Gay Conservative

In the run-up to the 7th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, I’ll be dissecting the biggest conspiracy theories out there that claim the terrorist act to be a creation of the US government.  As time goes on more and more of these idiotic “theories” comes out, usually disseminated in the form of a YouTube video claiming that there’s new smoking-gun evidence to prove that it was all a farce.  They say they want to open dialogue about it, they want to discuss it, they want to have new investigations opened into the questions that have been raised about the veracity of the government’s claims about what really happened on 9/11.

But have you ever gotten into a “discussion” with one of these people?  Anyone who has will correct me: you don’t get into it with just one, you get into it with the whole tribe.  They’ll call you over and say, “hey, we just wanna talk about it!  C’mon, we have evidence, what’ve you got?”  And as soon as you start to answer their questions with hard facts, they shout you down.  It’s the idiot’s way to win an argument–gang up on a guy and shout until you drown him out, then he’ll just walk away and you haven’t been proven wrong.

Gag me.

I’ll be starting with this claim, the claim that the crash site near shanksville is really a “bomb crater” and that the “wing scars” were already part of the landscape:

At 2:01 into the clip, the producer asks, “ready for this?”  I sure am, skippy.  I don’t think you are, though.

The first thing he says is that the video is “smoking gun evidence that flight 93 did not crash in shanksville.”  That is either wishful thinking or pure delusion.  The entire video is unbelievable.  He says, “I’m no scientist…”  Well, we can certainly tell by his poor spelling and punctuation. 

Then he goes on to show footage of the difference between what a real plane crash looks like as opposed to bomb craters.  The crash sites he shows have wreckage littered about and flaming parts of the plane being put out by firefighters.  The bomb craters, obviously, show holes in the ground that show where the bombs were dropped and detonated, leaving little wreckage of the device used.  The maker of the video says, “where’s the wreckage?  Where are the bodies?”

“Godspeed2012″ could answer his own questions with the “evidence” he presents.

When a plane is about to crash, the pilot tries desperately to keep the craft level with the ground in an effort to save lives.  Consequently, when a plane crashes, normally it skids into the ground at a high rate of speed and breaks apart.  Laws of physics, right?  When a bomb is dropped, it is designed to explode on impact and falls nose-first into the ground.  Flight 93 was no ordinary plane crash.  The hijackers knew they were losing control of their “mission” and had decided to take the plane down–nose-first.  The passengers were unable to recover from the extreme descent; it was too late.  Flight 93 went practically nose-first into the ground that day.

Ready for this?

The producer then shows a satellite image from the US Geological Survey from 1994.  The image shows a dark ditch or tree cluster near the crash site, possibly a trench dug by large equipment.  He claims this to be the pre-existing hole that makes up the “wing scars,” thus proving that all the government did was drop a bomb to make it look like a crash site.

If you look closely, the crash site itself is very close to the tree line–NOT WHERE THE USGS SURVEY PHOTO SHOWS THE TRENCH.  They’re in two different areas.  And it wouldn’t have taken long for a trench like that (if it wasn’t made up in the first place, photoshopped to look real) to be worn away by the elements.

The argument here is a remarkably poor one, hacked to pieces by sound logic.  Try again.