See other 9/11 Articles
Title: Ludicrous Hit Piece Attacks Ventura On WTC Collapse Comments
Source:
Prison Planet
URL Source: http://www.infowars.com/?p=1425
Published: Apr 10, 2008
Author: Paul Joseph Watson
Post Date: 2008-04-10 13:05:35 by TwentyTwelve
Keywords: 911 Hit piece, 9/11, Ventura
Views: 316
Comments: 13
Ludicrous Hit Piece Attacks Ventura On WTC Collapse Comments Paul Joseph Watson Prison Planet Thursday, April 10, 2008 An almost unbelievably absurd and weak hit piece against Jesse Ventura’s contention that WTC 7 was deliberately imploded on 9/11 compares a 4-story church that was a stone’s throw away from the twin towers with a 47-story skyscraper that was nearly 400 feet away. Responding to the former Minnesota Governor’s recent appearance on Fox News, CHQR radio host Rob Breakenridge writes, "Ventura obviously thinks this sounds very clever, but there’s one point on which he’s factually incorrect: it was more than three buildings. The twin towers (1WTC & 2WTC) obviously collapsed, as did 7WTC - the three buildings Ventura cites. What he neglects to mention is that 3WTC (Marriott Hotel) and St. Nick’s Cathedral also collapsed that day." Let’s start with Breakenridge’s absurd example of St. Nicholas Church as a building that was destroyed by the twin towers’ collapse on 9/11. This is a picture of the 4-story Church building. It stands in the shadow of the 1362-foot tall south tower. To compare this with a gigantic 576-foot tall skyscraper that would be the tallest building in most major cities and stands a full 355 feet away from the north tower is patently ludicrous. The humble church building is like an ant compared to the colossal south tower, of course it would have been crushed when the south tower collapsed. How on earth can Breakenridge draw a parallel between this tiny building and a gigantic skyscraper that was nearly half as tall as the twin towers? The 47-story WTC 7 following the collapse of the twin towers. Somewhat different to the 4-story St. Nicholas Church. Breakenridge then cites WTC 4, 5 and 6 as buildings that were destroyed and "had to be brought down manually or otherwise they, too, would have collapsed." The difference between all these buildings and WTC 7 was that they were all closer to the twin towers than Building 7 and none of them collapsed in a 7-second implosion style demolition. All were pelted by debris and essentially hollowed out, but their basic foundation remained in place and they did not fall to the ground at the speed of gravity within 7 seconds. All the buildings remained standing until they were demolished weeks later. In comparison, WTC had suffered little debris damage because it stood a full 355 feet away from the north tower and yet it imploded into its own footprint in an instant. Breakenridge cites World Trade Center Building 3 (pictured above), known publicly as the 22-story Marriott Hotel, which was positioned between the twin towers. The building was sliced in half during the collapse of WTC 2, yet it did not experience uniform collapse either vertically or horizontally. WTC 3 was in the middle of the WTC towers, whereas Building 7 was 355 feet away. WTC 3 was less than half the height of WTC 7 and yet WTC 7 experienced a full implosion-style collapse within 7 seconds, while the foundation of WTC 3 survived. In the map above you can see that WTC 3 is sandwiched in-between the twin towers, whereas WTC 7 is more than a block away from the north tower. A comparison between WTC 3 and WTC 7, even taking into account the fact that WTC 3 was not completely destroyed despite taking the brunt of both twin towers whereas WTC 7 was imploded, is clearly another ridiculous parallel to draw. Breakenridge then attempts to back up his preposterous argument by citing "peer-reviewed papers on the collapse" of the buildings, including the 10,000 page NIST report. This is probably news to Breakenridge, but NIST itself has completely failed to address the cause of WTC 7’s collapse and has not yet issued a final report on the reason for the 7-second implosion. In addition, NIST itself admits that the debris from the twin towers was not the cause of the collapse. Breakenridge also cites, "The study by a Cambridge University engineer (which) demonstrates that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total." First of all, Breakenridge starts out talking about Building 7 but then suddenly switches to citing reports about the collapse of the twin towers, which is bizarre but unsurprising considering the laughable amateurish nature of his article. Furthermore, the alleged Cambridge University report has been completely debunked because its conclusions violate fundamental laws of physics. The report, "essentially claims that a falling body can fall through the path of most resistance. Such a claim is ludicrous and defies all logic or honest scientific integrity," according to J A Blacker MSc IMI, who wrote to the university demanding the report be corrected. Mr Blacker’s request also challenges the claim that “All the floors offered the same flimsy resistance," when in fact, "each had different construction characteristics, the lower floor core columns were over double the thickness compared to the upper floors.” “The Seffen paper claims that burning jet fuel in air can weaken ALL the steel girders evenly (hence symmetrical collapse due to gravity of all columns perfectly), yet both ends of these outer and inner massive columns were outside the fire zone to differing degrees hence heat would have conducted up and down very efficiently at different rates, and many columns were not even subjected to any significant fire. Are we really expected to believe that fire can weaken steel evenly despite the core columns conducting heat efficiently at varying rates away from varied regions of temperature?” concludes Blacker. Breakenridge’s pathetic attempt to smear Jesse Ventura is atypical of the hit pieces against the 9/11 truth movement that we’ve become accustomed to - setting up straw man arguments, making comparisons between completely anathema scenarios, and using arguments that violate the very basic laws of physics. © 2008 Alex Jones | Infowars.com is an Alex Jones company. All rights reserved.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: wudidiz (#0)
Why respond as though this idiot has any credibility?
"Hello Rothschild's cattle!" ~ Deek Jackson
I thought it was accepted and admitted that WTC 7 was demolished? Wasn't that all the discussion of the "the building had to be pulled" style of statements?
Rivers of blood were spilled out over land that, in normal times, not even the poorest Arab would have worried his head over." Field Marshal Erwin Rommel
Deflect, Deny, Disparage and Discredit.
I don't think the word collapsed means what he thinks it means. 3WTC (Marriott Hotel)
The 9/11 "Jew" suckers will suck until they are blue in the face. Fuck em. We need to show people WTC7 collapsing. Don't stop until every last American has seen it. We can only beat the terrorists that rule us only with an informed public. We must beat them or we will be their slaves.
God is always good!
"> Here is the VIDEO ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Step by Step Demolition of The Kingdome in Seattle as detailed by Controlled Demoltion, INC on their website. See also their coffee table book on "how to" for building demolitions. (Research) Here is the VIDEO BE SURE AND CLICK ON CONTENTS AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE WTC7.net the hidden story of Building 7: The Collapse of WTC ... An investigation of WTC 7's collapse, evidence of controlled demolition. Building 7 was the third skyscraper to be reduced to rubble on September 11, 2001. According to the government, fires, primarily, leveled this building, but fires have never before or since destroyed a steel skyscraper. The team that investigated the collapse were kept away from the crime scene. By the time they published their inconclusive report in May, 2002, the evidence had been destroyed. Why did the government rapidly recycle the steel from the largest and most mysterious engineering failure in world history, and why has the media remained silent? it has been. angle's right. this guy deserves to be ignored.
http://www.911building7.co.uk/joomla/ http://www.911building7.co.uk/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id =19&Itemid=33 9/11 Building 7 Music Video Welcome Written by Administrator Thursday, 15 March 2007 Welcome This website has been created to present a music video and information about some of the anomalies on 9/11, that still remain unanswered to this day.
Without 9/11, the Middle East Union would still be just a pipe dream.../s
.
#2. To: TwentyTwelve (#0)
First of all, Breakenridge starts out talking about Building 7
#3. To: TwentyTwelve (#0)
#4. To: historian1944 (#3)
but then suddenly switches to citing reports about the collapse of the twin towers
#5. To: TwentyTwelve, *9-11* (#0)
What he neglects to mention is that 3WTC (Marriott Hotel) and St. Nick’s Cathedral also collapsed that day."
#6. To: TwentyTwelve (#0)
#7. To: RickyJ (#6)
The 9/11 "Jew" suckers will suck until they are blue in the face. Fuck em. We need to show people WTC7 collapsing. Don't stop until every last American has seen it.
="Step by Step Demolition of The Kingdome in Seattle as detailed by Controlled Demoltion, INC on their website. See also their coffee table book on "how to" for building demolitions. (Research) (date unknown)
#8. To: RickyJ (#6)
An investigation of WTC 7's collapse, evidence of controlled demolition.
www.wtc7.net/ - 7k -
#9. To: historian1944, angle (#3)
I thought it was accepted and admitted that WTC 7 was demolished? Wasn't that all the discussion of the "the building had to be pulled" style of statements?
#10. To: RickyJ, wudidiz, FOH, christine (#6)
#11. To: TwentyTwelve (#7)
What North American Union? STOP the North American Union!
~~~~~> Have you seen THIS yet? TIME IS RUNNING OUT!
#12. To: FOH (#11)
#13. To: swarthyguy (#4)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest