The Antediluvian

I'm building a submarine!!!

2007-04-18T10:39:00.000-05:00

So, I got this crazy idea the other day that I would build Brendan a submarine for his birthday (which is just about a month away). My dad made me a cardboard submarine when I was about 5 or so, complete with parascope. I LOVED that thing, but unfortunately, the rain destroyed it only after 4 short months of good times.Well, in order to make this one actually last, I decided that I would make it out of wood. Since I was making it out of wood, I definitely had to draw up some blueprints, otherwise I'd be winging it, which could only lead to shoddy work and then ... disaster.So, here are the sets of plans I drew up in Microsoft Paint.The sub is going to be HUGE. It will be 8 feet long, from bow to stern. It will be 4 feet wide and 4 feet tall. The conning tower will add another 2 feet. What's awesome is that I will be able to build the whole thing for about $250.

Step 1.

Frame the interior space using 1X2 planks and masonite board for the interior. Rounded supports are to be cut out of plywood, and quarter round stringers will provide the ribs that will be covered with rubberized canvas.

Step 2.

Create and mount bridge supports in the bow. Segmented stringers will provide the ribs to be covered by rubberized canvas in the bow.

Step 3.

Frame and mount supports for conning tower. Cover framing with plywood as siding. Insert parascope.

Step 4.

Mount plywood deck to top of sub and fasten rubberized canvas to sides and bow and stern. The kids will enter the sub from the back, which will swing open on a hinge.Waterproof and paint, and the sub is ready to go!

Chapter 1 Evolution is a house of cards

2007-04-07T17:28:00.000-05:00

A. The Scientific Method

Much has been debated on the biological, geological, and anthropological history of this world. On the one hand is the idea of creation; that God created the Heavens and the Earth, all the stars and planets in the sky, all the creatures of the ocean, land, and air, and finally man himself. On the other hand is the idea of atheistic evolution; that all life was generated by chance and changed over millennia into the many species covering the Earth, including man. Somewhere in the middle is a combination of the two; that God created everything, sent it into motion, and over millennia changed the first living things into a wide variety of different species, leading eventually to man.

With such diversity of opinion, can we ever know who is right? What can we really know about the propagation of life in this world, it’s biological and geological history, and the history of man? Atheistic evolutionists contend that the story of Adam and Eve is a myth, just as with the pagan myths of old. They say that it and the stories in Genesis are nothing more than old stories used to explain the origin of things, since man at the time it was written was too undeveloped and simple to understand proper science. Theistic evolutionists say that the story of Adam and Eve and the subsequent series of events throughout Genesis are true in the sense that the events are true, but that the stories are told in an allegorical manner, so as to teach a lesson in morality. Finally, those who hold a more literal interpretation of Genesis posit that the Earth really isn’t that old at all and that man really did live for hundreds of years.

Can we ever know for certain which position is the True one? Not overtly. In other words, it is impossible to know with scientific certainty what the world was like. However, as with any hypothesis, logical and scientific scrutiny may be used to determine whether one’s ideas regarding our origins is tenable or not. So let us begin with the very foundation for the hypothesis of evolution.

The alleged process of evolution requires four given premises in order to work. The first given assumption is time. Evolutionists believe that the process of evolution is a gradual one, where minor changes take place over millions of generations. For instance, if a dinosaur evolved into a bird, many changes would have to take place. The snout would need to change into a hard beak, the bones would have to change from solid to hollow, it would need to change from cold blooded to warm blooded, it’s forelimbs would have to change from arms or legs into wings, it’s hind legs would have to change from walking or crawling legs to grasping and perching claws, it’s skin would have to change from scales to feathers (and even the feathers would require bazillions of minute changes), etc. In short, since observation and testing is quite clear in showing us that no species has ever produced an offspring of another species (horses have never given birth to dogs, sharks have never given birth to alligators, etc), evolution requires a VERY long amount of time in order to make bazillions of minor adjustments which amount to a slow transformation from one species into another. So, the first assumption of evolution is time. They need a very old earth in order to support their theory.
The second given assumption is abiogenesis, which is nothing short of spontaneous generation of life from non-life. Now, this given is hard for atheistic evolutionists and easy for theistic evolutionists. For one thing, nowhere in the history of man has life ever been observed to spring forth from non-life. For another, no experiment in a closed environment has ever been able to create life from non-life. Theistic evolutionists, on the other hand, would chalk such life up to a divine miracle which set the whole thing in motion, but then again, that isn’t science, is it?

The third given assumption is that gradual changes within a species are caused by mutations. Evolutionists believe that a mutation within the genetic code of a species can account for such variations as scales, feathers, hair, fur, warm bloodedness, cold bloodedness, and so forth.

The fourth given assumption of evolutionists is that natural selection works in tandem with mutations within a species. In other words, as a species mutates, the mutation will either be beneficial, detrimental, or benign and as such will provide an advantage, disadvantage, or neither to the survival of the species. If the mutation is beneficial, then those without the mutation are believed to die out or become less dominant within the species. If the mutation is harmful, then those with the mutation will die off. If the mutation is benign, then it may simply act as a stepping stone to another mutation which will eventually build into something that is beneficial.

Now, my intent is not to get into too many of the particulars of the debate. Too much has already been written about it for me to be able to add anything new. My intent in addressing the fundamental assumptions of evolution is simply to present a philosophical approach to what many claim is more scientific than a literal interpretation of Genesis. As such, I will tackle each assumption one at a time in order that we may determine whether or not evolution is a tenable, scientific “theory” or not. The reason I wish to address only these four assumptions is because without verification in any or all of them, evolution cannot be verified. As such, no matter what other information is put forth in order to support the notion of evolution, if these four assumptions are not verified, then the so-called process of evolution cannot be asserted.

In science, there are three basic levels of knowledge, and they are hypothesis, theory, and law. The scientific method attempts to explain the natural occurrences of the universe by using a logical, consistent, systematic method of investigation, information collection, data analysis (hypothesis), testing (experiment), and refinement to arrive at a well-tested, well-documented, explanation that is well-supported by evidence, called a theory. An hypothesis is nothing more than an observation and an educated guess. For instance, I may observe that strawberry juice turns white cotton pink. From there, I may hypothesize that strawberry juice would make a good pink dye. Based upon that hypothesis, I would run a series of experiments to test whether strawberry juice makes a good dye. I would soak white cotton fabric in strawberry juice at different intervals, give varying drying times, and use different fabric detergents to see if the stained fabric would hold its color. If my tests were positive and well founded, I could then present a theory that strawberry juice makes a good white-cotton dye. Now, if my observations are based upon assumptions, my experiments or my experimental methods yield questionable or inconclusive results, or my conclusions do not logically follow the data, then I am left only with an hypothesis and no theory at all.

So, the question is, can evolution be properly called a theory? Has it actually presented ANY data that is not assumed, questionable, or inconclusive? As any student of logic knows, in order to prove a syllogism, the premises must be factual. The same is true for the scientific method. Let me explain:

1) All A is B.

To state that all A is B is a given fact. It is something that is observable and provable in and of itself. If one claims that all A is B, it is possible for someone to examine what A and B are and see whether it is true or not. It may be easier to place concrete qualities to our premise, so let us say that “A” is jelly beans and “B” is candy. Therefore, our first premise would be that all jelly beans are candy. This is observable and verifiable. Now, let us introduce a second premise:

2) All B has C.

For ease of thought, let us say that by “B” we still mean candy, and by “C” we mean sugar. This is another observable fact that may be determined to be true or false.

Given that all jelly beans are candy and all candy has sugar, we may come to a direct conclusion based upon the facts: All jelly beans have sugar. In this way, we will have moved from hypothesis to theory.

Now, suppose it was not verifiable that all candy has sugar. In fact, suppose it was found out that some candy did not have sugar, but had some sort of alternative sweetener. At such a point, our conclusion would be false because one of the premises was found to be false. In fact, even if we were to adjust the syllogism to look like:

1) All jelly beans are candy
2) Some candy has sugar

We would not be able to conclude that jelly beans had sugar; based upon the given facts, the jelly beans could just as easily be the candy that does not have sugar. Even if it were determined that jelly beans had a high probability of possessing sugar, it would not be conclusive that jelly beans had sugar, and so therefore the premise that “all jelly beans had sugar” could not be used as a given for some other syllogism. So, what may have been a theory drops back down to the level of hypothesis.

Now, taking that little lesson in logic, let us apply the same sort of premise to some of the “evidences” given by evolutionists to support their hypothesis of evolution (remember, without solid evidence, evolution is not a theory).

Atlantis Rising ... Introduction

2007-03-20T19:34:00.000-05:00

I have decided to shift gears here for a little while. Rather than pursue what happened on 9-11 (a mystery which requires a much more in depth investigation than it got), I have decided that I am going to write a book.

This book will be the culmination of something I have been reading and researching for almost 15 years. Since I have already invested so much time into the subject, I guess it's time to get something out of it.

So here it is. I present to you the introduction for my new book:

It is said that history repeats itself. This little idiom is usually a warning given to budding history and political science students as a preface to the importance of studying their subject with great interest and intensity. But to what extent does history repeat itself? We may observe the rise and fall of civilizations, and we may see common themes involved throughout, but what are we missing? How far back must we go before we can understand the world we live in today?

While the modern world may reflect the universality of ancient Rome, or the militarism of ancient Greece, the hubris of ancient Babylon, or even the moral and religious decadence of ancient Egypt, there is one thing which separates it from the ancient world: This is the first age in recorded history that is as technologically advanced as it is. While the ancients were certainly ingenious and innovative, there is no record of the ancient world having achieved what we have achieved today. But is it the case that this earth has never seen our current technological levels before? Even the ancient world hints at advanced technology. A model found in an Egyptian tomb seems to indicate some knowledge of flight, or at least aerodynamics. Small golden statuettes discovered in an ancient Columbian temple have all the properties of powered aircraft. Clay pots in Babylon containing copper cylinders and certain other minerals point to a knowledge of electricity. These “batteries”, when examined in light of some hieroglyphs found in Egypt, it appears that the ancients may have created artificial light. Whatever the case may have been, each of these things, and many others, are only slivers compared to our modern accomplishments. But what if those flashes of technological inspiration were not precursors of technology to come, but reflections of the world of the past? Is it possible that a world much like our own once existed on this earth under a much younger sun? If so, is it significant?

The ancient world is replete with mythological anecdotes of a great flood which washed away some advanced civilization. The book of Genesis describes an age of man in which men lived for hundreds of years, only to fall into such decadence that God flooded the world, saving only Noah and his family. The Epic of Gilgamesh tells a very similar story. Even the Chinese cuneiform for the word “boat” is a combination of the word for vessel and the word for 8 people. Almost every ancient civilization has a flood legend, and some refer to a highly advanced civilization.

The common theme is that God created the world, and everything in it, but then became displeased with man. He then sent a flood, which destroyed the world. There is a begging of a question here … what sort of thing could have been so horrible that God would send a flood to destroy almost every man, woman, and child on the face of the earth? People today say that sin in the world is at its highest peak, while others say that some ages of the past were far worse than the world today. Whatever the case may be, there are many clues in the ancient and antediluvian worlds which stand as a stark warning that is all too pertinent to today’s world. In fact, if we do not seek to learn the mistakes of the past, we may be well doomed to repeat them … with far greater consequences than we may imagine.

Addendum

2007-03-11T20:30:00.000-05:00

Here's another eyewitness talking about a big explosion in one of the Towers.

He mentions the plane hitting the building, then he mentioned a huge explosion "much, much lower", about an hour after the plane hit.

Hmm .. let's review.

1) Fires could not have caused the WTC 7 building to collapse as it did, leaving planned demolitions to do the trick, and a review of extreme fires in other steel-framed buildings and unplanned building collapses attest to this.

2) Audio evidence on 9-11 of explosions going off are a srtong testimony to the presence of bombs.

3) Firefighters telling news crews to get away because "there's a bomb in the building" takes that which used to be in the realm of possibility and promotes it to the level of probability.

4) And now, video testimony on 9-11 of an eyewitness who was at ground zero talking about an explosion in one of the towers (much, much lower) an hour after the first plane hit.

There's an old saying in the intelligence community, "Once is a coincidence, twice is statistically improbable, three times is enemy action."

3 buildings falling at the rate of freefall into their own footprint, proof of the existence of bombs in at least one building, and the government and the media tells us it is all a horrible coincidence?

But if we want to talk about coincidence, next post, I'll list all of the horribly unfortunate coincidences that we are expected to believe were coincidental on the day of 9-11. Oh Fortuna, how wonderful is thy terrible fate?

It's gonna explode!?!!?

2007-03-10T23:19:00.000-05:00

In this short, 36 second clip, a group of people are running away from the Twin Towers. The individual recording the mayhem asks, "What's going on?" and "Where's everybody going?" You can hear screams, you see people running and looking back, and you get a shot of the two towers smoldering from the airplane hits. What's odd is that someone said that they were going to "fall" and someone else said, "It's going to explode".

There are two very serious questions to ask about this.

a) Who told them the tower was going to "explode?"

and

b) Why wasn't anyone on the inside (like the firefighters) told that the building was going to explode?

And in case you wanted proof positive that there were bombs present, but were too skeptical to take any of the other evidence as it stands ... well this short clip of some firefighters talking when two very distinct explosions go off should just about do it.

But you know ... a couple of guys standing around, hearing two loud explosions just might not be good enough. Why don't we take it directly from the horses mouth ... like some firefighters telling this news crew that "there's a bomb in the building, start clearing out." In the background, you can distinctly hear someone say, "there's a secondary device." Excuse me? Secondary??? Why was none of this reported? Why didn't this even enter into the 9-11 commission report?

Oh, and by the way ... remember that clip I linked to earlier regarding some freemasons plotting to blow up the Sears Tower? Well, I did a little digging. Looks like Mr. Silverstein's investments are being tracked by terrorists, just so that they can destroy everything he owns. "The Hell?" you say? Let me break it down for you.

Larry Silverstein (who stated unequivocally that in reference to WTC 7 "the smartest thing to do would be to 'pull it', so we made the decision to pull and watched the building collapse") purchased the lease on WTC 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 of the WTC complex. Guess which buildings collapsed? How terribly unfortunate for Mr. Silverstein ... except,wait ... Mr. Silverstein invested only $14 million of his own money, and was awarded $5 billion in insurance monies after 9-11. But what does this have to do with the Sears Tower, you ask?

Looks like Silverstein and company made some investments in 2004 and purchased another rather tall American landmark. Given that the freemasons' attempt to orchestrate a bombing of the Sears Tower have been thwarted (knowlege which is now quasi public), the Tower itself may be safe. But isn't it rather interesting that another of Silverstein's investment properties would be the butt of yet another "terrorist" plot, and that those behind it would be involved in one of the shadiest and most powerful secret societies on earth?

Answers to latest counterpoints.

2007-03-07T21:26:00.000-05:00

1) You can see parts of the building start to collapse on the roof on the left. then the whole thing just gave way.

When a demolitions team sets charges to bring down a building, they time the detonations to bring down the center columns first.

"Blasters approach each project a little differently, but the basic idea is to think of the building as a collection of separate towers. The blasters set the explosives so that each "tower" falls toward the center of the building, in roughly the same way that they would set the explosives to topple a single structure to the side. When the explosives are detonated in the right order, the toppling towers crash against each other, and all of the rubble collects at the center of the building. Another option is to detonate the columns at the center of the building before the other columns so that the building's sides fall inward."

As I explained with my Leggo example, you have to demolish the support columns in order to create a free-fall effect, or else the resistance of the supports beneath each level will prevent the structure from collapsing. However, in response to the criticism that the a portion of the center of the building caved in moments before the entire building fell, I say this. As noted, the central support columns would have been exploded first. The cave if of a portion of the roof is a strong indication of exactly that. As for the rest of the building, it fell in a perfectly symmetrical fashion, as though there were no resistance beneath it whatsoever. That is VERY STRONG evidence that the support system failed on a simultaneous, universal level.

2) It has been asserted that I must prove that explosives were in the building because the proof that it did collapse the way it did is on video.

Well, I am not questioning the manner in which it imploded ... the video evidence is everywhere. What I question is the cause. There is no proof that fires brought that building down, and in fact, I would say that the argument that fires brought the building down is flimsy at best. The only point of discussion is in whether fire can cause complete failure of the entire superstructure of the entire building all at the same exact moment or not. To date, there is no example of that ever happening anywhere in the entire world, and in fact, there are multitudinous examples of where fire did NOT bring down a steel-framed building, and examples of what happens when a portion of a building gives out.

One cannot start with the premise that fires or demolitions brought the building down (which is the assertion of the point I am currently countering). All that can be done is examine the evidence that lays before us and use reason to deaw a conclusion. To draw a logical syllogism:

a) Uniform, symmetrical, synchronized collapse cannot occur where all or most structural supports are still attached.

b) Building fires burn at different temperatures throughout the building and will not heat structural supports at the same rate, at the same temperature, and for the same amount of time throughout the building. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the fires were even raging throughout any given floor in its entirety.

c) Given that the building came down in a completely uniorm, symmetrical, and synchronized fashion (All video evidence supports this, and no footage counters this), at a constant rate of freefall throughout the entire building, the only conclusion is that all of the structural supports failed at the exact same time.

d) Since the fire provides insufficient explanation (and even has insufficient evidence for even having provided structural weakening) for universal collapse (given the aforementioned reason), fire could not have caused the demolition of the building. The only other explanation is demolitions.

E) And just to throw this in here ... WTC 7 was built with enough redundancy to allow for the complete removal of entire floors without weakening the structural integrity of the rest of the building.

3) 2-110 story buildings came crashing down all around wtc7, which actually registered on the Rickter (sp?) scale. That's a mighty powerful factor that would majorly compromise any building around it.

All I have to say is that WTC 4, 5, and 6 were closer, took on WAY more structural damage, had raging infernos burning throughout the buildings for far longer, and did not collapse. Apparently, the collapses of the WTC Towers did nothing to facilitate structural damage to the buildings.

Could fire bring down WTC 7?

2007-03-07T15:04:00.000-05:00

Before we can answer that question, we first must ask what holds a building up? Well, that’s easy; a building is supported by its framework, or its superstructure. In other words, each floor of a building is built upon a series of columns. These columns stand completely vertical, often reinforced with diagonal support beams to help weight distribution reach a greater surface area. In fact, the greater number of support columns in place, the greater load-bearing capability is available, which will in turn allows for a greater number of floors to be built above it.

There’s nothing magical about it, we’re simply talking about weight distribution.

But support columns are not the only aspect to creating a stable building. If you were to build a tall tower out of a child’s blocks, you will find that the lack of attachment in any of the free-floating blocks causes your creation to wobble with instability, and if you were to remove one of the supports, the entire structure would collapse. Now imagine building a tower out of Leggos. You will find that the structure built out of Leggos is much more stable, even though you used the same design, because the entire infrastructure is relying upon all other parts to maintain structural integrity. In other words, a support column on one side of the structure bears less total weight once it is attached to the superstructure, and in fact, relieves the columns on the very opposite end of the building, than it would if it were merely holding up stuff that was carefully stacked on top. Now, if you were to remove one of the support columns from this Leggo building, you would hear the rest of the structure creak, as it strains to maintain structural integrity. If you remove a couple more, the structure will eventually weaken and collapse. But the collapse would not be uniform, and certainly would not be symmetrical. The collapse would cause the building to tilt in the direction it is weakest (the area without the support columns). Momentum would cause all parts of the building to fall in the direction of structural collapse, but then a funny thing happens. Even though the building fell, most of the upper portions remained intact. That is because even though the support columns holding up the entire structure were no longer there, the rest of the structures integrity is still unified. In fact, you would then have to go through the process of dismantling each of the pieces that remained attached to the structure on the whole.

So, a building remains standing because the structural supports hold it up, which in turn redistribute the load-bearing weight of the entire building throughout the entire superstructure because they are all interconnected and reinforced with diagonal support beams.

Be sure to examine these examples of buildings that have fallen (but not collapsed in a universal, uniform, and symmetrical manner) because one or more of the supports beneath failed.

What about fire?

Suppose your tall building was on fire for hours on end. We all know that steel weakens when it is heated, couldn’t weakened beams cause the building to collapse? The answer? It doesn’t matter. Let’s go back to the example of the Leggo building. We already demonstrated that the removal of some of the support columns only affects the overall stability of the building insofar as its ability to stand upright. The removal of a few support columns will cause a building to topple, but not implode (even if you were to simultaneously remove every support column in the center on the bottom floor of the building, the rest of the building, still attached, would twist, it would bend, but it would not collapse right away), no matter how hot that fire was.

WTC 7

Here’s the problem. Universal, symmetrical, and simultaneous failure of the entire superstructure. Regardless of how hot the fire was inside the building (though there is no evidence to suggest that the fires were anywhere near as intense as the fires I posted before), fire alone cannot cause the very connectivity of the superstructure of the building to fail all at the exact same time. In short, if fire indeed caused the superstructure of the building to weaken (the fire would have to have been thousands of degrees hotter than the temp at which diesel burns … 1650 F max … in order to cause universal superstructure failure), it STILL would have met resistance with the rest of the superstructure it was attached to and could not have met with universal collapse (especially at the rate of freefall).

There is only one way for the superstructure to meet with the conditions necessary for the building to fall straight down and at the rate of free-fall, and that is with the use of demolitions.

I challenge anyone to give solid, demonstrable evidence that WTC 7 could have collapsed as it did without the aid of timed explosives.

In the mean time … check out this video of Freemasons being arrested for plotting to bring down the Sears Tower in Chicago.

Imam, Jewish Messiah, and the Return of Jesus Christ

2007-03-05T09:31:00.000-05:00

I saw this article this morning, and there was a part of it that struck me in particular.
On the one hand, you have protestant extremists who believe the following:

That is because Christian Fundamentalists believe that the state of Israel is a creation of God and has a key role to play in the Final Battle between Good and Evil, as foretold in the Book Revelations in the Bible.

They believe that this Final Battle— which may have already begun—will reach its zenith in the hills around the valley of Megido (from which the word “Armageddon” is derived) and as a result, “the valley from Galilee to Eilat will flow with blood” and 144,000 male, virgin Jews will convert to Christianity, and this will be the signal for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.
So Israel has to be defended at all cost because it has a special role to play in their apocalyptic vision of the End Days, even if most of the Jews will be wiped out.

On the other hand, you have extremist muslims who believe the following:

On the other hand, there is a sub-sect in Shia Islam that has a similar apocalyptic vision. Shia Muslims trace their doctrinal roots to Imam Hussein, a prophet and martyr who was killed by the Sunnis at about 834 AD in the holy city of Kerbala in what is now Iraq. This Shia sub-sect also believs in a Muslim version of the End Days, including the Second Coming of Imam Hussein.

What this particular article doesn't hit on is the fact that the Jews are still waiting for their messiah, and according to their tradition, He will be a conquering messiah.

So, what we have is a military situation brewing over three distinct, extremist mentalities focused on certain prophecies that are all very similar, awaiting similar "Messiahs" who will help their individual cause.

Here's where it gets interesting. According to a letter attributed to Albert Pike, three world wars were designed to bring about a one world government. While certain aspects of the letter seem to indicate that it may have been written sometime between WW I and WW II, the part of the letter that is of particular interest is the part on WW III; not because of what it says about the middle east, but the manner in which it suggests the use of terrorism and the lead to disillusionment with Christianity and atheism.

"Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view."

Whether or not the letter is a forgery, Pawns in the Game (the book referencing the letter) was written in 1956, long before terrorism was anywhere near being a household term, and well before anyone gave any thought to the Middle East as being a world political problem anytime in the near future. And to say that citizens (implying that they, and not military forces would be the targets) around the world would have to defend themselves from a world minority (referring to islamic forces; ie terrorists) is quite the prediction. But what is most revealing is that Christians, atheists, and the rest will follow the "true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer," after the conflict. While I can't verify the authenticity of the letter itself, it does paint a rather chilling vision of the future (which seems to be unfolding right in front of us).

But this all begs the question, "Why would all these extremist groups suddenly follow the same ideal, or the same man?" It seems to me that they would follow the same man because they all thought he was the fulfillment of their own prophecy. What if the Imam Hussein claims to also be Jesus returned to earth, and also claims to be the Jewish Messiah? What if his claim is that they are all parts to a greater whole, and calls for "unity"? Could it be that the anti-Christ referred to by Cardinal Giacomo Biffi may be this individual calling for religious unity? It's hard to say, but when one contemplates the religious and political pushes throughout the world, there are two that stand out the most: the push for universal open boarders (global governance), and the push for a synchretistic, unified world religion.

I'm certainly not saying that this is the case, though in many ways, it makes a whole lot of sense of a whole lot of things.

Answers to Points regarding WTC 7

2007-03-04T00:23:00.001-05:00

*Please bear with my pictures and text placement. I'm still learning how to do layouts on this and am not having the best of luck.

In the comments to my previous post there have been some critical points which would call into question certain aspects of the claims I made. I shall go through them one at a time and try to answer them to the best of my ability. Please bear in mind that I am NOT presenting a complete thesis attempting to answer all aspects of 9-11. Only those things which have been questions regarding what I have posted.

In a later post, I will attempt to present certain scientific aspects of the nature of demolitions, the physics of resistance, and illustrate whether or not it is probable (or even possible) for the WTC 7 building to have collapsed in a completely uniformed and symmetrical manner without the aid of demolitions charges.

1) It is so unusual for steel frame buildings to collapse [because they are] not permitted to go on burning for hours on end.

Actually, that is not quite the case. When one compares fires in steel framed buildings from all over the world, that have raged with intense ferocity for far longer than the few visible fires in WTC 7, it is obvious that the amount of time a fire burned had no impact upon whether the building would meet with universal, symmetrical failure at the same exact point in time. Here are a few examples.

This first image is the aftermath of a 12 hour fire in the upper portion of one of the tallest buildings in Caracas, Venezuela. Even though the fire was so intense that there was concern of melting, not only did the building not collapse, but it also did not even bend. WTC 7’s fires were apparently less intense and burned for only about half the time.

The next three images I will provide here are of the 32-story, Windsor Tower, in Madrid, Spain, which burned for 24 hours on February 12th, 2005. Although the top ten floors fell, the building itself did not collapse. The Windsor Tower was framed in steel reinforced concrete.

The last image is of the 38-story One Meridian Plaza building in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, which burned for 18 hours in February 1991, gutting 8 floors.

Clearly, the fact that WTC 7 burned for hours on end did was not the reason why it collapsed in a completely uniformed and symmetrical fashion.

Oh … and let’s not forget that WTC 7 was built with ”enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity” With that kind of redundancy built into the infrastructure of the building, the liklihood that universal, symmetrical, and simultaneous structural failure would happen is almost zero.

2) You can CLAIM that there is only minor fire damage. I still see fires raging on multiple floors in the photo you posted. The fact that YOU SAY these fires I see are not serious does not make them so.

There were fires reported on approximately 10 floors throughout the day. From all the photographic evidence I have seen, the amount of damage to WTC 7 appears to be minor from the outside. Please keep in mind that in bringing up the damage observed on WTC 7, there were at least 3 other buildings that had sustained severe damage (far worse than WTC 7), and were on fire for just as long, and not only remained standing, but there were no pre-reports that they had (past tense) fallen. From all photographic accounts, the damage to WTC 7 on the outside was minor.

3) WTC 7 housed several generators that ran on liquid fuel (deisel, I think). The fuel from these generators apparently fed the fire.

Regardless of what fueled the fire, the problem is not the fire itself. It is the completely uniformed and symmetrical manner in which the building fell, at the rate of free fall. Even if those tanks containing diesel fuel exploded (which would have caused a massive fireball that no one could have missed), only the portions destroyed by the initial blast would have crumbled … the rest of the building would have twisted and torqued, but because they were still intact, they would not have fallen in a uniformed manner.

4) We do not have a clear picture of the side of the building that faced Ground Zero, but that is apparently where a lot of the exterior damage would have been visible.

Shots from above, the southeast corner, and the back give a good idea as to the condition of the building. Furthermore, video footage of the building shows that there was no resistance from lower floors as the top floor traveled on its way down. This indicated that universally, throughout the building, all of the support for the building failed simultaneously and completely. This cannot have happened without the aid of demolitions.

5) There is still no evident reason why there would have been a conspiracy to pull WTC 7 and then cover it up from the public. After the Twin Towers fell, everything else was anti-climax. If the conspirators wanted to galvanize the public, pulling WTC 7 was hardly worth the effort after they succeeded in crashing the planes into 1 and 2.

Anything I say regarding this particular point is strictly theoretical. As the great Sir Arthur Conan Doyle said through his character, Sherlock Holmes, “Once you remove the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” In other words, if it can be established that WTC 7 did NOT fall as a result of fire, then what remains is that it was brought down by demolitions. Once that is established, we can figure out the “why”.

All said, however, let us take this information in the context of the three pre-reported broadcasts. There is no way the complete and universal collapse of WTC 7 could have possibly been predicted (unless it was being prepped for demolitions). I am not claiming that those reporters, or even the news stations are in on some conspiracy. I am not theorizing here ... a report went out on the newswire, which those three stations picked up and reported on, stating that WTC 7 "had collapsed" (past tense). No one could have predicted that the building would collapse. Perhaps portions of the building might collapse, but universal structural failure could never have been predicted. How e'er it be, whoever sent out the newswire report knew that it was going to collapse before it did, since they reported that it already had, when quite obviously, it had not.

No one could have predicted the collapse of WTC 7

2007-03-02T06:38:00.000-05:00

Since my first post regarding the pre-reports of the collapse of WTC 7, my suppositions have been met with all sorts of hypotheses. Ironically, in just a short amount of time, these replies have already touched upon the first two of the Kubler-Ross stages of grief. The first stage is denial (The video footage was fake), and the second stage is anger (Why would you ever want to believe these reports?). I have no idea what forms the next three stages will take, but it certainly will make for good conversation.

Lately, it has been asserted that perhaps the reports were merely mistaken identity, or a miscommunication hitting the news wires (since the veracity of the reports can no longer be denied). However, there are some very strong reasons why this cannot be the case.

Aside from the fact that WTC 7 was not only identified by name and size in each of the three pre-knowledge videos (and was also stared at in the Aaron Brown video) there is other conclusive evidence that illustrates rather well the fact that if one were to assume the collapse of a building that day (never mind that no steel-framed building in the entire history of steel-framed construction has EVER collapsed as a result of fire), WTC 7 should have been at the very bottom of the list.

Proof against mistaken identity

Let's start with WTC 5 and 6. Rather than go through and discuss all of the far more damaged buildings that could have been considered "collapse risks", I shall illustrate my point with these two buildings.

As you can see from the picture here:

Building 6 (which is near the top of the image) and building 5 (which is the building below it) have massive amounts of damage resulting from falling debris. They were also the subjects of raging fires. Should anyone have been concerned about a building that was going to collapse, it would at least have been one of these two. But no mention of them was made, and there were no predictions about their imminent implosions.

In addition to buildings 5 and 6, buildings 3 and 4 were also severely damaged and engulfed in flame. But building 7 had little to no visible external damage, and the fires in the building were minor by comparison, as you can see here:

With no gaping holes in the top of the building, almost all windows intact, and a row of flames emanating from only a few floors (8 floors were reported to be on fire, and according to firefighter tapes, were "small pocket fires that should be pretty easy to contain), one has to wonder where the concern for the structural integrity of the building was coming from. In the image below, taken from above the building, you can see that the damage to the top of the building (presumably done by falling debris), is superficial at best, and it is rather plain that the structural integrity of the building was no where near being compromised.

The visible damage to this building, as compared with others should not have targeted it for an assumptive complete collapse. Remember, the three reports I posted all claimed that WTC "had collapsed" (including the Aaron Brown video, which was quickly converted to "or is collapsing" once he, and presumably the newsroom, could plainly see that WTC 7 was still standing), indicating that the entire building had imploded. Not partial-collapse. Not crumbled. These reports were about complete structural failure. Even if the fires had weakened the structural integrity of the building (which I am about to prove would have been quite impossible), no steel-framed building in the history of steel-framed buildings has EVER collapsed as a result of fire!!! In other words, there is no historical precedent for the assumption that it would happen here, whether the assumption came from firemen, policemen, or newspapermen. The bottom line is, they shouldn't have even been able to guess that this could happen.

Proof against pre-knowing WTC 7 would collapse

Not only should no one have known that WTC 7 would collapse as a result of fire, but the very likelihood that the building should fall in a completely uniformed manner (as a result of fire) is scientifically impossible. Here's why. When a building is on fire, the environment is uncontrolled. The burning fires will be uneven, the heat displacement will be uneven, and therefore the damage to the structural integrity of the building will be uneven. As a result, any heat-weakened steel supports would warp unevenly. Even if the fire were hot enough to melt the steel supports, their collapse would have been on an individual basis, not a universal one. In other words, the collapse would have been uneven at best. But for this particular building, the likelihood of that ever happening is exponentially less than most.

This article from the new york times, dated Feb 19, 1989 shall make the case for me. The article, entitled, "COMMERCIAL PROPERTY: The Salomon Solution; A Building Within a Building, at a Cost of $200 Million", has this to say:

BEFORE it moves into a new office tower in downtown Manhattan, Salomon Brothers, the brokerage firm, intends to spend nearly two years and more than $200 million cutting out floors, adding elevators, reinforcing steel girders, upgrading power supplies and making other improvements in its million square feet of space...
In some office buildings, that alteration would be impossible, but Silverstein Properties tried to second-guess the needs of potential tenants when it designed Seven World Trade Center as a speculative project.

''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company. ''Sure enough, Salomon had that need...

MORE than 375 tons of steel - requiring 12 miles of welding - will be installed to reinforce floors for Salomon's extra equipment. Sections of the existing stone facade and steel bracing will be temporarily removed so that workers using a roof crane can hoist nine diesel generators onto the tower's fifth floor, where they will become the core of a back-up power station.

With that kind of reinforcement, there is NO WAY there could have been a universal, symmetrical collapse. But for no less than 3 separate news stations to report on the universal and total collapse of WTC 7, before the fact, when many other buildings were in far greater danger of falling, and in light of the fact that a universal and symmetrical collapse of WTC 7 would have been impossible ... whoever sent out the report MUST have known of a scheduled collapse.

The bottom line is ... the building was demolished, and its collapse was NOT the result of fire.

Pre-knowledge of WTC 7 Confirmed

2007-02-28T19:14:00.000-05:00

Continuing from my previous post regarding a BBC reporter announcing the collapse of WTC 7 over 20 minutes prior to its actual collapse, there is now cross-referenced proof that a report did indeed go out announcing the collapse of WTC 7 as much as an hour before it actually did fall.

The question is, how did they know?

It has been asserted that the video I wrote about in my previous post may have been somehow faked. If it is faked, then all the BBC had to do was produce the original footage to denounce the claim. However, instead of producing any original footage, they claimed that they had lost ALL of their video footage of 9-11 (which is highly doubtful) and referred to their sister station BBC channel 24.

So, in searching for BBC channel 24 and WTC 7 footage, I found this clip announcing the collapse of WTC 7 with a time stamp of 21:54. 21:54, of course, is 24 hour time for 9:54 PM, and being that England is 5 hours ahead of NY time, that places the report at 4:54 ... 26 minutes before the actual collapse of the building (WTC 7 collapsed at 5:20 PM).

But that wasn't all that I found. In case anyone was so skeptical as to believe that that footage, too was doctored, I found this video footage of Aaron Brown, from CNN News announcing that "we are getting information that building 7 ... is on fire (looks down at his prompter) and has either collapsed or is collapsing ..." I would like to point out that WTC 7 was prominently displayed in the background behind him, and the camera even switched to a closeup shot of WTC 7 standing straight as an arrow.

Since the prompter was obviously feeding him incorrect information, he immediately switched gears by saying, "And I—I—You, to be honest, can see these pictures more clearly than I, but building number 7, one of the buildings in this very large complex of buildings that is that is the trade center."

Clearly, Brown, slicker than the BBC reporter, caught the errors in the script during live coverage and revised his words, saying instead-- as he looked at the standing structure:
"And now we are told that there’s a fire there and that building may collapse as well as you can see."

And the time of the report? The clip ends with him giving the time as 4:15 Eastern Daylight Time.

So ... we have three clips from three different sources announcing the collapse of WTC 7 about 20 minutes, 26 minutes, and about an hour and 5 minutes ahead of time. With the extreme collateral damage to WTC 3, 5, and 6 it stands to reason that if there should have been any false reports regarding the collapses of ANY of the other buildings, it would be one of them. As it stands, what we do know is that a report went out well in advance of the collapse of WTC 7.

The question is, how did they know,and who sent out the report?

When one considers the nature of the collapse (straight down at the rate of freefall), the Silverstein quote claiming that WTC 7 was "pulled", and the pre-reports of the collapse of WTC 7, reason would suggest that it was a planned demolition.

BBC reports WTC collapse 20 min before actual collapse

2007-02-27T09:14:00.000-05:00

This can definitely be marked under the "WTF??!!?" file.

An astounding video shows the BBC reporting on the collapse of WTC Building 7 over twenty minutes before it fell at 5:20pm on the afternoon of 9/11. The incredible footage shows BBC reporter Jane Standley talking about the collapse of the Salomon Brothers Building while it remains standing in the live shot behind her head (as you watch the video, you can see WTC 7 [aka Salomon Brothers Building] clearly has not collapsed).
Minutes before the actual collapse of the building is due, the feed to the reporter mysteriously dies.

Here, you can see the arrow in the background, pointing out WTC7 while she is discussing it's having collapsed.

The fact that the BBC reported on the collapse of Building 7 over twenty minutes in advance of its implosion obviously provokes a myriad of questions as to how they knew it was about to come down when the official story says its collapse happened accidentally as a result of fire damage and debris weakening the building's structure (even though WTC 5 and WTC 6 sustained so much damage, you can see gaping holes all the way through the centers and they had to be bulldozed and WTC 7 had NO visible exterior damage whatsoever).

But what I find to be of particular interest is the fact that the reporter's signal gets weak (as if being hit with interference ... being jammed perhaps) just 5 minutes before the collapse was to ensue.

Best I can figure is that the collapse (which no doubt was the result of demolition charges) was leaked and reported on too soon. The BBC reporter, not being familiar with the area didn't know which building was WTC 7, and so reported on the smoke she saw in the background, thinking it was from the building she was talking about..

Test

2007-02-25T23:19:00.000-05:00

This is a test of the internet blogging system. This is only a test.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA...

This has been a test of the internet blogging system. Had this been a real blog, the annoying display of the letter "A" would have been followed by something worth reading.

We now return you to do whatever the hell you want. I have no hold over you.

Why are you still reading this? Get out of here already!