Wallpaper AC Milan Maldini
Sunday, October 31, 2010
College Fancy
Looking around a college campus you may notice that many students don't seem to make being fancy a priority. Alot of people will wear sweats to class everyday, and many of them seem to have left their manners at home. Snapping gum and spitting are common. Try to be fancy by dressing nice everyday. If you are dressed to impress, you will feel better about yourself than if you are wearing sweatpants. Its hard to be fancy with the hectic schedule of a college student, but you can keep it fancy by being polite and courteous to people. Being clean is also important! as well as keeping your dorm room neat. By making these small changes people will see you in a different way. How you present yourself shows how you feel about yourself. You don't need to do much to be fancy in college, but when you do make the effort, you feel much better about yourself!
A Response from Ryan Owens
Sorry I've been away for a while everyone. My computer's been broken for about three weeks. But it's fixed now and I'm back to doing what I do best: Debunk the debunkers.
A few months back I sent my open letter to debunker Ryan Owens. Within a few weeks he responded back. Here's his full response with my comments added. Ryan has given me full permission to use this email in any way I want.
(My comments in red, and also links.)
____________________________________________________
Well this thing surely turned out to be a lot longer than I had expected (nearly 8 pages), which is why it took so long to finally get back to you. Right off the bat, I'll admit that there were some things in the letter you were correct about, like information about WTC7 being based on early hypotheses which later turned out to be incorrect, which I plan to make a note of in the videos with one of the little bubble box things as soon as I figure out how to do that and get a chance to. But for about 95% of the things you said, it seemed to me like you were just repeating the same old 9/11 truther speaking points when they try to "debunk the debunkers". Given the fact that, as we will see, you did not respond to the full 100% of my letter, I don't see that as being a fair or accurate statement. I tried not to sound like too much of a dick in my responses, And you didn't . I have dealt with those sorts of people before. You are not one of them. but some of the things were just too ridiculous. Anyway, here's the letter. Feel free to use any quotes from it (or the whole thing) however you want. And I will.
9/11 Debunked: Controlled Demolition not Possible
Claim 1: Concerning the puffs of air being ejected several floors below the pancaking floors, this is something I DO address IN the video. The floor slabs extended across the open office space areas, but there was a massive core in each tower which contained three stairwells, over a dozen elevator shafts, and numerous air shafts for ventilation throughout the building. This accounts for the puffs of air several stories below the actual pancaking floor slabs. Furthermore, actual controlled demolitions set of their explosives BEFORE the building begins to collapse (since, of course, it is the explosives that CAUSE the collapse). In fact, some of these ejections have been shown to occur before the collapse here and here. The fact that 100% of the puffs of air you refer to are seen only AFTER the collapse has clearly already started proves that the collapse caused the puffs, the puffs didn't cause the collapse. As I have shown, this is incorrect. Finally, remember that not a single one of the video cameras recorded the resulting tremendous explosion that would had been clearly audible if these puffs of air were indeed explosions. If the explosions were continuous and rapid, then distinct explosions would have been nearly impossible to hear.
Only a percentage of the concrete per floor pulverized, with that percentage growing greater and greater the further into the collapse. Additionally, much of the dust was composed not only of pulverized concrete but also by the pulverized drywall. NIST's collapse theory is not contradicted by this, it merely demonstrates a misunderstanding among most 9/11 truthers of what NIST's collapse theory IS.
A few things you did not address:
1) Calculations done by Dr. Crockett Grabbe show that the horizontal ejection rate of the squibs is disproportional to the vertical collapse rates of the Towers. And 2) David Chandler has shown that some of these ejections came from the steel corner columns, making it impossible that they were the result of air pressure.
Claim 2: There are no squibs "shooting" out of the north side of Building 7. This is the clearest video of what you refer to, so your readers can watch for themselves:
What I see are a series of windows breaking due to the stress as the outer shell of WTC7 begins to descend downward. The outward rush of air caused by the descending shell then pushes the intense smoke with had filled every floor at that point out through those broken windows. According to NIST, there were only fires mainly on the lower floors, not the upper ones. And according to the FEMA report: “Concrete floor slabs provided vertical compartmentalization to limit fire and smoke spread between floors (see Figure 5-11). Architectural drawings indicate that the space between the edge of the concrete floor slab and curtain wall, which ranged from 2 to 10 inches, was supposed to be filled with firestopping material.”
Therefore, it seems unlikely that the smoke from the lower floors could have traveled up to the upper floors.
I see no flashes of light indicating an explosion, nor did any of the video cameras pick up any tremendously deafening explosions which would have been picked up if these were indeed explosions. Furthermore, whether you believe that these are breaking windows or "squibs", we can both agree that they occur near the TOP of the building (about 10 floors from the roof), whereas we can also agree that the building began collapsing from the BOTTOM. So what would possibly be the reason for setting off explosions near the roof when the collapse initiates from the base? Perhaps to weaken the building throughout, as is done in other demolitions. In this video, explosions can be seen going off at the upper sections even after the building has started to fall.
Claim 3: Where do I begin? With regards to the many videos in and around Ground Zero following the collapses in which random explosions are heard... well, duh, that's because stuff was exploding! The collapses damaged underground gas lines, setting off random explosions all throughout the day. Hundreds of vehicles were also set on fire, setting off random explosions. An explosion in the pile AFTER the collapses of the towers (or literally hours and hours before the collapse of WTC7) is not evidence of explosive charges placed inside the buildings. I have shown this to be wrong. Kevin McPadden, the only person claiming to have heard explosions preceding the collapse of WTC7, was a well-known 9/11 truther who gave speeches at rallies and never once made any mention of having heard explosions prior to the collapse of WTC7. He only "remembered" this detail and began making the claim in September 2007, a full 6 years after 9/11! He is also contradicted by the many firefighters who say that they never heard any explosions preceding the collapse of WTC7 as well as the many video cameras which were present and recording at the exact intersection where McPadden claims to have been standing, in which no explosions are heard.
If you hear an explosion in the NBC video of WTC7's collapse, then you are making yourself hear something which is not there. I am not making myself hear anything. I can clearly here loud booms occurring right before the collapse. Even just a single explosion needed to sever even one column in WTC7would have created an audio level of about 140 dB at a distance of half a mile, equivalent to the audio level created by a jet engine. Here, you are using NIST's strawman argument, assuming that RDX, which produces those sound levels, was the only explosive that could have been used. There are other substances, such as incendiaries, that could have been used. It's worth pointing out that very few of the prominent controlled demolition advocates have ever suggested that RDX alone was used. Why you and NIST would rule out demolition based on this argument is puzzling. But the fact remains is that the "sounds" are not what defines an explosion. Also, remember that this would be only one explosion, whereas controlled demolitions traditionally use hundreds of explosives. The video of 1WTC's collapse, in which you claim explosions are heard, contains nothing of the sort. The constant "crashing" sound is the normal sound of the building collapsing. What should a collapsing 110 story skyscraper sound like? You are missing the point in that sounds consistent with demolition can be heard, something you and other debunkers have said did not occur. Should it not make any sound at all? Also, the roaring/crashing sound is heard only AFTER the building begins to collapse. If this were controlled demolition, you would hear sharp - BANG, BANG, BANG - sounds, following by the collapse of the building. If these were traditional demolitions, I would agree. But if these were supposed to be deceptive demolitions, then they would obviously be modified. The video PROVES that there AREN'T any such explosions. No, it does not.
I note that here you completely ignored Claim 4, which is your video's assertion that explosives would have left behind remnants such as det cord. I clearly demonstrated that Brent Blanchard and yourself are incorrect about this assertion, and I still recommend you put a disclaimer in your video.
9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center - No Free-Fall Speed
Claim 1: Don't understand your reasoning. The upper section did tilt 23 degrees to the east, but the floor slabs of the floors below pancaked pretty much straight downward. The core of the South Tower had neither its north or west columns. If the top tilted to the east, we would expect at least the west columns to survive.
9/11 Debunked: Flight 77's Pilot not a Terrorist
I'm glad you don't believe Flight 77's pilot, Charles Burlingame, was in some way in on 9/11. I'm also aware that not every 9/11 truther has the exact same beliefs about 9/11 as every other 9/11 truther. In fact, I'm sure no two 9/11 truthers have the exact same beliefs. In my videos I don't say that all 9/11 truthers believe in the particular claim being debunked. I'm just saying, "Here is a theory, and now here's why it's false." I'm also well aware that not all 9/11 truthers believe it was a missile that hit the Pentagon, but I still have videos debunking this theory because there are plenty 9/11 truthers who DO believe this. And I happen to think those are some of your better videos. The theories about Burlingame somehow being involved in 9/11 were put forth by Loose Change 2nd Edition, which was reportedly the most viewed internet video at one point, so surely a lot of people knew of this theory even if not all of them believed it. It would still help if you added some sort of disclaimer to make clear that few truthers believe that theory.
9/11 Debunked: WTC 7's Collapse Explained
Claim 1: Correct, the original WTC7 was 350 feet from the North Tower, not "less than 300 feet" as I said in the video. If I remember correctly, when I was making the video I used the distance bar on a satellite photo of Ground Zero post-9/11 via Google Maps, which it turns out is not the most accurate technique. At the time I also assumed the southern edge of the original WTC7 was perfectly flush with the edge of the Vesey Street sidewalk as the new WTC7 is, but it turns out that the original building was pushed back (northward) about 20-30 feet to allow for the loading docks. However, whether 300 feet or 350 feet, this is still nothing with compared to the vertical height of the North Tower (1368 feet). The horizontal distance between the buildings was only about 1/4th the height of the tower. Though to be fair, most of the large debris appeared to be heading towards building 7 when the North Tower was at about half its original height. For comparison, we know that debris from the North Tower fell as far away as to crush the eastern edge of the Winter Gardens, which is about 500 feet away. Yes, and why was this debris flung so far? Still, I will add a message in the video saying it should be 350 feet.
Claims 2, 3, and 4: I made and uploaded this video in September 2007, which was over a year before the official investigation had released its final report. Hence, everything in the video was based off of NIST's working hypothesis at that time. The investigation found that the diesel generators did not help to feed the fires and that it was the failure of Column 79, not Truss 1, which initiated the collapse. Also, the report does not say that the structural damage to the building played no role in the events leading to WTC7's collapse, it found that it played only a minor role. They did say, however, that the building would have collapsed even with no structural damage. However none of these three findings by the investigation changed the overall hypothesis for the collapse as presented in their early reports and in the video. Yes, the hypothesis of fire, which was the only hypothesis they seriously looked into. Still, I'll note either in the video or in the description that the video was made several years ago and based on the findings at the time.
9/11 Debunked: "Molten Metal" Explained
Claim 1: I usually don't like to just tell people "Read the report", since most of them won't bother to, but this is such a complicated area that you really need to at least just read the section of the official report dealing with the temperature simulations and how they calculated the temperature of the fires. It was different on every floor. It was also different as time passed. Hydrocarbon fires can burn as hot as over 2000 degrees F, but NIST calculated that based on the available oxygen entering the building, the fires in the hottest parts of the building were generally burning at about 1832 degrees F. This was also backed up based on analysis of steel beams in WTC7 by FEMA that showed that they maximum temperature they had reached was 1832 degrees F. Interesting that you would bring this up. You are referring to the eutectic steel. You have such strong faith in NIST's calculations, and yet this steel actually contradicts NIST's WTC7 report more than it supports NIST's report on the Towers. After all, nowhere in NIST's WTC7 report do they claim that any of the steel in Building 7 was heated to 1800F. At most, they claim the steel in Building 7 was heated to about 1250F. So, the WTC7 steel may support the WTC collapse report, but it raises more problems for the Building 7 report. In any case, I cannot say how accurate NIST's calculations are until they release their modeling data for peer review. Of course, this beam was from WTC7 (not the Twin Towers), but the fires in the towers and WTC7 were very similar and fed by the same material, the same type of normal office contents. My key point is that the maximum temperatures for the fires would have been about 1832F. But I have seen no empirical evidence to support the assertion that the fires in the South Tower were that hot only minutes before its collapse. The page you linked to completely misrepresents NIST (or at the least, misleads the reader). The fires in the towers took place over 8 floors in 1WTC and 6 floors in 2WTC. That's 14 floors and literally hundreds of columns and hundreds of floor trusses. The hottest zones in the towers were at the floor trusses (IE, the ceilings, remember heat rises), not the core columns or perimeter columns. NIST was only able to analyze core and perimeter columns. They weren't able to test the floor trusses I THINK because they needed to actually test the paint and the floor trusses were not painted. In any case, details about the temperatures the columns reached tell us nothing about the temperatures the floor trusses reached. Regardless, any speculation that the trusses were heated far hotter than the core or perimeter columns is just that-- pure speculation backed by no empirical evidence.
Claim 2: This is grasping at straws when you consider than the color of any metal is going to vary with the lighting even if the temperature remains the same, True, but the picture I reference shows the south side more in shadow than the other sides, meaning that less natural light would have altered the color. and also there are dozens of videos showing the molten metal, and at many angles the molten metal is even a much darker orange. Also true, but the fact remains that the metal clearly did attain this high temperature at some point. Molten aluminum should not remain that bright for very long.
9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center's Collapse Explained
Claim 1: See above.
9/11 Debunked: WTC - Zero Hallmarks of Controlled Demolition
Claim 1: Not always but generally. The reason no flashes are seen in that video is because the demolition team wrapped heavy protection around the blast zones to prevent the explosives from sending debris flying. Regardless, flashes can obviously be prevented in a controlled demolition, based on how the explosives are set up or what type of explosives are used. You should still add a disclaimer that bright flashes do not have to occur for it to be a demolition. Flashes in the South Tower's collapse have been found. You ignore the deafening explosions in that video. No, I don't. As I've shown, explosions are present in videos of the Tower collapses.
Claim 2-4: See above.
Claim 5: Wrong, it leans exactly as it starts to collapse. No, it doesn't. Also, something I don't even see you truthers talk about is why you think the buildings leaned AT ALL. The fires in the South Tower at the moment of collapse were on the east side of the building, and the building leaned to the east when it started to collapse. A controlled demolition would have caused a straight down symetrical collapse, with nothing to cause such a sharp lean. So by your standards, this must not be a controlled demolition. Even if for some unfathomable reason it would have caused a lean, the odds of it just "coincidentally" leaning in the exact direction where the fires were is 1 in 4. But wait, the exact same thing happened in the North Tower. The fires at the time of collapse were on the south side of the building, and the building leans to the south as it collapses. The odds of this happening by coincidence: 1 in 4. The odds of it happening in both towers in 1 in 4 multiplied by 1 in 4, or 1 in 16. Unless they were engineered to do that, much like how the demolitions would had to have started near where the planes impacted the buildings.
Claim 5: The antenna falls at exactly the same time as the rest of the building, even in that video. Again, the antenna does rotate south at one point, but the initial motion was entirely vertical and happened before the main collapse. Also, the fact that huge sections (as much as 70 stories tall) NIST says 60 stories for WTC1 and 40 for WTC2. of the North Tower's core remained standing for about 20 seconds after the rest of the building has collapsed proves that the core did not fall first. This assertion relies on the idea that the core would start to fail at the bottom like a conventional demolition. However, the demolition clearly had to start at the top, meaning that only the upper part of the core had to fail for the antenna to fail first.
Claim 6: See above.
Claim 7: Agreed 100%. But the claim that the buildings fell at or near free-fall acceleration is one of the KEYSTONE claims of the 9/11 truth movement, it's even 1 of the top 10 claims of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Many argue that explosives were placed on every column on every floor, which caused a free-fall collapse. Of course, this is completely ridiculous and even if you wanted to take a building down in a controlled demolition, you wouldn't need to put explosives on every single column and on every floor. So, their ideas about how controlled demolitions work is laughable in the first place, but the point of my video is to prove that they didn't fall at free-fall anyway. That's fine, but my main point was that you explicetly state in your video that explosives "would have caused the buildings to collapse at free fall speed." I showed this to be most likely incorrect. Basically, you should think about rephrasing that particular comment.
Claim 8: Again, the claim that the buildings fell into their own footprints is one of THE LEADING claims of the 9/11 truth movement. The point of my video was to prove that none of the buildings fell even remotely into their own footprints. That may apply to the Towers, but to claim that Building 7 did not "even fall remotely into" its footprint is stretching the truth, don't you think? Panels from the North Tower radiated outwards as far as 600 feet outside the building's footprint. Yes, and why were they flung that far? 30 W. Broadway, which was entirely across the street from WTC7, was so badly damaged by debris from WTC7 that it had to be demolished. "Entirely across the street" makes it sound like it was blocks away. As I said before, the fact that Building 7 damaged other buildings was probably due to the fact that it was a very large building. A building the size of WTC7 would never have been legally demolished with explosives with neighboring buildings that close, hence why they are demolishing the Deutsche Bank Building beam by beam. Only within the past couple months did they start constructing the new 30 W. Broadway.
9/11 Debunked: Thermate Chemical Signatures Disproven
The video was made in December 2007 (and was actually just an updated version of the one I'd made about 6 months prior), which was based on a 204 page/slide PowerPoint presentation that Steven Jones had been giving, when he was still claiming it was thermate. In that presentation he wasn't talking about microspheres or red chips at all, it was all about thermate and chemicals found in the dust. This is simply wrong. Dr. Jones has, to the best of my knowledge, always talked about the iron spheres when discussing his thermite hypotheses. He certainly was discussing them at the Rebuilding America's Senses event, a clip of which you show at the beginning of your video. In his slide presentations, he discusses the spheres in great detail.
A few months back I sent my open letter to debunker Ryan Owens. Within a few weeks he responded back. Here's his full response with my comments added. Ryan has given me full permission to use this email in any way I want.
(My comments in red, and also links.)
____________________________________________________
Well this thing surely turned out to be a lot longer than I had expected (nearly 8 pages), which is why it took so long to finally get back to you. Right off the bat, I'll admit that there were some things in the letter you were correct about, like information about WTC7 being based on early hypotheses which later turned out to be incorrect, which I plan to make a note of in the videos with one of the little bubble box things as soon as I figure out how to do that and get a chance to. But for about 95% of the things you said, it seemed to me like you were just repeating the same old 9/11 truther speaking points when they try to "debunk the debunkers". Given the fact that, as we will see, you did not respond to the full 100% of my letter, I don't see that as being a fair or accurate statement. I tried not to sound like too much of a dick in my responses, And you didn't . I have dealt with those sorts of people before. You are not one of them. but some of the things were just too ridiculous. Anyway, here's the letter. Feel free to use any quotes from it (or the whole thing) however you want. And I will.
9/11 Debunked: Controlled Demolition not Possible
Claim 1: Concerning the puffs of air being ejected several floors below the pancaking floors, this is something I DO address IN the video. The floor slabs extended across the open office space areas, but there was a massive core in each tower which contained three stairwells, over a dozen elevator shafts, and numerous air shafts for ventilation throughout the building. This accounts for the puffs of air several stories below the actual pancaking floor slabs. Furthermore, actual controlled demolitions set of their explosives BEFORE the building begins to collapse (since, of course, it is the explosives that CAUSE the collapse). In fact, some of these ejections have been shown to occur before the collapse here and here. The fact that 100% of the puffs of air you refer to are seen only AFTER the collapse has clearly already started proves that the collapse caused the puffs, the puffs didn't cause the collapse. As I have shown, this is incorrect. Finally, remember that not a single one of the video cameras recorded the resulting tremendous explosion that would had been clearly audible if these puffs of air were indeed explosions. If the explosions were continuous and rapid, then distinct explosions would have been nearly impossible to hear.
Only a percentage of the concrete per floor pulverized, with that percentage growing greater and greater the further into the collapse. Additionally, much of the dust was composed not only of pulverized concrete but also by the pulverized drywall. NIST's collapse theory is not contradicted by this, it merely demonstrates a misunderstanding among most 9/11 truthers of what NIST's collapse theory IS.
A few things you did not address:
1) Calculations done by Dr. Crockett Grabbe show that the horizontal ejection rate of the squibs is disproportional to the vertical collapse rates of the Towers. And 2) David Chandler has shown that some of these ejections came from the steel corner columns, making it impossible that they were the result of air pressure.
Claim 2: There are no squibs "shooting" out of the north side of Building 7. This is the clearest video of what you refer to, so your readers can watch for themselves:
What I see are a series of windows breaking due to the stress as the outer shell of WTC7 begins to descend downward. The outward rush of air caused by the descending shell then pushes the intense smoke with had filled every floor at that point out through those broken windows. According to NIST, there were only fires mainly on the lower floors, not the upper ones. And according to the FEMA report: “Concrete floor slabs provided vertical compartmentalization to limit fire and smoke spread between floors (see Figure 5-11). Architectural drawings indicate that the space between the edge of the concrete floor slab and curtain wall, which ranged from 2 to 10 inches, was supposed to be filled with firestopping material.”
Therefore, it seems unlikely that the smoke from the lower floors could have traveled up to the upper floors.
I see no flashes of light indicating an explosion, nor did any of the video cameras pick up any tremendously deafening explosions which would have been picked up if these were indeed explosions. Furthermore, whether you believe that these are breaking windows or "squibs", we can both agree that they occur near the TOP of the building (about 10 floors from the roof), whereas we can also agree that the building began collapsing from the BOTTOM. So what would possibly be the reason for setting off explosions near the roof when the collapse initiates from the base? Perhaps to weaken the building throughout, as is done in other demolitions. In this video, explosions can be seen going off at the upper sections even after the building has started to fall.
Claim 3: Where do I begin? With regards to the many videos in and around Ground Zero following the collapses in which random explosions are heard... well, duh, that's because stuff was exploding! The collapses damaged underground gas lines, setting off random explosions all throughout the day. Hundreds of vehicles were also set on fire, setting off random explosions. An explosion in the pile AFTER the collapses of the towers (or literally hours and hours before the collapse of WTC7) is not evidence of explosive charges placed inside the buildings. I have shown this to be wrong. Kevin McPadden, the only person claiming to have heard explosions preceding the collapse of WTC7, was a well-known 9/11 truther who gave speeches at rallies and never once made any mention of having heard explosions prior to the collapse of WTC7. He only "remembered" this detail and began making the claim in September 2007, a full 6 years after 9/11! He is also contradicted by the many firefighters who say that they never heard any explosions preceding the collapse of WTC7 as well as the many video cameras which were present and recording at the exact intersection where McPadden claims to have been standing, in which no explosions are heard.
If you hear an explosion in the NBC video of WTC7's collapse, then you are making yourself hear something which is not there. I am not making myself hear anything. I can clearly here loud booms occurring right before the collapse. Even just a single explosion needed to sever even one column in WTC7would have created an audio level of about 140 dB at a distance of half a mile, equivalent to the audio level created by a jet engine. Here, you are using NIST's strawman argument, assuming that RDX, which produces those sound levels, was the only explosive that could have been used. There are other substances, such as incendiaries, that could have been used. It's worth pointing out that very few of the prominent controlled demolition advocates have ever suggested that RDX alone was used. Why you and NIST would rule out demolition based on this argument is puzzling. But the fact remains is that the "sounds" are not what defines an explosion. Also, remember that this would be only one explosion, whereas controlled demolitions traditionally use hundreds of explosives. The video of 1WTC's collapse, in which you claim explosions are heard, contains nothing of the sort. The constant "crashing" sound is the normal sound of the building collapsing. What should a collapsing 110 story skyscraper sound like? You are missing the point in that sounds consistent with demolition can be heard, something you and other debunkers have said did not occur. Should it not make any sound at all? Also, the roaring/crashing sound is heard only AFTER the building begins to collapse. If this were controlled demolition, you would hear sharp - BANG, BANG, BANG - sounds, following by the collapse of the building. If these were traditional demolitions, I would agree. But if these were supposed to be deceptive demolitions, then they would obviously be modified. The video PROVES that there AREN'T any such explosions. No, it does not.
I note that here you completely ignored Claim 4, which is your video's assertion that explosives would have left behind remnants such as det cord. I clearly demonstrated that Brent Blanchard and yourself are incorrect about this assertion, and I still recommend you put a disclaimer in your video.
9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center - No Free-Fall Speed
Claim 1: Don't understand your reasoning. The upper section did tilt 23 degrees to the east, but the floor slabs of the floors below pancaked pretty much straight downward. The core of the South Tower had neither its north or west columns. If the top tilted to the east, we would expect at least the west columns to survive.
9/11 Debunked: Flight 77's Pilot not a Terrorist
I'm glad you don't believe Flight 77's pilot, Charles Burlingame, was in some way in on 9/11. I'm also aware that not every 9/11 truther has the exact same beliefs about 9/11 as every other 9/11 truther. In fact, I'm sure no two 9/11 truthers have the exact same beliefs. In my videos I don't say that all 9/11 truthers believe in the particular claim being debunked. I'm just saying, "Here is a theory, and now here's why it's false." I'm also well aware that not all 9/11 truthers believe it was a missile that hit the Pentagon, but I still have videos debunking this theory because there are plenty 9/11 truthers who DO believe this. And I happen to think those are some of your better videos. The theories about Burlingame somehow being involved in 9/11 were put forth by Loose Change 2nd Edition, which was reportedly the most viewed internet video at one point, so surely a lot of people knew of this theory even if not all of them believed it. It would still help if you added some sort of disclaimer to make clear that few truthers believe that theory.
9/11 Debunked: WTC 7's Collapse Explained
Claim 1: Correct, the original WTC7 was 350 feet from the North Tower, not "less than 300 feet" as I said in the video. If I remember correctly, when I was making the video I used the distance bar on a satellite photo of Ground Zero post-9/11 via Google Maps, which it turns out is not the most accurate technique. At the time I also assumed the southern edge of the original WTC7 was perfectly flush with the edge of the Vesey Street sidewalk as the new WTC7 is, but it turns out that the original building was pushed back (northward) about 20-30 feet to allow for the loading docks. However, whether 300 feet or 350 feet, this is still nothing with compared to the vertical height of the North Tower (1368 feet). The horizontal distance between the buildings was only about 1/4th the height of the tower. Though to be fair, most of the large debris appeared to be heading towards building 7 when the North Tower was at about half its original height. For comparison, we know that debris from the North Tower fell as far away as to crush the eastern edge of the Winter Gardens, which is about 500 feet away. Yes, and why was this debris flung so far? Still, I will add a message in the video saying it should be 350 feet.
Claims 2, 3, and 4: I made and uploaded this video in September 2007, which was over a year before the official investigation had released its final report. Hence, everything in the video was based off of NIST's working hypothesis at that time. The investigation found that the diesel generators did not help to feed the fires and that it was the failure of Column 79, not Truss 1, which initiated the collapse. Also, the report does not say that the structural damage to the building played no role in the events leading to WTC7's collapse, it found that it played only a minor role. They did say, however, that the building would have collapsed even with no structural damage. However none of these three findings by the investigation changed the overall hypothesis for the collapse as presented in their early reports and in the video. Yes, the hypothesis of fire, which was the only hypothesis they seriously looked into. Still, I'll note either in the video or in the description that the video was made several years ago and based on the findings at the time.
9/11 Debunked: "Molten Metal" Explained
Claim 1: I usually don't like to just tell people "Read the report", since most of them won't bother to, but this is such a complicated area that you really need to at least just read the section of the official report dealing with the temperature simulations and how they calculated the temperature of the fires. It was different on every floor. It was also different as time passed. Hydrocarbon fires can burn as hot as over 2000 degrees F, but NIST calculated that based on the available oxygen entering the building, the fires in the hottest parts of the building were generally burning at about 1832 degrees F. This was also backed up based on analysis of steel beams in WTC7 by FEMA that showed that they maximum temperature they had reached was 1832 degrees F. Interesting that you would bring this up. You are referring to the eutectic steel. You have such strong faith in NIST's calculations, and yet this steel actually contradicts NIST's WTC7 report more than it supports NIST's report on the Towers. After all, nowhere in NIST's WTC7 report do they claim that any of the steel in Building 7 was heated to 1800F. At most, they claim the steel in Building 7 was heated to about 1250F. So, the WTC7 steel may support the WTC collapse report, but it raises more problems for the Building 7 report. In any case, I cannot say how accurate NIST's calculations are until they release their modeling data for peer review. Of course, this beam was from WTC7 (not the Twin Towers), but the fires in the towers and WTC7 were very similar and fed by the same material, the same type of normal office contents. My key point is that the maximum temperatures for the fires would have been about 1832F. But I have seen no empirical evidence to support the assertion that the fires in the South Tower were that hot only minutes before its collapse. The page you linked to completely misrepresents NIST (or at the least, misleads the reader). The fires in the towers took place over 8 floors in 1WTC and 6 floors in 2WTC. That's 14 floors and literally hundreds of columns and hundreds of floor trusses. The hottest zones in the towers were at the floor trusses (IE, the ceilings, remember heat rises), not the core columns or perimeter columns. NIST was only able to analyze core and perimeter columns. They weren't able to test the floor trusses I THINK because they needed to actually test the paint and the floor trusses were not painted. In any case, details about the temperatures the columns reached tell us nothing about the temperatures the floor trusses reached. Regardless, any speculation that the trusses were heated far hotter than the core or perimeter columns is just that-- pure speculation backed by no empirical evidence.
Claim 2: This is grasping at straws when you consider than the color of any metal is going to vary with the lighting even if the temperature remains the same, True, but the picture I reference shows the south side more in shadow than the other sides, meaning that less natural light would have altered the color. and also there are dozens of videos showing the molten metal, and at many angles the molten metal is even a much darker orange. Also true, but the fact remains that the metal clearly did attain this high temperature at some point. Molten aluminum should not remain that bright for very long.
9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center's Collapse Explained
Claim 1: See above.
9/11 Debunked: WTC - Zero Hallmarks of Controlled Demolition
Claim 1: Not always but generally. The reason no flashes are seen in that video is because the demolition team wrapped heavy protection around the blast zones to prevent the explosives from sending debris flying. Regardless, flashes can obviously be prevented in a controlled demolition, based on how the explosives are set up or what type of explosives are used. You should still add a disclaimer that bright flashes do not have to occur for it to be a demolition. Flashes in the South Tower's collapse have been found. You ignore the deafening explosions in that video. No, I don't. As I've shown, explosions are present in videos of the Tower collapses.
Claim 2-4: See above.
Claim 5: Wrong, it leans exactly as it starts to collapse. No, it doesn't. Also, something I don't even see you truthers talk about is why you think the buildings leaned AT ALL. The fires in the South Tower at the moment of collapse were on the east side of the building, and the building leaned to the east when it started to collapse. A controlled demolition would have caused a straight down symetrical collapse, with nothing to cause such a sharp lean. So by your standards, this must not be a controlled demolition. Even if for some unfathomable reason it would have caused a lean, the odds of it just "coincidentally" leaning in the exact direction where the fires were is 1 in 4. But wait, the exact same thing happened in the North Tower. The fires at the time of collapse were on the south side of the building, and the building leans to the south as it collapses. The odds of this happening by coincidence: 1 in 4. The odds of it happening in both towers in 1 in 4 multiplied by 1 in 4, or 1 in 16. Unless they were engineered to do that, much like how the demolitions would had to have started near where the planes impacted the buildings.
Claim 5: The antenna falls at exactly the same time as the rest of the building, even in that video. Again, the antenna does rotate south at one point, but the initial motion was entirely vertical and happened before the main collapse. Also, the fact that huge sections (as much as 70 stories tall) NIST says 60 stories for WTC1 and 40 for WTC2. of the North Tower's core remained standing for about 20 seconds after the rest of the building has collapsed proves that the core did not fall first. This assertion relies on the idea that the core would start to fail at the bottom like a conventional demolition. However, the demolition clearly had to start at the top, meaning that only the upper part of the core had to fail for the antenna to fail first.
Claim 6: See above.
Claim 7: Agreed 100%. But the claim that the buildings fell at or near free-fall acceleration is one of the KEYSTONE claims of the 9/11 truth movement, it's even 1 of the top 10 claims of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Many argue that explosives were placed on every column on every floor, which caused a free-fall collapse. Of course, this is completely ridiculous and even if you wanted to take a building down in a controlled demolition, you wouldn't need to put explosives on every single column and on every floor. So, their ideas about how controlled demolitions work is laughable in the first place, but the point of my video is to prove that they didn't fall at free-fall anyway. That's fine, but my main point was that you explicetly state in your video that explosives "would have caused the buildings to collapse at free fall speed." I showed this to be most likely incorrect. Basically, you should think about rephrasing that particular comment.
Claim 8: Again, the claim that the buildings fell into their own footprints is one of THE LEADING claims of the 9/11 truth movement. The point of my video was to prove that none of the buildings fell even remotely into their own footprints. That may apply to the Towers, but to claim that Building 7 did not "even fall remotely into" its footprint is stretching the truth, don't you think? Panels from the North Tower radiated outwards as far as 600 feet outside the building's footprint. Yes, and why were they flung that far? 30 W. Broadway, which was entirely across the street from WTC7, was so badly damaged by debris from WTC7 that it had to be demolished. "Entirely across the street" makes it sound like it was blocks away. As I said before, the fact that Building 7 damaged other buildings was probably due to the fact that it was a very large building. A building the size of WTC7 would never have been legally demolished with explosives with neighboring buildings that close, hence why they are demolishing the Deutsche Bank Building beam by beam. Only within the past couple months did they start constructing the new 30 W. Broadway.
9/11 Debunked: Thermate Chemical Signatures Disproven
The video was made in December 2007 (and was actually just an updated version of the one I'd made about 6 months prior), which was based on a 204 page/slide PowerPoint presentation that Steven Jones had been giving, when he was still claiming it was thermate. In that presentation he wasn't talking about microspheres or red chips at all, it was all about thermate and chemicals found in the dust. This is simply wrong. Dr. Jones has, to the best of my knowledge, always talked about the iron spheres when discussing his thermite hypotheses. He certainly was discussing them at the Rebuilding America's Senses event, a clip of which you show at the beginning of your video. In his slide presentations, he discusses the spheres in great detail.
It was only later that he changed his version of the truth (for the third time) and started talking about nanothermite and microspheres (which, by the way, form completely naturally in ordinary office fires and the EPA had already released a lengthy report explaining the microspheres in December 2003, literally years and years before Jones had ever even heard of them). The EPA actually discussed using the spheres as one of the signature components to distinguish WTC dust from so-called “background” dust (i.e. common office-building dust).
By that time I felt no need to keep making videos debunking every new version of the truth that Steven Jones came up with. First, it was thermite (which I debunked). Then, "No no, it was thermate!" (which I debunked). Then, "No no, it was nanothermite!" Even more recently, he seems to have changed his story yet AGAIN and now claims that it was traditional explosives all along, and if nanothermite was involved at all then it was just to be used as a detonator to set off the explosives (which, by the way, it a completely ridiculous theory since there are already detonators for explosives which work perfectly well and reliably and there would be no need to invent "nanothermite detonators"... but, that's Steven Jones for ya). This sort of nonsensical criticism has already been thoroughly addressed.
None of this changes the fact that the current information in your video is incorrect. Your claims about thermate have long been debunked, and I highly recommend that you either add disclaimers to your video or remove it entirely. I also recommend you look at this, regarding your criticism of the nanothermite discovery.
9/11 Debunked: WTC - No Pools of Molten Steel
Claim 1: Ugh, sorry to be blunt but please tell me you're joking. You're basically saying that the reason the molten metal was still molten 6 weeks later is because the thermite/thermate continued to burn for 6 weeks. No. What I claim, or rather, what the peer reviewed scientific article claims, is that there was an abundance of odd chemicals and chemical reactions occuring at Ground Zero which lasted for weeks because the chemicals were largely present and continued to reacte. This is outlined in this video at minute 6:52. In one of my videos I show that the amount of molten metal flowing from the South Tower in the final 7 minutes before its collapse can be estimated at about 30 tons, which would require 60 tons of thermite, which is equivalent to about 10 full dump truck loads of thermite. The idea of sneaking that much thermite onto one office floor with no one noticing is so absurd that anyone seriously entertaining the idea that the molten material flowing from the South Tower is molten iron from thermite should have their sanity card revoked. Right. Because it sounds tricky to do, we can just throw out the theory entirely. Gotcha. But wait, this is only one building. You say molten steel was found below all three buildings. For both towers and WTC7, it would require, say, 180 tons or 30 full dump trucks of thermite! And this is 180 tons of thermite for a 7 minute burn. Now if you want to go so far as to say that the burn lasted not for 7 minutes but for 6 WEEKS... then this calculates out to not 180 tons of thermite but 1,555,200 tons of thermite! Equivalent to about 259,200 full dump truck loads of thermite! I defy you to sneak even ONE dump truck load of thermite into the World Trade Center (or any other office building). Again, I recommend that you actually read the enviromental anomalies paper.
Claim 2: Oxidize does NOT mean vaporize! Oxidation of lead will start at normal room temperatures. Yes, but it has to boil before it oxidizes. And lead does not boil until temperatures of 3180F. And RJ Lee made it clear in their 2003 report that they talked about temperatures “at which lead would have undergone vaporization.” (RJ Lee Group, WTC Dust Signature Study, 2003, page 5) And temperatures high enough to melt steel or iron were recorded in the debris.
Claim 3: See above.
Claim 4: Glowing does not mean molten. Yes, but if a metal such as copper or aluminum were glowing that bright it would be completely liquid. Anyway there's no question there was molten metal in the debris pile (aluminum, lead, and copper were all abundant in the debris pile and all have melting points at or below the range of fires known to exist in the pile). But as I already pointed out, because the molten metal remained glowing for as long as it did, it indicates it was a metal with fairly low heat conductivity and high heat capacity, which is not the characteristic of any of the metals you mentioned. Even if the flakes falling from the glowing beam were molten (meaning, liquid) as opposed to glowing embers, that doesn't automatically indicate that it was molten steel. It does if the other metals are ruled out.
Claim 5: As stated above, copper and lead were also present through the complex (used in pipes and wiring and other electrical devices). But they do not have the heat conductivity/capacity characteristcs I mentioned.
9/11 Debunked: The "First Time in History" Claim
Claim 1: It is from the FEMA report and I'll point out in the video NIST's estimation.
Claim 2: See above.
Claim 3: When I show examples of those steel-framed buildings collapsing from fire, I didn't claim they were skyscrapers! I even say that the Kader Toy Factory collapses were all 4-story buildings, and I certainly don't imply that the Dogwood Elementary School was a skyscraper. I never stated that you claimed they were skyscrapers. I simply pointed out that you compare them to the Towers, which is obviously misleading. How would the partial collapse of the Windsor Building possibly support your side? The link I provided should have clarified that. The building was designed differently than the WTC in that it had a concrete core from the bottom of the building all the way to the roof and concrete floor columns up to around the 21st floor. Only the top 11 floors had a steel-frame, and that was only the FLOORS (meaning the office space, not including the core which was concrete). All 11 of these steel-framed floors collapsed to the ground from fire. The only part of the building that didn't collapse was the concrete core and the bottom 21 concrete floors. Fire affects steel differently than concrete. 100% of the Windsor Building which had a steel-frame design collapsed. 100% of the World Trade Center had a steel-frame.
You laughably attack us debunkers for not comparing the World Trade Center to other fires in skyscrapers which did not collapse. Maybe the reason we don't compare the WTC to these other skyscraper fires is as simple as this: Of every single other skyscraper fire (you know, the ones you truthers love to talk about), not a single one of them had a hijacked 767 crash into them. True, but the fires are blamed more for the collapses than the damage. Nearly all of them were also made of concrete and not a steel-frame like the WTC. Wrong. The One Meridian Plaza and the First Interstate Bank were in fact tube-within-tube steel-framed designs like the Towers were, although not quite the same. Even WTC7, although not hit by a plane, was completely different than these other fires in that it had a steel-frame, it was designed completely differently than these other buildings, it no sprinklers working to suppress the fires, and it was abandoned by the FDNY and allowed to burn unchecked for 7 hours (whereas most other high-rise fires had firefighters in the building fighting the fires). If you would bother to read what NIST said about the fires in WTC7 (yes, I have read much of the WTC7 report), then you would see that NIST claims that “[I]n each of the other referenced buildings, the fires burned out several floors, even with available water and fire fighting activities (except for WTC 5). Thus, whether the fire fighters fought the WTC 7 fires or not is not a meaningful point of dissimilarity from the other cited fires.” Ultimately, NIST says the fires in other steel-framed buildings were, at the very least, just as severe as the fires in WTC7. They claim the crucial differences had to do with differences in design, but this has already been found to be problematic as well.
We don't compare the WTC to these other buildings because they are nothing alike, and you shouldn't either. So you apparently think it's okay to compare the Towers to elementary schools and badly built toy factories? Just because they collapsed from fire? Sorry, but until I see an example of a steel framed skyscraper totally collapsing from fire, I think I have good reason to compare the WTC skyscrapers with other skyscrapers.
Lastly, I would just like to point out that even if an event is the first time in history that it's happened, that doesn't mean it's impossible for it to ever happen. In 1912, for the first time in history a luxury liner sank after hitting an iceberg. In 1937, for the first time in history a passenger airship burst into flames while in the air. In 1969, for the first time in history man walked on the moon. In 2003, for the first time in history a Space Shuttle exploded on reentry into the atmosphere due to damage to its heat shield. In 2008, for the first time in history the United States elected its first African-American president. Just because something happens "for the first time in history", that doesn't mean it's impossible for it to happen. True, but one must look at the bigger picture in these matters. Say, for example, three Titanic-like ships, all designed to cope well in extreme situations, all sank after all three had hit icebergs within hours of each other. Three ships all sinking for the same reason within a few hours. If that had happened in 1912, I'm sure most people would find that incredibly suspicious and very well could have caused people to cry "conspiracy."
9/11 Debunked: On WTC's Design to Withstand 707 Impact
Claim 1: Leslie Robertson passionately rejects this claim by the Port Authority. Even if it were true, which it may well be, the towers on 9/11 DID survive the plane impacts. The stripping of the fireproofing and the long-term fires were another matter entirely. Oh and you conveniently left off that part from the NIST report which expresses doubt over which of the speeds was considered. I am fully aware of NIST's doubt, but I have yet to see any pre-9/11 documentation showing that the speeds considered were really 180mph. But I have seen plenty of pre-9/11 material saying otherwise.
Claim 3: Again, the towers did remain standing after the planes hit. Still, your argument is obviously misleading.
Claim 4: When you truthers quote John Skilling, you always leave off the most important part of his quote: "However, back in those days people didn't think about terrorists very much." He was still considering it being an accident, not a plane being deliberately crashed into the building at full speed with 10,000 gallons of jet fuel. But, he clearly stated that he fires were taken into account. Also, your claim about Robertson being the cheif engineer is still wrong. Skilling was clearly the head engineer.
9/11 Debunked: WTC - No Small or Oxygen-Starved Fires
Claim 1: I don't know if this is 9/11 truthers' attempt at a straw-man argument or just a complete misunderstanding of what the official explanation for what the collapse is, but the NIST report says that the jet fuel burned off within the first 10 minutes and had, essentially, nothing to do with the fires in the buildings. The jet fuel acted like a match: It started the fires, but then the jet fuel itself burned off almost immediately, leaving normal office fires to burn, much like a match lighting a fireplace. The jet fuel was gone in 10 minutes, yet the fires in 1WTC burned for 102 minutes! 7WTC did not have one drop of jet fuel in it at any point, and yet it burned out of control for nearly 7 hours. What I pointed out, however, is that your citation of NIST saying that 70% of the fuel remained in the Towers is wrong, and that they clarify this much more accurately in NCSTAR 1-5F. They even go as far as saying that half the fuel in the buildings did not even stay within the imapct points and that it flowed away from were the planes hit. So you should clearly rethink your statements about how much fuel was in the Towers, as they obviously played a role in how the fires were spread throughout the buildings.
9/11 truthers very commonly assume that the fires were fed entirely (or mostly) by jet fuel, when in fact the official report makes it clear that the jet fuel had very little to do with anything. And in the case of WTC7, it had nothing to do with anything. I never claim jet fuel was the only source of fuel for the fires. What I claim is that you are cleary wrong about how much fuel was in the Towers.
Claim 2: This claim is better addressed by NYPD videographer Steve Spak who, in the documentary "The Truth Behind the Third Tower", responding to Richard Gage's claim that the smoke pouring out of WTC7 was actually being drawn over to WTC7's south side from WTC6, says that that's absurd and that he was there on the scene that day and that the smoke was clearly coming FROM WTC7. It then cuts to a video clearly showing the smoke coming out of WTC7, not being drawn TO WTC7 and then rising up its side. I'm sorry, but pictures and videos show that clearly the same thing happened to WTC1 (minute 11:43).
____________________________________________________
Mr. Owens, I hope you will take these points into consideration and keep your promise.
Senior Fancy
I see an assortment of people daily and I find that senior citizens seem to know what fancy is. They may not realize it, but when they get up in the morning and put on clean, unwrinkled cloths, their nice shoes, matching accessories and care about their appearance that is exactly what they are doing. The older gentleman who takes time to polish his shoes and put on a jacket, or the older woman who has the pretty scarf and matching pocketbook and shoes, that may have gone out of style to us, but they come from a time when it mattered what you looked like when you stepped outside the house. No sweat pants, wrinkled t-shirts and sneakers. It is unfortunate that we have lost sight of the importance of how you look to others on a daily basis. So put on that nice sweater and pearls, even if you are just running errands. It will make you feel fancy!
Saturday, October 30, 2010
What is Fancy?
The way you feel about yourself, how you present yourself and your behavior. It isn't about money or status, it comes from inside and can make you feel good about yourself.
TIME Magazine Fail
I Know the Truth, So Don't Bother Me With Facts
"Global warming is a hoax! Climate change, like autism, is actually caused by vaccines, typically administered by Apollo astronauts who didn't really land on the moon. Oh, and President Obama was born in Kenya. These, at least, are some of the core beliefs in aluminum foil hat land — the place black helicopters are always approaching to impose one-world government, and death panels are always forming to shut off grandma's oxygen."
http://healthland.time.com/2010/10/29/i-know-the-truth-so-dont-bother-me-with-facts/
Lol! Apparently a 'core belief' in 'aluminum foil hat land' is the belief that 'climate change is actually caused by vaccines, typically administered by Apollo astronauts who didn't really land on the moon'. Ok ... hands up ... who started that one?!
Well I don't believe in this 'core belief'. Climate change is primarily caused by natural variability, vaccines don't cause climate change but they do 'result in' a host of health problems, and are less effective at protecting you than natural vitamins, and man probably has visited the moon, which apparently is covered in water and a network of undergound habitable tunnels.
Sometimes you have to laugh at how they like to ridicule anything that challenges the establishment by lumping it all together. I question the official story of 9/11 so I must therefore believe Elvis, who is actually an alien, crashed his flying saucer into the Pentagon.
Also, I would really like to know who came up with the 'tin foil hat' stereotype ... it may have been the Simpsons... or they made it popular at least.
"Global warming is a hoax! Climate change, like autism, is actually caused by vaccines, typically administered by Apollo astronauts who didn't really land on the moon. Oh, and President Obama was born in Kenya. These, at least, are some of the core beliefs in aluminum foil hat land — the place black helicopters are always approaching to impose one-world government, and death panels are always forming to shut off grandma's oxygen."
http://healthland.time.com/2010/10/29/i-know-the-truth-so-dont-bother-me-with-facts/
Lol! Apparently a 'core belief' in 'aluminum foil hat land' is the belief that 'climate change is actually caused by vaccines, typically administered by Apollo astronauts who didn't really land on the moon'. Ok ... hands up ... who started that one?!
Well I don't believe in this 'core belief'. Climate change is primarily caused by natural variability, vaccines don't cause climate change but they do 'result in' a host of health problems, and are less effective at protecting you than natural vitamins, and man probably has visited the moon, which apparently is covered in water and a network of undergound habitable tunnels.
Sometimes you have to laugh at how they like to ridicule anything that challenges the establishment by lumping it all together. I question the official story of 9/11 so I must therefore believe Elvis, who is actually an alien, crashed his flying saucer into the Pentagon.
Also, I would really like to know who came up with the 'tin foil hat' stereotype ... it may have been the Simpsons... or they made it popular at least.
Friday, October 29, 2010
Star Wars Picture is The World’s Largest Lego Mosiac
The bricks have been counted and the size of the mosaic has been measured, and it has been confirmed that DK and the LEGO Group have broken a Guinness World Record for the largest image built with interlocking plastic bricks, to celebrate the launch of the latest in DK’s LEGO Brickmaster Books series!
Nearly 2000 visitors, young and old came along to help build this fantastic creation, and with the help and guidance from the Brickish Association and DK team, the mosaic was finished in at lunchtime on Monday, October 25th.
Congrats to DK, Lego and all the volunteers that assisted in building this beautiful masterpiece. Now if I could get some volunteers to help me put together my sons Lego Death Star.
via: DK and GeekDad
Battle of the Lantern Corps Pumpkins - Which is Cooler?
Today we present to you an epic battle between two incredibly cool sets of Halloween pumpkins carved in the shape of the symbols of the various lantern corps.
The first was done by Grace Belancik (a.k.a. DeviantArt user RocketGirluvsUkitake) who was creative enough to branch out beyond pumpkins and instead find either colored pumpkins or other foods that were the appropriate color for each corps.
The second set was sent to us by Jillian Sarro who made them with her boyfriend. (by the way dude, nice catch. Hold on to her for that Wonder Woman costume alone). They found away to have each of their lantern corps pumpkins lit up inside with the appropriate color for each corps. Can you spot the Black Lantern Corps pumpkin? Didn't think so.
The brain trust behind gfest is officially split between which set is the coolest. So we decided to settle the bet by throwing it open to you. Tell us in the comment section which one you think is cooler.
New Tron: Legacy Clip of Olivia Wilde Driving a Go-Kart
Sam Flynn (Garrett Hedlund), a rebellious 27-year-old, is haunted by the mysterious disappearance of his father Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges), a man once known as the world's leading video-game developer. When Sam investigates a strange signal sent from the abandoned Flynn's Arcade—that could have only come from his father—he finds himself pulled into a world where Kevin has been trapped for 20 years. With the help of the fearless warrior Quorra (Olivia Wilde), father and son embark on a life-or-death journey across a visually-stunning digital universe—created by Kevin himself—which has become far more advanced with never-before-imagined vehicles, weapons, and landscapes and a ruthless villain who will stop at nothing to prevent their escape.Tron: Legacy is scheduled for release on December 17, 2010 (US and Canada).
via: Walt Disney
Garth Brooks isn't Chris Gaines - he's Brett Favre
The big news this week is that Garth is planning his only arena appearance in December to raise money for the Tennessee flood victims. First, let me just throw in my $.02 about his concert … shameless attempt to keep himself relevant and in the news. Period. The floods were in May – did it take that long for the news to travel to Oklahoma? There were countless benefits put together immediately afterwards that raised quite a bit of money. What prompted this now, as opposed to after the fact when everyone was throwing money at the cause? Given that, I can only conclude he’s doing this because he needs some publicity, he knows the middle-aged women will still flock to see him, and I’m sure, deep down, he’s having a competition to see if he can single-handedly raise more money than the other benefit concerts.
Down cynic, down girl.
Okay, but to my point … does anyone else notice that Garth Brooks is the Brett Favre of country music?
I’m going to retire.
No, wait.
No, really, I’m going to retire.
No, wait.
For sure this time, I’m going to retire.
Well, maybe just one more season.
I cheated on my wife and everyone hates me, so I’m going to hide from public view now until this blows over – then I’ll make a comeback, just you wait.
You know what ticks me off the most about the whole thing?
Both of them do this because they know the public salivates over a “will-he-or-won’t-he” waiting period every time it comes up. Will Brett actually retire? Will Garth finally come out of hiding for a concert?
Here’s what’s really funny – Brett’s post-Green Bay seasons have been disappointing (well, so I’ve heard – I don’t pay much attention to him, I am one of the few, apparently), and I’ve also heard that Garth’s Vegas concerts are disappointing as well. Hmmm, just one more correlation between the two. Coincidence?
Look, I know what people say … Garth reinvigorated country music, grabbing fans from other genres. Well, kudos to Garth. Woohoo. Brett, he’s apparently one of the best quarterbacks of all time (well, he was until a few years ago). Woohoo. You both have your place in history. That is the key word here though guys, history. Let it go. Move on.
I probably could draw more parallels if I felt like doing actual research, but, I’m lazy. And I really just don’t care.
The fact is, they are both old – they can’t run around, lighting guitars on fire like they used to. A body can only handle so much before it breaks down.
Personally, I feel both of these guys should let their bodies continue to break down in peace. As long as I don’t have to hear about either one, I’ll be completely and totally happy.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
First Look at Chris Evans in His Captain America Costume
What do you think? Did they get it right?
Sleepwalking dangerous to your health
Wake-up call: Sleepwalking Colo. man shoots himself
A Colorado man shot himself in the left knee early yesterday while sleepwalking, the Boulder Daily Camera reports.
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Sanford Rothman, 63, told police he woke up to a "bang" around 2 a.m. and discovered the wound. He couldn't clearly recall how it happened, but police determined he apparently shot himself while sleepwalking. He was treated at a local hospital and released.
Of course he doesn’t recall how it happened, he didn’t wake up until he heard the bang.
Does anyone see trial lawyers filing this one in the back of their heads for use later? “No, your honor, my client doesn’t know how the gun that killed his wife ended up in his hands, he was asleep.”
The police report stated that Rothman, who was alone in the house, keeps a 9mm handgun near his bed and that he takes prescription pain medication. No illegal drugs or alcohol were involved, police added.
Issue number one: He takes prescription pain medication. Should we really let him around firearms?
Issue number two: No one should keep a gun “near their bed” unless it is in a gun safe which is also near their bed. End of story. ESPECIALLY if you are prone to sleepwalking.
This dude deserved to shoot himself in his leg – karma paying him back for being an idiot. (Just like Plaxico Burress.)
What's trick-or-treating without the PSAs?
Halloween marks the end of crime prevention month, and the beginning of the 2010 holiday season.
Really? I thought October was Breast Cancer Awareness Month. God, I can’t keep it all straight anymore! We do still get to trick-or-treating, they didn’t take that away, right?
With millions of kids hitting the streets in search of candy and fun, safety and home security is more important than ever.
That’s the only reason security is important? Wow. Glad there was some random press release to tell me about this.
Security Choice, a leading provider of home alarm systems, has released important tips for avoiding crime and accidents this weekend.
Read: Security Choice, a leading provider of home alarm systems, has released important parenting tips for this weekend.
Make a Plan: The most important steps for Halloween safety happen before kids leave the house. Remind trick-or-treaters to be cautious and to stick with a buddy at all times. Plan Halloween routes and communicate with other parents so every child in a group can easily be accounted for. Make sure older trick-or-or-treaters have a set return time and cell phones handy.
Seriously, do we need to tell people this? Isn’t this common sense? Yeah, right, like I’m going to let my two-year-old go out trick-or-treating by herself. “Okay, sweetheart, just go down the street and come back with your haul, okay? Momma’s gonna finish this bottle of wine while you’re out panhandling for candy.”
Be Seen: Children and parents are advised to trick-or-treat in well-lit areas with clear walking paths or sidewalks. Use reflective stickers, flashlights and glowsticks to ensure that children are easily seen by motorists. For those staying home, make sure driveways, walkways and yards are clear of debris in order to reduce the risk of falls.
You know, in theory, this is awesome, right? However, there are flaws. First and foremost being that reflective stickers, flashlights and glowsticks totally ruin a costume. I mean, really, how scary is Freddy if he’s sporting reflective tape? We tried glow-bracelets on the kids last year, but they took them off – and it really didn’t matter since trick-or-treat is in daylight hours anymore these days. Nothing like taking every bit of fun out of the holiday which features begging for handouts from people.
Protect Property: Halloween is an ideal time for vandals and burglars to attack. It is easy to spot who is and isn't home, and with the commotion outside, a thief can blend-in quite easily. Make sure doors and windows stay locked and the home security system is set whenever the house is unattended. Keep alarm company signs clearly displayed and well-lit in order to deter nighttime criminals.
Isn’t any time an ideal time for vandals and burglars to attack? And I love, love, love how this is a press release from a home security company, so of course they have to get the plug in about security signs.
Side note, the guys who sold us our security system (yes, we have one, but it’s not because a press release told us so) said the best security system is a dog. So, if you don’t have a security system, you should adopt a dog, at least for the weekend. (There is so much inherently wrong with that comment, there’s no need for you to point it out to me.)
Keep an Eye Out: Neighborhoods and communities can be united fronts against crime during Halloween weekend. Parents should meet to compare schedules and plan a watch group for the evening. Report any suspicious behavior to the police immediately.
Here’s the thing. When I get with the neighbors to take the kids out trick-or-treating, it’s not for us to plan a watch group for the evening or watch for suspicious behavior. Simply, it’s so we can take our kids out together, and so we can raid their haul for the good chocolate before they notice it. Why do people need to make this so much more complicated than it is? If parents are hovering nearby to steal the good candy before it hits the bottom of the bag, then nothing bad’s going to happen!
Check the Candy: At the end of the night, inspect all candy before kids dig in. Survey for opened or broken wrappers, suspicious-looking items or any ingredients children may be allergic to. Call the Halloween candy hotline at 1-800 433 1200 with any questions you may have.
Duh. I can’t believe we have to remind people to do this. Does anyone really make it a point to throw food in their mouths without first looking at it, especially food received from strangers? (For the record, even my two-year-old would notice an open wrapper, point it out as “broken” and throw it away.) Do you remember, about 20 years ago, when it was all the rage to go to ERs and Urgent Treatment Centers after trick-or-treating to have your candy x-rayed? Can you say paranoid???
Oh, and grammar Nazi alert (because what post is complete without one?) … should totally rewrite to: “Survey for opened or broken wrappers, suspicious-looking items or any ingredients to which children may be allergic.” But, hey, it’s not like they pay professional writers to write these press releases for them.
Tom Hardy To Play Harvey Bullock In Batman 3: "The Dark Knight Rises"?
It seems like everyday a new Batman 3 nugget is released into cyberspace. Yesterday, we received the wonderful news that the third film in Christopher Nolan's Batman franchise finally has a title, “The Dark Knight Rises.” We also learned from Nolan that the Riddler is NOT the villain in Batman 3. So much for the rumor that Tom Hardy will pay the Riddler. If Hardy is not the Riddler, what role will he have in the "Dark Knight Rises?"
Well IMBD updated their cast list for TDKR with Tom Hardy listed as Detective Harvey Bullock (rumored of course). Is this accurate or hoax? Comic Book Movie gives us their take on the IMBD rumor, "I realize this must be taken for what it is. IMDB don't even post any news source for the info. But the thing is, once in a blue moon they actually get a few things right. IMDB had actor JJ Field listed as Montgomery Falsworth(Union Jack) in Captain America TFA before any other news site did, and that has since been confirmed. So I figured this was worth reporting on the off chance."
I think Hardy would play a good Bullock. Put a some fat on his bones, stick a cigar in his mouth, a fedora on his head, a sandwich in his hand and he may will be a perfect Bullock.
What do you think? Is this a good role for Hardy knowing that the Riddler will not be the villain in the new Nolan movie? Let us know.
via: comic book movie
The History of Batman Symbol Makes me Batty
Slave Leia Terminator Halloween Costume
Gizmodo is currently running a Sexy Robot Costume Contest, which is nothing short of brilliant. While we don't know who the winner will eventually be, we sure know where gfest's votes are going.
We proudly present the Slave Princess Leia Terminator costume, which brilliantly mashes up two of science fiction's best franchises. George Lucas wishes he could think of something this cool.
All entries to the contest are posted on their Facebook page, where you can vote on your favorite robots by "liking" them. Although we dare you to find one sexier than Leia.
Every time the rain comes down
Close my eyes and listen .
I can hear the lonesome sound
Of the sky as it cries .
Close my eyes and listen .
I can hear the lonesome sound
Of the sky as it cries .
*********************
A warm welcome to all of my fellow readers !
Yes , it's been a full week since I've last blogged and quite frankly I'm starting to miss tapping noises from the keyboard and the eye-damaging light rays that radiate off the computer screen .
I too miss most of my fellow friends as this week's of exam proves to be very difficult .
I mean , I recently found out that outbreaks and pimples usually occur when one is under lots of stress .
And based on that statement , I can confidently say that I am considered a very stressed out person . Usually out of no where , pimples will pop out like disgusting bunkers of pus just begging to blow out . And there's nothing much I can do about it but to yell , " take cover " to the people in front of me .
But enough of my acne problems . Let's move on to my second week of hell .
Yes , it's been a full week since I've last blogged and quite frankly I'm starting to miss tapping noises from the keyboard and the eye-damaging light rays that radiate off the computer screen .
I too miss most of my fellow friends as this week's of exam proves to be very difficult .
I mean , I recently found out that outbreaks and pimples usually occur when one is under lots of stress .
And based on that statement , I can confidently say that I am considered a very stressed out person . Usually out of no where , pimples will pop out like disgusting bunkers of pus just begging to blow out . And there's nothing much I can do about it but to yell , " take cover " to the people in front of me .
But enough of my acne problems . Let's move on to my second week of hell .
SECOND WEEK
OF HELL ..
OF HELL ..
On Monday , I faced the most feared of all subjects by most students which happens to be the only thing in life that's keeping me down ; Additional Mathematics . And I think it's only fair to call it my arch-nemesis .
After sitting for both papers , I felt trembles between my fingers and I could have sworn that I felt my heart skip a beat a few times just after recalling about it . And I can't tell you guys how I was during the examinations ..
Cause' I think I blacked out or something .
On Tuesday , I wasted 5 hours of my life sitting in school waiting for the PJPK( relating to sports and health ) paper which starts an hour or two before the school ends . And before that , we did absolutely nothing .
It's like one of those moments where you could just hang yourself at the back of the room and no one would care .
On Wednesday , I yet again wasted most of my time to sit for ONE paper which also starts an hour or two before school ends .
Congratulations , I'm a 100 years old .
On Thursday , I sat for my Physics paper 2 and 1 . Everything went rather smoothly but to be honest , I'm terrified of what my paper 2 would turn out to be .
I can't say that I've aced the paper but hopefully I did enough to get me a simple B or C for Physics . But don't look now , there will be another Physics paper waiting for me next Monday .
On Friday , I most probably flunked Chemistry .
I had not much of a clue of what I was doing and I pretty much resemble a moose in a kitchen . I mean , giving me a Chemistry paper to do is like giving a comb to a monk .
The results ? Nothing .
And the day today is superb-Saturday .
Which means the crusade for us Form Four students are finally over , well . Sorta .
In a way I am glad that the worst is over and I think I can finally see the light at the end of the tunnel ..
Oh wait .
That's just someone with a torch .
After sitting for both papers , I felt trembles between my fingers and I could have sworn that I felt my heart skip a beat a few times just after recalling about it . And I can't tell you guys how I was during the examinations ..
Cause' I think I blacked out or something .
On Tuesday , I wasted 5 hours of my life sitting in school waiting for the PJPK( relating to sports and health ) paper which starts an hour or two before the school ends . And before that , we did absolutely nothing .
It's like one of those moments where you could just hang yourself at the back of the room and no one would care .
On Wednesday , I yet again wasted most of my time to sit for ONE paper which also starts an hour or two before school ends .
Congratulations , I'm a 100 years old .
On Thursday , I sat for my Physics paper 2 and 1 . Everything went rather smoothly but to be honest , I'm terrified of what my paper 2 would turn out to be .
I can't say that I've aced the paper but hopefully I did enough to get me a simple B or C for Physics . But don't look now , there will be another Physics paper waiting for me next Monday .
On Friday , I most probably flunked Chemistry .
I had not much of a clue of what I was doing and I pretty much resemble a moose in a kitchen . I mean , giving me a Chemistry paper to do is like giving a comb to a monk .
The results ? Nothing .
And the day today is superb-Saturday .
Which means the crusade for us Form Four students are finally over , well . Sorta .
In a way I am glad that the worst is over and I think I can finally see the light at the end of the tunnel ..
Oh wait .
That's just someone with a torch .
********************
Roger Federer wins at Stockholm Open
Federer , looking at the time ,
awaiting his prize .
Federer , looking at the time ,awaiting his prize .
Roger Federer beat Germany's Florian Mayer , 6-4 , 6-3 , to win the Stockholm Open on Sunday and match Pete Sampras' total of 64 career titles .
Since 1968 , only Jimmy Connors ( 109 ) , Ivan Lendl ( 94 ) and John McEnroe ( 77 ) have won more singles tournaments than Federer and Sampras .
In beating the 47th-ranked Mayer at Royal Tennis Hall , Federer won his third title of the year .
Third !
This year proves to be quite tough for Federer as after winning the Australian Open against Andy Murray , Federer declined from there on onwards .
A devastating lost at the French Open and a shocking exit from Wimbledon resulted in a world-wide question ; is the King declining ?
But for this tennis fan , I think not .
I believe that Roger Federer has the awesome-ness left in him to grab hold a few more GrandSlams before he finally throws in his racket .
Third !
This year proves to be quite tough for Federer as after winning the Australian Open against Andy Murray , Federer declined from there on onwards .
A devastating lost at the French Open and a shocking exit from Wimbledon resulted in a world-wide question ; is the King declining ?
But for this tennis fan , I think not .
I believe that Roger Federer has the awesome-ness left in him to grab hold a few more GrandSlams before he finally throws in his racket .
GO FEDDIE ~
*****************
*****************
Now let's move on to something more entertaining .
The entertainment industry perhaps .
Celine Dion , Grammy award winner has recently gave birth to twins !
She and her husband , Rene Angelil have not named the babies yet but are soon to .
The Canadian legend , known for her songs like My Heart Will Go On and Because You Loved Me , is resting well after going through Caesarean section ( her twin babies were prematurely born ).
After suffering a miscarriage in 2009 and famous for her struggles in conceiving , Celine Dion is now in neonatal intensive care , which is common for newborn twins who arrive before their due date .
As a fan of her songs , I just felt like an obligation to wish her a speedy recovery .
Her songs pulled me out of some of the darkest moments of my life . She's a savior . More importantly , a Canadian savior .
She proves that not all Canadians are useless .
However , Justin Bieber is .
Celine Dion and Rene Angelil
After watching Forrest Gump the other day , I thought to myself that I am so blessed to have watch countless movies that I think will prevail even after the day I die .
And then I thought , why not share with you fellow readers the top 4 movies that have embedded itself into my life .
Big parts of my life are the movies that I watch and these four movies are definitely worth watching as they not only question the true meaning of love and life but also ourselves as a whole person .
So here they are !
The top four movies that YOU , MUST watch .
( read along , you won't regret )
Titanic .
A story of two lovebirds meeting and faling in love
on the ill-fated ship , Titanic .
As how the caption for the poster says ,
Nothing on Earth could come between them .
Watch Titanic people ! Not , Avatar .
This is the first movie that made me cry ,
and if a movie has the ability and power to make a person cry ,
it definitely has got it .
A movie that will forever be the best .
Bicentennial Man .
A story about a robot's 200 year journey
to become a man .
This , believe it or not , is the second movie that has
successfully made me weep .
One heck of an acting by Robin Williams ( playing the Robot before , and after) as a robot who goes for freedom , knowledge and love in life .
Second place definitely goes to this movie .
A must-watch movie .
The entertainment industry perhaps .
Celine Dion , Grammy award winner has recently gave birth to twins !
She and her husband , Rene Angelil have not named the babies yet but are soon to .
The Canadian legend , known for her songs like My Heart Will Go On and Because You Loved Me , is resting well after going through Caesarean section ( her twin babies were prematurely born ).
After suffering a miscarriage in 2009 and famous for her struggles in conceiving , Celine Dion is now in neonatal intensive care , which is common for newborn twins who arrive before their due date .
As a fan of her songs , I just felt like an obligation to wish her a speedy recovery .
Her songs pulled me out of some of the darkest moments of my life . She's a savior . More importantly , a Canadian savior .
She proves that not all Canadians are useless .
However , Justin Bieber is .
Celine Dion and Rene Angelil ************************
After watching Forrest Gump the other day , I thought to myself that I am so blessed to have watch countless movies that I think will prevail even after the day I die .
And then I thought , why not share with you fellow readers the top 4 movies that have embedded itself into my life .
Big parts of my life are the movies that I watch and these four movies are definitely worth watching as they not only question the true meaning of love and life but also ourselves as a whole person .
So here they are !
The top four movies that YOU , MUST watch .
( read along , you won't regret )
Titanic .A story of two lovebirds meeting and faling in love
on the ill-fated ship , Titanic .
As how the caption for the poster says ,
Nothing on Earth could come between them .
Watch Titanic people ! Not , Avatar .
This is the first movie that made me cry ,
and if a movie has the ability and power to make a person cry ,
it definitely has got it .
A movie that will forever be the best .
Bicentennial Man .A story about a robot's 200 year journey
to become a man .
This , believe it or not , is the second movie that has
successfully made me weep .
One heck of an acting by Robin Williams ( playing the Robot before , and after) as a robot who goes for freedom , knowledge and love in life .
Second place definitely goes to this movie .
A must-watch movie .
Love Actually . This is by far the BEST romantic comedy movie I have ever seen .
It stars some of Britain''s most talented and famous actors ,
all in one movie that delves into different aspects of love as shown through ten separate stories involving a wide variety of individuals , many of whom are shown to be interlinked as their tales progress .
We have Hugh Grant as the Prime Minister of Britain ( yes , single PM's do have troubled love-lives too ) , Liam Neeson as the step-father of a boy ( Thomas Sangster ) who has girl problems too , Emma Thompson and the great Alan Rickman as a couple whose marriage hangs in the balance , Keira Knightley as the stunning bride , Rowan '' Mr Bean '' Atkinson as the perky and cheeky salesperson , Colin Firth as a writer who finds love in another language and last but not least , Billy Nighy as the granddaddy of pop .
What makes this movie so awesome is the great storyline of different characters and very different lives but have a special link between them and some times those links intertwine !
This movie is third , on my list of great movies of all time .]
Smart . Brilliant actually .
It stars some of Britain''s most talented and famous actors ,
all in one movie that delves into different aspects of love as shown through ten separate stories involving a wide variety of individuals , many of whom are shown to be interlinked as their tales progress .
We have Hugh Grant as the Prime Minister of Britain ( yes , single PM's do have troubled love-lives too ) , Liam Neeson as the step-father of a boy ( Thomas Sangster ) who has girl problems too , Emma Thompson and the great Alan Rickman as a couple whose marriage hangs in the balance , Keira Knightley as the stunning bride , Rowan '' Mr Bean '' Atkinson as the perky and cheeky salesperson , Colin Firth as a writer who finds love in another language and last but not least , Billy Nighy as the granddaddy of pop .
What makes this movie so awesome is the great storyline of different characters and very different lives but have a special link between them and some times those links intertwine !
This movie is third , on my list of great movies of all time .]
Smart . Brilliant actually .
Forrest GumpThis awesome show comes last but not least on my list of top 4 greatest movies of all time .
This movie depicts several decades in the life of Forrest Gump , a simple Alabama man who travels across the world , sometimes meeting historical figures , influencing popular culture , and experiencing firsthand historic events of the late 20th century .
In other words , our world will never be the same once you've seen it through the eyes of Forrest Gump .
This movie practically gave birth to famous quotes like ,
" Run Forrest , run ! " and
" Life is like a box of chocolate . You never know what you gonna' get " .
Whenever I ask a friend about Forrest Gump , I get the same answer over and over again .
Replies such as , awesome , damn nice and all sorts .
That's why this movie is number 4 on my list of greatest movies of all time .
This movie depicts several decades in the life of Forrest Gump , a simple Alabama man who travels across the world , sometimes meeting historical figures , influencing popular culture , and experiencing firsthand historic events of the late 20th century .
In other words , our world will never be the same once you've seen it through the eyes of Forrest Gump .
This movie practically gave birth to famous quotes like ,
" Run Forrest , run ! " and
" Life is like a box of chocolate . You never know what you gonna' get " .
Whenever I ask a friend about Forrest Gump , I get the same answer over and over again .
Replies such as , awesome , damn nice and all sorts .
That's why this movie is number 4 on my list of greatest movies of all time .
Now that you know of what to watch this coming holiday , head over to the nearest DVD shop and get yourselves these movies !
Or if you're a little bit of a lazy bump , download them online .
I fucking gurantee that you will not find these movies boring . I bet my life on it .
As a matter of fact , I will put this list of the top 4 greatest movies of all time on the side of my blog as a strong testament of how much I idolize and revere them .
Or if you're a little bit of a lazy bump , download them online .
I fucking gurantee that you will not find these movies boring . I bet my life on it .
As a matter of fact , I will put this list of the top 4 greatest movies of all time on the side of my blog as a strong testament of how much I idolize and revere them .
*********************
Alright .
I've typed my heart's out today and I think I'll call it a night .
I'll see you guys after my exams and most likely will be finding a part-time job by then so , wish me luck !
Have a great weekend everyone and remember ,
Loves ,
- Jaden -
I've typed my heart's out today and I think I'll call it a night .
I'll see you guys after my exams and most likely will be finding a part-time job by then so , wish me luck !
Have a great weekend everyone and remember ,
Screw Justin Bieber .
Loves ,
- Jaden -
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
