Thursday, February 21, 2008

A Rare Moment of Agreement with O'Reilly

How 'bout that "Existentialist Cowboy" (gee, that's original - NOT!!)? What a piece of work that guy is, huh? This, I'm saying, in the damned if this S.O.B. hasn't become one of the major proponents of 9/11 conspiracy crap. I mean, it's not enough that he's been continuing to prop up these same old hackneyed theories (Americans flew the planes, explosives took down the buildings, a missile hit the Pentagon, etc.) that have been totally shredded by the academic community. He's actually calling what most of the world's sane population has taken as factual....and turned it on its head. He ridicules it as "a crazy conspiracy theory about a world-wide conspiracy of radical Arabs and incompetent pilots....and that, no, there's not a scintilla of verifiable evidence in support of it.".................................Man, oh man, oh man. It's like, I feel like asking him, "What about the first World Trade-Center attack, the attacking of the U.S.S. Cole, the bloody explosions in England and France, was/is the U.S. also behind each of these atrocities?" Not that he would respond intelligently, of course....but still...................................P.S. Here is just a small sampling of the professors and journals that have successfully debunked these 9/11 "truthers": Dr. Keith Seffen of Cambridge U, Dr. Walter Murphy of Northwestern, Dr. Ching Chang of UMass, Dr. Joel Conte of Cal-SanDiego, Dr. Christian Hellmich of Vienna U of Tech, the Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Fire Engineering, Civil Engineering, Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, Geotimes, and the Journal of Acoustical Society of America. Just to give you something to go on, I'm saying. As for the "Cowboy" himself, I don't know, I have this one feeling that the blankety-blank is only stroking himself (his pipes, etc.)....and that, yes, we should definitely keep an eye on him. Of course, then there's also the other side of me - you know, the one that says, 'mmm, not so much."


Ross said...

Minor comment.

I don't know if "O'Reilly" is
the FOX News fellow or not
but from blog post, it's all
noise in any case. Why track?

On Seffen. Dig into his academic
credentials (legit but quite
young and essentially nothing
in structural eng.) and his
published work (extremely thin
in content, breadth and depth).

I initially followed the
announcement of Seffen's paper
with some interest ("Ah, finally,
a decent model!") and upon fairly
deep exploration, found it's just
as thin, if not thinner, than the
rest of his work. (Make your own
decision based on your own
analysis, of course.)

I just don't seem him on this list
of "9/11 debunkers". The quality's
not there.

Thanks for the blog.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Why track? I don't know, I guess it's because (from what I can gather anyway) of all the people who don't consider it noise. As for Dr. Seffen, let's assume that he's wrong. Let's assume that they're all wrong. We're still left with the plausibility, right? What are the odds of the U.S. government (whether or NOT you trust them, I'm saying) being able to pull off something this spectacular....and there not being ONE SINGLE LEAK? That alone stretches credulity for me.