Please find below my mini-graphic novel “Collapse or Explosion?” An exploration in images and words of the most troubling political event of our new century.
You can download the complete 29-page book as a PDF Here (3.5MB). Yes, it’s a free download.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Radio: Join me on "The Robert Scott Bell Show" Mon-Fri 12-2
Live: NaturalNewsRadio.com
Archive: The Robert Scott Bell Show + Liam Scheff
Radio Blogs
Listen in Apple iTunes
Liam Scheff - The Conspiracy Realist
The Big Bang Myth, and the Electric Universe
The Vaccine Myth
How the Earth Works
The Slow Boat to China
You are a Secret Conspiracy Theorist
The HPV Virus - The Virus That Doesn't Cause Cervical Cancer
What is in a Vaccine?
HIV Tests Stink
Well, that’s one point of view.
[Reply]
Welp, I read it.
I don’t see any need for any exploding concrete. And your pictures look a lot more like explosions in static images than they do when you just watch the live video. Concrete crumbles, collapses, and some of it shoots back upward due to air displacement and such. What’s the surprise?
I don’t see the relevance of tiny planes run on gasoline hitting smaller buildings. And, it seems to me you’re confusing scale when you suggest that these buildings, at their size, must topple over like a person falling. I don’t know how to explain to you why this is wrong, but it amounts to the fact that even if they do shift sideways, they literally -can’t- just topple like a person or a much tinier building. They did list sideways, as one would expect.
The Boeing 707 was a much, much smaller plane than the planes that hit the towers. American Airlines Flight 11 was a Boeing 767-200 series. You can compare the two here:
http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=87
http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=103
The 767 is about three times as large. Oh, and is significantly faster.
The old plane that hit the Empire State building is practically a joke by comparison on size, on speed, and even on the fuel it ran on.
You cannot honestly expect that the architects could say for sure that their building would survive a hit by a fast 707–they had that in mind but they surely couldn’t be sure. Something three times as heavy, fully loaded with modern jet fuel, running faster than a 707 even could? Yeah. Not a helpful comparison at all. Don’t even go there with a tiny WWII era, propeller-driven gasoline engine plane running at maybe a quarter the speed.
Many of the comparisons you make strike me this way.
Is it plausible we don’t have a full understanding of what happened? Of course. In fact I’d say we don’t. But an explosion? Didn’t see one. Exploding concrete? Not even there in your pictures. Flying debris? Absolutely to be expected.
Here you can see a building being demolished by explosion:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5526343190896185363&ei=H14oS-HpNsKHlAe9zPz9Aw&q=building+detonation&hl=en&client=firefox-a#docid=6979955002470780153
Notice, first the explosions. Way before the building is done falling, the explosions stop. When does the debris and concrete fly up? Not immediately after the explosions, because the explosions don’t cause that. The building going down causes that.
Too much of your grpahic novel strikes me this way: not really making your point very well, because answers appear obvious. At least to me. Sorry man.
I am fully prepared to believe the official explanation of exactly what happened is flawed. Heck, we didn’t start to fully understand what happened to the Titanic until many decades later, when we discovered that some of our theories were flawed. That doesn’t mean that a ship designed to withstand hitting an iceberg (which it was, by the way) didn’t sink because it got hit by an iceberg. ;-)
[Reply]
Dean,
you say “Is it plausible we don’t have a full understanding of what happened? Of course. In fact I’d say we don’t. But an explosion? Didn’t see one. Exploding concrete? Not even there in your pictures. Flying debris? Absolutely to be expected.”
So you think there was no flying debris or exploding concrete in the WTC or at the 911 site? LOL!!!! Thanks for the laugh I can safely ignore the rest of what you’re saying.
[Reply]
PS- “Here you can see a building being demolished by explosion:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5526343190896185363&ei=H14oS-HpNsKHlAe9zPz9Aw&q=building+detonation&hl=en&client=firefox-a#docid=6979955002470780153
”
No, stupid. IMPLOSION. YOu know what it looks exactly like??? Oh YEAH BUILDING 7! Duh.
“I am fully prepared to believe the official explanation of exactly what happened is flawed. ”
Well, keep working.
[Reply]
I’m trying to embed the player, please embed that video so it plays on this page. It’s a perfect example of IMPLOSION.
[Reply]
Hi Daniel,
I’m not going to embed videos in responses, sorry. I don’t want to slow down loading time. I hope people who want to watch the video will click the link. Also, calling people ‘stupid’ probably will get you as much in response. That said, well, good points.
Dean, thanks for stopping by. I was hoping to get you to explain your “too many people to keep a secret” point of view, which you’ve shared with me before.
Dean, are you saying that the WTC buildings “sunk” because they were “hit by an iceberg?”
I don’t understand the analogy. Did the WTC buildings ‘sink?’
bests,
LS
[Reply]
I would like to understand how the building that had nothing to do with the World Trade Centers, came tumbling down. No plane flew into it.
[Reply]
29 pages, lots of work there, excellent photo essay Liam, thanks a lot.
[Reply]
Dean, your claims that the 707 is 3x smaller and significantly slower than the 767 is not supported by the websites you cite, which say the 707 is slightly smaller and slightly faster than the 767.
By the way, those speeds are at cruising altitude, at least 25,000 feet. 35,000 feet is listed as cruise altitude for the 767, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767
[Reply]
Slightly smaller is true, but slightly faster is important. F=MA tells us that Force is equal to Mass x Acceleration. Acceleration means speed. So a faster object, even if smaller, will hit with greater impact than a larger, slower object.
The 707 is only about three feet shorter in length, and maybe two feet shorter in width, but travels quite a bit faster than the 767. At the least they would hit with nearly identical impact results. And as pointed out, the designer of the World Trade Centers has said that the buildings were designed to withstand MULTIPLE impacts from the largest aircraft at the time, the 707, because the buildings were designed as a sort of web, like a mosquito net, so any impact was localized. Localized meaning that the buildings would absorb the impact of an aircraft hit rather than spread it out over the entire structure and all you would get is a small hole, much like poking a pencil through mosquito netting.
And if you were to look at the impact area where the planes hit the World Trade Centers, you would see the impact hole is small and the area around the impact site is intact.
Further, in many photos and video footage of that day, you can see people in the hole where the plane impacted, waving for help. Now tell me…if the fires were so hot they were weakening steel, how could anyone have been standing near them? And only a short time after the impacts when fire fighters reached those floors, they only reported fires akin to a normal office fire. Burning carpeting, burning desks and chairs and so on. Not a raging inferno they could not get close to. And they said they would have it out shortly. So if professional fire fighters didn’t find a raging inferno, or anything they could not easily handle, how is it these buildings were so pathetic a simple office fire was going to bring them down when NO STEEL BUILDING IN THE HISTORY OF STEEL BUILDINGS, had ever collapsed from the result of fire alone?
[Reply]
Oh, what a tangled web we weave.
[Reply]
This does look like an explosion in the way that you frame it. I unfortunately do not have the resources to fully investigate this which brings us to the most legitimate argument. These events should have been independently investigated thoroughly, but they were not. (yuck)
[Reply]
I read an article today about our S.O.S. claiming that IRAN was becoming “A military dictatorship”. I think I might move there because I am a big fan of “America”
http://www.examiner.com/x-15407-Las-Vegas-Christian-Examiner~y2010m2d15-Hilary-Clinton-claims-Iran-is-becoming-a-military-dictatorship
[Reply]
I wasn’t aware that Iran was a country surrounding Israel. Did it move?
[Reply]
Iran has apparently been relocated to the former location of Syria? for the purpose of that article until further notice.
[Reply]
Right on. Anything to please Israel I suppose. There was a recent video where a Congress-critter suggested we just let Israel dictate our foreign policy to us. They tell us what they want us to do, we do it, no questions asked. He makes this sound like something unique. Apparently people are now dictating to Rand McNally about where national borders are located. But Israel has always wanted Eretz-Israel, a country stretching all the way to the Euphrates in Iraq. And they already control…um…I mean, we already control Iraq, so they’re already pretty close to bordering Iran. Maybe they’re just getting ahead of themselves by saying Israel and Iran border one another. Just as the Uranium Iran has, that is enriched to only 5%, with 95%+ required for a weapon, being portrayed as nuclear material for a bomb. Kind of ahead of themselves there as well. Oh, and forgetting to mention in all articles that Iran is a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and has a right to enrich Uranium all day if they want to. As long as it is for peaceful purposes, which the IAEA seems to feel it is.
We spent trillions during the Cold War on these weapons. Are we being told that this very expensive deterrent is not strong enough to deal with a country possessing just one? Ah, but I forget, they are all fanatics itching to bomb someone, despite not having invaded or attacked any nation in over 200 years. Whereas we would never use a nuclear weapon against another country…I mean, we’d never use it twice… well, we won’t use them again.
I also keep scratching my head trying to recall the name of this one country in the Middle East that has not signed on to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, has nuclear weapons and doesn’t allow inspections. But I just can’t seem to remember the name of that country. Oh… It now borders Iran. It didn’t before, but it does now. I will wait for the new Atlas to come out, check it and get back to you with the name the country’s name.
[Reply]
Don’t worry. Jesus is coming. He is going to do a musical on the Disney channel before going right into the Angels and Demons crap!
[Reply]
I read and hear a lot of talk about how the Media is simply a controlled tool of the elite for disinformation and propaganda.
One thing that comes to mind every time I see a poll asking Americans about their knowledge and opinions on various topics, the poll numbers are always heavily skewed in favor of the propaganda line, and the knowledge is flat out wrong.
It’s like when you ask American’s anything serious about American history, or any history for that matter. There was a Youtube video bouncing around for a while showing American’s being interviewed about every day mundane knowledge and the answers given were funny, but also a little frightening. People were asked to name a country starting with the letter U, and could not come up with United States. Asked to come up with the name of the current or last president, they got it wrong.
A more recent poll asked Americans if they thought Iran had “The bomb?” And a majority said yes. This is wrong. When asked if they approved bombing Iran now? 25% said yes. So the establishment line is to bomb Iran, and this is regularly portrayed in the media. And the information on Iran’s “alleged” nuclear program is deliberately jumbled and poorly explained, which leaves American’s with a faulty understand of what it takes to actually build a bomb. Most Americans believe any amount of Uranium is all you need. It doesn’t matter if it is refined or unrefined. This is wrong. But the media doesn’t help.
And this is the key that clarifies it for me. If the Media was doing its job of reporting the news and being informative, more people would know the answers to questions on current events, and therefore demonstrate they have at least some grasp on the topics and some accurate information that they draw conclusions and positions from.
Because a majority of people cannot accurately explain current events, and cannot demonstrate factual knowledge, it shows clearly the media is not doing its job.
And I have to conclude this is deliberate.
Of course I have known for years that the media distorts news and information in favor of an agenda, many people cannot believe this is true, don’t want to believe it is true, or quite often, show no concern.
So when I read a poll that says 75% of Americans interviewed believe Iran already has a nuclear bomb and that it is established fact, that says something when you consider that 75% are wrong. Similar numbers come up when you ask American’s if WMD’s were found in Iraq? Or if Saddam was proven to be working with Al Qaida? Or if Iraq was provably linked to 911?
The only good news is that 66% either believe 911 was an inside job, or that the official story is missing a lot of information and explanations and therefore the investigation was flawed. Also, close to 70% believe Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. So at least this shows that on some topics, American’s have shown the ability to question the official story if the story doesn’t go away but stays a topic of discussion.
The media often switches topics so fast, with new news being presented every day, that few topics stay fresh enough for anyone to care or invest any time or energy investigating or researching to get more information. Only a few weeks ago Haiti was all the news. Now it is back burner. Whereas far more people became interested in last years Israeli invasion and massacre in Gaza known as Operation Cast Lead (Or Operation Eat Lead depending on your views of the operation). So when a story doesn’t go away quickly, and it is taken out of the hands of the media and discussed at length in more personal, social settings, suddenly Americans can find the ability to question. And they begin to demonstrate knowledge and quote facts.
Consider Fox News as opposed to Bloomberg. On Fox News you will get half an hour on some insignificant event like a celebrity doing something good or bad. Whereas on Bloomberg, all you get is news related to business and finance, so the information and news is either relevant or updated. So I believe a news channel about World events that only reported on topics of real importance and stuck with them or returned to them with updates and more information, would be far more valuable to creating a greater understanding of facts for Americans than the current formats where fluff is the bulk of the news reported upon.
[Reply]