Buy WILLisms XML Feed Mar. 21, 2005 11:50 AM June 20, 2005 5:36 AM Oct. 31, 2005 12:41 AM Nov. 23, 2005 3:28 PM Nov. 30, 2005 1:33 PM May 12, 2006 6:15 PM Oct. 17, 2006 12:30 AM Dec. 13, 2006 1:01 PM Dec. 18, 2006 6:37 PM Dec. 21, 2006 12:31 PM Dec. 22, 2006 10:22 PM July 25, 2007 4:32 PM May 28, 2008 11:12 PM June 9, 2008 12:25 PM Blogroll Me! July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 March 13, 2008 Due: July 29, 2008 Mar. 14, 2006 Apr. 4, 2008 May 19, 2007 July 9, 2006 July 14, 2006 Powered by Movable Type 3.17 Site Design by Sekimori WILLisms.com June 2008 Book of the Month (certified classy): The WILLisms.com Gift Shop:
This Week's Carnival of Revolutions:
Carnival Home Base:
|
« Kos Doesn't *Get It*, Of Course | WILLisms.com | Tip-Toeing Around The Crazies » Some 'Loose Change' NonsenseRob Port at Say Anything mentions the Popular Mechanics versus Loose Change debate over whether 9/11 was caused by a 'government conspiracy', and after watching it, it becomes clear that the Loose Change guys rely on the layman's preconceived notions of how planes and buildings should act when being ripped apart to make their case. Such preconceived notions can, of course, be very wrong, and can be refuted by (drum roll) . . . evidence! One of the strangest arguments that the Loose Change weirdos make is that it was a cruise missile and not a Boeing 757 that hit the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Of course they have produced absolutely no evidence for this theory (nor can they) because it is nothing more than adolescent speculation. They point to the fact that there were no large parts of the plane left, such as the engines or the wings, once the fully-loaded plane hit the reinforced concrete walls of the Pentagon. Well, the reason for that is simple. When an aircraft hits a reinforced concrete wall, it atomizes:
As you can see, there are no pieces of the aircraft left except the tips of the wings. Pretty good visual proof as to why there was so little left of the plane that hit the Pentagon, and not nearly the damage to the building that one would expect if one were relying on their preconceived notions. Not to mention all the people that saw an airplane slam into the Pentagon. Heh, as if eyewitnesses count for anything! Praise be to AllahPundit for the eyewitness list, as well as the Phantom footage (I think it was him - it's been floating around for a while now). Posted by Ken McCracken · 12 September 2006 03:57 AM CommentsI listen to it on the way home. It is amazing how hard they worked to "verify" their garbage. There was nothing you could tell them that would change their minds, like - "the goverment is so incopetent that they could never pull it off". Anyway, the Popular Mechanics guys where great. Posted by: Abraham at September 13, 2006 06:50 PM Yeah I think they do a great job, and their low key non-ruffled responses work great I think. I wish the left would decide once and for all if Bush is an evil genius or a bumbling idiot. Not one or the other when it suits their purposes. Posted by: Ken McCracken at September 13, 2006 08:07 PM |