September 11th Conspiracies

A well known polymath whose published works range far and wide, including (but not limited to) Archaeology, Paleontology, Astronomy, Space Propulsion systems, and Science Fiction.

Official Website: http://www.charlespellegrino.com

Moderators: Mr. Titanic, Charlie P., ed_the_engineer

September 11th Conspiracies

Postby Mr. Titanic » Thu Jul 26, 2007 11:55 pm

The following thread is dedicated to conspiracy theories relating to the tragic event of/occuring on September 11th 2001. To start things off, I have a fresh exchange between Charlie Pellegrino and our member David Brennan. In the following, be sure to look out of unadressed facts and name-calling once the debate leans in the opposing side's (Pellgrino's) favor. This same behaviour can be observed with Titaniac "scholars" from Encyclopedia Titanic, as well as Christian exremeists bashing the Jesus Family Tomb. Charlie Pellegrino had an interesting way of putting it: "Shine the light on the cockroaches, and watch them run and squirm."

DavidBrennan wrote:Dear Charles Pellegrino,

My name is David Brennan and, after hearing that you and James Cameron (both of whom I'm fans of) were conducting an archaeological study of Ground Zero, I thought that you might have some evidence to contribute to, and/or learn from, a group called Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

The organization is among the more scientific of the numerous organizations of physicists and scholars who use empirical data - rather than the government's edicts - to study the events of 9/11, with an emphasis being on the collapse of the three WTC skyscrapers. Of course, these physicists and engineers study schematics, fall patterns, chemical analyses....every sort of hard science available. But, in my opinion, just casual empiricism will clue you off that something wasn't right about WTC 7.

I read your account of collecting your belongings from the rubble after 9/11, and I'm sure that between that and your and Mr. Cameron's investigation, you've already studied the bizarre collapse of WTC 7. So it won't surprise you to know that every single engineer, demolition expert, and physicist has said it was a controlled demolition. I've seen the testimony of the most knowledgable, no-nonsense men imaginable. Every one says the same thing, again and again: [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2E65WTxd1U
]"Controlled demolition"[/url]

So hopefully you will contribute your own information for peer review and analysis.

Now, when James Cameron and Simcha Jacobovici were doing their publicity tour for 'The Lost Tomb of Jesus', they repeatedly begged people not to submit to reflexive, pre-programmed responses to their hypothesis, but rather to look at the information objectively, dispassionately, scientifically....whatever word you want to substitute for "honestly".

Tragically, of course, that was not the case. And it's perhaps even more tragic that that same sort of attachment to an old faith has caused people to not be objective here, either, but rather immediately begin name-calling and morally pompous gibberish (in this case, that faith is not love of old Christian dogmas, but love of government).

But you two have obviously proven that you haven't got any fear of being called names or anything else, so you'd make great fits in this field of scientific study.

Thanks,
David Brennan

P.S. If you've any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me at David@TheGreatRebellion.com, or [Removed]


Charlie Pellegrino wrote:I have interviewed survivors who were actually in Building Seven when the South Tower collapsed. They escaped and the building was unharmed before the North Tower surge cloud - which carried the most intense snake-heads effect (a stream of blast furnace level fire) east along the north side of Vessey Street and, along with the most powerful effects of the surge cloud (velocity above 80mph), struck WTC 7 on the west and south sides - with the force of a very small tactical nuclear weapon. There is nothing at all suggestive of planted explosive charges, at the core of what happened to Building Seven. As for melted steel at the WTC site - that's how you make steel: you melt it. 2000 years ago, most Roman iron (with a carbon component) was being fired with a heat generated by ordinary wood (same in China, where the steel was chromed). Plastic in the Towers would have burned even hotter than the necessary wood temperatures - and once the aluminum clading ignited, it burned with its own blast furnace force (especially at the NE corner of the South Tower). Note that iron softens substantially even at relatively low temperatures of 750deg.F. If you have the equivalent of a large office block on top of the softening steel, the soda machine principle takes over (See chapter 10, "Ghosts of Vesuvius"). I should add that not a single credible engineer, architect, or forensic archaeologist of my acquaintance believes the thermite charge conspiracy theory anymore than any of us believe in the faked moon landing conspiracy theory.

I'm no great fan of President Bush, despite being a Republican (I never believed anyone could make me feel nostalgic for President Clinton) - but anyone who believes George Bush engineered 9-11 has to be a few arches short of an aquaduct. Ask a few obvious questions, before accepting such a silly hypothesis. If Bush were smart enough to arrange for controlled charges to be placed in buildings and even to fake Bin Laden's boasts about the act, and to fake the Flight 11 hijackers' manifesto, and to place charges in advance of knowing precisely where the planes would hit - then oh how many magnitudes easier would it have been for him to arrange for just a few grams of 90% pure Uranium 235 to be placed inside a wall of one of Saddam Hussein's palaces? That's all that would have been necessary to say, "See! WMD - proof positive!" That alone indicates a president who might be capable of horrible miscalculations in the field of war; but not likely adept as a liar. Were he a good liar, and as cold-blooded as you seem to believe, we would probably have won this war by now.

C.R.P.


DavidBrennan wrote:Dear Charlie Pellegrino,

First, I appreciate that you took the time to respond, which displays much more thoughtfulness than I anticipated, primed as I was by the name-calling and venom I received at your message board.

Before I quickly address some of your points, let me refer you to this organization of 130 licensed architects and engineers (some of them very prominent), who say that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition: 'Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth' (http://www.ae911truth.org).

(Please feel free to write Richard Gage (AIA), the founder of the group, at this e-mail: rgage@ae911truth.org. I know he'd be happy to speak with you.)

So hopefully that organization proves that the idea has merit, and refutes your notion that no credible engineers believe this.

Comparing 9/11 Truth to faked moon landing theories.

Please don't conflate these two ideas, as they have no correlation whatsoever. This data is wholly independent from any theories about JFK, the moon landing, Elvis, Pat Tillman, the USS Liberty, or anything else. As I said, this is about science and data, not sociology.

George W. Bush hasn't the means nor the ability to pull of such a massive assault and fraud.

I agree. I don't believe that I mentioned his name, nor the Iraq war, in my letter. If I did, I apologize, as that was a non sequitur. (However, this doesn't mean that George Bush couldn't have been informed beforehand about the attacks, with or without the specifics. Here's a one-minute video from CBC news wherein George Bush claims to have watched the first plane crash into the tower live, when, obviously, nobody saw the plane hit the building live!)

The fires in WTC 7 were sufficient to weaken the steel and cause the collapse. The "soda machine principle."

Charles, you're severely mistaken in this issue. There have been dozens of steel-framed buildings which burnt for days on end....and they never collapse. This 16-minute video shows many such infernos.

I'm no structural engineer, but even if the fires did reduce the steel frame to putty, it would seem to me that the building would fall in a slow, asymmetrical manner, not in the perfectly uniform manner in which it did. (The engineers at AE911Truth.org can speak to this with more authority than I, although I believe it to simply be common sense.) Consider that you have a wax framework and you place a couple of small heat lamps inside to melt the wax....would the wax warp and melt progressively, or would the whole thing fall down in perfect symmetry in 6 seconds?

-----

Now, there's much more that I could respond to, including Osama bin Laden's boasting about the attacks (never happened, and why hasn't the most powerful entity in mankind's history, the DoD, been able to capture the 6'7" Saudi yet?), and your claim that the "snake-heads effect" was comparable to a tactical nuke (How many kilotons? Why didn't it make the other buildings implode? Why didn't it incinerate those standing nearby?)....but I believe that you probably want to get on with your evening!

I'd be thrilled to hear your responses to these ideas, and to the specific ideas of AE911Truth.org. (Also, if you'd like a "further reading"-type of letter from me, just ask and I'd be happy to send you one.)

Thank You,
David Brennan
[Removed Personal Information]


Charlie Pellegrino wrote:I've been quite busy on another project, so time really does not permit answering all questions. Also, some of the questions get into the area of comparative vulnerability of skyscrapers - a subject I and my colleagues have always avoided even speculating about with people (on the principle of not doing homework for the terrorists).

The one fire-damaged building I studied was the rather remarkable sagging event in Philadelphia - and it was indeed a very different situation from the three buildings that fell on 9-11. Primarily - Philadelphia did not involve as much mass pressing down on weakened structures. WTC 7 had multiple fires along the lower floors with a whole skyscraper pressing down. Once fractures began developing along the central line all the way up to the roof, and the entire cage structure dropped just 10 inches, it became an unstoppable mass in motion, quickly reaching a vertical velocity of 60mph.

WTC 1 survived longer than I would have anticipated: to me, though we lost four in this family, the Towers stood long enough through impossible punishment for nearly 30,000 people to escape the range of collapse column and radial surge clouds (which exerted instantly lethal effects as far as 1/3 mile south along Washington and West streets - and exploded bomb-like out of the tunnel to Brooklyn). That the two Towers stood so long has brought be to love those buildings more than before they fell.

WTC 1 survived the fight 11 impactor by means of a Roman arching effect. Once it shifted (fell) just 18 inches, it became an unstoppable mass accelerating within 3 seconds toward a 120mph collapse column, force fed by a downblast effect - meaning a 120mph initial surge cloud. This is roughly equivalent to being struck by a 60 foot Tsunami, if you were located within the 80-120mph zone.

WTC 2 had no Roman arching effect and there was more mass pressing down on the blast zone - which had produced a wound much like a V cut into an ax-felled tree. Contrary to popular notions, the collapse did not begin as a vertical pancaking of decks. The initial snap had an approximately 40mph eastward horizontal velocity; but within 3 seconds, vertical velocity far exceeded horizontal velocity.

The wax analogy (simply on the basis of mass and scale alone) cannot apply.

It is not true that everything was pummelled to dust and no objects inside the Towers survived. This was true for the central core within the collapse column (combined force 1.6 kilotons for collapse, kinetic, alone: 15% of a Hirishima). Objects on the outer column were ejected by the out-splash intact - to such extent that part of a legal library travelled to the fire escapes of O'Hara's pub, still in alphabetical order. Also, those horizontal "squib" explosions preceding the outsplash effect are without doubt compressed air in the core (more than 7% of a Hiroshima concentrated in a diameter of under 200 feet, each building). A building is, after all, 95% air.

True, George Bush made some confused statements about 9-11. He makes confused and confusing statements every day (like wanting to help Americans "put food on their families"). As for my own records, were I not on coms and recording all events (aboard the Russian research vessel Keldysh), I would never have noticed that in times of stress, and trying to make logical sense out of an illogical sequence of events, I had re-ordered, in my memory, the sequence of events that occurred over a 24 hour period. In times of great stress, this is a normal human response, this reordering of events. It would be an unusual day in which President Bush, especially, did not say something confusing or eveen ridiculously spoken.

As for the subject itself, my friends saw that my eyes had seen a bit too much inside the crater - and this was a reason they took me to Israel and back again into ancient archaeology. Quite simply, WTC is a subject I need to get away from, for a while.


DavidBrennan wrote:Dear Charles Pellegrino:

I understand and will adhere to your wish to not further investigate the WTC collapse, but I'll first respond to each of the points in the last post and then make a quick statement.

Also, are you aware that CNN and the BBC magically reported the "collapse" (not fires, not damage, "collapse") of WTC 7 before it actually happened? Are you aware that the owner of the entire WTC complex said that they "pulled" the building?

"....some of the questions get into the area of comparative vulnerability of skyscrapers - a subject I and my colleagues have always avoided even speculating about with people (on the principle of not doing homework for the terrorists)."

Don't be scared of doing homework for the evil Arabs, as they can simply go to a Barnes & Noble and grab an engineering textbook if they want to. Plus, the blueprints are already readily available online.

And haven't you heard that "information wants to be free"? I've got a copy of the 'Avatar' script to help prove that.

(Incidentally, you must support government regulation of engineering data, eh? Should people need the government's permission to do research? Doesn't seem compabable with freedom, to me.)

WTC 7 had multiple fires along the lower floors with a whole skyscraper pressing down. Once fractures began developing along the central line all the way up to the roof, and the entire cage structure dropped just 10 inches....

How the heck do you know "fractures" began developing? Where did this "10 inch" drop occur? Every single video I've seen shows WTC 7 collapsing from the very bottom....and that's what all the engineers say, too.

With all due respect, you appear to be concocting this "evidence" out of thin air. If not, please show this astounding new evidence to the engineers, as they'd love to study it.

-WTC 1 survived the fight 11 impactor by means of a Roman arching effect. Once it shifted (fell) just 18 inches, it became an unstoppable mass accelerating within 3 seconds toward a 120mph collapse column, force fed by a downblast effect - meaning a 120mph initial surge cloud. This is roughly equivalent to being struck by a 60 foot Tsunami, if you were located within the 80-120mph zone..... WTC 2 had no Roman arching effect and there was more mass pressing down on the blast zone - which had produced a wound much like a V cut into an ax-felled tree. Contrary to popular notions, the collapse did not begin as a vertical pancaking of decks. The initial snap had an approximately 40mph eastward horizontal velocity; but within 3 seconds, vertical velocity far exceeded horizontal velocity. ....Also, those horizontal "squib" explosions preceding the outsplash effect are without doubt compressed air in the core (more than 7% of a Hiroshima concentrated in a diameter of under 200 feet, each building). A building is, after all, 95% air.

I won't dispute any of these assertions. In fact, I'll stipulate them as fact for the sake of discussion. But nothing here addresses WTC 7. (Nor, for that matter, the sworn testimony of hundreds of firemen that there was molten steel at the bottom of the trade center.)

True, George Bush made some confused statements about 9-11. He makes confused and confusing statements every day (like wanting to help Americans "put food on their families"). As for my own records, were I not on coms and recording all events (aboard the Russian research vessel Keldysh),

I know you were on board the Keldysh, as I saw you in 'Ghosts of the Abyss' and knew you lived in Manhattan. Is was this connection, and my great, great admiration for James Cameron, that made me contact you in the first place.

And for the record, Bush didn't have a mere slip of the tongue in his description of 9/11, he made a prolonged statement which was manifestly a lie.

-----

I'll be honest with you, and tell you that I think that your replies seem disingenuous and predisposed to believing the government. I know that that's patronizing for me to say, but I truly believe this is the case, and I believe you know it, too.

I also want to note that my brother {name witheld} works for {removed}. Like the 130 engineers at AE911Truth.org, he absolutely and emphatically disagrees with every one of your claims. So I'll agree with my brother, the engineers I've spoken with, and AE911Truth.org. WTC 7 was a controlled demolition.

I wish you the best, but I cannot hope that you reap whatever profits you hope to gain from espousing what I believe you know to be a lie.

Once more, if you have evidence for your claims, please share them with AE911Truth.org, as they'd love to embrace new information.

All The Best,
David Brennan


Charles Pellegrino wrote:I'm not predisposed to believing the government about anything. (As the child of a woman who was removed from a good home, by the government, and in the name of an ill conceived agenda of reuniting children with their biological parents no matter what - even if in my mother's case the biological father was a murderer and rapist - believe me, I do not believe people who are in authority simply because they are in authority.) I am, however, predisposed to believing my own two years of on-site research, and the previous 15 years of research in forensic archaeology and forensic physics that spanned everything from Thera to the bombs at Bikini Atol and led from the Titanic to Ground Zero. Please read my previous letters more carfully. The collapse conditions of WTC 1 and WTC 2 are analagous, exactly, to what happened with WTC 7 - which as I state did collapse from the bottom and which had more mass pressing down on the wound than even WTC 2. It was also a cage structure subjected to slow heating at the bottom, without an airplane impactor preceding the softening with the massive physical wounds described (for WTC 1 and WTC 2) in the previous letter.

On the melting of steel, I have addressed this in my first reply. I would be very surprised had we not found pockets of melted steel under the Towers. Even wood-fueled fires can actually melt iron - and has been used to forge iron (and later, steel) since at least the time of Egypt's late 18th dynasty. Note also that the amount of melted steel has been exagerated because many structural engineers assumed that steel could not be bent like leaves and twigs without the application of heat. However, when crystal structure is checked, one sees that the bent steel has usually not been heated and annealed at all. (The same thing happened with steel at the Titanic's stern, where fire was definitely not a significant player). In most cases, the bending was structural and occurred within 1/20 to 1/200th of a second. Most people and even many engineers still attribute the bending (often in error) to heat combined with pressure - a case in point being the caption for the piece of WTC steel on display at New Jersey's Liberty Science Center.

The collapse sequence was also perfectly analogous to the junction break between Titanic's bow and stern sections. We see the same "liquification" action (in which even between plates and frames of steel, granulation of structure becomes all fluid mechanics and for all intents and purposes, no solid structures exist at the junction): the whole junction resembles a giant waterfall, a spreading shower effect.

WTC 7 crakage: You should refer to the first WTC scientific report, referenced in the bibliography of GoV (not the 9-11 Commission Report - which I agree is among the most chaotic investigations I've read since Lord Mersey's hearings into the loss of the Titanic).

I'm signing off on this subject for now.

CRP, over and out.


[Moderation Notice: Repaired Order of Replies -- Mr. Titanic.]
[Moderation Notice: Removed some personal information, at poster's request. -- Brad]
Last edited by Mr. Titanic on Sat Jul 28, 2007 3:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mr. Titanic
Scholar Adept
 
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 1:52 pm
Location: Thera

Postby Darb » Fri Jul 27, 2007 12:05 am

I'd like to add that I was incorrectly accused (by Mr. Drennan himself) of deliberately deleting his earlier thread on this topic, which was assuredly not the case. As a courtesy, I'll drop futher discussion along these lines - although I'll be happy to contribute in depth, if named.
User avatar
Darb
Punoholic
 
Posts: 18466
Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 9:15 am

Postby CodeBlower » Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:48 am

I don't know Dr. Pellegrino, nor have I read any of his stuff -- just popped in here to see what "conspiracies" there were.

You've got to admit that, the theory that Bush took out those buildings but couldn't plant a 50-gallon drum of nastiness in Iraq, is a bit suspicious ...
"Budge up, yeh great lump." -- Hagrid, HP:SS
-=-
The gelding is what the gelding is, unlike people who change in response to their perceptions of events that may benefit or threaten their power. -- Lorn, Chapter LXXXII, Magi'i of Cyador
User avatar
CodeBlower
Shakespearean Groupie
 
Posts: 1708
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 12:27 am
Location: IL, USA

Postby Darb » Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:52 am

De-sticky'd.
User avatar
Darb
Punoholic
 
Posts: 18466
Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 9:15 am

Fascinating...

Postby Charlie P. » Sat Jul 28, 2007 2:51 pm

You'll notice that David Brennan opened by stating that he was a fan of my work (and of Jim Cameron's work), and that he had invited me into his "field of scientific study" specifically because he believed Jim and I had the necessary credibility and credentials. (I'm not surprised to have been contacted by the "AE911 Truth" camp because in recent months I've seen my work on the Jesus Family Tomb discredited by self-described "anti-Zionist" Christian extremists on the basis of my work at Ground Zero having been a "cover-up" of President Bush and the Israeli government's involvement in and "prior knowledge of" 9-11. What's a little surprising is, given this recent history, how cordial Brennan's contact was, at the start.)

Of course, when Brennan did not like the fact-based, scientific refutation of his conspiracy theory, he quickly dismissed my evidence as a lie, and asserted that I knew it to be a lie. Fascinating. How quickly I went from being a man of scientific credibility to a lying shill for the government.

The extremist reflex in action.

For anyone who cares to check the historical record, the alleged conspiracy between the Bush administration and the Israeli government with regard to the "engineering of 9-11" was first voiced publically in Al jazeera, from 20 September through 5 October, 2001. The myth that all Jews had been warned not to show up for work at the World Trade Center on 9-11 (and that no Jews were killed in the Twin Towers) originated from Saudi Arabia and was reported in Al jazeera during those same, first two months after the attacks. For some reason, the "AE911 Truth" organization has been bombarding us, louder and louder each passing year, with talking points born of "death to America" cultists - repeating an urban legend generated by motive so often, that even among certain prominent Hollywood celebrities (Rosie O. being a case in point), it is shouted as truth.

- CRP
Charlie P.
Professional Wordsmith
 
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:03 pm

Re: Fascinating...

Postby Mr. Titanic » Sat Jul 28, 2007 3:52 pm

Charlie P. wrote:Of course, when Brennan did not like the fact-based, scientific refutation of his conspiracy theory, he quickly dismissed my evidence as a lie, and asserted that I knew it to be a lie. Fascinating. How quickly I went from being a man of scientific credibility to a lying shill for the government.

The extremist reflex in action.


The truth threatens extremists. That must be why science rarely appeals to them, and facts are viewed as obstacles to be torn down and hidden. Or as they say... "censored." Interesting that you brought up that connection Charlie. I guess one CAN paint extremists with the same brush.
Mr. Titanic
Scholar Adept
 
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 1:52 pm
Location: Thera

Postby violetblue » Sat Jul 28, 2007 9:14 pm

With all due respect to The Lone Gunmen (I still tear up thinking of that last scene on X-Files) and Coast to Coast (which I enjoy listening to), conspiracy theorists give way too much credence to the ability of the government. I don't mean that our government is incompetent, necessarily. Just that... it's not omnipotent. It's a tough enough job trying to manage 50 states on top of all our international concerns, let alone concocting elaborate plots and cover-up schemes. I don't think we know the whole truth at 9-11, but I'm OK with that. The government needs to keep some things to themselves to protect our country. I also think the tragedy was definitely seized upon by our government as a weapon of its own to press its agenda -- getting rid of Saddam Hussein, for example.

The ironic thing about conspiracy theorists is that the more anyone shows evidence reputing their claims, the more they cry, "cover-up!". I also think our government doesn't mind one bit about all the conspiracy stories, because it bequeaths them with that elusive omnipotence.

That's not to say, if I ever met an alien who said he'd crashed in a desert out West, I wouldn't be thrilled to pieces. But he'd have to show me two forms of ID first.
N is for NEVILLE, who died of ennui
--Edward Gorley
User avatar
violetblue
Viking Skald
 
Posts: 1200
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2005 11:57 am

Postby Mr. Titanic » Sat Jul 28, 2007 10:03 pm

Saddam Hussein and September 11th have absolutely no link to each other. It was Osama Bin Laden who attacked our country, and he is who should be pursued as a result of that disaster. I started typing a lot of my political views in this post, but hit the backspace button because I'd rather not turn this discussion into anything more controversial. So I'll leave it at that.
Mr. Titanic
Scholar Adept
 
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 1:52 pm
Location: Thera

Postby violetblue » Sun Jul 29, 2007 11:16 am

Mr. Titanic wrote:Saddam Hussein and September 11th have absolutely no link to each other.


Exactly.

But I don't think that was the main point of my post. The main idea, again, is that conspiracy theories were bound to appear out of this tragedy, and that any attempt to refute the theories will be met with disbelief.

After some thought, though, I say hurrah for the conspiracy theorists. It is our right as American citizens to question our government, and they are practicing their constitutional rights to the fullest. Besides, I find the ideas interesting, just as I found Dr. P.'s responses.
N is for NEVILLE, who died of ennui
--Edward Gorley
User avatar
violetblue
Viking Skald
 
Posts: 1200
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2005 11:57 am

Normally, I Try to Refrain From Name-Calling...

Postby Charlie P. » Sun Jul 29, 2007 8:03 pm

Dear readers: In the midst of a schedule as busy as mine has become lately, I don't relish distractions. However, some distractions are necessary. I could probably write a whole autobiography titled "How to Annoy People" - in three volumes. And I have learned that there are some people whom we should annoy.

And now, a history lesson:

David Brennan, representing a group of "non-partison concerned engineers and architects... seeking the truth behind 9-11," contacted me several days ago, praising my credentials and inviting me into his organization. I was already familiar with the "9-11 Truth" gang. Disgusted by them, in fact. Yet Einstein had once said that even from crackpots like Velekovski, there was always an opportunity to learn something new (at least in terms of perspective). My initial responses were simply a list of referenced and verifyable facts, challenging the "theory" of Brennan and others, that America attacked itself (with Israel's involvement) on 9-11. Brennan did not like me challenging his hate-America-first "theory," and rather than answer the evidence with evidence, he simply called my mountain of evidence lies, and instantly re-classified me: Originally judged a competent scientist, I was demoted, in Brennan's mind, to an incompetent and irrelevant liar.

Among the bits of "evidence" presented for my consideration, was the unexplainable theory (put forth by our government) that the wings of an alimunum jumbo jet could cut through the steel frames of the Twin Towers, because everybody knows that lightweight aluminum cannot cut through hard steel. According to this "theory," because people like me supposedly cannot explain how aluminum penetrates steel, a new "theory B" must be put forth and must prevail. According to theory B, government computer programmers generated and caused to be broadcast, on 9-11, computer-animated videos of planes crashing into buildings from multiple angles, in an effort to disguise the "fact" that the "planes" were really missiles being fired at the Towers. With such grace does the "steel is harder than aluminum and cannot possibly be cut by aluminum" idea become a tool for driving home a claim that hundreds of pre-shaped thermite charges were placed inside Tower 7 prior to a missile attack on Towers 1 and 2, and therefore, all evidence of terrorist attack by the 9-11 hijackers is patently false.

On the "Jesus Family Tomb" thread, I noted that on July 1, 2007, biologist Richard Dawkins summed up (in a New York Times book review about "scientific creationism") the quirky logic behind the fashioning of such tools. I have seen this same tool used as a style of argument more than ever lately, by groups of people ranging from Holocaust deniers to defenders of Captain Stanly Lord ("Titaniacs") and self-named "Talpiot Tomb Scholars for Truth." The Dawkins summation of the quirky argument style is as true for the "9-11 Truthers" as it was for the creationists and the "Talpiot Tomb Truthers."

As a style of argument, Dawkins wrote, "It commits the logical error of arguing by default. Two rival theories, A and B, are set up. Theory A explains loads of facts and is supported by mountains of evidence. Theory B has [little or no] supporting evidence, nor is any attempt made to find any. Now a single little fact is discovered, which A allegedly cannot explain. Without even answering whether B can explain it, the default conclusion is fallaciously drawn: B must be correct. Incidentally, further research usually reveals how A can explain the phenomenon after all."

In the first example - the aluminum vs steel paradox - the single little fact leading to the 9-11 default conclusion ("George Bush engineered 9-11") rests on the conclusion that a softer metal cannot cut a harder one. Nevermind that water and air are softer than iron and aluminum; yet if you dive a DC-10 through the sound barrier, the air will cut metal apart - to say nothing of the fact that high-speed jets of water are used to cut and shape steel. Nevermind how air shapes small nickel-iron meteorites every day, or what air did to the space shuttle Columbia, or what soft water and ice did to Titanic's steel, or what soft lead did to Bonnie and Clyde's car. Nevermind any of that. Copper is even softer and more maleable than aluminum, and yet under the right conditions (as, for example, traveling a little faster than Flight 175, when it impacted the South Tower), copper can easily cut through armored vehicles. Just ask our Marines: Shaped charges designed to squirt molten copper at high speed happen to be the weapons of choice in Iraq - for armor-piercing road-side bombs.

(Yes, Virginia: aluminum wings can pierce iron beams at 500mph.)

Brennan and his ilk do not like any of the facts I have presented during these past few days. I answered the correspondence and entered into the exchange partly as an experiment, and partly out of curiosity about groups of people (some of them quite intelligent) who clump together and decide to believe some really strange things. Personally, I have found it very educational, watching this thing evolve - and watching myself evolve, over the course of very few days, from being called a respected scientist, to being called an outright liar who makes up all of his science.

I have presented Brennan with references explaining exactly how Tower 7 fell (pointing out that the film clip on his own organization's site shows the vertical roof-crackage mentioned in one of my earlier letters): McAllister, T., ed. "World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary Observations and Recommendations," FEMA Report 403, September 2002.

According to Brennan, the FEMA scientific report is irrelevant, and appears to have been judged so unread. Brennan asks, "Why haven't you responded to any of the information from Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth?"

I thought I had responded. Among the things Brennan claims I have ignored, and never addressed, are "the massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds" and "the blast waves blowing out windows in buildings 400 feet away," or the lateral ejection of debris," or the "problem of melted steel."

Does any reader besides Brennan believe I have never addressed these issues? And in what way are downblast effects and surge clouds less indicative of 1.6 kiloton collapse columns than of the idea that these thoroughly natural and anticipated phenomena are evidence that that America attacked itself?

I've pointed out to Brennan that I've written a whole book about these effects. He replied that, when I respond to his organization's facts, could I "do so with fewer than 50,000 words?"

He added, "While you're at it, please prove your statement that myself and AE911Truth.org are using Al Jazeera as a source."

I did not state that AE911 is currently using Al Jazeera as a source. Al Jazeera has not published any new stories on the subject for more than three years. Why would they need to? Our own home grown American moon-Bozos have taken up that particular torch for them. What I did point out, was that the 9-11 conspiracy theory (the very set of talking points used by AE911) happens to be quite old. September and October 2001 marked the first documented origin of the myth - a myth to which AE911 has allied itself fully.

Brennan has come out quite harshly against complaints any 9-11 Family Members might have against the Mayor of New York permitting, since 2005, increasingly abusive swarms of 9-11 "Truth" people - last year 300 of them in black shirts, on the anniversary of the attacks - who occasionally descend to such low levels of inhumanity as to curse in the direction of children who lost parents, within as few as 20 feet of the entrances to the crater. Brennan seems to defend even the giving of (to 9-11 Family Members) a Nazi salute at Ground Zero - as being somehow merely the exercise of free speech. Presently, every 9-11 Family Member I know - in order to avoid the black shirt "protesters" who last year, and the year before, were clearly trying to provoke trouble - will be avoiding the crater on the anniversary, and going to private services arranged by PAPD, NYPD, and FDNY, instead of to the place that, for many of us, is the only final resting place of our loved ones. But David Brennan wraps himself in the American flag, and proclaims that dare any of us speak against the behavior of his ilk, we victimize them.

Right. American families (and many from overseas as well), are forced away from hallowed ground, taken over now by "the black shirts" and we are to understand that Brennan's gang are the real victims, the ones whose rights are being threatened. Brennan writes: "I don't really care that you're angry with the mayor of New York for not undoing the First Amendment. Basically, I don't watch Oprah or Lifetime TV. Don't much care about your feelings, okay?"

Michael Brennan added that if I hate the truth, then I better move out of New York City, because half of my neighbors believe that the government, in the very least, intentionally allowed 9-11 to happen. (Does that mean that if I lived in the deep South in 1950 and half of my neighbors were dumb enough to go along with the idea that lynching was a legitimate form of weekend entertainment, I should have believed this right along with them?)

And now, topsy-turvy time again:

"Look," wrote Brennan, "thanks for your time, but we both know you're not going to respond to the science, because it's obvious you're willfully lying. You know you're full of crap, I know you're full of crap, and now you know that I know you're full of crap. I've absolutely no interest in any more of your political bullshit. If I wanted that, I'd turn on Bill O'Reilly."

And in the end, Brennan has decided not to attempt arguing facts with facts (quite frankly, I doubt anyone in his organization has either the capacity or the stamina for it - and least of all, the science); and he adds a final note that he's cutting off any further correspondence because arguing with me "is like talking to a wall - with a Fox News Billboard on it."

(Is that a compliment or a shot?)

As I said earlier, these people are like cockroaches: Shine the light on them. Reveal them for what they really are. And watch them run away.

- CRP
Last edited by Charlie P. on Mon Jul 30, 2007 9:08 am, edited 2 times in total.
Charlie P.
Professional Wordsmith
 
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:03 pm

Postby Darb » Sun Jul 29, 2007 11:47 pm

Charlie: :thumb:
User avatar
Darb
Punoholic
 
Posts: 18466
Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 9:15 am

Re: Normally, I Try to Refrain From Name-Calling...

Postby CodeBlower » Mon Jul 30, 2007 7:43 am

Charlie P. wrote:(Yes, Virginia: aluminum wings can pierce iron beams at 500mph.)


So, I guess young Mr. Brennan has never seen the picture of the drinking-straw embedded in the telephone phone?
"Budge up, yeh great lump." -- Hagrid, HP:SS
-=-
The gelding is what the gelding is, unlike people who change in response to their perceptions of events that may benefit or threaten their power. -- Lorn, Chapter LXXXII, Magi'i of Cyador
User avatar
CodeBlower
Shakespearean Groupie
 
Posts: 1708
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 12:27 am
Location: IL, USA

Postby violetblue » Mon Jul 30, 2007 10:25 am

Honestly, I feel the families and friends of 9-11 victims are probably better off attending memorial services away from Ground Zero, anyway. The whole thing has become so politicized, not just by Brennan's group, either, that I would imagine it would be a three-ring circus out there. It was inevitable, I suppose, but the whole tragedy has become a platform for all kinds of agendas.

I guess Brennan's group doesn't care if it's taken seriously, judging by the childishness of his response to Dr. P. Although I like that line about Dr. P being a "wall with a Fox News billboard on it." I think I'd take it as a compliment. 8)
N is for NEVILLE, who died of ennui
--Edward Gorley
User avatar
violetblue
Viking Skald
 
Posts: 1200
Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2005 11:57 am

Postby Mr. Titanic » Mon Jul 30, 2007 1:56 pm

Here is the exchange Charlie Pellegrino mentioned about regarding Freedom of Speech.

David Brennan wrote:With all due respect, I think that's a total non-sequitur. I'm into the pursuit of scientific fact and truth, not politics, so how would my personal beliefs on military aid have any impact on the collapse of the World Trade Center?

Of course you know that it has none at all.

I always tell people that a fact is a fact regardless of the character (or, in this case, the political beliefs) of whoever discovers or states that fact. The statement "2+2=4" is always true, whether it comes from the mouth of Stephen Hawking or Charles Manson.

Tragically, it's been this sadistic name-calling ("Conspiracy theory wacko!", "Tin-foil hat-wearer!", "Anti-semite!", "Anti-American!", "Disrespecting the familes!") which has oppressed science and honesty in the study of this monumental bit of history.

(Curiously, when I stated empirical facts about the WTC at your message board, from out of nowhere two posters started calling me an anti-semite. It was rather bizarre, and proves how cheap that sort of name calling has become.)


Charles Pellegrino wrote:I was simply curious as to specifically where you were coming from. If I have wondered about this wrongly, then I owe you an apology.

I don't always succeed (I'm not perfect and I make no claim to be perfect); but I try to avoid name-calling.

You'll have to admit that many, many of the people who believe Bush and Israel "engineered 9-11" and/or that Bush and Israel knew of the attacks in advance, are distinctly anti-Israel, and have been borrowing from the talking points of Al jazeera (where this myth was first published in September and October of 2001).

Bad companions have a way of bringing bad luck. And this is the light in which people like Rosie O. have cast themselves.

In September 2005, the mayor of New York gave a small group of people (numbering about a dozen and calling themselves the "organization for Truth About 9-11") to set up banners immediately outside the place where 9-11 Family Members were required to
show identification and receive their ribbons before descending into the crater. The "protesters" were aiming video cameras at us and were evidently working under the false assumption that Family Members had become rich on government hand-outs - meaning, plenty of deep-pocket defendants at Ground Zero. These "protesters" were shouting such insults as "Get over it," and "Get a life!" No doubt these words of filth were hurled with the intention of provoking a Family Member to throw a punch or two (none did) - which would have been be caught on video, as evidence to be used in the resulting civil suit. I personally filmed one of these people giving me a Nazi salute - which he gave repeatedly, to many Family Members, later claiming he was only pointing in the direction of Tower 7. (As I said, I try to refrain from name-calling; but the kindest thing I can say about the remarkable pig is that I would not waste my good American spit on his grave. And that's the kindest thing.)

So, the statement that some of the more vocal people associated with the conspiracy theory are insulting (and worse) to 9-11 Family Members is true.

Our mayor, last year allowed this mob to gather again at Ground Zero, supposedly in the name of free speech. In 2006 there were three hundred of them, all in their distinctive "Truth" black shirts. In response, since 2005, hundreds of Family Members no longer go to Ground Zero on the anniversary - but instead go to the firehouses and police station annexes, and to FDNY/NYPD/PAPD sponsored restaurants, for private services. Funny how the media never reports that - beyond the lame observation that hundreds fewer people seem to be showing up at the crater and that the 9-11 Families must be moving beyond 9-11.

And there you have it: The rights of the very loud and abusive few - aided by cries that they have somehow been victimized (and by
deliberate attempts to stage their own victimization), overmastering the rights of those who truly have been victimized. This is how democracy is subverted and crumbles: with the irrational illusion of victim and victimizer, turned topsy-turvy.

Were Poe born into the 21st century, he never would have had to invent horror.

- CRP
Last edited by Mr. Titanic on Tue Jul 31, 2007 9:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mr. Titanic
Scholar Adept
 
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 1:52 pm
Location: Thera

Postby bob k. mando » Tue Jul 31, 2007 5:01 pm

the Titanic; greatest conspiracy of all time?

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=af07
<object><param></param><param></param><embed></embed></object>

damn, this board doesn't accept imbeds. :evil:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saHs6J0OXVI
Words of wisdom about hippies from Neil Young circa 1970:
"Soldiers are gunning us down,
Should have been done long ago."
User avatar
bob k. mando
Defender of Database Integrity et Critic
 
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sun Apr 27, 2003 10:08 am
Location: Ghost in the Machine

Postby voralfred » Wed Aug 01, 2007 9:46 am

bob k. mando wrote:the Titanic; greatest conspiracy of all time?


The sinking of the Titanic was a jewish conspiracy.
Know why?
Iceberg.... doesn't sound too WASPish, does it?

I hope everyone understands this is a joke!
Human is as human does....Animals don't weep, Nine

LMB, The Labyrinth
User avatar
voralfred
Carpal Tunnel Victim
 
Posts: 5346
Joined: Tue Dec 19, 2006 3:53 am
Location: Paris

Postby Charlie P. » Wed Aug 01, 2007 12:39 pm

Iceberg, Goldberg - what's the difference? Next week, with the children, I plan to demonstrate, with one of the sinkable Titanic models dating from the Ballard expeditions, what would happen if the Titanic were hit by a giant bottle of Coca-Cola Zero, powered by a specially designed underwater rocket nozzle with mint Menthos as a reactant. (Yesterday's underwater test firing, with the Pellegrino twins playing the part of Mr's Goddard with the camera, was... spectacular.) I think we can demonstrate at least to the standards of Brennan and his fellow architects and engineers for 9-11 "Truth" that it was a giant Cola and Menthos powered torpedo that sank the Titanic.

On a much more serious note: When I consider the above exchange with a representative of the "9-11 truthers," as a criterion for comparison against Captain Paddy Brown and his driver - who, on the 44th floor of the North Tower, during their last minutes of life with the thirty burn victims they had found there, kept the lines of transmission open; and when I consider how Pat (who undeniably had a far, far more realistic engineering knowledge than Brennan and his ilk), called out all the details of the breakup of the North Tower's central core - called out the details so that people like me, when we arrived later, could piece together how the Towers fell - - - When I consider true heroes such as Pat Brown and his com-link Mike Carroll, against the statements made by Brennan, the only opinion possible for me to form is that Brennan and his ilk are scarcely fit for human company.

- - Charlie P.
Charlie P.
Professional Wordsmith
 
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:03 pm

Postby Darb » Wed Aug 01, 2007 1:09 pm

CHARLIE:

The really sad thing is that unfortunately, there are all too many people out there who are so undereducated, so underinformed, so gullible, and so willing to embrace whatever rumor and disinformation floating around that's been carefully designed to inflame their base impules, pet agendas and petty fears du jour ... that this type of <strike>crap</strike> stuff slowly takes on a sort of pseudo-reality of its own.

That's one of the eternally recurring failings of mankind that always depresses me, and makes me doubt at times whether or not we really deserve to survive as a species ...

... then hope and optimism periodically springs eternal, and I resume trying to do my small part to help keep the lights on.
Last edited by Darb on Mon Aug 06, 2007 9:35 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Darb
Punoholic
 
Posts: 18466
Joined: Mon May 05, 2003 9:15 am

Amen to That

Postby Charlie P. » Wed Aug 01, 2007 2:46 pm

Dear Brad: If what you have just written were the last word on this thread, it would be apt. - - Charlie P.
Charlie P.
Professional Wordsmith
 
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:03 pm

Postby Mr. Titanic » Wed Aug 01, 2007 2:52 pm

Agreed. Well said.
Mr. Titanic
Scholar Adept
 
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 1:52 pm
Location: Thera

Postby DavidBrennan » Mon Aug 06, 2007 1:26 am

Here is the real final letter between myself and Pellegrino, in its entirety:

David Brennan wrote:
Charles P. asked: "I was simply curious as to specifically where you were coming from."

2,800 people were murdered. Where the hell do you think I'm coming from? This begs the question....where the hell are you coming from?

Look, thanks for your time, but we both know you're not going to respond to the science, because it's obvious you're willfully lying. You know you're full of crap, I know you're full of crap, and now you know that I know that you're full of crap. I've absolutely no interest in any more of your political bullshit. If I wanted that, I'd turn on Bill O'Reilly.

I don't really care about phony events where picketers supposedly hurt your feelings, and I don't really care that you're angry with the mayor of NYC for not undoing the First Ammendment. Basically, I don't watch Oprah or Lifetime TV. Don't much care about your feelings, okay?

But if you'd like to respond to data, please, please, please respond to these facts. (And could you do so with fewer than 50,000 words?)

(1) Fires have never caused a steel building to collapse. When fires have caused non-steel collapses, they "begin gradually and slowly, with large, visible, slow deformations."

(2) Direct evidence of explosions from dozens of sworn eyewitnesses. Pulverized concrete, evidence of cutter charges, squibs visible on upper floors.

(3) Buildings which collapse do so by toppling over, falling the path of least resistance. Building 7 fell at literal free-fall speed....at the path of most resistance. (This can happen of course: in controlled demolitions.)

And indepedent of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth....

A: Why haven't you responded to any of the information from AE911Truth.org?

B: Why haven't you responded to the information about the BBC and CNN reported the "collapse" of Building 7 an hour before it happened?

C:Why haven't you responded to the information about the owner of the building admitted they "pulled" it?

Oh, and where's the data I requested to support you claims from earlier? You know, that magical 10" drop you cited and the fractures inside the frame? I asked for this about a week ago. (While you're at it, please prove your statement that myself and AE911Truth.org are using Al Jazeera as a source.)

Also, if you hate 9/11 Truth, you better move out of New York, as half of New Yorkers believe that the government intentionally allowed 9/11 to happen.

It's been cool talking to a celebrity (of sorts), but this is like talking to a wall....with a FoxNews billboard on it.


Okay, so I've been called anti-semitic, a cockroach, and "scarcely fit for human company" (all because I'm trying to solve a mass murder), so I sort of hope that I'll be given some leeway here....

Watching Pellegrino try to sound like a structural engineer is like watching a gay guy try to make love to a woman. On the one hand, you're embarassed for the dude; but on the other hand, you wish he'd just stayed true to his nature to begin with.

No, ol' Chuck sure ain't no engineer, but these 135 men are: http://www.ae911Truth.org. Watch their 45 minute video on the mystical collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, and prepare to have your jaw drop: http://www.ae911truth.org/flashmov7.htm

(And Pellegrino....why have you still not contacted architect Richard Gage (AIA) at rgage@ae911truth.org? I know for a fact that he'd love to talk to you and to see this miraculous new evidence you claim to have.)

So! I really don't wanna discuss Israel, Pellegrino's feelings, Bush, or any other sociological or political crap. But I will discuss any of these five things:

1) Europe's most prominent controlled demolition expert, Danny Jawenko, explaining in detail how Building 7 was a controlled demolition:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2E65WTxd1U

2) The BBC and CNN reporting that World Trade Center Building 7 had "collapsed"....when it was standing perfectly behind them:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-tGOt9f3gKk

3) The owner of the entire WTC complex (since June of '01) admitting that they pulled it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3E-26oVIIs

4) Dozens of eyewitnesses - mostly NYFD - saying that they were told it was being imploded (Note: This is a great 16-minute video encapsulating most of the WTC 7 data):

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 3640256739

5) No steel building (especially one with 81 fireproofed beams) has ever collapsed from fire:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEPjOi2dQSM

BONUS!) Rush Limbaugh is impotent and Bill O'Reilly has bizarre sexual predilictions. (Anybody doubt that this isn't true of any of the other old, lying neocons?)

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0706062rush1.html
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/10 ... kris1.html

Ya know, how many of you had even heard of Building 7? (Not counting Pellegrino.) Of course you haven't heard of it, because it's covered up. Why?

P.S. Since I was being ruthlessly slandered, I'd really have appreciate it if somebody could've just e-mailed me to defend myself.
User avatar
DavidBrennan
(deactivated)
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 8:11 am
Location: Oakland County, MI

Postby Charlie P. » Mon Aug 06, 2007 12:43 pm

At last, someone has finally left me torn between the possibility of removing him from a forum, or allowing him to continue displaying himself before the world for what he really is.

Since this Brennan character has never answered to the scientific facts presented to him, and keeps referring time and again to the same previously refuted reasons for concluding that the Bush Administration murdered our friends and families... and - - I'm sorry, but this latest raft of comments is just too offensive to too many people to have my name sullied by association with it.

Most bizarre of all is that we are treated to continual assertions that 150 engineers and scientist-types (out of many tens of thousands) believe this anti-science mind rot. Well, what's new about every profession - even the most noble ones - having its normal human minority of unbalanced or even destructive characters? Only two months ago, a group of radicalized physicians plotted to blow up a British airport. Everyone was shocked that doctors and scientist-types could participate in anything so evil. I would have thought we'd long ago learned that lesson from the Nuremburg trials. And before Mr. Brennan complains about my associating his "911 Truther" engineers with Nazis, note that his people have already made that association for themselves - by giving the Nazi salute to 9-11 Families, in 2005, during the 4th anniversary ceremonies at Ground Zero.

I invite Brennan and or his friends to come and play that cute trick again this year, at 3 House or 4 House. I'll be waiting.

- - C.R.P.

NOTE: In a post below, Mr. Brennan refers to about five Emails in which I say various strange things (such as repeatedly insisting that I did not want to discuss 911 then coming back and calling Mr Brennan an anti-semite). My correspondence with him has been thoroughly reproduced on these pages. Brennan is quoting from letters that simply do not exist (save for one instance when I said I did not want to discuss this any further with him and that I was moving on quite busily with other subjects [such as meetings with Vatican-types and shock cocoons of Hiroshima]). The kindest thing I can say about Br. Brennan's litany of crazy or abusive Emails from me is that they exist only in his imagination. Normally I have a high degree of tolerance for stupidity. What I will not suffer quietly is aggressive stupidity. What Brennan and his so-called "9-11 Truthers" have been exhibiting, since at least 15 May (see my commentary RE Mr. ISP, 15 May, 2007, in the Amazon discussion of "The Lost Tomb of Jesus" for a time-line) - is the same species of misbehavior they have been exhibiting at Ground Zero since September 11, 2005: aggressive stupidity.

ITEM: Probably the best article written on this subject (and the most brilliantly humorous) appeared in Rolling Stone Magazine's, "The Low Post," by Matt Taibbi, September 26, 2006. On a similar note, see Penn and Teller's site.
Last edited by Charlie P. on Thu Aug 16, 2007 10:43 am, edited 5 times in total.
Charlie P.
Professional Wordsmith
 
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 11:03 pm

Postby Mr. Titanic » Mon Aug 06, 2007 10:15 pm

David Brennan wrote:Watching Pellegrino try to sound like a structural engineer is like watching a gay guy try to make love to a woman.


It's becoming evident that you have no respect for Pellegrino or the members of this forum. What appears to be on your agenda is both insulting Charlie and promoting your conspiracy theory with refuted evidence. On one hand, I feel embarrassed providing that, but on the other I pity the attempt. You've also managed to offend me with your aggressive tone, namely the quoted statement above. This is a warning. I insist you monitor your posts before the minuscule island of thin ice you've managed to skate onto begins to crack.

In addition, I don't appreciate making yourself out to seem like the victim. You've participated in enough name-calling yourself, and the "real" draft you posted doesn't help your case either. The use of "hell" in the very first sentence expands my point. Although what you've proposed regarding 9/11 sickens me, you were free to express that opinion. I just wouldn't forget the previous failed attempt to attack the towers. September 11th wasn't the first attack on the World Trade Center, it was only the last. Need I remind you the towers were meant to withstand an attack like that. Don't reference something you are uncertain of as a murder. You're not God or an oracle, therefore that would seem arrogant. You're no more correct than the Titanic conspirators who suggested the ship was sunk intentionally by the company for profit. Despite the fact pieces of wreckage reading 401 (Titanic's keel number) have been found.
Last edited by Mr. Titanic on Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mr. Titanic
Scholar Adept
 
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 1:52 pm
Location: Thera

Postby CodeBlower » Mon Aug 06, 2007 10:20 pm

DavidBrennan wrote:P.S. Since I was being ruthlessly slandered, I'd really have appreciate it if somebody could've just e-mailed me to defend myself.


I may be confused. It's possible that I don't understand the definition of "slander".

Just for the record, did you, or did you not, make the previously listed statements that are shown in this thread?

BTW, thanks for the private message but I probably would have checked back here to see what the new activity was anyway ..

Good fortune to you ..
"Budge up, yeh great lump." -- Hagrid, HP:SS
-=-
The gelding is what the gelding is, unlike people who change in response to their perceptions of events that may benefit or threaten their power. -- Lorn, Chapter LXXXII, Magi'i of Cyador
User avatar
CodeBlower
Shakespearean Groupie
 
Posts: 1708
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 12:27 am
Location: IL, USA

Postby DavidBrennan » Mon Aug 06, 2007 10:21 pm

You know, it was very startling to see that my private correspondence had been made public, and that 20 posts had been made - many of them calling me names and carrying totally ignorant character assassinations.

But the shock has subsided, and I had the time to notice a few things.

First, Pellegrino omitted selective letters from our correspondence. The final letter was one (which I posted two posts above), and then another omitted letter was this strange letter asking me about Israel.

Note that I had tried to end the conversation in our last letter (he said talking about WTC was too traumatic for him), and considered the matter closed. Then, several days later, he asks this strange, politically-loaded question, injecting politics where none had previously existed.

Charlie P wrote:Not for nothing; but I'm curious: What is your view of U.S. support for Israel, in all of this? - CRP


He has tried desperately to use the old-man's tricks of calling me names "Nazi" and "anti-semitic" and many, many others, when I've done nothing, nothing to warrant this kind of hatred.

So I was talking about the strange collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, he starts talking about Israel, and then, when I don't say anything that could at all be construed as anti-semitic....he decides to go ahead and call me anti-semitic anyway.

These are transparent ploys to turn the discussion away from Building 7 and turn it into a character assassination.

Don't let him do that to you. Look at the evidence for yourself.
User avatar
DavidBrennan
(deactivated)
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Jul 18, 2007 8:11 am
Location: Oakland County, MI

Next

Return to Charles Pellegrino

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron