Perhaps I haven't made my feelings about the 9/11 CD nuts clear. (And another thing...!)

God DAMN it, how many time do I have to TELL you people? This blog is my home. My home. THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC SPACE. You are welcome under my roof only so long as you follow my (very few) rules, which I've posted in bright red in the upper left. If you can't see them, you're blind.

Chief rule: NO 9/11 CD NUTS. You have plenty of other places to bray. You don't need to come here. Also, you may not insult me -- just as you may not go into your next-door neighbor's home and insult him.

Comment moderation is back on.

Okay, I am going to take this opportunity to address the WTC7 delusion, even though I have "demolished" this myth on previous occasions.

There is no mystery as to why this building went down, although there is (in my mind, at least) some mystery as to why it stayed up as long as it did. Moreover, there was no reason for anyone to bring it down in the first place.

Yeah, I know all about the SEC offices being located there. So what? Nobody has ever pointed to a single major court case that was affected by the collapse. The evidence stored in those offices was largely duplicated elsewhere. And even if that were not the case, documents can be subpoenaed anew and witnesses can be re-interviewed.

WTC7 was a skyscraper built over ten 35-foot tall power transformers. This unique design problem meant that the architects had to rely on transfer trusses, which many now feel are inherently unstable.

The authorities don't want to talk about transfer trusses because the issue affects quite a few other buildings.

The tranny web sites deliberately lie to you by refusing to show the severe damage to the building on the side facing the twin towers. On their sites, they display only video and photos taken from the north side of the structure.

(To read the rest, click "Permalink" below)

The place was filled with diesel fuel tanks. There was a 6000 gallon tank on the ground floor (actually on a 15 foot pedestal) which serviced Giuliani's stupid Emergency Operations Center on the 23rd floor. That means there were fuel lines running all through the building.

There were another four tanks with an astonishing 36,000 gallons of fuel below ground. These were connected by still more fuel lines to various tanks with hundreds of gallons of fuel on the fifth, sixth and seventh floors, where the fires were most intense. (NYT, March 2, 2002.) These fuel lines were intended to feed generators which would keep various clients (including the CIA) operational in case of a major blackout. Moreover, the transformers required 109,000 gallons of oil. (Environmental News Network, February 5, 2002.)

The whole damn place was a bomb ready to go off. That building housed far more explosive power than McVeigh used in Oklahoma City.

Imagine stacking 40 books on top of an upturned paper cup. Now set the cup on fire.

And here's another problem for the theorists. An AP story published on September 12, 2001, included this paragraph:

After the initial blast, Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings, 46, reported to a command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center. He was with Michael Hess, the city's corporation counsel, when they felt and heard another explosion. First calling for help, they scrambled downstairs to the lobby, or what was left of it. "I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell," Jennings said.

At one time, foolish CD-ers seized upon this very same paragraph as "proof" that a pre-set explosive went off in Building 7. In fact, it proves just the opposite. The key phrase: "After the initial blast." The context of this AP report makes clear that the lobby was ruined after the first impact into the twin towers, but before the South Tower collapsed.

Mull over the chronology.

Why set off a "non-fatal" explosion on the ground floor of WTC7 then? No building had collapsed at that point.

Think about it. Put yourself in the position of an imaginary Dr. Evil, deciding just when to press the button that will set off all of those nefariously hidden explosive devices. Why would you cause an explosion in Building 7 at that moment, before the collapse of the South Tower had taken place? After all, you'd want the public to believe that the Tower's collapse caused the damage to WTC7.

The whole idea is inane. Obviously, Dr. Evil would wait until the South Tower began to fall.

There are those (I'm looking at you, Gary B.) who suspect that the Twin Towers were not brought down by CD but that WTC7 was. Ridiculous. If that scenario were true, then Dr. Evil would have no certain advance knowledge that the Towers would collapse at all. So how would he know that the attack on the twin towers would affect WTC7?

Sorry folks, but logic dictates that a CD theory must encompass all three buildings.

The lobby explosion is best explained by those diesel caches. One engine of the jet that hit the South Tower sailed beyond Building 7 and landed in the street. I think that the other engine, or a projectile of flaming debris, hit WTC7 and ruptured one of the afore-mentioned fuel lines.

Irving Cantor, the engineer initially baffled by the fall of the edifice he had helped create, accepted the preliminary findings of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA pointed an accusing finger at the diesel tanks, which did not feature in the original plans. (NYT, March 2, 2002.) If the FEMA explanation was good enough for Cantor, why isn't it good enough for you? Or are we to suppose that Cantor was "in on it"?

The trannies continue to point to Silverstein's "pull it" remark as proof of pre-planted explosives. He didn't say that the building was to be pulled that day. If you look at his remarks in context, you'll see that he meant that the building should be given up for lost and was not worth the risk of lost lives. He also clearly states that the decision to pull firefighters out of the place belonged to the Fire Chief.

Absurdly, quite a few trannies think that the Chief was "in on it."

The trannies point to the fact that Chief Nigro said that "this building's coming down" prior to its collapse. According to the nutjobs, this statement proves that he had foreknowledge of planted explosives. Quite the opposite.

If he did have such knowledge, then why would he have men inside the building fighting the fire, even after the situation had become extremely dangerous?

His "foreknowledge" derived from the fact that fire had spread to every floor (a fact hidden by the careful photo selection on tranny web sites), and by reports from men inside the building that it was unstable.

And another thing! (I awoke just now with a few more thoughts in my head, so I've decided to expand this post.)

That initial lobby explosion (discussed above) simply does not fit into any CD scenario. How could anyone set off such a massive explosion without any fear of triggering the pre-planted bombs that -- according to the trannies -- had been secreted throughout the structure?

Why would anyone deliberately set off a "non-mortal" ground floor explosion at that time? Name another controlled demolition in which a ground-floor explosion occurred hours before collapse.

Now take another look the photo published above. This image demonstrates the massive blaze which had spread throughout the building. If you look on the net, you'll find other photos and testimony concerning the 20-story wound gouged into the building.

How could such fire and damage occur without setting off those alleged secret bombs?

Are we to posit the existence of fireproof explosives? Why would anyone develop or use such a thing?

When you look at the details and the chronology, the theory of secreted bombs within Building 7 defies all logic. Use Occam's razor, folks: It's a lot easier to posit a ruptured gas line than to posit fireproof bombs.

Now, I know that the CD fanatics will want to offer what they consider a response to all this -- just as the holocaust deniers and the Creationists always have a response to their critics.

Feel free to have your say in some other forum; there are plenty to choose from. After the ghastly way the trannies have treated me, I feel no obligation to debate the 9/11 wackjobs, just as I no longer debate fundamentalist Christians or flying saucer nuts. Fanatics never tire. They are impervious to reasoned argument.

(And if you feel that I'm out of line for using phrases like "nutjobs" and "fanatics" -- see the responses here, or see some of the commentary I used to allow into this blog.)

It makes me sick. Every time the subject of a post goes anywhere near 911, the trannies come out.

I was talking about Sibel freaking Edmonds, people! That's the real shit. The entire tranny movement is a conspiracy of far right-wingers (Alex Jones, Steven Jones, Jim Marrs, Eric Hufschmid, the Paulies, etc.) designed to hide what actually went down.

If you think I am being unfair -- well, fuck you. The trannies have never treated me fairly. Don't bother telling me that you are going away because I've hurt your widdle feelings. I don't want a large readership and I really don't give even one-half of a fleck of shit if you leave. Remember my motto:

DIG OR SPLIT.