Why are the Leftist Nutjobs calling Jerome Corsi a "Truther?"

[rightinthemiddle]

From another thread:

“Jerome Corsi stated on the G. Gordon Liddy Show today that he was “UNEQUIVOCALLY NOT A NINE ELEVEN ‘TRUTHER’”, that he had long ago worked on an article about the disintegration of airplanes but that he had killed it.”

[MHGinTN]

Froam an FR book report on the Corsi book:

The following is directly from page 302. It is instructive of the precision maintained throughout the book, whether relating Obama’s connection to the thug Odinga in Kenya, or the Black Liberation Theology of Reverend Wright, the exhaustive objectivity results in precision:

“Obama will be beaten by detailed arguments that are well researched and fact based.
This is why, for example, we took pains to make it clear Obama did not attend a madrassa when he was educated as a child in Indonesia. CNN was able to go to Indonesia and document fairly easily that there was no madrassa at the public school Obama attended. A madrassa, to be precise, is a particular kind of Islamic religious school.
We were, however, able to prove that Obama had at least one year of instruction in Islam at the public school he attended in Indonesia, and we were able to prove that, in part, by reference to Obama’s own words. That is very different from attending a madrassa. We also refrained from claiming Obama is a Muslim because of that limited experience. We have carefully stated that Obama is the best authority on his religious beliefs and we will take him at his word.
…
Yet, if voters perceive that Obama tilts in his current politics toward Islam, that conclusion alone will be detrimental to Obama’s chances in the general election.
Our argument is that Obama’s experience with Islam predisposes him to Islam in a way that is reflective of his political associates, his political advisors, and his specific policies regarding the Middle East. This is a very different argument than to claim Obama is a Muslim, something no one can prove one way or the other, except for Obama himself.”

[wideawake]

Ay-yi-yi.

(1) Steel doesn't need to melt to be weakened enough for it to fail under a heavy load.

(2) How did steel beams melt in the rubble of the WTC?

How did Japanese and Arabic smiths make implements from molten steel one thousand years ago? They used a furnace and a bellows to enhance heat and pressure allowing charcoal fires to burn hot enough to produce moldable steel.

In the vast WTC site, under millions of pounds of flammable building material, coupled with tunnels and crevices and natural wind acting as a bellows, the conditions were created for an enormous equivalent of a smith's forge.

[kabar]

Because he co-wrote Unfit for Command with John O’Neill who was a member of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Hence heis a “Truther.”

[MHGinTN]

Structural engineers are asking what raised the temperature of the steel support structure from the temp of jet fuel rapid burn to the temp needed in Tower Bldg 7. Structural engineers are asking what caused the steel superstructure super heating over an area not burning directly at the time of collapse. Do you have an answer for them, because just burning steel in jet fuel won't create sufficient catastrophic conditions thus something in the construction of the Towers is supected to be an additive.

The kook, ALex Jones, is convinced the Bush Administration brought the Towers down. Don't fall for the leftists' effort to tie Jerome Corsi to that idiocy as a way to discourage people from reading the very revealing and factual book on the Marxist Obamessiah.

[kabar]

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster

Final Reports of the Federal Building and Fire Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster

[pby]

Steel doesn't need to melt to be weakened enough for it to fail under a heavy load.

Yeah...uh, no kidding.

Given the WTC design, at what temperature and duration does a fire need to burn to create a symmetrical collapse (in three separate buildings)?

Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250ºC… Only two core column specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis, and their temperatures did not reach 250 ºC. … Using metallographic analysis, NIST determined that there was no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600 ºC. (NIST, 2005, pp. 176-177; emphasis added.)

At any given location, the duration of [air, not steel] temperatures near 1,000oC was about 15 min to 20 min. The rest of the time, the calculated temperatures were near 500oC or below.” (NIST, 2005, p. 127, emphasis added.)

NIST contracted with Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. to conduct tests to obtain information on the fire endurance of trusses like those in the WTC towers…. All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing… The Investigation Team was cautious about using these results directly in the formulation of collapse hypotheses. In addition to the scaling issues raised by the test results, the fires in the towers on September 11, and the resulting exposure of the floor systems, were substantially different from the conditions in the test furnaces. Nonetheless, the [empirical test] results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11. (NIST, 2005, p. 141; emphasis added.)

And...since the pancake theory was long ago ruled out (and did not show, or take into account, the 40+ core columns)...what caused the symmetrical collpase of the three WTC towers?

[pby]

The kook, ALex Jones, is convinced the Bush Administration brought the Towers down. Don't fall for the leftists' effort to tie Jerome Corsi to that idiocy as a way to discourage people from reading the very revealing and factual book on the Marxist Obamessiah.

bingo.

[MHGinTN]

Thanx for the links. I'm already familiar with the reports and Q&A rear coverings. I'm still not convinced the actual collapse cause(s) are known. Perhaps God brought those torture chambers down. I don't think anyone knows the entire reason(s) and bureau of standards ought to be trying to find out, even if on the sly, to try and adjust building codes in the future for such structures. There is clear video of a reporter reporting on camera that Bldg 7 had collapsed and as the reporter is talking on camera bldg 7 then falls on cue! That smacks of controlled demolition ... and I don't disagree with controlled demolition but truth is served better by not having such disconnects! The convoluted explanations remind me of the CIA movie produced to convince people that a noseless 747 can fly 10,000 upward after having it's nose blown off by a fuel tank explosion ... don't jet engines use jet fuel and aren't the feed lines to engines connected to a bank of fuel tanks?

[MHGinTN]

I wonder how the lime in the concrete could accelerate the heat build up as the concrete failed?

[ConfusedAndLovingIt]

There is clear video of a reporter reporting on camera that Bldg 7 had collapsed and as the reporter is talking on camera bldg 7 then falls on cue!

So reporters were in on the conspiracy too? Just how many people were part of this?

[pby]

And...how/why did the concrete pulverize?

[kabar]

The Collapse of World Trade Center 7

Allegation: 9/11 Revealed suggests that the 47-story World Trade Center 7 building, which collapsed at 5:20 pm on September 11, was intentionally demolished. The primary piece of evidence for this is a comment that Mr. Larry Silverstein, who owned the World Trade Center complex, made on the September 2002 television documentary American Rebuilds. Mr. Silverstein said:

I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, you know, “We've had such terrible loss of life that the smartest thing to do is just pull it.” And they made that decision to pull it and we watched the [World Trade Center 7] building collapse.

9/11 Revealed and other conspiracy theorists put forward the notion that Mr. Silverstein’s suggestion to “pull it” is slang for intentionally demolishing the WTC 7 building.

Facts: On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement on this issue:

Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a thorough investigation of the collapse of all the World Trade Center buildings. The FEMA report concluded that the collapse of Seven World Trade Center was a direct result of fires triggered by debris from the collapse of WTC Tower 1.

In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology has stated unequivocally, “NIST has seen so evidence that the collapse of WTC 7 was caused by bombs, missiles, or controlled demolition,” in its Collapse of WTC 7 report (p. 6). NIST’s working hypothesis for the collapse of WTC 7 is that it was caused by the collapse of a critical column due to “fire and/or debris induced structural damage.” There was substantial damage to WTC 7 when the nearby WTC 1 tower collapsed and fires began shortly afterwards. Also, WTC 7 was a very unusual building because it was built over an existing Con-Edison power generation substation, which contained two large 6,000 gallon fuel tanks for the emergency generation of power. The fuel from these tanks could have contributed to the intense heat that apparently weakened the supporting columns in WTC 7.

[MHGinTN]

Heat makes concrete brittle.

[MHGinTN]

First of all, skippy, I didn't say there WAS a conspiracy, but that was a typical despicable liberal technique from you to try and impugn me with a fabricated accusation offered in an oblique and cowardly manner.

Secondly how does the feed to the reporter telling the reporter that the building had collapsed happen prior to the building collapsing? If the building was to be control-demolished I can understand that and such a plan would perhaps have been heard by a reporter thus the reporter set up prior to the collapse, but the failure to be honest about the controlled demolition is a stupid act which feeds such kook conspiracy games.

[MHGinTN]

It also occurs to me that the fire department has some understanding of buildings about to collapse during a fire and may have ordered the fire fighters out suspecting an imminent collapse, an order which reporters may have overheard and jumped to cover the collapse, without the collapse being a controlled demolition.

[driftless2]

Colmes is right... Corsi is a Truther, I’ve done some research. Not only that, Corsi believes the canard about Bush wanting to make the U.S., Canada, and Mexico one giant country. That makes him a nut. He’s right about Obama, but the drunk at the end of the bar can occasionally be right too.

[Interesting Times]

I forwarded this question to Jerry Corsi, who confirmed what I already suspected. He is by no means a 9/11 “truther” but supports the conclusions reached by the 9/11 Commission. Feel free to pass the word.

[js1138]

“The fire, from jet fuel, does not burn hot enough to produce the physical evidence that he’s produced.

That's such bullshit. I have pictures I took a couple blocks from my house of a rather ordinary fire -- no jet fuel, just typical building contents -- in which steel I-beams sagged into "U" shapes.