user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Because the liberals never attack Bush on the real issues like illegal wire taps or calling the constitution a God damn piece of paper they just use phoney issues and try to keep us in the false left right paradigm and the news doesn’t cover this because the news is only concerned with the latest who done it or Michael Jackson trial without being concerned about the real issues. All the reporters seem to be concerned about is producing hit pieces without even looking at the evidence. I hope this answers your question if you want to debate me feel free.
by seon on Thu Apr 13, 06 4:28pm
[+]
Im fairly convinced that 9/11 was perpertrated by Islamist extremist under orders of Osama Bin Laden.
The 'conspiracy' theories are too outlandish to be taken seriously.
Seon makes some excellent points, and I must concur.
(Because the liberals never attack Bush on the real issues like illegal wire taps or calling the constitution ..
by seon on Apr 13, 2006 4:28pm)
Actually they do attack Bush on all those things. They also attack the Democrats for being wimps.
Thanks for the support steel. Even if your right then the FBI was still told to "back off" investigating one of Osama bin Laden’s brothers, Abdullah and Bush allowed the Binladens to fly out of America without even being questioned by the FBI, there were war games of the exact same scenario being carried out on the exact same day (just like on 7/7), people like Willie brown and rice and others were warned not to fly on the morning of 911 and various Government officials canceled trips. Israel, the Philippines, the Taleban and many more people warned America (both the Bush and Clinton administration) that there would be a terrorist attack on American soil and jeb Bush declared martial law by signing Executive Order No. 01-261 on September 7th. Why? Even if 911 was only carried out by Muslim extremists under the orders of Binladen and I’m a kook for questioning what happened on that day, you can’t argue with the facts. I don’t want to tell anyone what to believe but I just want them to know the facts that they can research themselves.
Tank_girl do they really attack Bush on saying the constitution is just a God damn piece of paper? Even if they do attack Bush on the wire tapping do they attack Clinton for using the nsa to spy on American people as well?
by seon on Thu Apr 13, 06 6:46pm
[+]
The conspiracy is what happened AFTER 9/11 and how various governments are using the fear to bring in repressive laws.
Bad enough for you if you just stand up and say, "I don't agree with what Mister Bush and his people do and say in the name of policy." Stirring up a conspiracy would *really* land you in the woodshed.
steel your right they are using fear to manipulate the population into agreeing with there agenda. Its called problem, reaction, solution.
by seon on Fri Apr 14, 06 6:03pm
[+]
Naturally the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor in Germany. That is understood. But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.
- Hermann Goering, one of the chief suspects for the Reichstag fire, WW2's 911
Harry S Truman:
Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where everyone lives in fear.
"Sarah, if the people had ever known the truth
about what we Bushes have done to this nation,
we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."
-- George Bush snr. to reporter Sarah McClendon, June 1992
When all the observable facts are examined it becomes patently obvious that the only 'conspiracy theory' is the bullshit being excreted out of the mouths of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld etc. etc.... when will people wake up to this? - it doesn't take that much intelligence, but alas it seems fear of the truth can revoke even the most intelligent person's IQ.
Gee ken. Such a reliable Bush quote. I found it on 3 websites - all conspiracy ones when I googled it. Credibility of your quote... around zero.
"Sarah, if the people had ever known the truth
about what we Bushes have done to this nation,
we would be chased down in the streets and lynched."
-- George Bush snr. to reporter Sarah McClendon, June 1992
Touched a nerve did it Fiddle?
"I found it on 3 websites - all conspiracy ones when I googled it. Credibility of your quote... around zero."
by FiddleFaddleOnLSD on May 18, 2006 6:49pm
You are lying, I got it from Wisdom quotes .com -
- now you're not going to try and tell everyone that's a conspiracy site are you???
Credibility and integrity of my goodself and the quote -100%
Credibility and integrity of Fiddle - 0%
He said that alright, the truth hurts doesn't it fiddle?
1. Huffington Post blog, not real story.
2. antwerpen. indymedia. org (conspiracy site)
3. ntimc dot org (conspiracy)
4. what really happened (conspiracy)
5. infovlad apparently a blog
6. spingola (conspiracy)
7. scoop co nz (blog)
8. williambowles (conspiracy blog)
9. a myspace site
10. dissidentvoice (radical peace site)
NEED I GO ON??? I did my homework. Those are the first ten sites.
You are just a conspiracy fascist ken. You don't have any pretension of determing the truth. You don't want debate. You use karma as a weapon against those who disagree with you which makes you a jerk.
Don't call me a liar. You can find a quote on that site, it doesn't mean it is true.
ODD, I CAN SEARCH LEXIS NEXIS and not find it on a single reputable source.
You ken, when I come across a quote that seems rather unusual or especially provocative I do some research. If someone says it came from Newsweek, I go and search that particular issue. I don't take their word for it or the fact that several other websites say it was on Newsweek. WHY? Because at least 9 times out of 10, the quote is bogus.
You say you got this quote from that website. You know what? I did a google site search on that quote and it did not pull up that quote. Wow BIG SURPRISE.
I found the quote apparently came from a June, 1992 Sarah McClendon Newsletter. Of which I cannot find this issue. The quote is alleged. Show me the factual evidence that this is real. This had NOTHING to do with 9/11. What it appears to have something Iran/contra drug money, weapons transfers, etc. Basically the dirty work groups like the CIA do.
So ken... your quote is of yet: UNTRUE, UNVERIFIED.
Ken, prove the quote is real and legitimate. I want the exact source provided. If you cannot do this, then your quote is a lie and you deserve negative karma - not me.
I'm waiting.
Do your homework. Show me the source.
If you can't find it quickly, it shows you have been had - AGAIN.
Where is the source ken?? Do you believe everything you read on the internet?? If I saw a quote from Jesse Jackson on that site saying "we are all purple zebras", does that make it a real quote?
You don't know the first thing about research. Try again.
You still can't provide the original source can you? Your evidence is all circular. You see a web site claiming it is true and you believe it? All I see is web site repeating the same quote. Saying it came from her does not prove it. I'll give you a hint. It is supposed to be from the June, 1992 Sarah McClendon Newsletter.
Have you found this yet?? I'm waiting. That is supposed to be the source. Do the homework.
All I'm saying fiddle is this, I used the advanced search on Google, typed three relevant words, I think they were 'lynched', 'Bush' and 'McClendon' -(main), and I quote 'at least 760 results' came back, none of the initial 20 or so indicated that these words were of apocryphal or ambiguous origin, maybe it IS a myth, but the point is this - would you be surprised if he did say it? I know I and millions others wouldn't be!!! lol! (o:
Just because you haven't found the relevant newsletter on the internet means nothing, are any of her newsletters available on the internet? - the internet is incredible, but it is by no means an omniscient oracle of knowledge or reference, and the fact that you can't find the relevant newsletter is meaningless, it just means it ain't available on the internet!
It is after all 14 years old! - Are any of her newsletters available on the net? - I doubt it.
Show me a source where the distinguished journalist denies he said those words to her, if you can, and it's an impeccable source, I will accept that this quote is a myth.
Deal?
WATCH OUT FOR MAD CONSPIRACY THEORIES!!!
(reposted from internet sources)
PARANOID FANTASIES ABOUT SEPT 11
Astute observers of history are aware that for every notable event there will be at least one, usually several wild conspiracy theories which spring up around it.
"Mahatma Ghandi’s ghost throttled Hendrix"
"Saddam Hussein was breeding an army of genetically modified Yeti".
"Hitler was half Werewolf"
"Space aliens replaced Nixon with a clone" etc,etc.
The bigger the event, the more ridiculous and more numerous are the fanciful rantings which circulate in relation to it.
So it's hardly surprising that the events of Sept 11 2001 have spawned their fair share of these ludicrous fairy tales.
And as always, there is - sadly - a small but gullible percentage of the population eager to lap up these tall tales, regardless of facts or rational analysis.
One of the wilder stories circulating about Sept 11, and one that has attracted something of a cult following amongst conspiracy buffs is that it was carried out by 19 fanatical Arab hijackers, masterminded by an evil genius named Osama bin Laden, with no apparent motivation other than that they "hate our freedoms."
Never a group of people to be bothered by facts, the perpetrators of this cartoon fantasy have constructed an elaborately woven web of delusions and unsubstantiated hearsay in order to promote this garbage across the internet and the media to the extent that a number of otherwise rational people have actually fallen under its spell.
Normally I don't even bother debunking this kind of junk, but the effect that this paranoid myth is beginning to have requires a little rational analysis, in order to consign it to the same rubbish bin as all such silly conspiracy theories.
These crackpots even contend that the extremist Bush regime was caught unaware by the attacks, had no hand in organizing them, and actually would have stopped them if it had been able to.
Blindly ignoring the stand down of the US air-force, the insider trading on airline stocks - which remains uninvestigated, the complicit behaviour of Bush on the morning of the attacks, the controlled demolition of the WTC, the firing of a missile into the Pentagon and a host of other documented proofs that the Bush regime was behind the attacks, the conspiracy theorists stick doggedly to a silly story about 19 Arab hijackers somehow managing to commandeer 4 planes simultaneously and fly them around US airspace for nearly 2 hours , crashing them into important buildings, without the US intelligence services having any idea that it was coming, and without the Air Force knowing what to do.
The huge difficulties with such a stupid story force them to invent even more stupid stories to distract from its core silliness, and thus it has escalated into a mythic fantasy of truly gargantuan proportions.
It's difficult to apply rational analysis to such unmitigated stupidity, but that is the task which I take on in this article. However, it should be noted that one of the curious characteristics of conspiracy theorists is that they effortlessly change their so called evidence in response to each aspect which is debunked. As soon as one delusion is unmasked, they simply invent another to replace it, and deny that the first ever existed.
Eventually, when they have turned full circle through this endlessly changing fantasy fog, they then re-invent the original delusion and deny that you ever debunked it, thus beginning the circle once more. This technique is known as "the fruit loop" and saves the conspiracy theorist from ever having to see any of their ideas through to their (il)logical conclusions.
According to the practitioners of the fruit loop, 19 Arabs took over the 4 planes by subduing the passengers and crew through the use of guns, knives ,box cutters and gas, and then used electronic guidance systems which they had smuggled on board to fly the planes to their targets.
The suspension of disbelief required for this outrageous concoction is only for the hard core conspiracy theorist.
For a start, they conveniently skip over the awkward fact that there weren't any Arabs on the planes.
If there were, one must speculate that they somehow got on board without being filmed by any of the security cameras and without being registered on the passenger lists.
But the curly question of how they are supposed to have got on board is all too mundane for the exciting world of the conspiracy theorist.
With vague mumblings that they must have been using false ID ( but never specifying which IDs they are alleged to have used, or how these were traced to their real identities), they quickly bypass this problem, to relate exciting and sinister tales about how some of the fictitious fiends were actually searched before boarding because they looked suspicious.
However, as inevitably happens with any web of lies, this simply paints them into an even more difficult corner. How are they supposed to have got on board with all that stuff if they were searched ? And if they used gas in a confined space, they would have been affected themselves unless they also had masks in their luggage.
"Excuse me sir, why do you have a box cutter, a gun, a container of gas, a gas mask and an electronic guidance unit in your luggage?"
"A present for your grandmother? Very well sir, on you get."
"Very strange", thinks the security officer. "That's the fourth Arabic man without an Arabic name who just got on board with a knife, gun or box cutter and gas mask. And why does that security camera keep flicking off every time one these characters shows up? Must be one of those days I guess..."
Asking any of these basic questions to a conspiracy theorist is likely to cause a sudden leap to the claim that we know that they were on board because they left a credit card trail for the tickets they had purchased and cars they had rented. So if they used credit cards that identified them, how does that reconcile with the claim that they used false IDs to get on to the plane?
But by this time, the fruit loop is in full swing, as the conspiracy theorist tries to stay one jump ahead of this annoying and awkward rational analysis. They will point to the fact that the hijackers passports were allegedly found at the crash scenes. "So there!" they exalt triumphantly, their fanatical faces lighting up with that deranged look of one who has just a revelation of questionable sanity.
Hmm? So they got on board with false IDs but took their real passports with them? However, by this time the fruit loop has been completely circumnavigated, and the conspiracy theorist exclaims impatiently "Who said anything about false IDs? We know what seats they were sitting in! Their presence is well documented!" And so the whole loop starts again.
"Well, why aren't they on the passenger lists?"
"You numbskull ! They assumed the identities of other passengers!" And so on…
Finally, out of sheer fascination with this circular method of creative delusion, the rational sceptic will allow them to get away with this loop, in order to move on to the next question, and see what further delights await us in the unravelling of this marvellously stupid story.
"Uh, how come their passports survived fiery crashes that completely incinerated the planes and all the passengers? "
The answer of course is that its just one of those strange co-incidences, those little quirks of fate that do happen from time to time. You know, like the same person winning the lottery four weeks in a row. The odds are astronomical, but these things do happen...
This is another favourite deductive method of the conspiracy theorist. The "improbability drive", in which they decide upon a conclusion without any evidence whatsoever to suggest it, and then speculate a series of wildly improbable events and unbelievable co-incidences to try to support it, shrugging off the implausibility of each event with the vague assertion that sometimes the impossible happens (just about all the time in their world).
There is a principle called "Occam's razor" which suggests that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct.
Having for the sake of amusement, allowed them to get away with the silly story of the 19 invisible Arabs, we move on to the question of how they are supposed to have taken over the planes.
Hijacking a plane is not an easy thing to do. Hijacking it without the crew being able to alert Air Traffic Control (ATC ) is almost impossible. The crew needs only to punch in a four digit code to alert ATC to a hijacking. Unconcerned with the awkward question of plausibility, the conspiracy buffs maintain that on that Sept 11, the invisible hijackers took over the plane by the crude method of threatening people with box cutters and knives, shooting and stabbing passengers to try to lure the crew out of the cockpit and spraying gas (after they had attached their masks, obviously). And yet, miraculously they were able to take control of the plane without the crew first getting a chance to punch in the hijacking code.
Not just on one plane, but on all four. At this point in the tale, the conspiracy theorist is again forced to call upon the services of the improbability drive.
So now that our incredibly lucky hijackers have taken control of the planes, all four pilots fly them with breath taking skill and certainty to their fiery end, all four pilots unflinching in their steely resolve for a swift meeting with Allah. Apart from their psychotic hatred of "our freedoms", it was their fanatical devotion to Islam which enabled them to summon up the iron will for this dreadful deed.
Which is strange, because according to another piece of hearsay peddled by the conspiracy buffs, these guys actually went out drinking and womanizing the night before their great martyrdom, even leaving their Korans in the bar -really impeccable Islamic behaviour - and then got up at 5am the next morning to pull off the greatest covert operation in history. This also requires us to believe that they were even clear headed enough to learn how to fly the huge planes by reading flight manuals in Arabic in the car on the way to the airport. We know this because they supposedly left the flight manuals there for us to find.
It gets better. Their practical training had allegedly been limited to Cessnas and flight simulators, but this was no barrier to the unflinching certainty with which they took over the planes and skilfully guided them to their doom. If they are supposed to have done their flight training with these tools, which would be available just about anywhere in the world, its not clear why they would have decided to risk blowing their cover to US intelligence services by doing the training in Florida, rather than somewhere in the Middle East, but such reasoning is foreign to the foggy world of the conspiracy theorist, too trapped in the constant rotation of the fruit loop to make their unsubstantiated fabrications seem even semi- believable.
Having triumphantly established a circular delusion in support of the mythical Arabs, the conspiracy theorist now confronts the difficult question of why there's nothing left of the planes. Anybody who has seen the endlessly replayed footage of the second plane going into the WTC will realize that for a plane to instantly blow itself up into nothing like that, it would have to be packed with explosives. Planes do not and cannot blow up into nothing in that manner when they crash.
But lets humour the conspiracy theorists and suppose that this crude cartoon designed to hide whatever really hit the building was actually a real plane.
Did the mythical Arabs also haul a huge heap of explosives on board, and mange to deploy them in such a manner that they went off in the exact instant of the crash, completely vaporising the plane? This is a little difficult even for the conspiracy theorist, who at this point decides that its easier to invent new laws of physics in order to keep the delusion rolling along.
There weren't any explosives. It wasn't an inside job. The plane blew up into nothing from its exploding fuel load!
Remarkable! Sluggishly combustible jet fuel which is basically kerosene, and usually burns at about 400c has suddenly taken on the qualities of a ferociously explosive demolition agent, vaporizing 70 tons of aircraft into a puff of smoke. Never mind that a plane of that size contains around 23 tons of steel and titanium, of which even the melting points are about four times that of the normal combustion temperature of kerosene. And forget about the boiling point of these metals, which is what would be required to vaporize a plane. And then there's about 47 tons of aluminium to be accounted for. In excess of 15lbs of metal for each gallon of kerosene.
For the conspiracy theorist, such inconvenient facts are vaguely dismissed as "mumbo jumbo". This convenient little phrase is their answer to just about anything factual or logical. Like a conjurer pulling a rabbit out of a hat, they suddenly become fanatically insistent about the devastating explosive qualities of kerosene, something hitherto completely unknown to science, but just discovered by them, this very minute.
Determinedly ignoring the fact that never before or since in aviation history has a plane vaporised into nothing from an exploding fuel load, the conspiracy theorist relies upon Hollywood images, where the effects are always larger than life, and certainly larger than the intellects of these cretins.
"Its a well known fact that planes blow up into nothing on impact!" they state with pompous certainty. "Watch any Bruce Willis movie!"
"Care to provide any documented examples? If it's a well known fact, then presumably this well known fact springs from some kind of documentation - other than Bruce Willis movies ?"
At this point the mad but cunning eyes of the conspiracy theorist will narrow as they sense the corner into which they have backed themselves and plan their escape by means of another stunning back flip.
"Ah, but planes have never crashed into buildings before, so there's no way of telling." they counter with a sly grin.
“Well, actually planes have crashed into buildings before and since, and not vaporised into nothing.”
"But not big planes, with that much fuel ! ", they shriek in hysterical denial.
“Or that much metal to vaporise. “
"Yes, but not hijacked planes !"
"Are you suggesting that whether the crash is deliberate or accidental affects the combustion qualities of the fuel?"
"Now you're just being silly".
Although collisions with buildings are rare, planes frequently crash into mountains, streets, other aircraft, nosedive into the ground, or have bombs planted aboard them, and don't vaporise into nothing. What's so special about hitting a building?
But by now, the conspiracy theorist has once again sailed happily around the fruit loop. "Its a well documented fact that planes explode into nothing on impact."
Effortlessly weaving back and forth between the position that its a "well known fact" and that "its never happened before, so we have nothing to compare it to", the conspiracy theorist has now convinced themselves (if not too many other people) that the WTC plane was not loaded with explosives, and that the instant vaporisation of the plane in a massive fireball was the same as any other plane crash you might care to mention. Round and round the fruit loop…
But the hurdles which confront the conspiracy theorist are many, and they are now forced to implement even creative more uses for the newly discovered shockingly destructive qualities of kerosene. They have to explain how the Arabs also engineered the elegant vertical collapse of both the WTC towers as well as building 7, and for this awkward fact the easiest counter is to simply deny that it was a controlled demolition, and claim that the buildings collapsed from fire caused by the burning kerosene.
This makes it necessary to sweep aside the second law of thermodynamics and propose kerosene which is not only impossibly destructive, but also recycles itself for a second burning in violation of the law of degradation of energy. You see, it not only consumed itself in a sudden catastrophic fireball , vaporising a 70 ton plane into nothing, but then came back for a second go, burning at 2000C for another hour at the impact point, melting the skyscraper's steel like butter. And while it was doing all this it also poured down the elevator shafts starting fires all through the building. When I was at school there a little thing called the entropy law which suggests that a given portion of fuel can only burn once, something which is readily observable in the real world, even for those who didn't make it to junior high school science. But this is no problem for the conspiracy theorist. Their insane eyes glinting madly, they claim that a few thousand gallons of kerosene is enough to
: completely vaporise a 70 ton aircraft
: have enough left over to burn so ferociously for over an hour at the impact point that it melted massive steel construction beams ( melting point about double the maximum combustion temperature of the fuel ).
: still have enough left over to pour down the elevator shafts and start similarly destructive fires all through the building.
Kerosene really is remarkable stuff! How chilling to realize that those kerosene heaters we had in the house when I was a kid were deadly bombs, just waiting to go off. One false move and the entire street might have been vaporised. And never again will I take kerosene lamps out camping. One moment you're there innocently holding the lamp - the next - kapow! Vaporised into nothing - along with the rest of the camp site - with still enough of the deadly stuff left to start a massive forest fire.
These whackos are actually claiming that the mythical raging inferno allegedly created by this miraculously recycling, and impossibly hot burning kerosene melted or at least softened the steel supports of the skyscraper. Oblivious to the fact that the smoke coming from the WTC was black, which indicates an oxygen starved fire -therefore not particularly hot, they trumpet an alleged temperature in the building of 2000 C , without a shred of evidence to support this curious suspension of the laws of physics.
Not content with this ludicrous garbage, they then contend that as the steel girders softened they came straight down instead of buckling and twisting and falling sideways.
Since they're already re-engineered the combustion qualities of kerosene, violated the second law of thermodynamics, and re-invented the structural properties of steel, why let a little thing like the laws of gravity get in the way?
All three buildings fell in a time almost identical to that of a free falling object, dropped from that height, meaning that its physically impossible for it to have collapsed by the method of the top floors smashing through the lower floors. But according to the conspiracy theorists, the laws of gravity were temporarily suspended on the morning of Sept 11.
It appears that the evil psychic power of those dreadful Arabs knows no bounds. Even after they were dead, they were able, by the power of their evil spirits, to force down the towers at a speed physically impossible under the laws of gravity, had it been meeting any resistance from fireproofed steel structures, originally designed to withstand many tons of hurricane force wind as well as the impact of a large passenger jet straying off course.
Clearly, these conspiracy nuts never did their science homework at school, but did become extremely adept at inventing tall tales for why.
"Muslim terrorists stole my notes, sir"
"No miss, the kerosene heater blew up and vaporised everything in the street, except for my passport."
"You see sir, the school bus was hijacked by Arabs who destroyed my homework because they hate our freedoms."
Or perhaps they misunderstood the term "creative science" and mistakenly thought that coming up with such rubbish was in fact, their science homework.
The ferocious heat generated by the ghastly kerosene was, according to the conspiracy theorists, the reason why so many of the WTC victims can't be identified. DNA is destroyed by such heat. This is quite remarkable, because according to the conspiracy theorist, the nature of DNA suddenly changes if you go to a different city. That's right! If you are killed by an Arab terrorist in NY, your DNA will be destroyed by such temperatures. But if you are killed by an Arab terrorist in Washington DC, your DNA will be so robust that it can survive temperatures which completely vaporise a 70 ton aircraft.
You see, these loonies have somehow concocted the idea that the missile which hit the pentagon was not a missile at all, but one of the hijacked planes. And to prove this unlikely premise, they point to a propaganda statement from the Bush regime, which rather stupidly claims that all but one of the people aboard the plane were identified from the site by DNA testing, even though nothing remains of the plane. The plane was vaporised by the fuel tank explosion, maintain these space loonies, but the people inside it were all but one identified by DNA testing.
So there you have it. The qualities of DNA are different, depending upon which city you're in, or perhaps depending upon which fairy story you're trying to sell at any particular time.
This concoction about one of the hijacked planes hitting the Pentagon really is a howler. For those not familiar with the layout of the Pentagon, it consists of 5 rings of building, each with a space in between of lower building height. Each ring of building is about 30 to 35 ft deep, with a similar depth of lower level space between the rings.
The missile which the Bush regime fired into it, went in at about a 45 degree angle, punching a neat hole less than 20 ft wide, less than 20 ft high through three rings-about 250 ft into the building
A little later a section of wall about 65 ft wide collapsed in the outer ring. Since the plane which the conspiracy theorists claim to be responsible for the impact had a wing span of 125 ft and a length of 155 ft , and a tail height of 40 ft, and there was no wreckage of the plane, either inside or outside the building, and the lawns outside were still smooth and green enough to play golf on, this crazy delusion is clearly physically impossible.
But hey, we've already disregarded the combustion qualities of kerosene, the properties of DNA, the laws of gravity, the second law of thermodynamics, and invented imaginary properties for building materials, so what the hell - why not throw in a little spatial impossibility as well ?
I would have thought that the observation that a solid object cannot pass through another solid object without leaving a hole at least as big as itself is reasonably sound science. But to the conspiracy nut, this is "mumbo jumbo". It conflicts with their mad delusion, so it must be wrong although trying to get then to explain the specifics of how it could be wrong is a futile endeavour.
Conspiracy nuts fly into a curious panic whenever the Pentagon missile is mentioned. They shriek that the plane was vaporised by it's exploding fuel load and point to the WTC crash as evidence of this behaviour.
(Fruit loop warning !! )
Like an insect which has just been sprayed, running back and forth in its last mad death throes, they first argue that the reason the hole is so small is that plane never entered the wall, having blown up outside, and then suddenly back flip to explain the 250 ft deep missile hole by saying that the plane disappeared all the way into the building, and then blew up inside the building (even though the building shows no sign of such damage).
As for what happened to the wings - here's where they get really creative. The wings snapped off and folded into the fuselage which then carried them into the building, which then closed up behind the plane like a piece of meat.
When it suits them they'll also claim that the plane slid in on its belly, (ignoring the undamaged lawn) while at the same time citing alleged witnesses to the plane diving steeply into the building from above. How they reconcile these two scenarios as being compatible is truly a study in stupidity.
Once they get desperate enough, you can be sure that the UFO conspiracy stuff will make an appearance. The Arabs are in league with the Martians. Space aliens snatched the remains of the Pentagon plane and fixed most of the hole in the wall, just to confuse people. They gave the Arabs invisibility pills to help get them onto the planes. Little green men were seen were seen talking to Bin Laden a few weeks prior to the attacks.
As the nation gears up to impeach the traitor Bush, and prevent his endless war, it's not helpful to have these idiots distracting from the process by spreading silly conspiracy theories about mythical Arabs, stories which do nothing but play into the hands of the extremist Bush regime.
At a less serious time, we might tolerate such crackpots with amused detachment, but they need to understand that the treachery which was perpetrated on Sept 11, and the subsequent war crimes committed in "retaliation" are far too serious for us to allow such frivolous self indulgence to go unchallenged.
Those who are truly addicted to conspiracy delusions should find a more appropriate outlet for their paranoia.
It's time to stop the loony conspiracy theories about Sept 11
" Because thousands face legal gag orders, only 4 men control US media, and Patriot Act takes care of" Coldcircuit
All time most stupid and ignorant comment on B&W. Only coldcircuit, lovelynice and the alias crew would post something like this that truly demonstrates their insane delusions. Totally devoid of any sense of truth, reality and of course any sense of intelligence from the user posting it.
The above is the words a true troll trying to hide an agenda.
WTC 7 was obviously pulled in a controlled demolition.
No plane hit this building - it's a typical controlled demolition
and so is this
neither did a plane hit this building - and it's a recognizable controlled demolition too.
When Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.”
Mr. McQuillan later claimed that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.
But "It" does not refer to firefighters. If they were referring to firefighters, the word would be "them" not "it". If the firefighters were referring to themselves, they would use "us", but definitely not "It".
Despite the lies of Mr. McQuillan, and the later change of story by Larry Silverstein, and the silly lies on the debunking911 blog site, the real problem with their lying change of story is that there were no firefighters in WTC 7.
In WTC 7, "No manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY." (FEMA Report) QUOTE - "WTC 7 collapsed approximately 7 hours after the collapse of WTC 1. Preliminary indications were that, due to lack of water, no manual firefighting actions were taken by FDNY."
Even Popular Mechanics agreed with this, stating, "There was no firefighting in WTC 7"
"By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from for safety reasons." New York Times WTC 7 went down long afterwards at 5:20pm.
So the claim of pulling the firefighters doesn't make sense because it is clear there weren't any firefighters in WTC 7 anyway.
His claim that "pull it" isn't used to refer to controlled demolitions is proven to be a lie even in the Oxford English Dictionary.
pull down - To demolish; destroy: pull down an old office building.
pull down 1. To pull down or break up so that reconstruction is impossible: demolish, destroy, dismantle, dynamite, knock down, level, pulverize, raze, tear down, wreck
It's a term used for demolitions - cable, explosive, by wrecking ball, or any other method of destruction. It's clearly a demolition term.
Incidentally, "pull" also means "demolish" in any context involving firefighting. You can find examples of the use of the word "pull" to mean demolish by merely using Google to search for "firefighter" and "pull."
Example:
"E7's crew pulled the wall and knocked the fire quickly"
taken from here:
wellstonfd . com / index _ 038 . htm
Indira Singh was a volunteer civilian Emergency Medical Technician at the World Trade Center on September 11th. She was a Senior Consultant for JP Morgan Chase in Information Technology and Risk Management.
INDRA SINGH EMT: "...by noon or one o'clock they told us we need to move from that triage site up to Pace University a little further away because Building 7 was going to come down or be brought down."
HOST: "Did they actually use the word "brought down" and who was it that was telling you this?"
SINGH: "The fire department. And they did use the words 'we're gonna have to bring it down' and for us there observing the nature of the devastation it made total sense to us that this was indeed a possibility..."
CRAIG BARTMER NYPD: "I walked around it (Building 7). I saw a hole. I didn't see a hole bad enough to knock a building down, though. Yeah there was definitely fire in the building, but I didn't hear any... I didn't hear any creaking, or... I didn't hear any indication that it was going to come down. And all of a sudden the radios exploded and everyone started screaming 'get away, get away, get away from it!'... It was at that moment... I looked up, and it was nothing I would ever imagine seeing in my life. The thing started pealing in on itself... Somebody grabbed my shoulder and I started running, and the shit's hitting the ground behind me, and the whole time you're hearing "boom, boom, boom, boom, boom." I think I know an explosion when I hear it... Yeah it had some damage to it, but nothing like what they're saying... Nothing to account for what we saw..."
John Kerry: WTC Building 7 Was a Controlled Demolition
Kerry was asked about the officially unexplained collapse of WTC Building 7,
Kerry responded:
"I do know that that wall, I remember, was in danger and I think they made the decision based on the danger that it had in destroying other things-- that they did it in a controlled fashion."
Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue, Kevin McPadden traveled to ground zero completely of his own accord and spent the next four days searching through the rubble and nearby buildings for survivors.
On September 9 2006, McPadden told an audience at the Community Church in New York City how while he was stationed in a Red Cross operations center, he was told that Building 7 was going to be brought down
McPADDEN: "They said you know you've got to stay behind this line because they're thinking about taking this building down, they're not sure if it's stable or not, so they were holding a line off because they had knowledge that something was gonna happen. Well, they pushed us back a little bit....a couple of minutes later they started coming down....people started coming back out to the street, I watched five New York City buses jam packed with people wanting to do search and rescue head down there towards Building 7 - people walk out into the middle of the street to see these people off, like bon voyage and right then Building 7 came down."
Reporter Al Jones: "People started to run away from the scene and I turned in time to see what looked like a skyscraper implosion -- looked like it had been done by a demolition crew -- the whole thing just collapsing down on itself and another big huge plume of gray and white smoke shooting up into the air and then more of the smoke billowing up the street here... so that’s number one, number two, and now number seven that have come down from this explosion."
Live 9-11 Report from 1010 WINS NYC News Radio, presented in the documentary "911 Eyewitness" (Forward to 28:25)
CBS News Anchor, Dan Rather, makes comments after Building 7 falls down:
“Amazing, incredible pick your word. For the third time today, it’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down.”
Larry Silverstein told them to demolish the WTC 7 building. Maybe he was thinking that he could carry on with a story that after the towers had already fallen, the demo team ran into a building that was on fire and completely surrounded and filled with smoke and debris and perfectly set up explosives to bring down building 7 (which shouldn't have fallen to begin with) - after which running back through the fire and debris and smoke to exit the building before demolishing it.
That of course, doesn't make any sense. That then means that building 7 was already hooked up to explosives prior to 9/11 (which proves that the owner and then also the government knew about it and orchestrated it) - This seriously leads to the question as to why WTC 1 and 2 looked and acted so much like controlled demolitions - your explanation hasnt dealt with that fact. Because if you are going to wire one of your buildings ahead of time why not wire them all? Which then means that the towers were hooked up as well.
There were only 3 buildings in the World Trade Center complex owned by Larry Silverstein. WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7.
They were also the only 3 steel-framed hi-rise buildings that collapsed suspiciously, the only 3 in the entire complex that went straight down just like controlled demolitions. Only those 3 buildings at the World Trade Center which were controlled by Larry Silverstein and none of the others.
Anyone with commonsense would be able to see how suspicious this is.
It was only those 3 buildings which were destroyed in what looked like, and behaved like, controlled demolitions.
|
|
