Were There Bombs in the World Trade Center?

No.  As in my previous 9/11 twoofer post, it is quite easy to answer the “questions” being brought out by loose change.  The first piece of LC’s controlled demolition theory saw Dylan Avery and co. badly abusing firefighter’s descriptions of what they experienced that day.  It’s worth pointing out now that Lou Caccioli, the firefighter Avery quotes, has come out multiple times saying he believes the official story and never meant to add credence to the twoofer movement.  Here, Avery continues to misuse firefighter statements (halfway into this clip, it moves on to flight 93, which I’ve already covered):


The first thing that sticks out to me–after more blatant twisting of the way firefighters described what they saw and heard–is Avery claiming that the 1993 truck bombing of the WTC didn’t register on seismographs.  As a matter of fact, this is another patent lie.  It DID register.  In fact, Arthur Lerner-Lam, the man whose words Avery again takes out of context, had this to say: “there is no scientific basis for the conclusion that explosions brought down the towers.  That representation of our work is categorically incorrect and not in context.”  I’d like Avery to explain how a seismograph picking up nitrate explosions in mines proves the controlled demolition theory.  What, pray tell, would you expect to happen when a 110-story skyscraper collapses to the ground?

Then, it comes out: Avery’s news articles are all directly from the American Free Press.  For those who are unaware, the American Free Press is not a legitimate news organization aligned with the AP (as if that would give it too much more credibility).  It’s an anti-gay, anti-Semitic, conspiracy-pushing rag that has not a single expert on its staff.  This little tidbit should put Avery’s “work” sharply into focus.

“Hotspots of literally molten steel” was never reported by Mark Loizeaux.  It was inexperienced contractors who said they saw molten steel; since they didn’t test the metal, you can’t come to that conclusion.  And I have to point out here that controlled demolition wouldn’t have melted steel, either, so it’s difficult to honestly follow Avery’s line of reasoning.  And yes, Dylan, I do think jet fuel played a major role in bringing down the towers.

NOW come the “squibs.”  Avery tries to tell us that detonating charges blew out of the building several floors below the collapse zone; unfortunately for him, there’s a more honest reality to this.  As the building collapsed, the air sealed inside was being compressed.  It had to go somewhere.  It took the path of least resistance, wich in this case was–you guessed it!–the windows.

It’s awful damn hard not to get really sarcastic at these points.  DUH.

And I’d really like to know why Avery points out that the camera tripod shakes before the collapse.  The camera seems to be quite a distance away…did someone bump the tripod?  Was it windy?  Where was the camera set up?  There are so many different explanations for this it’s just plain silly.

How DID the bombs get into the building, Dylan?  The explanation given by Loose Change doesn’t add up.  Here’s why: when Controlled Demolition, Inc. was asked to demolish a 32-story hotel in Chicago, it took a large team working for two weeks straight, without a day off, working 12- to 16-hour days to rig the building for demolition.  That’s less than one third the height of the WTC.  And in order to do this, they would have had to dismantle the area around the core–at the bottom of the building–and put it all back together.  Do you think this could possibly go unnoticed?  If they had a crew of two hundred, it would have taken well over a month to rig those towers the way they would have had to be rigged.  And they sure as hell wouldn’t have fallen the way they did, which was from the CRASH SITES, not the bottom of the building:

And the theory that Marvin Bush was “head of security” is absolutely hysterical.  Marvin, the brother of President Bush, was on the board of directors for Securacom.  He was NOT involved in heading the actual security for the WTC.  Even at that, his job with the board ended in June 2000, more than a year before the bomb-sniffing dogs were “abruptly removed.”  (The dogs were there in the first place because of phone threats, possibly made by the hijackers.)

The claim that Giuliani had the debris shipped to scrapyards overseas before it could be examined is also an outright lie.  Giuliani was a piss-ant; he couldn’t have ordered anything remotely like this as Avery claims.  In fact, FEMA was onsite immediately after the incident and NIST still has a large amount of debris.  A great deal of it, including a destroyed FDNY engine and a beam, is in a museum near the footprints of the WTC.  In the wake of 9/11, Giuliani couldn’t have blown his nose near that site without permission from FEMA.

What’s infuriating to me is that despite the very well-tested answers given to Avery and his twoof bwigade, they continue to spew the same rhetoric, distort the truth, and claim it’s the truth they’re after.  Not one credible expert has supported these nutball ideas.  Van Romero, also quoted by Loose Change, was very upset about being used.  What about Kevin Ryan, from Underwriters Laboratories?  First of all, UL didn’t certify the steel used to build the WTC, and they said so in a statement.  Second, Ryan didn’t work with steel; he worked in the water testing department.  He was fired after making a bogus statement about the incident, claiming that he had personal knowledge through his work at UL that proved the controlled demolition theory.  Ryan was fired–because, like all of us who work for major corporations, he was not authorized to make any statement, but he did so anyway.  And his statement was erroneous.

Here’s a video comparing the Chicago demolition and the collapse of the WTC:


The truth is out there.  They just don’t want to admit it.

Hinting at Controlled Demolition

Loose Change is, by far, the undisputed leader of all twoofer theories.  It has been released and re-released three times.  In its “Final Cut,” they supposedly tie up all the loose ends and make their point perfectly.  Yeah, right.  Here’s part of their scenery about the twin towers:


This is about midway through the “film,” the section where they talk about the Twin Towers.  Dylan Avery, the writer, director and narrator, brings up “a witness” who saw “brief light sources” emitting from inside the building between floors 10 and 15.  Apparently there were about six of these flashes, accompanied by a “crackling” sound, before the South Tower collapsed.  First of all, who is this witness?  Did you talk to him?  Has he gone on record, or did you just get this from a news report?  Either way, if this was seen, it’s not proof of what you’re getting at–controlled demolition.

Then he brings up an audio recording made in a neighboring building.  The recording caught TWO explosions, not just one.  Then he goes on to a maintenance worker named Willie Rodriguez, who was in the sublevels of the North Tower when it was hit.  That has to be pretty solid, right?  I mean, he was there, wasn’t he?

That doesn’t mean his perspective is the Gospel truth.

Willie describes explosions happening all over the tower, an Aramark employee with burned skin hanging from his arms from a fireball that came from the elevator, all the while saying, “nobody has ever given me an explanation for all the explosions I heard that day.”  Avery immediately latches onto this and points out the lobby windows and marble panels being destroyed by the fireball that came down the elevator shafts.  He then says that the shafts were hermetically sealed.  His point is that it would have been impossible for the fire to travel down the shafts.

Maybe if it was just a fire, doofus, but there’s one glaring problem with this theory: A PLANE HIT THE BUILDING.  This opened a giant gaping hole and tore into the elevator shafts.

Then Avery does something absolutely vile.  He shows footage taken by somebody else of firefighters who survived talking about what they saw and heard.  Avery, from all we can tell, didn’t talk to these guys.  He likely didn’t ask to use their words.  He cuts and pastes the word “explosion” being used over and over.  He plays snippets–not whole recordings, just what he wants us to hear–of the radio transmissions of firefighters in the towers.  What’s absolutely infuriating to me is that Avery then plays a transmission from Chief Palmer, who wanted to put the fire out (naturally…it’s what firefighters do).  He goes on to say that if the 78th floor was such an inferno, Palmer wouldn’t have been able to get that far–or believed he could put it out.

Didja get that from all that firefighter training, Avery?  Oh, wait…you haven’t had any.

What Avery doesn’t know is that Palmer’s team wasn’t the only one up there.  That would be an absolutely silly idea.  He might have only seen two “isolated pockets of fire” from his view, but that’s where he was sent.  His job was to contain a certain area, and that’s what he was attempting to do.  They would have been working in coordination with other crews at other points set by the commanders on the ground.

Aside from this, Firefighter Louie Caccioli (along with other firefighters that twoofers have misquoted) have spoken out about how angry they are at being used for these ridiculous notions.  In fact, they have come out after the release of Loose Change to say that if there hadn’t been the sound of explosions (considering the trauma to the building, the dry fibers that were very flammable, and the way a fire can travel in compartments in a building that size), something would have been very wrong.  THEN you would’ve had cause to believe something was up.

I’ll move on tomorrow with the next clip.  So far, the twoofers are striking out.

“It WAS A Missile! I SAW It!”

Trouble is, nobody has come forward to say such a thing.  Here’s another twoofer video claiming “proof” that it wasn’t a plane:


How is this proof, you ask?  Well, the poster, nineelevennews, states that this video proves that the witness who claimed to have seen the passenger’s faces in the plane that hit the Pentagon had to have been lying.  In this video, you can’t even see the windows on the plane.  In the description, the poster claims this as evidence that ALL of the witnesses were lying about what they saw.  Since only one witness claims to have seen the passenger’s faces, I fail to see how this video would discredit all of them.

After the murder of Philadelphia police officer Danny Faulkner, defense attorneys have attempted to discredit evidence against the murderer, Mumia Abu Jamal, by pointing out a “witness” to the crime.  William Singletary, a Vietnam vet and “local businessman,” has stated that he saw Mumia attempt to help Faulkner.  But Singletary said a lot of things that were false.  He swore up and down that Mumia wore a turban (he didn’t, he had dreadlocks), there was a police helicopter circling the area (Philly PD didn’t even own one until years after the shooting), Faulkner was shot in the face (impressive since Faulkner turned and shot Mumia as he was falling to the ground), and that he called for his children (Faulkner had no children).  All of this after he told officers on the scene that he hadn’t seen anything.

Yes, it is entirely possible for a “witness” to lie.  But is it not also possible that, in the case of the above video, the camera can’t focus the way the human eye can?  Man has yet to invent any camera that can capture the images the human eye is capable of.  We can see in darkness; cameras cannot.  We can focus on something distinct in an image or scene; a camera cannot.  It is possible that the witness lied, but it is also entirely possible that they did, in fact, focus on a few faces as the plane screamed past.

Nobody has come forward to say that they saw a missile.  Several different descriptions of the plane have been given, but the description of a silver American Airlines 757 is the most prevalent (because that’s what actually did hit the Pentagon).  Different people see different things, and we all remember things differently than others.  For instance, I once got into a fight with three girls outside a bar after another girl threw a bottle at me, missed and hit one of them.  One girl swore up and down that she saw me rear back and throw the bottle.  After the fight was dumped in the parking lot, and I was squaring off with three gangbangers who just wanted some violence, the man who screamed that he’d called the police swore he saw a man throw the bottle.  Were they lying?  Who knows.  Until I hear a person make statements that contradict previous ones, I don’t accuse them of lying.  It is more likely that the people in question merely saw something in passing and reacted to it.

Then again, in the world of 9/11 twooferism, the void is where their personal truth survives.  In the absence of concrete evidence is where their “proof” is found.  It only takes one question to make it reality for them.

The Right to Life

In debating the death penalty with some people, I’ve noticed something.  The majority of those who are against the death penalty support abortion rights.  It’s something I don’t understand in the least.  I’m not sure I want to.

This is where a gaggle of people go, “waitaminit–you’re a lesbian!  You’re supposed to be pro-choice!”  Well, I’m ‘posed to be a lot of things according to society.  The only thing I’m supposed to do is pay taxes and die.  It is possible, believe it or not, to believe in women’s rights and yet still believe that the unborn have rights, too.

There is a massive difference between the death penalty and abortion.  I love it when pro-abortion activists point out that I believe in the right to life and yet still believe in the death penalty, because the instant they turn around and protest an execution, I’m right there, nipping at their heels. 

I believe that life begins shortly after conception; when the heart is formed and begins to sustain that little life, that is when I believe an embryo becomes a life that should not be terminated.  This occurs at four weeks.  Past that, I believe abortion to be murder, taking a life that has no voice.  And the only purpose for it is convenience. 

Shouldn’t a woman have the right to choose when she will reproduce?  Shouldn’t a woman have the right to decide what to do with her body?  Absolutely!  That choice can be made before you hop in the sack with some guy, whether you know him or not, and create the condition you say you don’t want to be in.  Everything comes with consequences; if you drink too much, you get drunk and likely sick.  You can avoid getting sick by stopping before you get drunk.  If you then drive, you stand a good chance of getting into a wreck and hurting yourself or someone else.  If you break the law, you’re likely to get arrested; in that case, you no longer have the right to choose what to do with anything.

I run the risk of pissing a few off with this one, but it’s true.  Gay couples obviously can’t get pregnant.  But anyone who sleeps around–gay or straight–runs the risk of contracting who knows how many different STD’s, not the least of which are Hepatitis B and AIDS, both of which are equally deadly.  If you do not control yourself and your reactions you are begging for trouble, and pregnancy for straight couples is one of the big ones that causes issues.

What if you get pregnant after a rape?  Honey, if you’ve been raped, you need to go to the hospital, have a rape kit done, file a report and the doctor will offer you a morning-after pill that’ll take care of that.  You should have more respect for yourself in that instance than to let the piece of $@#^ who did it get away with it. 

A child cannot decide whether it wants to live.  It has no voice.  It does, however, have a beating heart, fingers, toes, eyes, a brain, and a soul.  It is incapable of doing wrong and has no ability to choose.  A criminal, on the other hand, has moved past that stage; he knows the difference between right and wrong, has the ability to choose, and has chosen to do wrong.  When that criminal takes a life for no purpose other than convenience, he is making a choice that will have a consequence–and it may very well be giving up his own life in return for the one he stole.

We have laws against animal cruelty.  Why?  Because animals do not have free will and thus are completely innocent.  Should we show more concern for other species simply because they’re cute?  The same rules apply to all who are pure, regardless of their appearance.  The right to choose begins before you do something that comes with a hefty consequence, not after.

Suing the Preacher’s Wife

Wow.  There’s so much going on right now I can’t keep up with it all.  It could just be that I’ve expanded my readership to a few other online outlets, but I’m seeing the same stories everywhere.

Today it was announced that they’ve seated a jury in the civil lawsuit trial against Victoria Osteen.  She’s the wife of superchurch preacher Joel Osteen (for those unfamiliar with Houston, Joel is the son of the late Steve Osteen, who led Lakewood Church to superstardom in Texas in the first place).  Back in 2005, the Osteen family was on a flight from Houston to Vail (yep, the ski resort–where else would a rich superpreacher go for vacation?) when Victoria asked a stewardess to clean a spot on the armrest of her first-class seat.  The Stewardess, busy seating other passengers, called for maintenance and continued in her duties.  Victoria grabbed another stewardess, who went to the cabin.  Apparently furious, Victoria followed her and ran into a third stewardess, whom she reportedly shoved and elbowed in the left breast.

The Osteen family voluntarily left the plane as they were about to be removed, delaying the flight over two hours.  The FAA, after an investigation, fined Victoria $3000 smackeroos for her behavior.  But the stewardess she assaulted is now suing for medical expenses–plus ten percent of Victoria’s net worth.  That’s quite a pile of moolah.

Okay…if the FAA found that the incident warranted a fine, then yes, Victoria should pay, and she apparently has.  Does it surprise me that the outburst occurred?  No.  My family was heavily involved in another Houston megachurch, where youth pastor Randy Woolstrum and head pastor Steve Riggle regularly showed their true colors.  Suffice to say it does not surprise me in the least when a member of a prominent mega-ministry family does something that is, shall we say, un-Christ-like.

But according to the report, the “assault” was little more than a shove and an elbow in the boob.  In a compact little space like an airplane, that’s not assault, it’s a fact of life.  It’s something I’m sure that stewardess was quite used to.  I don’t just seriously doubt her claim that she needed counseling after the incident…I outright refuse to believe it.  And I sure as hell can’t comprehend why she would need so much money for it.

The only reason for this lawsuit is that the Osteens have money.  It’s that simple.  I don’t like megachurches or those who lead them, but I like those who file lawsuits over stuff like this far less.  This is silly.  I hope she not only loses, but is required to pay the Osteen’s legal fees.

The Deed is Done

The US Supreme Court made us all hold our breath today when it was announced that they would hear a last-minute argument and possibly issue a stay of execution for Jose Medellin.  His execution was scheduled for 1800 central time.  Three hours later, with the death warrant still valid and Medellin already moved from the Death Row housing unit at Polunsky to the death chamber at Walls (same facility, different units), it was announced that the Supreme Court would not issue any stay. 

So, at 2035 central, Medellin was strapped down to the table and allowed to say his last words.  At 2048 the first of the drugs, sodium thiopental, was administered, putting Medellin into a deep sleep.  Next came pancuronium bromide, a muscle relaxer given in such a high does that it paralyzes the diaphragm and renders the lungs useless.  Finally they gave him potassium chloride, interrupting the signals between the brain and heart, inducing cardiac arrest.  Essentially, the man died in his sleep.

Adolfo Pena, the father of murder victim Elizabeth Pena, said, “Fifteen years is a long time.  I wish those two girls could’ve lived that long.”  It’s sad that a man should have to say that–I wish my daughter had lived this long.  It’s sad that he’s saying it because a worthless flab of human debris robbed the world of his little girl and nearly got away with it.  What’s really incomprehensible, though, is that there are those out there who see this kind of crime and somehow still believe that the death penalty is cruel and unusual.  But since Medellin didn’t give his victims any painkillers before brutalizing them, I fail to grasp why his crime is not deserving of something far worse than what he received.

His final words, though, are worth repeating this time.  Usually, they’re not; usually, the condemned either claims innocence or says something completely off-kilter.  Medellin, in a strange turn, took responsibility for his crimes.  He said, “I’m sorry that my actions brought you pain.  I hope this brings the closure to what you seek.”

Who Invited the International Court to This Party?

In June 1993, my family was moving again, but we still watched the news.  I’ll never forget that summer watching the news in Houston that two teenage girls had gone missing.  Just a couple of days later, I watched on the news as the father of one of those girls stole a news van and rushed to the scene police had found of two dead girls.  Police had to hold him back as he cried, “does she have blond hair?”

Even then, if you called 911 the police could track you down by the phone number that appeared when you called.  They found a teenage boy who admitted that his brother had been involved in killing the girls.  Within hours, Peter Cantu, Jose Medellin, Derrick O’Brien, Efrain Perez and Raul Villareal were in custody and each was ratting the other out.  They were members in a gang called the Black and Whites, and the boys were jumping in Raul (meaning that he was being initiated into the gang).  The beating over, they started drinking, and two teenage girls tried to walk by across the train tracks that ran through the park.  They grabbed one, Elizabeth Pena, and threw her to the ground; the other, Jennifer Ertman, tried to run but came back when her friend cried for help.

They were both raped repeatedly for more than an hour.  O’Brien took off his belt to strangle one of the girls and the belt broke.  They then took the girls’ own shoelaces and finished the job with them.  They left behind part of the belt as they moved the bodies from the clearing near the tracks to the nearby wooded area.  It took four days for the bodies to be found, by which time they were decomposing in the Houston heat and humidity.  The medical examiner noted that the extreme decay around the girls’ throats, cheasts and genetalia spoke to the horrific nature of their deaths and the brutalities they suffered at the hands of their killers.

The rest of the broken belt was found in O’Brien’s home and all of them eventually confessed to their roles in the murder.  Raul Villareal was the only one to get a relatively light sentence: 40 years.  The rest were convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death.

O’Brien has already been executed.  Several years after Medellin’s conviction, some hotshot attorney wised up to a little-known rule that required that all foreign nationals be given access to their home countries’ diplomats within three days of being arrested for any crime.  Medellin, you see, was brought to the US from Mexico at the age of 3.  He never told anyone after being arrested that he was actually a Mexican national and didn’t have legal status as an immigrant.  He didn’t tell anyone until years after he committed a horrid crime, when someone told him he might escape the death penalty based on this teensy little technicality.

Suddenly, Medellin took center stage in an international fight to require the United States to re-open 51 other cases in which foreign nationals were given the death penalty without having been given access to their nation’s consulate attorneys.  The same George W. Bush who picked up a sword and danced with the Saudis kowtowed to the demand, trying to use his position to force the states to comply.  Texas, bein’ the stubborn ol’ mules that they are, refused.  It went all the way to the US Supreme Court, and even the liberal judges there backed Texas law, refusing to bow to the wishes of the “International Court of Justice” (whatever the hell that means).

(Sidenote: if you go to the CCADP website, a Canadian group fighting to abolish the death penalty, you’ll see the Medellin has his own webpage.  It’s been quoted by the Houston Chronicle with no regard for the reality of what Medellin is saying.  He talks about joining the military, then says, “would have joined here, but I’m a Mexican, not a traitor.”  But the very first words he says on that profile are, “My life is in black and white, just like the old Western movies…”  In case you didn’t catch that, go back and read which gang this guy belongs to.  He’s giving a shout out to his homeboys in gang code and nobody has caught it yet.  Don’t forget, I used to work with gang crap every single day.)

Despite all the broo-ha-ha to save Medellin’s life, he’s scheduled to be executed tomorrow, August 5, in the death chamber at the Polunsky Unit in the Huntsville facility of TDCJ.  Texas refuses to recognize demands by the international community to halt the execution.  Barring an invasion by a UN force (hey, there’s a first time for everything), Medellin will be executed for his crime.

There’s been much ado about whether Texas should give a stay of execution because of diplomatic concerns.  Yet I fail to see why we should be beholden to anyone not in this country.  I promise you, the first time we cave in and allow international opinion to influence any decision in America, it will open the floodgates.  We’ll never get them to stop trying to dictate what we do here.  We are a sovereign nation, we adhere to our own law, and if the international community wishes to have any say in our criminal justice dealings, then they’d better damn well let us have a say in theirs.

I find it interesting, though, just how rabid the rest of the world is to force America into submission on this issue.  I’d like to know where they are every day when women in Muslim countries are stoned to death for violating Sharia law.  I’d like to know where they were when two young gay men were arrested, tried and hung in Iran within one week just for being gay.  I’d like to know where they are when girls across the Arab world are forced to endure female circumcision (if you don’t know what it is, trust me–you don’t want to).  I’d like to know where all these freakin’ do-gooders are when Palestinian children are indoctrinated with terrorist beliefs, taught to believe that blowing yourself up to kill infidels in the name of Allah makes you some kind of damned hero–in public schools.

What’s good for one is good for all.  At least when you’re talking to someone who cares about following the rules.  Randy Ertman, the father of Jennifer Ertman, had this to say about the whole thing:  “The world court don’t mean diddly. This business belongs in the state of Texas … the rest of them can go to hell.”