Comic Book Review: The Big Lie

“Lies are like unwashed socks,” opens Rich Veitch’s new comic, The Big Lie. “They come in all sizes and stink to high heaven.” Take the stinker he just published, for instance.

The Big Lie is the story of Sandra Stratton, who works at the Large Hadron Collider in 2011 but travels back in time to the morning of 9/11 to rescue her husband, who was killed in the attacks. She materializes in the WTC subway, and opens with a pee joke:

This is the high point of the comic; it’s all downhill from there. Also, doesn’t it seem strange that they chose as their model a surprised, unbespectacled Desiree Schell?

Anyway, because of some quantum, Sandra has teleported back into the past, but because of some pesky tachyon entanglement miscalculation issues, she only has one hour to rescue her husband. But here’s how Veitch puts it:

Big spelling fail.

Carl’s at an early morning meeting, discussing, as best I can tell, the possibility of demolishing a real steel framed building in Iraq for Steven Spielberg. Really.

I had hopes for this comic book. Usually, when you encounter a truther in the wild of the Internet, you will be debated at and shown youtube videos. I thought that moving to a new medium would perhaps change this. So what does Desiree do when she sees her husband, Carl? SHE DEBATES HIM AND SHOWS HIM FECKING YOUTUBE VIDEOS!!

See?

So they settle into a debate not unlike Plato’s Phaedrus, only populated by snarky douchebags. Take, for instance, the following exchange:

For you non-engineers, Carl is a moron. Silly-puttying “teh thermites” to the wall will only give you burned silly putty and burning thermite on the floor. It burns so hot that you’d actually need to weld trays to the steel of the building, and even then, you would only scorch the steel, not cut it:

That scene of thermite not cutting a steel beam, by the way, is from Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura by the way. Yet he fails to learn anything from it. Oh well. As she is being dragged away by security,  Sandra exclaims, “Building 7!”:

I know how you feel, Carl. Oh, by the way, Carl doesn’t recognize his wife, because she was never crazy or old before.

As soon as Sandra is escorted from the building,  the office is rocked by a gigantic….

This is the plane hitting, not an enormous exploding owl, as you might expect from the noise it made. In the last scene, they see exposed thermite bombs on the steel beams in their office building. This means that the author is endorsing the idea that not only did the conspirators crash planes, but were also able to decide which floors they would hit, a far, far more complicated project than either an airline strike or a demolition. If you’re going to be wrong, be shamefully, spectacularly wrong, that’s my motto.

It’s confusing. It’s pedantic and saturated with bad arguments by every single character, the product of a mind detached from reality. It’s prefaced by the statement that:

The sheer number of spelling/grammar/factual/anachronistic errors suggests to me that someone at editor at Image, a usually reputable publisher, did not really care if it looked as bad as it is. At least I like to think so. It’s too bad. Veitch, who used to rub shoulders with Alan Moore, is now piddling in the shallow end of the pool with the kids from the short bus.

RJB (with a shout out to Steven for letting me take a peek at his copy!)

About these ads

39 Responses to Comic Book Review: The Big Lie

  1. JIm Dodson says:

    The 911 Commission report is an obvious whitewash- Sen. Max Cleland resigned at the very onset of the “investigation”. stating that it was compromised. The top legal counsel for the commission, John Farmer, published a basic CYA book “The Ground Truth”, to distance himself from the whitewash. Other commissioners have likewise gone to some lengths to insulate themselves from the commission and its dubious findings.
    The “cleanup” at ground zero was probably the biggest wholesale destruction of a crime scene in the history of forensic science. The 911 Commission does not mention one word about the straightdown approximately 9 second near freefall collapse of the 47 story WTC-7 skyscraper, which was not hit by any plane.
    These three building were overbuilt, as skyscrapers normally are constructed. The official story implies that the buildings were essentially hollow cylinders, which is nonsense. The cores of all three buildings contained some of the largest structural steel columns ever built. The only way to get the basically straight down collapses of all three building is demolition-period. All of the columns had to be severed simultaneously to get a straight down collapse instead of a toppling over. There are about 20 or so characteristics of controlled demolition, and if you check on what these are, you will find all three collapses show all the characteristics. As far as the “This has never happened before!” argument- a bomber struck the Empire State Building in about 1945, and the structure of the building was maintained, and the steel columns- relative midgets compared to the WTC columns- remained intact. Thick structural steel is infinitely stronger than thin aviation aluminum. It is a little like cheese hitting a cheese grater. “There was no opportunity for anyone to place charges in the buildings!” The WTC complex had a series of what were ostensibly elevator renovations in the months prior to Sept. 11. The cameras and other security apparatus was shut down during these times. It turns out that the elevator shafts were located very close to the core columns. Also, high tech charges do not require wires, and can be set off remotely. Nearly three thousand died that day. There is no honor done to their memory by passing on falsehoods. The comic book, “The Big Lie” is a noble effort, and the creators of this work deserve a lot of credit.
    Please do your homework.

  2. Bob says:

    Jim,

    I’m going to make this brief. When I’m done, you will perhaps have a greater appreciation of my position.

    “The 911 Commission does not mention one word about the straightdown approximately 9 second near freefall collapse of the 47 story WTC-7 skyscraper, which was not hit by any plane.”

    There’s a reason. It wasn’t part of the Commission’s mandate, which was clearly stated from the onset. Did you read even the first few pages? You’re complaining that a Russian Language dictionary doesn’t have enough English in it. Really. Go look.

    “The “cleanup” at ground zero was probably the biggest wholesale destruction of a crime scene in the history of forensic science.”

    This is just bogus. Not every piece of debris was essential for the investigation. Indeed, when the engineers went in to analyze the collapse, they were looking for representative samples of materials, joints and steel at specific points in the structure to see how they failed. Say, a joint in the fire area, a beam that had taken the hit of the plane itself, etc. The relevant beams/debris were shunted for forensic investigation, and every piece had to be looked at to determine which those were. That’s how they did it.

    “The only way to get the basically straight down collapses of all three building is demolition-period.”

    This is a bald assertion. It is, in fact, what you want to prove, not a premise. When your conclusion is built into your premise, you are begging the question, a logical fallacy.

    “All of the columns had to be severed simultaneously to get a straight down collapse instead of a toppling over.”

    This desire to see the buildings tip over like an old lady farts in the face of physics. Let’s look at the forces at work here: Gravity pulls down, down, down and only down. In order to have something tip, you need to have energy horizontally. Sometimes the structure itself can hold together, but the WTC was designed to take a vertical load, not a horizontal one. In this case, what’s supposed to be the source of that sideways motion in the WTC collapse? You seem to underestimate the amount of energy you will need. When something tips over the top is moving faster than the bottom (it covers more distance in the same time–think about the distance covered by the outside of a wheel versus the lug nuts through a single rotation). That means EVEN MORE energy needs to be supplied to accelerate that mass that extra distance through the horizontal in the same time. When you tip over a tall structure, the torque on the structure often causes it to break in the middle:

    The path of least resistance, that is, is THROUGH THE STEEL BUILDING! It’s counterintuitive, but then again, I’m only relying on science. You are relying on hunches.

    “As far as the ‘This has never happened before! argument’- a bomber struck the Empire State Building in about 1945, and the structure of the building was maintained, and the steel columns- relative midgets compared to the WTC columns- remained intact.”

    You are comparing apples and tumors. Look at the difference in size of the planes you are talking about (a 767 hit the North Tower, the bottom one):

    Now, consider that one runs on diesel, was lost in the fog, and not deliberately rammed into the building and the other was fully loaded fueled with JET FUEL (higher stored chemical energy too!) and rammed deliberately into the building at top speed. The designers of WTC imagined a scenario with a 707 (not a 767) trying to land hitting the tower in the fog, like in WWII.

    I have a job, so I need to work. But I hope to convey to you that I have in fact done my homework.

    RJB

  3. I can’t say for sure, but I doubt Rich Veitch is a truther. I’ve read a lot of his work. He likes playing around with outrageous ideas, that’s all.

  4. Bob says:

    In the back there are a bunch of Truther ads.

  5. Pacal says:

    Bob you said:

    “In the last scene, they see exposed thermite bombs on the steel beams in their office building. This means that the author is endorsing the idea that not only did the conspirators crash planes, but were also able to decide which floors they would hit, a far, far more complicated project than either an airline strike or a demolition.”

    That is in fact one of my problems with “truther” stuff. It seems to all operate on the assumption that the planes crashed in exactly the “right” floors. I find that highly improbable. The reason being, assuming a controled demolition brought the buildings down, that unless the planes hit carefully designated areas they could fuck up the alleged controled demolition.

  6. IntrepidSol says:

    Bob you have not provided any evidence countering the assertions of the Big Lie. You again resort to ad hominem and when confronted with just a few of the absurd realities of the 9/11 cover up you double down as a skeptic of everyone but the government, so completely biased and brazenly stupid in your assertions.

    So you are saying the 9/11 commission report ignored the destruction of a 47 story tall building on 9/11 that housed the FBI, CIA, SEC, OEM (office of emergency management) that constituted only the 3rd building of such stature to have supposedly destroyed itself because of a few errant asymmetrical scattered fires, all on the same day of the biggest terrorist attack on the US in history. Let’s remember that this unheralded destruction was also ‘magically’ announced by 2 major media networks, CNN and the BBC. Yeah that’s not suspicious at all. You like everyone at Skeptical inquirer are entirely unskeptical and truly make a mockery of science and skeptical inquiry.

    Here enjoy a video which succinctly points out the enormity of the lie you defend with passionate willful ignorance.

    Transcript and sources: http://www.corbettreport.com/?p=2594

    Here is also another article that exposes the illegitimate nature of those purporting to debunk 9/11 truth.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26520

    If you feel the need to respond, try to do so without invoking logical fallacies such as Ad hominem attacks. I won’t hold my breath that you are capable of doing so.

    http://patriotsquestion911.com/

    Senior Military, Intelligence, Law Enforcement,
    and Government Officials Question
    the 9/11 Commission Report

  7. Bob says:

    “So you are saying the 9/11 commission report ignored the destruction of a 47 story tall building on 9/11 that housed the FBI, CIA, SEC, OEM (office of emergency management)”:

    You want the fecking mandate?

    Specifically, Section 604 of Public Law 107-306 requires the Commission to investigate “facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,” including those relating to intelligence agencies; law enforcement agencies; diplomacy; immigration, nonimmigrant visas, and border control; the flow of assets to terrorist organizations; commercial aviation; the role of congressional oversight and resource allocation; and other areas determined relevant by the Commission for its inquiry.

    Where does it say “engineering report” or “structural failure”? Point to it. Yes, you’re goddamned right that’s what I’m saying.

    “only the 3rd building of such stature to have supposedly destroyed itself because of a few errant asymmetrical scattered fires”

    Again, you are wrong. You forget the whole plane hitting the building thing at the first two towers. And the WTC7 fire went unfought most of the day. Did it just magically not spread, you know, like fires do? Have you read the interviews with the firefighters who were there? My god, you don’t get to have your own special facts, Sol.

    “Let’s remember that this unheralded destruction was also ‘magically’ announced by 2 major media networks, CNN and the BBC.”

    Again, it doesn’t follow that it was demolished. Only that the message was botched–I mean, was one news site quoting another? They do that all the time. Tell me. Tell me how you know that it’s deliberate on the part of two news sources from two countries with two managements and staffs and not a mistake that gets repeated.

    You’ve managed to not address a single point I made above, by the way. I try to be systematic about this. You called me stupid and a mockery. It’ll be a cold day in Jamaica when I listen to a lecture from you on ad hominems.

    RJb

  8. IntrepidSol says:

    I have asked you to address evidence. As you engage in sophistry, avoid real debate of the evidence and utilize all the tools of fallacious logic to avoid a reasoned discussion of the evidence. My admission that you are in fact “brazenly stupid” is well supported by the evidence of your continued cover up, subterfuge and denial of the evidence that demands a new investigation. Reading your yellow journalism fluff piece in “skeptical” inquirer amounted to vapid self indulgent hit piece that chose to frame the issue from the outset as sport for delirious cranks, ignoring the immense evidence as gathered by over 1,500 Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

    Case in point. You like many faux skeptics cannot see the forest for the trees. You think that the commission responsible for the full report of what actually happened on 9/11 is not responsible for including the reality of a 47 story 610 foot tall 300 foot wide building disassembling at free fall speeds, because of random, asymmetrical office fires? This is completely without precedence and yet you have apparently zero capacity to objectively consider all sides to this discussion.

    Prove to me that there were actually raging fires that day in building 7. Show me one shred of physical evidence for your claims. You pick and choose the eye witness accounts that fit your bogus arguments very nicely don’t you. You avoid the over 118 people who recall hearing secondary explosions, you avoid the engineers who say it is impossible for 100 feet of reinforced steel to magically lose all of it’s strength at once over the entire facade of 80 plus columns for 2.25 seconds as admitted by NIST without explosives.

    When asked for discussion of the evidence you retort with child like countenance “I fart better science than these feebs” Oh really? Prove it!

  9. IntrepidSol says:

    Correction.

    Case in point. You like many faux skeptics cannot see the forest for the trees. You think that the commission responsible for the full report of what actually happened on 9/11 is not responsible for including the reality of a 47 story 610 foot tall 300 foot wide building disassembling at free fall speeds, SUPPOSEDLY because of random, asymmetrical office fires? This is completely without precedence and yet you have apparently zero capacity to objectively consider all sides to this discussion.


    Here is the video.

    Can you address the science? Can you find one Engineer at Georgia Tech who will defend the government’s conspiracy theory?
    I DOUBT IT!

  10. Bob says:

    Holy shit, you’re Camron Wiltshire, aren’t you?

    It was the phrase “faux skeptic,” which I’ve seen you use repeatedly in the past.

    Yep, your service provider info is exactly identical.

    Camron, I let Richard speak his mind, and most of what we discussed ended up in the online version of the Skeptical Inquirer article. (What I originally turned in was about 4X too long for print.) I forced nobody to say anything to me, and they were honest. Sure they were wrong on nearly every point, but that’s fine. I mostly wanted to hear what they had to say. I step back and offer very little commentary, and most of what remains is verbatim conversation and representative of what I heard that night. And I didn’t include a lot of the really crazy stuff, mostly because it was not relevant to the issue at hand.

    I didn’t force anyone to threaten me. In the cab on the way to Tech, I thought that it might be kind of nice to show you guys taking your argument to engineers. But one of you rewrote that ending, didn’t they?

    I’ve heard no protest from anyone quoted, including Richard. If he dislikes it, tell him to reply or write to Skeptical Inquirer. The editors have not told me of any reaction to the article one way or the other, and they do have authors respond to criticism.

    Do you have any idea how creepy you’ve become, Camron?

    RJB

  11. Bob says:

    Guess not. You are the weakest link! Goodbye!

    RJB

  12. […] is my response that was again censored on skepticalhumanities.com Hi Bob, This is Camron Wiltshire You banned me like you ban anyone who points out the absurdity […]

  13. Patrick says:

    I’m going to keep this simple Bob. What is the purpose behind You apparently existing to do nothing but attack those who seek further investigations and justice for 9/11? Why is it such a big deal to You that some of us are spending our lives working on evidence to somewhat realign the wrongs done to humanity by these LIES. It makes no sense that someone with Your intelligence level would want to interfere with research for such a cause, especially when VICTIMS FAMILIES have ATTEMPTED to debate You personally about this fact. Why won’t You go public with us? What about the political background behind 9/11? (Completely aside from the DEMOLITION Theory?) What say You about the connections within power players present at the game board on the morning of 9/11 or the past 30 years prior? I want to know who You work for, Sir. Period. Anyone who attempts to thwart and makes fun of victims families from finding out more about the deaths of their loved ones is a professor of insanity. Any students of Bob, I suggest You reconsider who You follow, I mean, listen to Him, and learn, as I do, what NOT to do.

    • Bob says:

      “Why is it such a big deal to You that some of us are spending our lives working on evidence to somewhat realign the wrongs done to humanity by these LIES.”

      Because I genuinely think you are mistaken about these little weird things you think are facts. If you’re wrong, and you have spend years hunting leprechauns, wouldn’t you want to know? I know you’re committed to this belief. Being convinced is, in itself, very convincing, and people dig in. When you are surrounded by people who believe the same thing and don’t explore the other side, you lose objectivity. I have gone to the other side–I hanged with the Truthers and interviewed them and talked to them one on one. Hell, I even liked them the night I was out with them. Yes, the arguments were tiring, but people were nice. I’m not closed minded like everyone thinks I am. Where do I make fun of families? Being families does not give them any additional claim to evidence or being rational, in fact, I suspect if I were emotionally attached to this issue, I’d likely be quite irrational about it. (I’d also point out that the vast majority of families are satisfied that the commission narrative and engineering reports are accurate.) I have no interest in debating anyone, Patrick, or being part of the spectacle. I don’t know why someone would even want to debate an English teacher instead of publishing in a mainstream peer-reviewed journal (and Harrit’s paper doesn’t count). It seems like I’d be participating in the validation that people who already decided that these were lies (and imagine that looking at WTC dust somehow gives them access to the intent inside the heads of people they don’t know). Not interested. I don’t think it helps anyone. I wonder if any Truthers would hang with the skeptics?

      RJB

  14. Logically Speaking.. says:

    The USGS discovered evidence that molybdenum had melted in the WTC fires.. They tried to suppress this discovery from the public.. They were sued under the freedom of information act.. They lost.. They were forced to release this hard, documented, irrefutable evidence to the public..

    So why did the USGS attempt to cover up this evidence that they’ve discovered? Perhaps it was because molybdenum was only present prior to the attacks as an additive in the steel alloy.. and that, as such, it was homogenized and only in trace amounts.. any more would increase the tensile strength of the steel causing the risk of fracturing in the steel.. and perhaps it’s because the only way to create a molybdenum RICH spherule from a molybdenum LIGHT alloy was for the other elements in the alloy to have literally been burned off.. leaving predominantly only the molybdenum.. and perhaps it was then made into a sphere by the fires because, once molten, it’s natural surface tension pulled it into this shape as it would any dense, formally solid liquid.. and perhaps they attempted to cover this all up because molybdenum needs to be brought to OVER 4750º F TO BECOME MOLTEN.. But perhaps some people think the “patriotic thing” is to ignore any scientific, irrefutable evidence that our government would prefer us to not know about.. Or perhaps they themselves don’t want to know about it because of the cognitive dissonance that it creates in them when people hear about proof that destroys their illusions of comfort and security..

    All I know is this.. The fact that we have officially documented proof that iron, steel and MOLYBDENUM melted in the WTC fires and at building seven officially and totally disproves the “official story” as an IMPOSSIBLE account for what actually led to the creation of this evidence.. And I know one more thing.. IT’S TIME TO OFFICIALLY REOPEN THIS INVESTIGATION AND TO LET GO OF THE GOVERNMENT SPONSORED DOGMA. Come on people.. Get over your bias and you’re illusions of safety and trust in government and THINK CRITICALLY!!

  15. Logically Speaking.. says:

    p.s. The U.S. invested ten times more taxpayer money into investigating the Moneka Lewinsky scandal than into the murder of almost 3000 people on U.S. soil.. Anyone that thinks that this is “ok” or that it’s unreasonable to at least reopen this investigation and make it OFFICIAL like ANY OTHER investigation of this magnitude is off their rocker.. New investigation.. Full Subpoena power.. If the truth is on their side.. WHAT ARE THE OFFICIAL STORY PEOPLE SO AFRAID OF!?? Can’t we at least invest as much energy and resources into really investigating this as much as we did a friggin stain on Lewinsky’s dress!??? The idea that this is an unreasonable request is absolutely and completely illogical and asinine. ..smh.

    • Bob says:

      I have not heard of this molybdenum stuff, so I don’t have anything to say. Please post a link to the released files. I’ll look at them. I always look at new evidence and I’ve not heard of this.

      What was USGS doing there? I see they have a spectroscopy lab that was involved… Fill me in with the report.

      When you talk about the cost…I’ve heard that argument before, but it’s sort of late to go look that up. However, let’s say that it is true. Even if it is (and I sort of have doubts…all of the staff resources of agencies that spent endless man hours and paid people to work…are you just talking about the lab contracts, because there was a lot more work than just that), it doesn’t follow that the work was done sloppily or badly or incompletely. Sometimes expensive stuff is crap. Here, I can’t resist:

      “Public Law 107-306 provided for the reprogramming of $3 million for the Commission. Congress subsequently appropriated, and the President signed into law, an additional $11 million appropriation for the Commission. Recent legislation authorized an additional $1 million, bringing the Commission’s total budget to $15 million.
      The Commission is confident that it can fulfill its mandate with this amount. We appreciate very much the support of Congress and the President for this level of funding.”
      (source: http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/about/faq.htm#q5)

      This doesn’t take into account the NIST studies, because the Commission mandate was different from the NIST mandate. So the total cost was likely much more.

      When you talk about the fecking ridiculous Clinton investigations, Starr blew 6-7 million, depending on what you count as a cost. And it wasn’t just “monica lewinski.” That was late in the game, after Starr had already spent years looking at Whitewater, and found nothing. Most of it, I imagine, went to paying lawyers.

      RJB

  16. Jiuguizi says:

    I finally made it through my copy (glad I didn’t have to pay fr this drivel). What boggles my mind, more than the fact that this was published by one of the major comic publishers, is that every single conspiracy theory regarding 9/11 completely underestimates the human desire for fame.

    One person who wanted their fifteen minutes out of the huge number of people involved in the planning and execution of the supposed inside job, or involved in the ongoing coverup would be all it takes. That not one person has come forward with anything resembling credible evidence that anything sinister was afoot seems to put the final nail in this coffin of nonsense.

    Seriously, what is more likely, that a large group of government workers really love their jobs so much so as not to seek fame and fortune by exposing this, or that nothing at all was going on outside of a group of misguided religious zealots committing and unspeakable act.

    It’s that simple. No one, not even the dark lord of the sith himself (or Cheney, whichever is scarier for you) could keep that many people in line. Someone would have tried to prove, either out of a matter of conscience, or out of a desire to see their name in the paper.

    that should be the end of the story, but sadly, i imagine we’ll be going on about this for another few thousand years

  17. […] is my response that was again censored on skepticalhumanities.com Hi Bob, This is Camron Wiltshire You banned me like you ban anyone who points out the absurdity and […]

  18. Brian says:

    What was not spelled correctly?

  19. Brian says:

    What is wrong with watching news clips from CNN, FOX, NBC etc that are archived on YouTube?

  20. Brian says:

    Damn. You use YouTube videos too! I thought you might be bashing YouTube in general, but instead you just don’t like some people using it…. ? Gotcha.

    http://skepticalhumanities.com/2011/09/27/i-need-some-motivational-speaking-to/

  21. Brian says:

    And you took the easy route by not refuting our citations page.

    Allow me to mention it in case you don’t know about it:

    http://truthbetoldcomics.com/?page_id=469

  22. Bob says:

    Elusive vs. Illusive: Illusive means imaginary.

    Nothing’s wrong with it. Just basing arguments on stuff filmed when nobody knew what was going on (during the collapses) is not a good idea.

    • Brian says:

      Good catch. You said there was more than one, care to cite another?

      And so by this you should cross out (and not delete) this sentance you wrote:
      “I had hopes for this comic book. Usually, when you encounter a truther in the wild of the Internet, you will be debated at and shown youtube videos. I thought that moving to a new medium would perhaps change this. So what does Desiree do when she sees her husband, Carl? SHE DEBATES HIM AND SHOWS HIM FECKING YOUTUBE VIDEOS!!”

      Obviously she is talking, not the video and it is only being used as a visual reference.

      Or what?

      • Bob says:

        Good catch. You said there was more than one, care to cite another?

        No. You can’t make me read it again. Look for yourself. Hint: possessives, plurals, and it’s its. Real kindergarten stuff. Composed by a monkey.

        RJB

  23. Bob says:

    I had no idea that you had a citations page. I also have no intention of wasting my time on it.

    • Brian says:

      Of course you didn’t, you are only researching one side of things.

      Of course you won’t, you are only researching one side of things.

      • Bob says:

        Brian, if you had any idea how goofy that sounded…What in there is new? I had heard every single claim in that rotten little book endlessly from the truth-o-sphere? What did it add to the debate? A lot of people I’ve spoken to thought it was a parody meant to discredit the Truthers, it was so bad and so incoherent.

      • Bob says:

        I’ve seen this Marty.

        I’ve already written about why you have a brief bit of freefall for WTC7, and it has to do with damage incurred to the perimeter as the interior of building 7 collapsed (the initial portion of the collapse where the penthouse falls). That portion of the collapse caused damaged the vertical support. Think of it like a drinking straw right out of the wrapper and placed on end. You can actually put a (comparatively) good deal of force down on the straw and it won’t break. However, if you have a kink in the straw, the sucker offers no resistance. That explains how you can have that period of what is basically freefall in Building 7.

  24. Marty Beck says:

    A simple analysis shows that for the twin towers to fall as fast as they did, over 90 percent of the strength from top to bottom had to be removed. Most of the reduction from free fall times is due to accelerating stationary floors. Conservation of momentum calculations for inelastic collisions shows this to be true.

    If the collapse had been a pancake, it would have taken over 40 seconds and the columns would remain.

    If you account for debris falling to the side, less than 5 percent of the strength of the columns was present during the collapse. From top to bottom.

    What it really means is that all the strength was removed in several places, possibly every third floor or so.

    Anyone who can’t see this needs to look at building 7 which had all the column strength removed and fell at free fall for a few seconds.

    email me if you want to see the analysis.

    Fall time analysis proves controlled demolition. Now what?

    Marty Beck

  25. […] he uses to poke fun at those who question the official 9/11 story, he finds some time to take a jab at The Big Lie. Funny enough he writes things like: I had hopes for this comic book. Usually, when you encounter a […]

  26. […] he uses to poke fun at those who question the official 9/11 story, he finds some time to take a jab at The Big Lie. Funny enough he writes things like: I had hopes for this comic book. Usually, when you encounter a […]

  27. jacko says:

    the fact that building 7 fell at free fall acceleration for just over two seconds, IS BLOODY WELL IMPOSSIBLE WITHOUT EXPLOSIVES!

    you believe your boxcutter hijack conspiracy theories if you want, but ill stick to facts and science thankyou.

  28. Bob says:

    You are only talking about the exterior falling, which is all you can see. And it fell at dang well NEAR freefall speed, and that is completely possible.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,655 other followers

%d bloggers like this: