I want to be a truther... but I haven't had my balls removed in a truck stop glory hole accident. Oh well.

...That day [September 11] in 2009, however, freezing there in the cold at Ground Zero, I simply asked, " so it's been a year since our last interview, what do you have to say?"....

Temperature for NYC on 09/11/09:

Mean - 61
Max - 66
Min - 56

"I want to be a truther... but I haven't had my balls removed in a truck stop glory hole accident. Oh well.

#1 | Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole"

Yeah but you still get an "A" for effort.

#1 | Posted by Rob_The_A_Hole"

He would have to have a pair to begin with.

Wow, I tried to post a while ago, and it said I was suspended until the 28th of March.

OK RCade, I take back the mena email I sent.

mean..

I didn't really mean it when I called you a communist...

And I'll stop picking on Starvis. I know how he starts whining to you, when I do.

The saddest thing is, The more Obama and the Democrats fail, The more we will see people joining this movement... They want to lash out at anything because their team is failing. That Evil Bush Syndrome will rear it's ugly head for years it seems.

Liberalism may actually in reality be a mental disorder if you think about it. We have a president who want's to add 9 Trillion to the debt. Democratic politicians are quitting every day, caught in the headlights red handed openly bribing one another to vote on a position... Instead of doing the rational thing they will lash out herder and harder at the man they feel is responsible for it all.... That Evil George Bush... They will dig and dig for that conspiracy on 9/11. Press their noses hard to the ground sniffing for anything that looks like a clue to Bush's guilt. All while the people in their political party steal and steal and steal again right under their noses...

The mission will be to make that Evil Bush far worse than the current administration... The more this administration does wrong, The more evil George Bush will become... It's totally nuts and it is growing....

#9 | Posted by themaniscoming,
Let me understand your point?

Are you saying the 911 truth movement is connected to democratic success or failure? Or people involved with the 911 truth movement are doing it only because they hate GW Bush?

How about people just want an honest answer the the thousands of unanswered questions about 911?

Thousands of questions is a bit extreme, but I think there are some unanswered. For good or for ill, many of the questioners do sound a bit... loony.

+++++

As for liberalism being a mental disorder, ye gods. Get over it. Anyone who disagrees with you is crazy? That's bullshit of a very high order. Sort of impressive in its own delusionalism. TheMan, you are ignoring the Repubs who are quitting daily, who are mired in corruption or just over it. And you are ignoring the fact that many "truthers" are rightwingers. But you know, keep to your narrow view if it makes you comfortable. I'll keep questioning people who say and do stuff that makes me upset or makes me wonder, no matter their political affiliation or my impression of such affiliation.

If all of us stopped putting each other in boxes, the country (the world) would be better off. But human nature seems to prevent that, or acculturation seems to prevent that.

I want to be a truther... but I haven't had my balls removed in a truck stop glory hole accident. Oh well.

#1 | Posted by Rob_The_A_Hol

A what?

Hey! Truthers got a great ally now in Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Rant on Garth.

And speaking of crazies, what's with lesbo cheney trying to equate defending gitzo detainees with supporting their cause? McCarthy would just be so proud! Bet her dad is too.

FYI. What Alan Dershowitz Benidict Arnold traitor defended the British soldiers involved in Boston massacre? Well it good old commmie John Adams, #2 prez. What a dis-loyal unamerican traitor huh?

Didn't you ever hear?.... There's no such thing as a dumb question.

Hit'n the bottle Rob?

One has to admit, there is a lot of food for thought.

9/11 truthers are nutcases.

Jeff hasn't mentioned chem trails in months now.

gather this weekend at the 'Treason in America Conference'.

Nothing slightly weird with that title for a conference??

It sucks to be painted with a wide brush when some wacko does something--doesn't it?

Didn't you ever hear?.... There's no such thing as a dumb question.
#14 | Posted by JeffnDenmark

The exception that proves the rule.

As for liberalism being a mental disorder
#11 | Posted by pragmatist at 2010-03-07 12:21 PM

Well.... These same people who were screaming about tapping cell phones of people talking to known terrorists, don't seem to mind that the government is actively monitoring the internet today...

You could say that they are Hypocritical... But I think it is far more than that.... They have Derangement syndrome.... They hated Bush so much that they couldn't stand anything he did or said... Obama gets a pass from these same people who were sooooooooooooo concerned about the constitution then but now it seems perfectly fine for the Government to be reading this.

If you are willing to throw away morality for the sake of your side wining, than yes... You have severe issues...

Most of the people here on the left look at Bill Clinton as the Hero President... I look at him as a man who stuffed a Cigar up Lewinsky's Vagina.... That's the level he works at..... You may love the guy but he's an insect in my view...

Giving him a pass on anything is simply an inch short of (Stockholm Syndrome).... When you know the guys you voted for are dirt bags and you cheer them on anyway.... Because they are all your team has to offer, You should come to realize that you have been manipulated and used... If you are not in touch with reality enough to realize this then you may in fact be suffering from a Mental Illness...

#4 | Posted by JeffnDenmark at 2010-03-07 12:00 PM
#5 | Posted by JeffnDenmark at 2010-03-07 12:01 PM
#6 | Posted by JeffnDenmark at 2010-03-07 12:02 PM
#7 | Posted by JeffnDenmark at 2010-03-07 12:02 PM
#8 | Posted by JeffnDenmark at 2010-03-07 12:03 PM

The sound of one hand clapping.

If all of us stopped putting each other in boxes

I'm not putting anyone in a box.... The current president want's to add 9 TRILLION to the US debt... He's not asking if that is OK... He is going to do it no matter what you or I have to say about it... How do you feel about that.

How do you feel about the likelihood of paying 60% or higher taxes to pay for the 800 Billion in interest on US Debt just to stay above water...

I am certainly no fan of either of these sham political parties... If I had my way congress would be a part time two term job....

Didn't you ever hear?.... There's no such thing as a dumb question.
#14 | Posted by JeffnDenmark

Ok Jeff, do you wipe front to back or back to front? Why?

#23 | Posted by themaniscoming

Seriously, expand your reading intake. There's plenty of criticism of Obama from the Left; far more, I'd guess, than Bush took from the Right at a comparable stage in his presidency.

Didn't you ever hear?.... There's no such thing as a dumb question.
#14 | Posted by JeffnDenmark

Ok Jeff, do you wipe front to back or back to front? Why?
#24 | Posted by Ron_Karate

Left to right, then up and down, and finish off with a flourish: a clockwise curlicue on even-numbered says (counterclockwise culicue on the odd-numbered ones). Why?
~Jigg N Denmark

Oh, Ron, I almost forgot: A paintbrush on even-numbered days and a squirtgun on the odd-numbered ones.
~Jiggy N Denmark

"#23 | Posted by themaniscoming"

Apparently the pussy is already here.

"If you are not in touch with reality enough to realize this then you may in fact be suffering from a Mental Illness..."

You just proved my feeling that you assign mental illness to anyone who disagrees with you--or to some large clump of them (us). I don't share your conclusions about most of the things you ranted about in that post (though I will cheerily grant that many people can't get past hating Bush, while at the same time I suggest that at least as many can't get past hating Obama, and for less reason according to my worldview), nor do I feel I'm out of touch with reality. I live in it every day, thank you very much.

And as Doc says, you need to expand your reading. There's hardly some monolithic love of Obama, and forgiveness of his faults, on the part of THE LEFT, as too many of you seem to think. Speaking of being out of touch with reality, you need to take a look at Republican party actions--the Republicans are far better at being in sync, or pretending they are, than the Dems have ever been. And this is part of why we're in this current mess. If the loyal opposition had actually worked to oppose President Bush, some of the shit we're facing now wouldn't have arisen. (And no, I don't hate Bush. I used to. I got over it. In fact, I grant him greater intelligence and intent--though that should be the other way round--than I used to as well. I am fairly well convinced that the man was the victim of manipulation more than not.)

"I'm not putting anyone in a box.... "

Seems to me you are. You just put all leftwing thinkers in the same category--blind adorers of President Obama.

But you know your mind better than I do. Maybe you didn't mean to do that.

How about people just want an honest answer the the thousands of unanswered questions about 911?

Well... What questions do you have then maybe I can help you out with some of them....

Hey that's wonderful, I live near Valley Forge,(they will probably meet in the convention center) think I'll turn out in protest against their pathetic claims....

Oh man it's today? darn wish we had some earlier notice....

Seems to me you are. You just put all leftwing thinkers in the same category--blind adorers of President Obama.

No I didn't... I asked two questions which nobody has answered yet.... Lack of Balls maybe? Is this the All Vagina room.....

You just proved my feeling that you assign mental illness to anyone who disagrees with you-

Has nothing to do with what I believe. It has nothing to do with me... I could care less if you agree with me or not...

What... You don't agree that Obama wants to add the 9 trillion? There have been about a hundred stories on that in the press as of late... I asked two questions that can't seemed to be answered...

People People People..... I further make the claim that if you are not in touch with reality enough to answer a simple question than you may in fact be suffering from some form of mental disorder...

If you can't bring yourself to discuss something because it may expose the guys you support then you are an afflicted and used person... They got just what they wanted out of you...

ACLU? Doesn't the "A" stand for AMERICAN" what CivilLierties are those terrorist war f'heads deserving of? How about a take no prisoner stance.

"How about people just want an honest answer the..."

Honest answer, some muslim fudamentalists hijacked some planes and flew them into the twin towers on a suicide mission 'cause they hate us. Does that answer a thousand questions, OK?

Man, I can't help it if you can't look at your own posts honestly. Just go back and reread. You'll see you put large numbers of people in the same box; you assumed that THE LEFT acts in a certain monolithic way, that we are all blind supporters of Obama, that we don't ask questions or find dissatisfaction in the actions of this president and his administration and the Dem-controlled Congress.

And no, I don't agree that President Obama wants to add 9 trillion. He has in fact stated his belief and desire for the health-care reform to work out quite differently from that. In this and so many other numeric assertions (on both sides), it's awfully hard to know where accuracy (truth?) lies.

In answer to your other question about taxes, (1) Where do you get this 60% figure? (2) Did you ask the same question when Republicans were behaving in much the same way, increasing the deficit with no regard for the future? If you agree that they engaged in similarly foolish behaviors, why are they not suffering from a mental disorder, too. You _might_ be able to say that Repub citizens (many of them) are interested in reducing gov't debt, but you'd be hard-pressed to prove it of more than a few Repub politicians (by action, not deed).

See, different worldviews do not make one person or the other insane. How about this? I won't call you (or the Republicans, which you seem to indicate you are not) insane and you won't assert or imply it about me. And if you want to have a conversation with me, you drop the rhetoric about insanity and slugs and blah blah, and I'll engage in your questioning directly, at least as far as I care and to the degree I am able.

Entitled to your opinions you are.

Entitled to your own facts, no. Goggle my points when you sober up and dispute if you can.

And no, I don't agree that President Obama wants to add 9 trillion.

From (Reuters) - The Obama administration will raise its 10-year budget deficit projection to approximately $9 trillion from $7.108 trillion in a report next week, a senior administration official told Reuters on Friday.

Obama, who has promised to halve the deficit by the end of his four-year term and likes to remind constituents he inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit from former President George W. Bush, says bringing down healthcare costs is critical to long-term deficit reduction.

Treasury markets have been worried all year about the mounting deficit. The United States relies on large foreign buyers such as China and Japan to cheaply finance its debt, and they may demand higher interest rates if they begin to doubt that the government can control its deficits.

"It's one of those underlying pieces of news that is liable to haunt the bond market at some point in the future," said Kim Rupert, managing director of global fixed income analysis at Action Economics LLC in San Francisco, referring to the revised 10-year deficit projection.

Many economists think it is unlikely the government can curtail spending, which means taxes would have to go up to cover the rising costs of providing retirement and healthcare benefits to aging Americans.

Higher taxes, which could slow economic growth, are also a major concern of voters on both sides of the political divide. Obama has promised not to raise taxes on Americans making less than $250,000 a year.

Where do you get this 60% figure?

Where if the federal government going to get the 800 Billion in interest from to pay back loans? Do you think they can pay it back at the current Tax Rate?

Man, your linked article does not show he wants to ADD 9 trillion. It shows his programs will increase it to 9 trillion. Not the same thing at all. But okay, you have some point, even if poorly worded. And no, I don't like it. I never said I did.

And in any case, all my earlier comments about deficit spending and debts of earlier administrations stand. How about you answer my questions now? : ) Like the one about 60% taxes. You make a valid assertion about interest, but you don't answer the question. Oh, and I think (not that I have done the math, but it seems logical) that returning the tax rate on the upper earners to something like what it was under Reagan or *gasp* Eisenhower would go a long way toward addressing the interest and the debt.

And again, I'm not happy with a higher debt. But I believe we need health-care reform, even if I think the current bill blows. But hey, all those "just wait till 2010" folks will tell us that the new Congress will overturn all this. So we'll all be okay, right? (Sorry, that was aimed at them, not you. You are taking my suggestion about dropping the rhetoric seriously, and I thank you.)

(Reuters) - The U.S. budget deficit poses more of a potential risk to the financial system than the collapse in commercial real estate prices, an influential economist said on Friday.

"We have a huge deficit. ... The stimulus package is generating a lot more debt, and there are systemic issues there," Stanford University economics professor John Taylor told Reuters Television on the sidelines of the Federal Reserve's annual Jackson Hole conference.

The Obama administration expects the deficit to hit a record $1.58 trillion this year, and sees a cumulative $9 trillion of additional red ink in 2010-1019.

9/11 was no doubt an inside job and those unwilling to consider the evidence would simply swallow Uncle Sam's jizz load no matter what he said. Keep burying your heads in the sand. Good luck.

Like the one about 60% taxes.

This is Exactly what I'm talking about.

First...

At the current level of increase... There is no way to sustain the current climbing national debt at the current tax rate imposed on all Americans...

As the debt rises, Taxes will also have to rise to keep us from default on loans... Current Federal Tax rate can be as high as 35%... Then you ad in state taxes... Gas Taxes... Whiskey Taxes... Cigarette Taxes... Coffee Tax... Stamp Tax.... Auto insurance tax... Health insurance Tax... Cell Phone Tax... Internet Tax.... In fact there is a tax on almost everything we do....

All of these taxes are going to increase.... If you can imagine the debt climbing to 9 trillion and higher by some estimates and not picture the tax increase associated with this debt you are not being honest with yourself...

Any Politician who tells you that there will be no Tax increase on the middle class is either lying outright or insane, and incompetent.... Anyone who thinks that we can sustain a 9 trillion and higher debt at the current tax rate is simply out of it...

It's coming and it's gonna be huge..... I really could care less who is to blame... I would much rather the government spend it's time and energy finding the worlds finest accountants to help stop the insanity. We have all read this over and over again but it's as true as the day is long.

"If you ran a business the way the federal government runs the country you would be in jail"

Anyone who can't at this point in time agree with that is simply not playing with a full deck!

Cumulative, Man, cumulative. You made your point, and it was a bit off. Can we move on?

+++++

I really hope 9/11 was not an inside job. If it is, I'd like to know. If it is, I'm willing to bet we'll never know. Seems unlikely to me--the only way to keep a secret forever is to kill all those who know the secret.

9/11 was no doubt an inside job

Could you please post a single shred of evidence?

we need health-care reform

You are 100,000% Correct on that statement. It shouldn't cost $250.00 for a shot at the Doctors office... It shouldn't cost $100,000 for a bypass on clogged arteries. We need to fix that. Why are prices the way they are? I have one word for you....

Lawyers

Want to reform Health Care? Pass laws to stop the malpractice suites... Pass laws to CAP the prices of Medication... A bottle of Eye Drops to fight Glaucoma shouldn't cost $90.00... It probably cost them $1.00 to make the shit. If they tell us that they can't make a profit on a bottle of the same medicine priced at %10.00 or $15.00, then they are full of shit.

"malpractice suites(sic)"

LOL!

Images of rooms in a cat house came to mind.

Yes Malpractice lawsuits does that stop your laughing disorder?

Images of rooms in a cat house came to mind.

I always thought from reading your posts that it was clear you don't have a strong Moral Standing... Seems woman forced to work in the sex trade is funny to you... I'm getting to know you a little better every day.

"woman forced to work in the sex trade"

I have one word for you....

Lawyers.

Lawls!

Yup that's about the only consistent position the GOPhers keep putting forward. The reasons for this are more political than practical. Both parties are owned by an assortment of various special interests. In many cases those groups overlap. In some cases, not so much. Case in point, Lawyers. Wot Big Oil is to the GOP, the Lawyer's Lobby is to the Dems. Ergo capping malpractise rewards as a cure fer wot ails the health care system is a staple albeit inadequate argument.

Introducing greater competition into the near monopoly and allowing the government to negotiate at a national level fer better drug prices would have a far greater positive impact on the reform effort.

Seems woman forced to work in the sex trade is funny to you..

No, yer inability to spell is funny.

Yer ability to read a post like that of Zat's last and then come to laughably ridiculous conclusions is also a bit of a chuckle.

And yes, the American twin deficits are ultimately unsustainable no matter who is in charge.

On Topic?

Dumbya and Co sat on their hands and allowed 911 to occur rather than doing everything within their power to stop it.

Anyone who thinks the 911 commision was anything but a governmental whitewash is a bit dim.

The idea that 911 was a deliberate false flag operation planned and carried out entirely by the NSA, CIA and other intelligence services is not entirely implausible but neither is it particularly likely. The size of the conspiracy would be too large to keep covered up fer this long.

Be Well.

"woman forced to work in the sex trade"

www.bunnyranch.com

ROFL MAO!
img.moronail.net

I don't know... Is he Morally bankrupt or just a frigging retard..... In any case he helps to further my point....

He's cracking himself up I guess... Rolling on the floor laughing his ass of... At what? Who the hell knows.... Just very impressed with himself I guess...

GOPhers keep putting forward

The only problem there is I'm not a GOP guy.... I think the Republicans are the right cheek and the Democrats the left cheek on one really big silly looking ASS....

Dumbya and Co sat on their hands and allowed 911 to occur rather than doing everything within their power to stop it.

And you have some shred of proof that that is the case?

My spelling is just fine thank you... I may miss a word once in a while but when you have to wear glasses as thick as your hand to see the screen some errors do get by... But we won't talk about my obvious handicap... It's too funny for you to handle...

On Topic?

And when the fuck did you elect yourself the topic police.....

I find that you tend to come down hard and nasty on anyone who posts anything you don't like....

Don't walk down my street then because I am almost totally blind in one eye and about 40% in the other... I may mistake you for a terrorist and kick the living shit out of your wise cracking liberal ass.

The sound of one hand clapping.

#22 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

You would be the one to know that. I'll bet you hear it in stereo too.

"And when the fuck did you elect yourself the topic police..... "

Ah, now I get it. TheMan used to be someone else, a different ID on here.

"I find that you tend to come down hard and nasty on anyone who posts anything you don't like.... "

Funny, given that you are calling all libs mentally disordered.

"Don't walk down my street then because I am almost totally blind in one eye and about 40% in the other... I may mistake you for a terrorist and kick the living shit out of your wise cracking liberal ass."

Ooooh, violence--there's a solution to a disagreement.

Time for me to stop reading your posts. Well, maybe not quite yet. I'll look at the other thread and see if we're still talking nice.

I am almost totally blind in one eye and about 40% in the other.

~Themanisbreathinghard

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

I may mistake you for a terrorist and kick the living shit out of your wise cracking liberal ass.

May mistake? LOL! You making a mistake is practically a given by this point.

In terms of yer internut tuff guy routine let Spud just say...

"There are none so blind as those who will not see."

Extra Spuddish points for invoking Little Donnie Dark!

Spud: Dumbya and Co sat on their hands and allowed 911 to occur rather than doing everything within their power to stop it.

Themango: And you have some shred of proof that that is the case?

Sure, first bit of evidence is that 9/11 happened.

Second bit is the refusal of the Bush admin to meet with their counter terrorism principles in the months leading up to 911. Not only did they fail to meet with Richard Clarke and others but they went so far as to even cancel the cabinet level meetings he'd been having on AQ a couple of months before 911 occured.

Third bit is the warnings they recieved that they ignored from Clinton saying that AQ was gonna be a top priority to the month of red flags preceeding 9/11 to the PDB entitled "AQ Determined to strike within USA". The Israeli, Egyptian, Spanish and German intelligence services also had advanced warning that 911 was going to occur which they shared with US Intel services and the Egyptians even warned that AQ was considering the use of "planes stuffed with explosives"

The NSA even intercepted a transmision on Sept 9 saying that the next day was "zero hour" but failed to translate it till September 12.

Forth bit is the fact that some of the hijackers who were on those planes on that day were on various governmental watch lists but allowed to fly all over the place.

Fifth bit is motive. Bush and his PNAC handlers had long been advocating both a pipeline project in Afghanistan and an invasion/occupation of Iraq. These desires preceeded Bush's election and are a matter of record at this point. 911 allowed both projects to go forward whereas they were politically dead in the water prior to 911.

You actually got even a shred of evidence that BushCo made a good faith effort to stop 911 from occuring?

Be Well.

ROEMER: So does this slow the process down to go to the deputies rather than to the principals or a small group as you had previously done?

CLARKE: It slowed it down enormously, by months. First of all, the deputies committee didn't meet urgently in January or February. Then when the deputies committee did meet, it took the issue of Al Qaida as part of a cluster of policy issues, including nuclear proliferation in South Asia, democratization in Pakistan, how to treat the various problems, including narcotics and other problems in Afghanistan, and launched on a series of deputies meetings extending over several months to address Al Qaida in the context of all of those inter-related issues. That process probably ended, I think in July of 2001. So we were ready for a principals meeting in July. But the principals calendar was full and then they went on vacation, many of them in August, so we couldn't meet in August, and therefore the principals met in September.

ROEMER: You then wrote a memo on September 4th to Dr. Rice expressing some of these frustrations several months later, if you say the time frame is May or June when you decided to resign. A memo comes out that we have seen on September the 4th. You are blunt in blasting DOD for not willingly using the force and the power. You blast the CIA for blocking Predator. You urge policy-makers to imagine a day after hundreds of Americans lay dead at home or abroad after a terrorist attack and ask themselves what else they could have done. You write this on September the 4th, seven days before September 11th.

CLARKE: That's right.

ROEMER: What else could have been done, Mr. Clarke?

CLARKE: Well, all of the things that we recommended in the plan or strategy -- there's a lot of debate about whether it's a plan or a strategy or a series of options -- but all of the things we recommended back in January were those things on the table in September. They were done. They were done after September 11th. They were all done. I didn't really understand why they couldn't have been done in February.

SLADE GORTON, Commission member: Now, since my yellow light is on, at this point my final question will be this: Assuming that the recommendations that you made on January 25th of 2001, based on Delenda, based on Blue Sky, including aid to the Northern Alliance, which had been an agenda item at this point for two and a half years without any action, assuming that there had been more Predator reconnaissance missions, assuming that that had all been adopted say on January 26th, year 2001, is there the remotest chance that it would have prevented 9/11?

CLARKE: No.

Even the guy who gave the best evidence for the conspiracy theory says NO.....

GORTON: It just would have allowed our response, after 9/11, to be perhaps a little bit faster?

CLARKE: Well, the response would have begun before 9/11.

GORTON: Yes, but there was no recommendation, on your part or anyone else's part, that we declare war and attempt to invade Afghanistan prior to 9/11?

CLARKE: That's right.

So much for this conspiracy theory then...

When you pick and pick at anything written, You can make it say just about anything and make it look like something it is not.... Spuds is fast to spit the supposed facts but they aren't really facts... They are interpretations of what Spuds thinks the guy said...

The memo to Condi Rice states nothing about Al-Qaeda planning any attack.... Here is the memo...

#56 | Posted by themaniscoming at 2010-03-07 04:28 PM

I love it when pussys on the internet go off on "kickin ass" and "beating the shit out of" ______ (fill in blank)...

I got one for you: you are a punk... If we were in prison, and you were my cellmate, I'd make you clean the brown stripe out of my underwear with your f'n toothbrush. Then, I'd make you give me your flap-jacks at breakfast and your pork chops at dinner. Then I'd send you out to get me some smokes; Puting that mouth of yours to good use...

Aren't you scared now? Boy, I sure am tough...

F'n smoochnob...

Welcome back, Captain. Long time, no see.

I guess we're like ships that pass in the night; I post almost every day...

But, I must admit most of my posts are easily passed over...

;~}

If we were in prison, and you were my cellmate,

Well there Uranus.... Feeling your oats today.... I have never been to prison... I made a lot of money installing finger imaging systems for police organizations around the country though... My main gig was in NYC...

I'm no punk there randy man... I've stood on some of the worst streets in the five boroughs all alone with nobody to back my white ass up....

I grew up in a boarding school dormitory with fifty other kids and I have a very extensive background as a US Marine.... Beruit and then worked as a civilian contractor in central America pre 1985...

You scare me as much as the Islamic retards who yell Allah Akbar before they take every shot... They never knew shit from shinola about anything either..

So much for this conspiracy theory then...

#63 | Posted by themaniscoming at 2010-03-07 08:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

How about applying that criteria to Iraq?

Dead Men Tell No Tales!

Theres NO WAY the US Govt can ever admit its involvement in instigating and carrying out 911 - so its only option to deal with the real threat of 911 Truthers is to either bribe them off or kill them off! Most likely already underway!

#68 | Posted by themaniscoming at 2010-03-08 01:23 AM

Like I give a shit, dumb ass...

I wasn't trying to "actually" scare you, I just wanted you to realize how f'n stupid you appear to be with your "I'm going to kick your ass" bull shit...

And, if you actually did serve in the military, thank you for your service...

How about applying that criteria to Iraq?

www.boston.com

www.youtube.com

Let me see if I understand what you're getting at... You feel that because the Bush administration was looking at possibly attacking Iraq pre 9/11 that there is some dark evil sinister reason behind it?

Every intelligence agency in the world was reporting a wmd threat in Iraq... For years..... We had an active no fly zone over Iraq for ten years... Clinton Bombed them did he not?

#72 | Posted by themaniscoming at 2010-03-08 09:55 AM

The difference being, of course, that "W" had intel to the contrary...

There are unanswered 9/11 questions and it wouldn't surprise me one bit if the government intentionally lied in the 9/11 commission report.

That said, 9/11 "Truthers" generally aren't as interested in the truth as they are in hinting that some grand conspiracy, for which they have no details and no evidence, took place. Then when you try to pin them down on the unlikeliness of and lack of evidence for a conspiracy, they revert back to "Hey, I'm just asking questions!".

Don't start telling me about squibs and controlled demo in one breath and then go back to "I'm just asking questions" the minute your "evidence" is questioned. It is this craven intellectual dishonesty that makes Truthers so annoying to everyone else and that is why they are mocked so much.

That said, 9/11 "Truthers" generally aren't as interested in the truth as they are in hinting that some grand conspiracy, for which they have no details and no evidence, took place. Then when you try to pin them down on the unlikeliness of and lack of evidence for a conspiracy, they revert back to "Hey, I'm just asking questions!".

The questions need to be answered. There is more evidence against the government story than supporting it. I doubt you have read anything about either side.

Don't start telling me about squibs and controlled demo in one breath and then go back to "I'm just asking questions" the minute your "evidence" is questioned. It is this craven intellectual dishonesty that makes Truthers so annoying to everyone else and that is why they are mocked so much.

You shouldn't have to question evidence. You know it all. How about explaining. How about answering some of the questions?

#74 | Posted by Sully at 2010-03-08 11:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

"There is more evidence against the government story than supporting it."

No, there is not. You are lying. There is evidence that supports the official story but there are inconsistencies in that story. There is no real evidence that supports any conspiracy. Poking holes in one story is not the same as having evidence supporting another. You know this but you pretend otherwise anyway because you are a liar.

"How about answering some of the questions?"

Some the questions the "truthers" ask over and over have been answered over and over but you won't accept the answers. And there are still legitimate questions that have yet to be answered. But you aren't simply interested in answers. Any answer that supports the "official story", no matter how reasonable, is bullshit to you. What you are interested in is promoting some kind of grand conspiracy for which you have no details or evidence. If you would just fucking admit that this is part of your motivation, you and your ilk would be alot less annoying. As it is now, you're just a bunch of persistent, hypocritical liars who are a waste of time.

There is more evidence against the government story than supporting it.

No, there is not. You are lying.

Not at all. The NIST report has been shown to be flawed, and the911 commission rejects its own report and considered bringing criminal chages against some Pentagon officials for lying. What evidence are you talking about?

There is evidence that supports the official story but there are inconsistencies in that story.

Again--what evidence are you talking about? Get it out here.

There is no real evidence that supports any conspiracy.

Of course there is. You just reject it because you don't like it.

Poking holes in one story is not the same as having evidence supporting another.

True---but there is evidence supporting another story.

You know this but you pretend otherwise anyway because you are a liar.

Your name calling shows the weakness of your points. If you were debating from strength, you would have facts---not personal attacks.

How about answering some of the questions?

Some the questions the "truthers" ask over and over have been answered over and over but you won't accept the answers.

Giving wrong, or stupid answers that stretch credibility isn't really answering a question. Molten steel can be seen pouring out of the WTC, yet believers want people to believe 1) It isn't there. or 2) It is molten aluminum (Which is silver colored)) or 3) It is molten aluminum combined with burned couches and carpet that makes it look like molten steel.

When your nonsensical answers have been rejected, you throw up your hands and say the questions were answered. They weren't.

And there are still legitimate questions that have yet to be answered.

Really. Such as?

But you aren't simply interested in answers.

I'm interested in answers that make sense.

Any answer that supports the "official story", no matter how reasonable, is bullshit to you.

Really. Such as?

What you are interested in is promoting some kind of grand conspiracy for which you have no details or evidence.

There is evidence and details that I have shown and others have shown.

If you would just fucking admit that this is part of your motivation, you and your ilk would be alot less annoying. As it is now, you're just a bunch of persistent, hypocritical liars who are a waste of time.

You see--the reason we are called truthers is we seek the truth. Simple isn't it. Your rant shows your fear---the weakness of your position. Most Americans doubt the government story---as does the 911 Commission.

#76 | Posted by Sully at 2010-03-08 11:45 AM | Reply | Flag

Bob - I'm not answering any of your questions. We've been round and round on this already. Why you would pretend this isn't the case is beyond me but not surprising considering the inherent dishonesty in the "truther" movement. You can't even admit when a video you've posted shows the exact opposite of what you claim it does. I'd be crazy to go into that crap with you again.

"You see--the reason we are called truthers is we seek the truth. Simple isn't it."

If that were the case truthers would not dance around the conspiracy issue all the time instead of just honestly saying "This is what we believe happened and why...." Be honest with yourselves about what your real position is first and then maybe others can take you seriously.

"Your rant shows your fear---the weakness of your position."

Not really. I'm just trying to tell truthers why people don't like you. Instead of developing a persecution complex, you peeps need to quit the annoying dishonesty of pretending that you're just asking questions and looking for truth. The reality is that you are looking to support an alternate version of events without spelling out the specifics because if the same scrutiny that has been applied to the "official story" were to be applied to your ridiculous conspiracies, you know that the results would not be favorable to you. You want to attack one story while protecting your own version of events from the same scrutiny and then you claim to be looking for the "truth". You're all full of shit.

Sully

You have been proven mistaken and small by your retort.

That means you've had your ass kicked again.

Failure to debate means you lose the debate.

One of us is full of shit, and I would say it is the one running from debate.

That's you.

Simple isn't it.

;-)

Believers claim evidence---yet never trot it out.

Why is that?

LOL

"You have been proven mistaken and small by your retort."

This thread is about why Truthers are "demonized". That's all I'm commenting on. No matter how many times you insist on going off topic and repeating the same debates we've already had, I'm not taking the bait. Your trying to change the subject rather than just admitting the 9/11 truthers are not just asking questions but promoting conspiracy theories only proves my point that you get on people's nerves because you can't be honest about your inentions.

You actually got even a shred of evidence that BushCo made a good faith effort to stop 911 from occuring?

Be Well.

#61 | Posted by dethspud

yup... WE have never seen any of that!

Another interesting point you forgot was that the US government knew that aircraft could have been used as weapons. Yet the Bush Admin denied having this knowledge. Why?

Bush said repeatedly there were no warnings of any kind ..."Never in anybody's thought process ... about how to protect America did we ever think the evil doers would fly not one but four commercial aircraft into precious US targets ... never."

National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said: "I don't think that anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile ... even in retrospect there was nothing to suggest that."

yet we knew this:

1994 Three planes are crashed or attempted to crash into buildings this year. A Fed Ex employee tries to crash a DC-10 into a company building in Memphis but is overpowered by the crew. A lone pilot crashes a small plane onto the White House grounds. An Air France flight is hijacked by terrorists linked to al Qaeda, with the goal to crash it into the Eiffel Tower, but French Special Forces storm plane before it takes off.

In 1999, British intelligence gave a secret report to the US embassy. The report stated that al-Qaeda had plans to use "commercial aircraft" in "unconventional ways,""possibly as flying bombs." [Sunday Times, 6/9/02] On July 16, 2001, British intelligence passed a message to the US that al-Qaeda was in "the final stages" of preparing a terrorist attack in Western countries. [London Times, 6/14/02] In early August, the British gave another warning, telling the US to expect multiple airline hijackings from al-Qaeda. This warning was included in Bush's briefing on August 6, 2001. [Sunday Herald, 5/19/02]

Israel gave the US several specific warnings of the 9/11 attacks. In the second week of August 2001, two high-ranking agents from the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency, came to Washington and warned the CIA and FBI that 50 to 200 al-Qaeda terrorists had slipped into the US and were planning an imminent "major assault on the US" aimed at a "large scale target" [Telegraph, 9/16/01, Los Angeles Times, 9/20/01, Ottawa Citizen, 9/17/01 Fox News, 5/17/02]. Near the end of August, France also gave a warning that was an "echo" of Israel's. [Fox News, 5/17/02]

many more examples that someone in the US Gov knew that this could happen can be found here:

Your trying to change the subject rather than just admitting the 9/11 truthers are not just asking questions but promoting conspiracy theories only proves my point that you get on people's nerves because you can't be honest about your inentions.

#82 | Posted by Sully at 2010-03-08 02:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

What intentions are you talking about? Finding the truth? If what you believe is true---what is the harm in another investigation---one where the investigating body answers all the questions. That you would be led like a sheep with no questions asked shows your limited ability to think coherently. Your opinion is meaningless with no thought behind it. This what I think happened.

Israel and the US knew of the planned attacks long before 911. Silverstein was informed either from Israeli or US Intelligence--probably both about the attacks. Silversteing took out lots of insurance and had thermate painted on key positions of the Towers by people who probably didn't even know that it was paint that included thermate, and not regular paint. The US allowed the attack to take place to give a reason to send troops to the Middle East. The US may have even suggested to Silvertein that the buildings be set to fall in a controlled demolition, and may have even supplied the technicians to show how to do it. No more than ten people would have been necessary to carry out the plan, and many of them may have conveniently died since then.

So--let's hear your theory---and try not to rely on the 911 Commission report since they called bullshit on themselves

It's got to be a conspiracy against the conspiracy against the conspiracy's conspiracy...

Your opinion is meaningless with no thought behind it. This what I think happened.

In other words... your opinion (which you have time and again shown to be devoid of any rational thought whatsoever).

Congratulations, BoOb. With your last post, this pile of stupidity just went critical.

#86 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2010-03-08 05:29 PM | Reply | Flag: Mindless post--as usual

You take too many words to say nothing. You have no rational point to make. When that is the case, you should just STFU. I made some statements---if you have any corrections or something valid to add, get to it.

Simple isn't it.

There were numerous detailed warnings. So much so that the Israelis had a camera crew filming the event and the secret service had surface to missiles on top of his Hotel the night before his elementary school PR reading.

There was a cover-up of Government's incompetence, mostly as it relates to there inability to connect the dots beforehand, but also during the hit: reading "My Pet Goat"; destroying or conficating real time recordings at air traffic control and those airplane black boxes; to telling everyone in the twin towers the safest thing to do was stay put.

These failures have nothing to do with a complicated conspiracy involving Government and its numerous agencies, local State and Federal, but also would require two private airlines and the attackers themselves cooperating and sacrificing, without anyone spilling the truth. What are the chances?

I made some statements---if you have any corrections

Why bother correcting someone too stupid and too stubborn to recognize or admit that he's wrong?

I'm not here to teach the willfully ignorant. I'm here to amuse myself by berating them.

So... please continue with your butchery of common fucking sense and tell us how the Jews did it.

Hey you want proof Sully of BoOb's dishonesty?

I asked him to spell it out for us, and he did. It involved 10 people or so. A tight conspiracy.

Before the thread was over, he had norad sending in missiles to the pentagon, the SEC covering up 'short' villians, etc. from 10 people, to thousands.

You have it exactly right. he can never accept ANY evidence which even suggests he might be wrong, and when pinned down, he mind wraps off to his next ludicrous accusation.

can you say boOb?

Why bother correcting someone too stupid and too stubborn to recognize or admit that he's wrong?

You must be talking about yourself. You are the only one proven wrong and can't admit it.

I'm not here to teach the willfully ignorant. I'm here to amuse myself by berating them.

You have to have some logic first. You fail to qualify. Even to berate, you should have some facts to back up your loudmouth. You just have the loudmouth.

So... please continue with your butchery of common fucking sense and tell us how the Jews did it.

LOL. WTF are you talking about now? Have you ever made sense? Ever? In any post? Just once?

#89 | Posted by ZombieHunter at 2010-03-08 05:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

Before the thread was over, he had norad sending in missiles to the pentagon, the SEC covering up 'short' villians, etc. from 10 people, to thousands.

#90 | Posted by DavetheWave at 2010-03-08 06:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

Norad was never involved. Ten people max. Your math is as challenged as your tiny brain.

Sully and Dave the Wave

Get some logic, and try to understand that personal attacks don't make your point. They just make you look stupid.

BBOB

Here's a site with loads of pics during the immediate aftermath of the crash.

Airplane pieces, engine parts, et al all over the place. Click the link above each section for large pics.

"You have it exactly right. he can never accept ANY evidence which even suggests he might be wrong, and when pinned down, he mind wraps off to his next ludicrous accusation."

I watched a series on NGC in which they conducted their own tests and really tried to make a case for the truthers. Sadly, the three behind the movement refused to accept their findings and as usual had nothing but their own conspiracy to back up their claims. I am curious how only ten people would have the time to place enough explosives in both towers without them or the thousands of pounds being seen. Oh that's right it was nano thermite.

" Oh that's right it was nano thermite. "

Nonsense!
It was the Fletcher Christian!!
Arrrrrrrrrr!!!

I have no doubt airplanes did in the North and South towers at the WTC or the Pentagon (see link to pics above), but how Building 7 at the WTC fell is a question that's never been answered. Nothing hit it, but it fell on it's own footprint. Why?

It's also puzzling why the N and S towers fell.

There have been numerous high rise fires around the world over the years. None of them fell.

Dear Mind_Fucked!

Undisputable Proof:The WTC building W7,that wasn't hit by any airplanes on 911,fell straight down upon itself,like a house of cards.Simply show one other case in history where a concrete and steel girder building rapidly collapsed like that (in seconds!) because of a fire???

The WTC building W7,that wasn't hit by any airplanes on 911,fell straight down upon itself,like a house of cards.

Has any explanation ever been given for that puzzling event? Seems impossible.

If it were caused by heat, only one side of the building would have been weakened, but it fell on its own footprint like N and S towers did.

f'n stupid you appear

Well. With a name like Capt Of Uranus...?

i>You actually got even a shred of evidence that BushCo made a good faith effort to stop 911 from occuring?

Be Well.

Spuds.... I posted the Mans testimony.... The man who wrote the document that you claim the Bush admin disregarded....

A) The man never ever stated that the Bush Administration disregarded anything.....

b) The man never testified that he wrote imminent Attack or anything even close to that.

c) The man testified that he was referred to the second level of advisers to the Bush administration. The top level was busy setting up the Bush Administration at the time. That being said. The second level advisers as he testified did begin to examine his paper. He testified that they lumped Al Qaeda issues in with other issues.

d) When asked by the 9/11 commission straight out if 9/11 could have been stopped: Assuming that the recommendations that you made on January 25th of 2001, based on Delenda, based on Blue Sky, including aid to the Northern Alliance, which had been an agenda item at this point for two and a half years without any action, assuming that there had been more Predator reconnaissance missions, assuming that that had all been adopted say on January 26th, year 2001, is there the remotest chance that it would have prevented 9/11?

Mr CLARKE, The man who WROTE the MEMO you are soooooo sure is proof of Evil doing on the part of the Bush Administration, Said What? What did he say???????????

CLARKE: No.
CLARKE: No.
CLARKE: No.
CLARKE: No.
CLARKE: No.
CLARKE: No.

DO you read me there Spuds..... He said NO... What does it take for you to admit that you are wrong? You sight the memo... I post the memo then you change the theory to fit your fantasy...

If you don't agree that Liberalism is a mental disorder.... Spuds is the frigging POSTER CHILD... He's Frigging CORKYSPUDS from now on man!

including aid to the Northern Alliance, which had been an agenda item at this point for two and a half years without any action

What about that Spuds? Clarke testified that he recommended that Two years prior to 9/11 and who did nothing?????? Bill Clinton and Sandy Lawyer Burger did nothing

Spuds is not insane, though his logic may not be yours, nor even if he is completely and irrevocably wrong on any given topic. Simply being wrong, and even shifting the goalpost or whatever metaphor you choose to employ, is not equivalent to mental disorder or insanity. Methinks you do not know what "mental disorder" means. I am a liberal, and I am neither disordered nor insane. Many liberals could make the same argument about some conservatives. My wife has been known to do so, though not in so many words, and I have been known to point out that she's being silly. Just 'cause we don't understand how a certain person can hold a certain position doesn't mean our brains are in good working order and theirs aren't.

"I'm right, and you're wrong, so either I'm smart and you're stupid or I'm sane and you're nuts" is something only a crazy person would say. : )

"I'm right, and you're wrong, so either I'm smart and you're stupid or I'm sane and you're nuts" is something only a crazy person would say. : )

Prag,
Would a sane person say a political party is in favor of child abuse or rape because some of their members voted against a bill?

I don't know, Crispee. It sounds like a stupid thing to say, not necessarily crazy. To what are you referring? The world teems with stupid people, btw. Truly crazy--not nearly so many.

Methinks we need to spend some time establishing common language. I mean, supporting the Iraq war--that's just crazy. Voting for Bush twice--that's just crazy. See what I mean?

"I don't know, Crispee. It sounds like a stupid thing to say, not necessarily crazy. To what are you referring?"

I mean, supporting the Iraq war--that's just crazy. Voting for Bush twice--that's just crazy. See what I mean?

Sadly I don't prag, and will take that as a sign not to ask you anything. I guess I figured a teacher's answer would have been more reasonable and intelligent. My fault.

I mean, supporting the Iraq war--that's just crazy. Voting for Bush twice--that's just crazy.

#107 | Posted by pragmatist at 2010-03-08 10:28 PM
----------
Just 'cause we don't understand how a certain person can hold a certain position doesn't mean our brains are in good working order and theirs aren't.

"I'm right, and you're wrong, so either I'm smart and you're stupid or I'm sane and you're nuts" is something only a crazy person would say. : )

#105 | Posted by pragmatist at 2010-03-08 10:16 PM

Self contradict much?

Okay, Crispee, so now you're insulting me. Jesus. What the fuck?

Here's the point I'm making: Simply being wrong, and even shifting the goalpost or whatever metaphor you choose to employ, is not equivalent to mental disorder or insanity. (Yes, that's something I already wrote. If you can be a dick to me, I can quote myself and hope that repetition gets a point across.) My little digs about Iraq war and voting for Bush were meant to show that people on the other side can accuse others of insanity or mental disorder, too, and they're just as wrong. (And if I want to play your little game of insult the poster, I could say, "What, was I too subtle for you?" I believe my post was both reasonable and intelligent, just not as well-written as my usual drivel.)

Further, you didn't answer my question. I have since seen that there is a thread about the rape/child abuse accusation. I haven't read it 'cause I don't read all the threads on here (who has the time?). So if you want to come at me, why don't you hold some standards for yourself too? Without looking at the thread, I gotta say leaping from votes to accusing a whole party (all members of said party is what you mean, I think) is at the very least painting with a broad brush (assuming one has evidence of any of them being pro-abuse/pro-rape). It's probably quite stupid. I don't see it as crazy.

If that's not clear enough, I don't know how to help you. But I'll thank you not to insult me. As often as I've disagreed with you, I don't believe I've ever gone on the attack. Few posters here have brought that out in me.

No, Goat, there's no self-contradiction there. Just poorly constructed on my part. See my response to Crispee. Hey, look, unlike some posters (not aiming this at my two current interlocutors), I'm willing to admit when I fuck up an argument. : ) Though I am sure that those two posters always write perfectly clear and consistent comments here on DR. Heh.

Just poorly constructed on my part.

Fair enough

...I'm willing to admit when I fuck up an argument.

You're a good man

Thanks, Goat. Thanks for being reasonable.

Now I _really_ gotta get some work done. Fuckin' DR is like bad crack. : ) Damn you, Rcade; damn youuuuuu!

#110...

Not sure that was as much an insult as being disappointed in the answer. I asked if a sane person would... My defintion of sane is someone who acts reasonably and normal. The fact you brought up voting for Bush or the Iraq war in my opinion was a cop out, and expected more out of a teacher.

d) When asked by the 9/11 commission straight out if 9/11 could have been stopped: Assuming that the recommendations that you made on January 25th of 2001, based on Delenda, based on Blue Sky, including aid to the Northern Alliance, which had been an agenda item at this point for two and a half years without any action, assuming that there had been more Predator reconnaissance missions, assuming that that had all been adopted say on January 26th, year 2001, is there the remotest chance that it would have prevented 9/11?

Mr CLARKE, The man who WROTE the MEMO you are soooooo sure is proof of Evil doing on the part of the Bush Administration, Said What? What did he say???????????
CLARKE: No.
CLARKE: No.
CLARKE: No.
CLARKE: No.
CLARKE: No.
CLARKE: No.
DO you read me there Spuds..... He said NO... What does it take for you to admit that you are wrong? You sight the memo... I post the memo then you change the theory to fit your fantasy...
#102 | Posted by themaniscoming at 2010-03-08 09:48 PM

Calm down. All of the data indicates that Richard Clarke is obviously wrong. His own data indicates that conclusion is wrong. Why would he say otherwise? Because that would be opposing BushCo - Dick Cheney attacks the sitting President, why do you imagine him allowing Clarke to fuck Bush without his consent? Such a simplified answer from all of that established intelligence which otherwise accurately depicts the "eminent dangerers intents" does have a menacing, secretive ring to it.

NIGHTLINE's doing a "9/11 Truther" piece in a couple minutes

does have a menacing, secretive ring to it.

I would think that half of the stuff that comes across that guys desk was menacing, and had a secretive ring to it.

You have to be kidding me... They watch Everything in the Entire World In REAL TIME. Everything.....

Same thing kind of happened to the Obama Admin on Christmas... That could have easily been four planes...

BBOB

Here's a site with loads of pics during the immediate aftermath of the crash.

Airplane pieces, engine parts, et al all over the place. Click the link above each section for large pics.

911research.wtc7.net

#94 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2010-03-08 06:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

First--I never claimed there was no aircraft debris---that isn't the point.

Second--whatever aircraft debris seen could have been carried there in whatever hit the Pentagon.

Third---where are the bodies?

Fourth---where is the blackbox

Fifth---where is the video of the plane hitting the Pentagon.

The video of the plane hitting the Pentagon is all I'm looking for---show that, and I'll STFU.

We've seen pictures of the planes hitting the Towers---why can't we see the plane hitting the Pentagon? Why would they release a highly edited version that shows no plane?

Why would Ted Olson lie about receiving phone calls from his wife on the day she died? Why wouldn't her fellow travelers not make any calls? Why wouldn't they try to take over the plane once they heard about the planes hitting the Towers> There were many military personnel on that plane---yet we are supposed to believe they sat by quietly waiting for death--made no calls?

Answer those questions and you'll do someothing no other believer has ever done---make sense.

Second--whatever aircraft debris seen could have been carried there in whatever hit the Pentagon.

Fifth---where is the video of the plane hitting the Pentagon.

Where are the videos of the plane parts being carried in? LOL You should really think before you post your stupid questions, bOoB.

BBOB

Those pictures were taken within minutes in some cases, and within an hour in others.

A. The Pentagon was under lockdown
B. There were lots of cameras there
C. Those cameras would have taken pictures of anyone trying to plant airliner parts

WTC tower 7 is far more a mystery to me than anything else about 9/11

It's also a mystery to me why the N and S towers fell.

There have been many skyscraper fires over the years. None fell.

"does have a menacing, secretive ring to it."

I would think that half of the stuff that comes across that guys desk was menacing, and had a secretive ring to it.
You have to be kidding me... They watch Everything in the Entire World In REAL TIME. Everything.....
#117 | Posted by themaniscoming at 2010-03-08 11:44 PM

..And yet we somehow still debate that the failure to act responsibly with the handling of the intelligence in this instance operates to the extreme benefit of BushCo, the consequences of which were conveniently planned in detail by BushCo and executed strictly according to BushCo demands.

There have been many skyscraper fires over the years. None fell.

There have never been any as intense. There have never been any caused by a fully fueled jet crashing into them at 450 MPH. There has never been one in as big of a building with as much mass above the fire. My guess is that these very significant variables made a big difference.

Where are the videos of the plane parts being carried in? LOL You should really think before you post your stupid questions, bOoB.

#120 | Posted by goatman at 2010-03-08 11:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

As stated---they could have been placed inside of whatever hit the Pentagon. Read closer. There was a lot more to the plane than was ever seen by the debris.

I guess you think since you ignored the rest of the post you have answered the questions.

BBOB

A plane traveling hundreds of miles an hour would be pulverized upon impact against a solid concrete building.

As stated---they could have been placed inside of whatever hit the Pentagon.

I guess I have to spell it out for the idiot: Where is the video of whatever the parts were put into? Engine rotors can't exactly be hidden in a shoe box.Get it?

Read closer.

Think harder

I agree there are many unanswered questions surrounding 9/11.

I guess you think since you ignored the rest of the post you have answered the questions.

Many, many times.

"Why would Ted Olson lie about receiving phone calls from his wife on the day she died?"

Why would Ted Olson be one of the 10 co-conspirators you claim was invloved?

BBOB

Those pictures were taken within minutes in some cases, and within an hour in others.

So?

A. The Pentagon was under lockdown

So?

B. There were lots of cameras there

So? Show the video of the plane hitting the Pentagon.

C. Those cameras would have taken pictures of anyone trying to plant airliner parts

Did you even read my post? I SAID those parts could have been planted in whatever did hit the Pentagon.

I guess you think since you ignored the rest of the post you have answered the questions.

WTC tower 7 is far more a mystery to me than anything else about 9/11

Ted Olson lying about receiving phone calls from his wife on the day she died doesn't make you curious. Military personnel on the plane make no phone calls, and that doesn't make you curious. The military personnel don't try to take over the plane even though they have been told that other hijacked planes were crashed into the Towers, and that doesn't raise your curiosity. No bodies found, and that seems normal to you. No black box found and you seem to find that normal. No video shown of the plane hitting the Pentagon, and that seem fine with you.

#121 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2010-03-08 11:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

#124 | Posted by goatman

True. But, what explains Building 7? It wasn't hit by anything yet collapsed on its footprint like the other two towers did.

If its structure was compromised, by what and why wouldn't it have toppled towards the side that was compromised by heat, et al? It was 300' away from either the N or S tower. The fires were high above its top floor.

BBOB

Like I said, there are a lot of unanswered questions

So? Show the video of the plane hitting the Pentagon.

Show us the video of whatever carried the plane parts in.

As I said, you should think out your stupid questions so you don't contradict yourself. It only makes sense that if a camera was present to capture a plane, it should also be present to capture the magical device that carried in multi-ton engine rotors and aircraft debris. So show us the video, bOoB.

Think, bOoB, think

Why would Ted Olson be one of the 10 co-conspirators you claim was invloved?

#130 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2010-03-09 12:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

I said it wouldn't take more than ten---not that there were only ten. It certainly wouldn't take hundreds or thousands. Many involved wouldn't even necessarily now they were part of it. Like painters at the WTC---they could have been painting on thermite in the paint they were putting on around the elevators, and never known.

Why would Ted Olson lie and be part of the conspiracy? That's my question. Any answer?

Bob,
Just curious if the pilots and attendants are all on some island waiting to come back home. Not to mention the baggage handlers who loaded the plane, the ones who checked the tickets, the families of all the vicims... Seeing as they also would have to be involved in the conspiracy.

#134 | Posted by goatman at 2010-03-09 12:13 AM | Reply | Flag:

I hate to say it Goatman, but your posts are becoming extremely stupid. If you have nothing to say or to add logically to the discourse, you would serve yourself better to simply STFU rather than asking such ignorant questions.

Case in point---asking for the video of whatever it was that hit the Pentagon. You fail to realise that that is what I am asking for.

#136 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2010-03-09 12:16 AM | Reply | Flag:

I would say that whoever killed thousands in the Towers wouldn't have much difficulty killing a few more. Your retort still doesn't answer the questions---where were the bodies---they sure weren't at the Pentagon.

Why would Ted Olson lie about receiving phone calls from his wife on the day she died? Military personnel on the plane make no phone calls, and that doesn't make you curious. The military personnel don't try to take over the plane even though they have been told that other hijacked planes were crashed into the Towers, and that doesn't raise your curiosity. No bodies found, and that seems normal to you. No black box found and you seem to find that normal. No video shown of the plane hitting the Pentagon, and that seem fine with you.

But, what explains Building 7?

It was spelled out in the NIST report which explains it much, much better than I can -- especially since it has graphics, pictures, charts, metallurgical data, etc.

I can say from having run a lot of phone cable in my previous life, that it is a very disruptive process and you always piss people off in offices removing false walls and ceilings to access the plenum. Surely at least one of the thousands of people who would have been a witness to the running of the necessary cables would have spoken up by now. You can't keep ten co-conspirators quiet, much less hundreds or thousands.

Also, the "it fell in its own footprint" is the lamest of arguments. I can just hear the conversation in the Al Queda planning meeting now:

Bad Guy #1: Let's rig the building with explosives to make sure it falls

BG #2: Good idea, but just do it on one side so that we don't draw too much attention to what we are doing.

BG #1: No. We have to do it professionally so that it falls in it's own footprint. We don't want it to topple and cause any collateral damage.

"True. But, what explains Building 7? It wasn't hit by anything yet collapsed on its footprint like the other two towers did."

I would think it was hit by a lot of debris when the planes impacted. It also could have been compromised by the ground moving when the planes hit the tower.

...but your posts are becoming extremely stupid.

LOL

So, where is the video of the device that carried all those plane parts in, bOoB? No answer, huh? Of course not.

You should really think out your stupid questions before you ask them, bOoB. Cameras play by the same rules, unlike you, bOoB. If it is supposed to capture the image of a jet, it should also capture the image of whatever brought the jet parts in. You might expect the DR crowd to play by different rules, but cameras don't. You lose. No need in belaboring that point, of course. It's just too fucking obvious.

You fail to realise that that is what I am asking for.

???

I figured when you were asking for a video of the jet hitting the Pentagon that you were asking for a video of the jet hitting the Pentagon. OK. I'll bite. I give up trying to figure out your addled thought process. Exactly what are you asking for, then?

"I would say that whoever killed thousands in the Towers wouldn't have much difficulty killing a few more."

OK then where did Flight 77 with nobody aboard that hit the Pentagon originate from if it wasn't from Logan?

You should really think out your stupid questions before you ask them, bOoB.

Ho hum---I warned you. Now I have to make you look stupid again. Not that it's that hard, it is just a waste of time.

Cameras play by the same rules, unlike you, bOoB.

I always play by the same rules. It is you that keeps changing up. I'm surprised you used your original name this week. Get busted too quick on your last name change? LOL

If it is supposed to capture the image of a jet, it should also capture the image of whatever brought the jet parts in.

This is true---and also a reason why the video is not being released. The video doesn't show a plane.

You might expect the DR crowd to play by different rules, but cameras don't. You lose. No need in belaboring that point, of course. It's just too fucking obvious.

It is obvious no video has been released. WHY? If it shows a plane--no problem. But what if it doesn't show a plane? Why not release the video? You are getting dumber with each post. Please read, and let others speak. You are just making a fool of yourself again.

#141 | Posted by goatman at 2010-03-09 12:24 AM | Reply | Flag:

#101 | Posted by themaniscoming at 2010-03-08 09:33 PM
***"Well. With a name like Capt Of Uranus...?"

Hey TMIC, read into it whatever you like; it's your imagination, so let your fantasies run wild...

Besides, Captain of Jupiter was taken...

;~}

OK then where did Flight 77 with nobody aboard that hit the Pentagon originate from if it wasn't from Logan?

#143 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2010-03-09 12:30 AM | Reply | Flag:

Good question. Now---since you know it all and have all the answers, how about answering the questions I asked you. Ignoring questions isn't answering questions. If you have no answer, simply say you don't know---but then you have to question yourself as to why you are a believer.

#146...

I am asking the person who claims there was nobody on flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, that would be you Bob.

The video doesn't show a plane.

???

What video? You keep referring to it, yet you never have proved one existed. Please provide a link that proves a video was taken. You made the claim. You bear the burden of proof, which of course you'll never provide. Again, you lose, bOoB.

I always play by the same rules.

LOL

Now I have to make you look stupid again

LOL

Get busted too quick on your last name change?

???

Another question for Bob...

Why would they choose one of the most fortified buildings as a target? Why not one of the older structures in DC like the Capitol Building?

#146...

I am asking the person who claims there was nobody on flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, that would be you Bob.

#147 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2010-03-09 12:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

I didn't say there was no one on flight 77. I asked where the bodies were. What makes you think I will let you slide on answering the questions I asked YOU? Do you think ignoring questions means you've answered them? If you can't answer the questions, you have to ask yourself---why not? That you have other questions does not mean you have answered questions either. Ask yourself---if there were no bodies found at the Pentagon---why not---where are they? Do you think they vanished?

Why would they choose one of the most fortified buildings as a target? Why not one of the older structures in DC like the Capitol Building?

#149 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2010-03-09 12:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

Good question---Now how about those answers?

Why not one of the older structures in DC like the Capitol Building?

I'll bet that's where Flight 77 was headed.

9/11 reminded me of the Tom Clancy novel where a Japanese pilot smashed into the Capitol, resulting in Jack Ryan becoming President. Can't recall the name of it right now.

#149 | Posted by crispee_oc at 2010-03-09 12:44 AM

A lot of people think that where the last plane was going...

That would have constituted an overt attempt to decapitate the US government, which would have initiated Marshall Law as SOP...

A lot of people also think that Marshal Law was the plan all along...

Also, (while we're on this subject), the pentagon is the most heavily guarded building on the planet, where is all the high-res surveillance footage showing the plane hitting the building? It seems that the govt. could settle this question once and for all just by providing the video. And, what possible reason could it have to not do so???

It seems that the govt. could settle this question once and for all just by providing the video.

Pictures of jet debris and engine parts taken immediately after the crash (see AU's link) aren't enough? If not, you wouldn't be satisfied with the video, either.

Why not one of the older structures in DC like the Capitol Building?
#149 | Posted by crispee_oc

The Capitol was likely the intended destination of the United 93 hijackers, according to the 911 Commission. It would've been a symbolic spectacular for them.

Why would they choose one of the most fortified buildings as a target? #149 | Posted by crispee_oc

Because they could, they did, and it worked.

#154 | Posted by goatman at 2010-03-09 01:01 AM

Actually Goat, the debris was stated to be "inside" the pentagon, this is why there was so little debris on the pentagon grounds; we are talking about a fully loaded jetliner here. I remember that day like it was yesterday, I watched as they covered the few scattered parts with tarps...

I wasn't so much trying to endorse or defend the "Truthers" as I was attempting to point out that there are a lot of Americans with unanswered questions surrounding 9/11. And, that many of those questions could be answered by just showing the actual video of the "attack". Also, pointing out: what could it hurt to release those images, (that have been documented to exist), and what possible reason could the government have to suppress these images...

Furthermore, If I saw a clear and unedited video of an actual 747 hitting the Pentagon (as is the official story) I would have a much harder time believing what seems so obvious to me now: that we are being lied to about 9/11...

I am not an unreasonable person, Goat...

Actually Goat, the debris was stated to be "inside" the pentagon, this is why there was so little debris on the pentagon grounds

Did you look at the pictures in the link that AU posted upthread? I see a lot of debris in them. Are you suggesting they are fake?

#158 | Posted by goatman at 2010-03-09 07:15 PM

Yes, I have seen them; I have been researching the events of 9/11 since shortly after the smoke cleared. I have all of those photos saved on my hard drive...

But, regardless of the debris (which I do not believe is sufficient to account for a fully loaded 747), I think that you are avoiding the actual question I am raising: Why don't they release the video? What possible reason could the government have to not do so???

I am not trying to ruffle feathers, I was just pointing out an obvious reason that a lot of people feel that the government isn't being forthcoming in regards to 9/11...

Don't you think that it would be easier to try to convince the fence sitters with an attempt at transparency concerning their reservations of the official story, rather than have another "JFK" thing eroding America's trust in our government for generations to come???