squids and old waffles


There's a new tagdog by jabberee Greg over at CDWM.
:::

Now this is interesting. Sort of. Occasionally a comment will come in on an old post and you just gotta wonder was this person googling Waffle House or Gary Garcia or what?
:::

Lemos sent me yet another WTC conspiracy theory. I don't believe in massive conspiracies in the 21st century. I think it may have been possible to contain a huge secret surrounding the death of Lincoln, or possibly JFK, but I just can't believe a secret plot to destroy the WTC and make it look like Muslims did it and make Muslims brag that they did it etc etc etc could be contained in the info age. I'll admit anything is possible, but I think that's astronomically improbable.

My reason for spreading this cockamamie youtube video is this: I have never heard the squids explained. If you watch the video you'll see little "squids" of smoke and shrapnel squirting out of WTC as it falls, just like they squirt out of a controlled demolition. (I'm not 100% sure the word is "squid" but it sounds like they're saying squid.) If anybody knows of a mythbusting explanation for the squids, please share. Just curious...
:::

Teeny Weeny in the year 2525 contains 33 panels. Here is one of them. Teeny Weeny in the year 2525 is coming soon to a Nickelodeon Magazine near you.

31 comments:

SRBissette said...

SQUIB, SQUIB -- not squiD!

Squibs are explosive devices used primarily in (a) demolition (the context it's being used within in the video you've linked) and (b) movie special effects. Squibs are those detonating faked 'bullet wounds' that are usually rigged with fake blood bags under clothing or fake skin to simulate graphic bullet wounds.

[Trivia note: For the Steve McQueen/Ali McGraw vehicle Sam Peckinpah's THE GETAWAY, peanut butter was added to the blood bags lovingly attached to the explosive squibs to simulate torn flesh flying along with the gore. Tasty!]

I've been following these 9/11 conspiracy thingies for six years; I don't buy it. Two commercial airliners colliding with two of the most massive business structures on planet Earth provides ample destruction to explain the damage in all its magnitude.

I have no trouble believing two skyscrapers -- and all structures beneath -- suddenly filled with burning airliners and jet fuel erupting/washing onto a plethora of high-tech equipment, plastics of all kinds, wiring, conduits, furnitures, computers, etc. would generate incredible temperatures and spark all manner of explosions, of all sizes, as the inferno raged in both directions (upward from the collision/impact areas, downwards due to the torrents of torched fuel, melting plastics and metals, etc.).

The assumption that nothing inherent to such massive buildings -- which, again, were filled with offices, equipment, etc. -- would NOT result in unexpected and almost untraceable fires, explosions, etc. in all directions seems like a pretty ridiculous assumption to me.

Once someone applies the term 'squib' to footage of fiery smoke/debris splaying out from a damaged structure, the use of the term itself explicitly expresses the belief the explosions were deliberately prepared, set and detonated. The visual, with the term 'squib' added, 'sells' the suspicion and concept.

In science, correlation does not equal causation. Per usual (as with the various 'we never landed on the moon' crackpot theories), we're being increasingly exposed to NON-scientific analysis of footage in which writers/narrators habitually link correlation (usually supposition) to theorized causation. It SOUNDS logical, in a vacuum, but it isn't -- it's a theory, clinging to insufficient visual content, sans context, and inherently groundless. In short, IN NEED OF FURTHER RESEARCH -- and never to be taken at face value.

What, someone needed more than two commercial airplanes to down the buildings? Really?

greg said...

I'll admit I didn't see the video yet, nor does the theory sound plausible, but I imagine what they're saying is "squib."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squib_(explosive)

Jed said...

Not to get all PC on your ass, Mark, but Al-Qaeda are not interchangeable with just any old Muslim. You could at least say "Muslim Fundamentalists".

In Christian terms we're talking the difference between, say, your neighbors who go to church on Sunday, and the people that bomb abortion clinics. I suppose it wouldn't be outrageous for me to say "when Christians bomb abortion clinics" I mean, you'd know I wasn't talking about the neighborly kind of work-a-day Christian, but still, it does have undertones of antagonism whether intended or not. I mean, I'm pretty much still talking about those darn Christians who do mean stuff.

As for the conspiracy thing:

This thing is full of it on so many different levels. They even call our airport security system "one of the most sophisticated security systems in the world". That right there is proof that they've been smoking squibs.

And Richard Myers should be "court marshalled and shot"? When was the last time we court marshalled and shot somebody by firing squad? What is this, the Civil War?

And why don't we see the evidence of the floors "pancaked on top of oneanother"? Because they dropped 1700 ft one on top of the other! That's like a seriously big stack of pancakes. By the time you get to the bottom pancake, their aint no more pancakes.

We're also talking serious electical fires. 1700 ft worth of Electric wiring, enough to fire up god knows how many retail outlets. So this guy asks where the heat is coming from?

He makes comparisons with demolitions of ABANDONED builidings. And I think he does use at least one other example of an airplane collition, but wouldn't the physics be just a little different if the buildings are 1700 ft high?

Anyway, I watched it, and I scoff.

eeTeeD said...

mm, 33 panels! go man, go!

and greg, your cdwm looks great! terrific interpretation!

Mark Martin said...

groannnn....

I hereby apologize to anyone who was offended by my carelessly neglecting to specify exactly what kind of muslims blew up WTC.

greg said...

When I posted about "squibs," Steve's post hadn't appeared yet. Just so no one thinks I copied him.

eeteed: Thanks!

Jed said...

Oh, don't even groannnn Mark. It's less who you might offend, than being aware of what you're saying and the implcations of what you're saying.

Like I said, it doesn't exactly sound outrageous in itself, but it is one of these "those people" kind of statements that gets us all into trouble. I used the Christian example because I think it applies to myself--I've totally said "Christians" when I meant Christian fundamentalists in a similar context. If you happen to be a Christian, I probably didn't mean you, but I bet a statement like that would grate a little on your ear.

It's one thing to mask what you mean in a nice euphemism wrapped in a bow--that's what PC language often and typically does--it's another to speak in a way that casually discriminates without the intent to discriminate. I know you didn't mean "Muslims" in a general sense, Mark, but right now, in this country, the word "Muslim" is politically charged in a way that it wasn't before, and in a way that it probably shouldn't be. This is why I think we should use the word with responsibility.

At the moment, it's often casually used as a word to describe the bad guys, but it's neither an appropriate nor adequate use of the word. "Muslims" doesn't even alude to what's most signifigant and most dangerous about what Al Qaeda is. "Fundamentalist" describes them much better and much more accurately than "Muslim" ever can. So why not be as clear as you can about what you mean?

Being specific when you need to be adds incisive weight to your words--it's much more ass-kicking than a generalization. Identifying the real target of your anger is a much less flabby way to talk about things you care about. It's not about pleasing me, or not causing offense, or PC wussiness, its about hitting the nail on the head instead of swinging wildly in the air.

Mark Martin said...

sigh...

Jed said...

It's too Much for me, Mark. Your mean command of onomatopoeia has me on the ropes.

I'm thinking maybe you should stick to talking about cartoons and waffles, because every time you bring up one of these HOTBUTTON ISSUES I just get OVERWHELMED by the power of your I don't give a shit rhetoric.

Mark Martin said...

Oh, all right!

I'll post a long serious reply to your long serious comments. Later. Can't right now...

But I will! Remind me if I forget!

SRBissette said...

Hey, it's been over an hour and I don't see a long serious reply from you Mark. Humpphh. You're one of THOSE people!

greg said...

Mmmmm.... cartoons and waffles.

BonzoGal said...

Jed sed: "They even call our airport security system "one of the most sophisticated security systems in the world". That right there is proof that they've been smoking squibs."

Oh man... can't breathe... laughing too hard...

Anyone who thinks we have great airport security is smoking crack. I travel for business a lot, and it's a freaking joke. You can (and I have) sneak pretty much anything through. (Although I did recently get nailed at the Phoenix airport for my tube of lipgloss...)

Jed, you also have a good point about labels- I am guilty of using the words "Christian" and "Muslim" in a pejorative sense, when really I mean "violent extremists". I'll think more before my next rant.

Speaking of waffles, there's a place by my house that serves waffles with fried chicken. Mmm...

Jed said...

Thanks, Bonzogal. I personally go for the round light flakey kind, real maple syrup, and none of that IHOP mockery--fruit or whip cream or chocolate chips.

And ah yes, the Waffles and fried chicken combo is more common than you think. It's very Southern, though. Any place you find waffles and fried chicken, you're bound to find a Sonic Burger.

But yeah, the shoe bomb guy gets in, The sippy cup lady gets detained. Airport security is random and illogical and common sense is not a componant of the process. Even BEFORE 911 we were still way behind Europe. Still are.

And Mark, you have a temporary reprieve from my Ire. For NOW. But in TWENTY-FOUR HOURS (or so), using our Advanced Squid-targeting System, (A.S.S.) I and my compatriots shall conspire to launch our squids at your place of work, or personal address. And it could happen WHEN YOU LEAST EXPECT IT. I only tell you this because THE COMMAND HAS ALREADY GONE FORTH, and CANNOT BE RESCINDED. NOTHING CAN STOP US NOW! Prepare to find yourself pelted by a rally of conspiratorial SQUIDS! The self same squids responsible for 911! And I'm not talking about the sushi kind.

greg said...

This place is great:
http://www.roscoeschickenandwaffles.com/

It's definitely southern food, but I think you can only find them in the LA area.

Mark Martin said...

Ol' Jeddy Jed Jed!

Golly bum, you can't even say Muslims blew up the WTC without getting your wrist slapped these days! And then you can't even groan when you apologize for being a sloppy writer! Well, you can, but you'll get your wrist slapped again.

I've had time to think about it, and I hereby take back my apology. It is a fact that Muslims blew up the WTC, just like it is a fact that Christians blow up abortion clinics. Everybody knows WHAT KIND of Muslims did it. If you want to assume I'm a jerk because I did not say "fundamentalists" go for it.

Here is what I want to know: If I said something about Christians blowing up abortion clinics, would you feel compelled to correct me? Come on now, be honest.

As for suggesting that I stick to talking about cartoons and waffles - How dare you, sir? It's my blog!

As for identifying the target of my anger - I was talking about squibs, and I was not angry. Good heavens, calm down!

As for casually discriminating - boo hoo hoo. If there are any Muslims out there reading this, don't get all bent out of shape. I do not think you blew up the WTC, or that you want to kill me. Unless you do. Only you can know that.

Let me be perfectly clear (or at least try to be). I understand what Jed is saying, and I admit that I said something that could easily sound "wrong" in the sense of the word that Jed is talking about. I plead guilty!

I'll go a step further and admit that if Jed said something about Christians blowing up abortion clinics, I may actually comment and say you know, they don't all do that.

I just don't think either scenario is that bad. I don't think it warrants all this chastising and handwringing. But I promised a long serious reply, and here it is.

greg said...

So are you saying that muslims do or do not like cartoon waffles?

Mark Martin said...

YES! That is exactly what I am saying!

Jed said...

You know, initially I dedicated a modest sized paragraph to the subject--a paragraph that you seem to more or less agree with ie your peevishness about my potential casual use of the generalization "Christians", and yes, I did admit that I am guilty sir of such behavior. This was in fact, the basis of my argument. So this was originally a "this is something that people tend to do" sort of statement, people like ME, that is, .until you volunteered your groan and apology.

And with your groan I felt compelled to ellaborate which you took as a wrist slap. Or maybe the first one was a wrist slap. I don't know which wrist was doing the slapping, but yes, initially I did say that you could have rephrased or ellaborated on your "Muslims" comment. I didn't consider it a chastisement so much as a "hey, here's something to pay attention to". I certainly wasn't trying to extort an apology out of you. That was by your own initiative. Obviously there was already a big ol' chip on that shoulder before I even got there.

And while you got me--I probably wouldn't have corrected you if you said "Christians who bomb abortion clinics" I think ignorance in this country about Muslims in general justifies greater attention to specifics when discussing this particular subject, meaning: terrorism.

I think there's more we take for granted as a culture, more basic knowledge about the general practices of middle class work-a-day Christian and Jewish Americans, than there is about the mysterious lives of work-a-day American Muslims. Christians and Jews are allover the tube! The main Muslim images we see on TV are from Iraq. And Muslim Americans? There just aint no Muslim American images--be it Arab or African or Indian--there's just no Cosby Show Muslim equivelent.

Incidentally I have known people who say stuff like "I hate Christians" and I do, in fact, intercede in defense of Christians. Though my wife doesn't "hate Christians" she did grow up in a pretty screwy fundamentalist Christian household and spent a childhood in desperate fear of going to hell and being whisked away at any moment by the rapture. She does not have good feelings about Christians, and I do find myself on the other side of that argument on occasion, adding a little balance to the subject, so though I'm not Mr. PC with a cape on, I'm not always on the side of the argument that you suspect.

And I didn't infer your anger from your harmless curiosity about the squids. I'll tell you exactly where you stirred up the shit. It was with your apology. One: there was nothing to apologize for, and two: you nullifed all sincerity by preceding it with a "groannnn", which suggested to me exasperation and frustration.

And I think it's pretty much public knowledge that you were pretty unhappy, as many of us were, about the WTC bombing, and the subject and the language in which it is mired are inextricable things. So the angry that I was addressing was related mainly to the statement, "...destroy the WTC and make it look like Muslims did it and make Muslims brag that they did it etc etc etc". You're talking about the WTC bombing and you're talking about Muslims bombing it and bragging about it, an act that makes you justifiably cranky, but before you let "Muslims" become too foggy a concept in this context, perhaps clarification is in order, not just for your sake, but for the sake of the fragile etch-a-sketchy dialogue that exists about this event and the religion to which it is frequently attached without much understanding of that religion.

What I'm saying is that it's MORE important to say "Muslim fundamentalists", or Muslim extremists because it is. The clearer we are about what we're talking about here, the more we keep out of the fog, and right now, this is a subject that we need to keep a clear head on.

And by all means, you can discuss anything you please on your own blog, but obviously my comment was sarcastic as all get-out, and you TOTALLY DESERVED IT because of the lameitude of your feeble reply.

Mark Martin said...

Are you finished?

greg said...

Speaking of mullets...

Luke Pski said...

I didn't read all of the comments, so forgive me if you've come to the right conclusion that some seriously fishy shit went down in the events running up to 911 and the event itself.
I've been through this whole rigamaroll on a number of boards, in a number of email exchanges, etc., so I'll just suggest that you check out some videos about it:
I'd check out Loose Change 2nd edition :
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501

( new one coming out in the next few months..)

And any recent speech given by Dr. David Ray Griffin
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8119854514684528700&q=david+ray+griffin&total=202&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Just check 'em out, give it a fair shot. Find out why the official story doesn't make sense. It's a lot more complicated than wether or not a plane can bring down a building.

Luke Pski said...

Oh, yeah, Steve- The official explanation for the buildings coming down is that fire melted the steel support structures, not that the impact brought it down- structural engineers ruled that out immediately.

Luke Pski said...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2065744174333803429&q=fake+bin+laden+video&total=72&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=1

-On the "Bin Laden" confession tape..

Okay, I'm done..

Jed said...

Why yes, Mark. And I'm glad we could have this dialogue. I feel truly enriched by the experience.

Mark Martin said...

Excellent! I'm glad you agree. It was good for me too. I felt the earth move! I always enjoy your comments. I officially upgrade your status to Senior No-Man! That's the opposite of a Yes-Man, not a judgement of your value as a person. No-Men are much more valuable to any enterprise than Yes-Men, as we all know.

SERIOUS SUGGESTION:
What do you think about changing your blogger face pic? That constipated Yellow Baby face looks so miserable and - well, constipated. Subliminally it adds a tone to your comments that probably is not intended. JUST A THOUGHT! Think about it.

Peace, bro.

Jed said...

Mmm...

Yes, I am aware of this and have given it consideration, and probably will once I find a suitable replacement.

It is my belief that the constipated jaundiced baby on his red ellephant steed has more dignity in context as the figurehead of my website, but this too will probably change at years end, when my site will be completely overhauled.

At times I've been amused by the cranky aura my constipated baby adds to my comments, however, its definitely a one-note baby. Perhaps a series of babies to match different moods are in order, some cranky and jaundiced, some beaming with a healthy rosey glow. But that just seems like an incredible pain in the ass.

Deciding upon a suitable blogscot is harder than you might think.

Also none of my self-portraits ever look like me.

SRBissette said...

MARK! You insensitive cur! Don't you MEAN "extremist constipated Yellow Baby face"? Why, constipated Yellow Baby faces around the world are now wailing and gnashing their little toothless gums together!

Luke -- sigh. My friend Joe talks about this 9/11 conspiracy shit all the time. I've heard it all, seen much of it. I just don't buy it, much as it (9/11) does and did play right into the neo-con Bush Administration agenda, in spades. My only ongoing righteous outrage over 9/11 remains (a) it was a group of Saudi terrorists who executed the attack and (b) we attacked Iraq.

Next time Mark says anything upsetting to me, I will slap you aside the head, Luke, and incessantly repeat that it is your fault, and thus demonstrate the same impeccable logic at work that informs the entire bull-tikki "War on Terror" (e.g., war on a stateless, non-geographically-defined generic tactic of the desperate and/or disenfranchised).

Jed said...

Steve, are you implying that my constipated yellow baby face is a fundamentalist? I protest.

gehatvh said...

Well said, Mr. Bissette.

Also, I think your Norbert was one of the best of the bunch (with all due respect to you, Mark).

SRBissette said...

Thanks, G!

Jed, I cannot divine anything about the religious orientation of your constipated yellow baby face from its yellow face avatar. Heck, I'm not even sure it's constipated. I assumed Mark had inside knowledge of the colonic condition. I'd have guessed jaundice before constipation, in fact, but presumed neither.