About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

11 Replies to “Michael Coren takes a nice parting shot at 911 ‘troofers’”

  1. Sadly this video clip is of WTC 7 which came down despite never having been hit by a plane. Sadly Michael Coren (who is, of course, usually awesome) is wrong on this point.

  2. I never said anything about the effects of fire – I simply pointed out that the burning building is WTC 7 and not one of the twin towers at Michael Coren intimated. And stop it with the insults – you’re no better than those people who call us Islamophobes and racists if you start on that track.

  3. No actually he is not. Building 7 is the one critics usually rant on about because it was not hit by a plane. But it was part of the complex and did collapse not from pre-fixed explosives but from a fire that was the result of the attack.

    There are also lots of videos showing how the main towers did not fall as symmetrically as truthers claim it did, destroying the theory of controlled demolition. Frankly if I was going to attack my own buildings I wouldn’t do it in a way that was easily detectable by making it controlled. I would knock the bastard over the way Al Queda tried in the first attempt on the WTC in 91 I think it was. With explosives in the garage at a point that would tip the building over onto the other one. In any case, people who insist that 911 was an inside job are doing the work of terrorists for them. By undermining people’s faith in their own culture and government. If they were right, at least there would be some argument in their favour. But its pure fiction.

  4. Hi Eeyore and my compliments on a brilliantly informative blog. Re the Twin Towers, I am perfectly happy to accept your analysis. However, WTC 7 is another story – after a considerable amout of research, I simply do not believe that it could collapse like it did from a simple office fire. Many architects do not believe it either and no one can point to any other building in history of a similar structure that has collapsed like that – none – even those with much bigger fires consuming them. Here are some examples:
    Thus I am sceptical with regard to WTC 7, but I am still a fan of the great Mr Coren! And I remain open to any new info about WTC7 that may change my mind.

  5. I used to have a collection of articles about building 7 when I was more interested in debating this issue. Things have grown much more tense now with Islam and Iran and so forth, even more personal as my site has come under attack several times recently, likely by Muslims who dislike my exposing of their actions and beliefs to those who might oppose them.

    Popular Mechanics some years ago did a very good explanation of building 7 as well as the whole thing. There are also some videos up on this site back not too too far which detail building 7. I agree that building 7 is counter-intuitive. I understand the skepticism. But the job of an expert is to understand the reality of physics or the science of their craft despite how counter-intuitive the facts may be to the layman.
    This is true across the board in medicine, nutrition etc.

    In any case, thanks for being civil in this issue. Most people I speak to are religious in their insistence that it was other than (i believe) it was. They do so because they typically have another agenda. One to demonize the US or the Bush admin or whatever. Even though it is unlikely Bush could have planned and pulled this off in the 6 months he had before 911 occurred. Doubly so for those who thought he was an imbecile.

  6. Cheers for that – I shall check out the Popular Mechanics report asap. I totally agree with how religiously people often defend their opinions and won’t/can’t look at any evidence that could possible be contrary to their beliefs. My muslim friends become pretty annoyed if I bring up anything about Mohammed’s “perfect” example – but the strongest reactions I’ve ever got are from blinkered leftists. Keep up the good work!

  7. said, “from a simple office fire”

    Not sure how two 20,000 gallon fuel tanks under tower 7 and the fuel that burned through the firewall from the twin towers and tower 7 cellar area was a “simple office fire”.

    There is only one very good picture of how intense that fire was. It is a picture of black smoke coming out of a very large steel grate under tower 7 it was amazing how large that fire was. It was like watching a gas station on fire.

  8. The best thing to do in this situation is shave with Occam s razor, the simplest solution (the planes bringing down the buildings) is the correct answer.

    Having said that let me restate that the US government doesn’t have the capabilities to keep something like this quiet. Every secret research program the US has is talked about on various conspiracy blogs. With something this big the whistle-blowers would be breaking their necks to get to the reporters with proof.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *