book, millionaire idiots who flood the market with free bad DVDs (in his case, a perversion of what had been a pretty good program in New York on 9/11/04), promote obviously refutable non-evidence, and arrange European tours for the Nazi fringe of 9/11 skepticism do far worse to the cause than the "debunkers." They're like a tag team - one reduces the case to holograms or a cruise missile at the Pentagon, the other beats that up and pretends they've triumphed over skepticism generally.

[Make7]

1. But I thought the "no planes" theory was all but proven...

... by Rosalee Grable, Nico Haupt, among others. I'm kidding, of course.

- Make7

[petgoat]

2. You think a lot of silly stuff without bothering to investigate. nm

[Make7]

3. Please give me some examples, so I can improve in the future. ( n/t )

[petgoat]

5. Your belief that Windsor Towers proved that steel buildings collapse from

fire, for one. Your persistent belief that setting charges in the twin towers was impossibly complicated for another.

[Make7]

6. Silliness is in the eye of the beholder.

Posted by petgoat:

Your belief that Windsor Towers proved that steel buildings collapse from fire, for one.

What I find to be silly is when people imply that it is impossible for normal fires to get hot enough to weaken steel sufficiently to cause structural failure. The Windsor Tower is a perfect example of steel being weakened to the point of failure by nothing more than a normal fire.

If you believe that I have stated that the partial collapse of some floors of the Windsor Tower (which was not an all steel framed building) proves that steel buildings collapse from fire, perhaps I did not explain my position clearly enough. Maybe you can point out where I said that the case of the Windsor Tower proves that steel buildings collapse from fire, in order to determine what might be the cause of the misunderstanding.

I merely think that the Windsor Tower example shows that steel can be weakened to the point of failure by fire. And, believe it or not, I have done research on that fire and the structure of the building, so I'm not sure that your point about me not bothering to investigate things (as stated in post #2) is accurate.

Posted by petgoat:

Your persistent belief that setting charges in the twin towers was impossibly complicated for another.

Really? Persistent belief? I don't recall ever having said that setting explosives in the Twin Towers was impossibly complicated. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else.

I think that using controlled demolition as part of the attacks would be an unwarranted risk of exposure with little or no benefit, but that is just my opinion based on many things - some of which I imagine I must have researched at some point in time.

Perhaps if you can show me where I said that setting charges would have been impossibly complicated, we can discuss the matter in greater detail.

Posted by petgoat:

You think a lot of silly stuff without bothering to investigate.

Post #2

I'm still waiting for an actual example of this.

I must admit that I thought yours was an odd reply to my first post, it's almost like you misunderstood me.

- Make7

[MrSammo1]

7. If you believe that I have stated that the partial collapse of some floors

The Windsor Tower proves, that if a partial collapse were to happen, the potential energy of the floors below will cancel the effect.

Which of course.........must happen!

[petgoat]

9. The Windsor fire steel that failed was completely without

fireproofing, and was engulfed in an inferno for three hours.

I defy you to point to an example of a fireproofed steel-frame highrise that failed. (We've all seen
one-story grocery stores and warehouses and the McCormick Center--they don't count.)

The notion that the damaged fireproofing on the WTC towers resulted in failure of the core columns is
ludicrous. The columns represented enormous heat sinks, and trying to heat them with a kerosene fire
is like trying to heat up a street lamp with a candle.

Perhaps I've confused you with another poster and if so, I'm sorry. Your remark about the no-planes
theory set me off because if you'd done any research at all you'd know that was very controversial.
If you meant to be sarcastic you should have said so. I get real tired of having to respond to people
whose complacent opinions are based mostly on their own ignorance and lack of imagination.

[Make7]

11. That's just "silly", perhaps you should have bothered to investigate.

Posted by petgoat:

Perhaps I've confused you with another poster and if so, I'm sorry. Your remark about the no-planes theory set me off because if you'd done any research at all you'd know that was very controversial. If you meant to be sarcastic you should have said so.

Apology not accepted. You should have made the effort to get your facts straight before claiming that I am the on who doesn't bother to investigate.

It seems very strange to me that you claim to know me well enough to say that I "think a lot of silly stuff", yet you don't know me (one of the resident DU "debunkers") well enough to realize that I don't subscribe to the "no planes" theory. Did you really think that I believe the collapses were not caused by controlled demolition, but I believe the webfairy has proven that no plane hit the South Tower? That's just "silly" - and it is not even logically consistent.

Posted by petgoat:

The Windsor fire steel that failed was completely without fireproofing, and was engulfed in an inferno for three hours.

I defy you to point to an example of a fireproofed steel-frame highrise that failed. (We've all seen one-story grocery stores and warehouses and the McCormick Center--they don't count.)

The notion that the damaged fireproofing on the WTC towers resulted in failure of the core columns is ludicrous. The columns represented enormous heat sinks, and trying to heat them with a kerosene fire is like trying to heat up a street lamp with a candle.

I don't believe having a difference of opinion makes what I believe "silly". And you saying that certain examples of structural failure of steel buildings are not relevant is nothing more than your opinion. There are many factors that you have left out. For instance, there are numerous examples of steel trusses causing failure to supporting structure during fires due to the expansion of the steel and the resulting stress induced by the change in dimensions. You may recall what the support structure was for the vast majority of the floors in the WTC towers - trusses.

I also believe the fact that large passenger jets traveling at high rates of speed ramming into the towers had a negative impact on the buildings' structure. That circumstance is notably absent in other steel high-rise building fires. Perhaps that makes direct comparisons a little more difficult.

I really don't how you have come to the conclusion that I have not investigated these issues - my previous posts clearly show that I have. Just because I disagree with you does not make what I believe "silly", nor does it mean that it is based on a lack of information.

Posted by petgoat:

I get real tired of having to respond to people whose complacent opinions are based mostly on their own ignorance and lack of imagination.

The burden upon you to point out what others believe is "silly" must be overwhelming. Try to persevere for all those "silly" people out there that need your help. (I guess I should point out that that is sarcasm, although I doubt if it is really necessary.)

- Make7

[Make7]

13. When I asked for examples, I was looking for something more like these:

Posted by petgoat Thu Mar-02-06 03:00 AM:

NTSB was excluded from the investigations of the 9/11 crashes.

A visit to their website would have revealed that the NTSB assisted the FBI's investigation. I think that if you had done any research at all, you would have known the NSTB was involved in the investigation.

Or better yet, this response when I asked someone else if they had the blueprints for the WTC towers:

Posted by petgoat Sat Aug-20-05 12:52 PM:

"Do you have a set of the blueprints for the building?"

Nobody does.

By simply doing a little research with a quick google query, you could have discovered that the blueprints had already been made available to some of the agencies involved in the investigation. But for some reason you did not bother even to do that much.

Anyway, that's what I was looking for - actual examples of things that I have said, so the issue raised could be discussed.

- Make7

[Kevin Fenton]

4. I agree completely

How much traction do you think he actually has?

[JackRiddler]

8. Well...

Only as much as lazy-minded 9/11 skeptics give him as they grasp for the straws he offers or use his resources or unthinkingly accept and promote what he does because they're so excited about a millionaire and free DVDs.

Since the lazy-minded are a big chunk of any group, he gets a lot of play.

EDIT: Also, the media has an even more Pavlovian reaction. If a millionaire is on to this, he gets prominent play no matter how obviously retarded he is. Stuff they'd never, ever run is legitimated because he says so. I joked that the NY Times interviewed him of all the possible skeptics who could have been their first to report on because it allowed them to use their favorite word: "millionaire." (Even more so than billionaire, since the majority of Times advertisers and their ideal reading demographic consists of millionaires.)

2nd EDIT: For now he's peaked. The Euro tour was a sufficient fiasco that (some) word has got around.

I think the two dumbest things on his front page are these: "One million dollars to prove explosives were not used." What a transparent and bad publicity move, even marks can figure out you can't prove a negative. If he had any integrity or brains, that would be "50,000 dollars to prove explosives WERE used." And second, an article titled "The Hollocaust (sic) happened!" This judged necessary because the idiot took several Holocaust deniers along for the Euro tour, Hufschmid, Bollyn and as it turns out Mr. Pentagate Miessan.

My brief but highly intense experience with him showed me how low most people will go at the mere whiff of money, never mind that they will see none of it. Instant yes people can be created at a surprisingly low cost.

A few months ago this guy sent out an unprovoked and incoherent rant calling various people including myself Mossad agents (!) and then later followed it up with "I won't say bad things about you in public anymore if you don't." Yeah, well, fuck off is all I can say. I hadn't said a thing about him for many months at that point, but hey I'll give you a million dollars if you can prove his accusations against me are more true than mine against his - long as he joins the counterbet.

But hey, as a consolation, if he's on holograms or blue screen planes now, I guess that means he's off pods and "the flash."

[pauldp]

10. The blue screen thing is absolutely ridiculous.

I've done a fair bit of blue-screen video myself and to speculate that a composite video
like that was done LIVE to multiple angles is just pure crap. That is IMPOSSIBLE. Even a crack
Hollywood FX team couldn't do it live. No way in hell.

It is the fact that others continue to
associate with this idiot that disturbs me.

[JackRiddler]

12. Ah, but you...

Do not have that specially advanced technology or the AI computers of the Pentagon. Do ya, hah? Do ya?