Posted on 08/15/2008 8:41:20 AM PDT by rightinthemiddle
Last night on Hannity & Colmes, Colmes kept saying Jerome Corsi is a "truther" and can't be taken seriously.
I've been scouring the internet looking for evidence Jerome Corsi, author of Obama Nation, is a 9/11 "Truther." All find is links to left-wing nutjob website where they don't usually use evidence to back up their claims, including DU (which is funny, because a lot of them think Bush had something to do with 9/11).
Does anybody know anything or have quotes from Corsi? Has he addressed this anywhere?
I have read about Gold and for years I have read about the Russians who claim to to be producing abiotic oil from super deep wells. However, Russian production has been down or flat. Moreover, no one has been able to produce oil that does not contain biotic material and very, very few have been able to produce oil that does not contain markers of its source rock or reservoir rock.
In order to accept abiotoc oil theory you not only have to disregard all existing data in geology and chemistry but you also have to believe that the entire oil industry is involved in a mass conspiracy.
Thanks for asking ... I was reading and reading posts to try to figure it out .... saw the responses.
“The fire, from jet fuel, does not burn hot enough to produce the physical evidence that he’s produced. So when you’ve got science that the hypothesis doesn’t explain – evidence – then the hypothesis doesn’t stand anymore. It doesn’t mean there’s a new hypothesis you’ve validated. It just means the government’s explanation of the jet fuel fire is not a sufficient explanation to explain the evidence of these spheres – these microscopic spheres – that Steven Jones has proved existed within the W.T.C. dust.”
That is a very craftily edited piece of video. BUT ask yourself when you read the Corsi Book, are the data presented accurate? I’m still digging the 681 footnotes out, but so far the accuracy of the book is astonishing. Is it any wonder the DNC wants to manipulate the public to not look at the data in the book?
The Jones is Alex JOnes who is a conspiracy nut idiot.
Please don’t put up “quotes” without linking to the source.
Corsi’s own words, “... the government’s explanation of the jet fuel fire is not a sufficient explanation to explain the evidence of these spheres ...” should tell you that he is very careful, not the Alex Jones type of hype snipe. It would behoove our engineers to understand the horrific conditions in the Towers that caused the collapse, down to the minute detail of microspheroids created in the heat, in order to avoid constructing future buildings with whatever added tot he ehat initiated by the jet fuel fire. THAT is the extent of Corsi’s ‘truther’ footprint as best I’ve been able to discover. To accuse him of conspiracy nuttery like ALex Jones peddles is specious given his defense of this president and the administration.
Where did you get this from? Do you have a link?
I have the book and I’m around page 90 now. It’s pretty good, but I heard last night that nine of the first 11 footnotes referred back to source material by Jerome Corsi. I’m at work but I will check that out when I get home. I did go to the Chicago Tribune article that he refers to repeatedly and the article definitely didn’t have the tone he gives it. What did you find on the footnotes?
http://www.alexjonesfan58.com/mp3/20080129_alexjones_corsi.mp3
MHGinTN, no sale.
Corsi basically accepts S.E. Jones' arguments as substantive ones simply on the basis of Jones' assertions that Jones has detected "microspheroid particles."
In other words, Corsi is attempting a slightly fancier version of the Rosie O'Donnell claim: "Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to collapse those towers."
Um, a fire from jet fuel wouldn’t produce the spheroids is the heart of the discord. To stretch that to say Corsi is buying the Alex JOnes conspiracy ranch which claims Bush knew the attack on the towers was coming is the flaw in the argumewnt.
Yes. DU is funny.
In regard to your statement:
“...abiotoc oil theory you not only have to disregard all existing data in geology and chemistry but you also have to believe that the entire oil industry is involved in a mass conspiracy ........”
Well it wouldn't be the first time scientists have interpreted an entire corpus of data wrong.
Even if Gold was 100% correct you don't have to invoke a “conspiracy theory” to explain industry reluctance to accept it. No radical new theory is embraced immediately by any “community of knowledge”, skepticism is healthy and necessary to keep “nonsense” from creeping in. Also its extremely expensive to explore & drill for oil, if I was the oil industry I wouldn't to reush to embrace this notion either without pretty high thresholds of proof.
(Aside: When I took a course “Exploration Geophysics” course back in the 1970s I seem to remember a ratio of of 1/30 exploration drilling pay off. Each exploration drilling done at a cost of several million dollars. What are today's numbers? Anyone out in FreeperLand know?)
Back to Gold, look at the vast clouds of methane (& other “organics”) in space, that's surely abiotic in origin!
So an abiotic contribution to underground petroleum is at least to me not out of the question and worthy of more study
So, if the jetfuel alone cannot produce the spheroids, what added to the fire to produce the spheroids? Corsi is very careful to tell Alex Jones that it doesn’t necessarily mean we have a new hypothesis just that the evidence doesn’t fit the explanation from the 911 commission. Could some materials used in the Towers be what aided in temp rise? Yes, but what, so that can be taken into account when building such Towers.
You prove my point about this Truther garbage.
Jet fuel was not the only flammable material in those towers.
The entire Truther game is based on the unspoken assumption that the WTC was unshakably fireproof and that the only source of heat was jet fuel.
Therefore there "must" have been a controlled demolition.
And spare me the red herring that Corsi's indulgence in Truther mythology was based on some desire to discover superior building techniques for future highrises.
Whether or not Corsi truly believes in "controlled demolition" (he is a big conspiracy theorist) or whether he just went along with his host Alex Jones in order to promote his books, the fact is that he went on a Truther show and defended the work and the arguments of a Truther hero.
His motivation was not some overwhelming concern for the integrity of new construction, nor is Jones'.
I’ve yet to find what I could stamp a purposeful faslehood. Shades of negative are all over the texts, but that is to be expected with a book meant to ‘swiftboat’ this Marxist puppet. A couple of inaccuracies have arisen, but nothing to de-substantiate the assertions Corsi makes. I’m getting tired of running down the footnotes (lots of them are Ibids and op cit).
Everyone please note:
There are no conspiracies. EVER!
And always remember to include the word; "theory" or "theories" immediately after the word conspiracy, so everyone will know that you seriesly don't belive any of it.
Now run along and enjoy the rest of your lives.
There is NO conspiracy!
"I don't go to bed with no whore, and I don't wake up with no whore. That's how I live with myself." --Carl Fox, Wall Street
I am not a "truther" but given the official report, one who looks at actual facts is left wondering:
The NIST team fairly admits that their report “does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.” (NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12; emphasis added.)
So why did the three structural steel towers collapse?
wideawake said: "Jet fuel was not the only flammable material in those towers."
Obviously...as WTC 7 symmetrically collapsed (Like WTC 1 and 2) within its own footprint without being struck by a jet.
So what "flammable material in those towers (WTC 1, 2 and 7)" could heat steel to the point of collapse and to a flowing and molten state?
For six months after Sept. 11, the ground temperature varied between 600 degrees Fahrenheit and 1,500 degrees, sometimes higher. “In the first few weeks, sometimes when a worker would pull a steel beam from the wreckage, the end of the beam would be dripping molten steel,” Fuchek said. (Walsh, 2002) The government reports admit that the building fires were insufficient to melt steel beams -- then where did the molten metal pools come from? Metals expert Dr. Frank Gayle (working with NIST) stated:
Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it did not, the steel did not melt. (Field, 2005; emphasis added.) And in an a fact sheet released in August, 2006, NIST states: “In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires." http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
Prof. Thomas Eagar explained in 2001 that the WTC fires would NOT melt steel:
"The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.... The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.
http://wtc7.net/articles/WhyIndeed09.pdf
The official government report did not address the collapse of the three WTC towers...and it also stated that the fires did not melt the structural steel...
So what did melt the steel in the three towers?
Do you have answer in regard to what "flammable material in those towers" was able to achieve temperatures upwards of 2700 degrees F (because jet fuel and office furniture can't do it)?
It would be interesting to know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.