BS: RosieO'Donnell&WillieNelson on 9/11

Subject: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 09:05 PM

From Rosie O'Donnell's blog:

at 5 30 pm
9 11 2001
wtc7 collapsed

for the third time in history
fire brought down a steel building
reducing it to rubble

hold on folks
here we go

• The fires in WTC 7 were not evenly distributed, so a perfect collapse was impossible.
• Silverstein said to the fire department commander "the smartest thing to do is pull it."
• Firefighters withdrawing from the area stated the building was going to "blow up".
• The roof of WTC 7 visibly crumbled and the building collapsed perfectly into its footprint.
• Molten steel and partially evaporated steel members were found in the debris.

[WTC 7] contained offices of the FBI, Department of Defense, IRS (which contained prodigious amounts of corporate tax fraud, including Enron's), US Secret Service, Securities & Exchange Commission (with more stock fraud records), and Citibank's Salomon Smith Barney, the Mayor's Office of Emergency Management and many other financial institutions. [Online Journal]

The SEC has not quantified the number of active cases in which substantial files were destroyed [by the collapse of WTC 7]. Reuters news service and the Los Angeles Times published reports estimating them at 3,000 to 4,000. They include the agency's major inquiry into the manner in which investment banks divvied up hot shares of initial public offerings during the high-tech boom. …"Ongoing investigations at the New York SEC will be dramatically affected because so much of their work is paper-intensive," said Max Berger of New York's Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann. "This is a disaster for these cases." [New York Lawyer]

Citigroup says some information that the committee is seeking [about WorldCom] was destroyed in the Sept. 11 terror attack on the World Trade Center. Salomon had offices in 7 World Trade Center, one of the buildings that collapsed in the aftermath of the attack. The bank says that back-up tapes of corporate emails from September 1998 through December 2000 were stored at the building and destroyed in the attack. [TheStreet]

Inside [WTC 7 was] the US Secret Service's largest field office with more than 200 employees. …"All the evidence that we stored at 7 World Trade, in all our cases, went down with the building," according to US Secret Service Special Agent David Curran. [TechTV]

lets start here
ok…go slow
remember 2 breathe
use google

http://www.rosie.com/blog/2007/03/15/wtc-7/

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 09:09 PM

What makes Rosie any more credible than anyone else?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 09:15 PM

What nonsense. All of that was impossible since Marvin Bush, W's younger brother, was in charge of WTC security.
Surely he would have been aware if there was an inside job.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 09:22 PM

Enough ferchrissakes! Rosie? Yeah, my rosie red ass cheeks and you can kiss 'em both! This is the biggest crock of shit extant and has been refuted over and over and yet asswipes like you will continue to believe it.

There are at least a dozen threads where you can post this latest wondrous news of the stupid. What a load of crap.......

and Guest......Fuck You....and anybody that looks like you.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 09:27 PM

Suck rocks, Spaw, Spaw. He could look like my favourite German Shepherd!

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 09:34 PM

No doofus like this guy could ever look as good as GSD. I figure this guy looks like a warthog with a thyroid condition and acne.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 09:35 PM

Yeah, lets keep looks out of it.
Just because Dan Rather thought the WTC looked like controled demolition doesn't mean it was controled.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Rapparee
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 09:36 PM

And you know what? The Assistant Substitute Linebacker for the Baltimore Ravens' best friend's cousin's girlfriend's hairdresser's son-in-law says Rosie's wrong...wrong around the Rosie.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 09:40 PM

Donald Trump said she was fat. I think Rosie already knew that. She said Trump was an asshole. I think he knew that as well.

Me? I'm sure that neither of them have any great extra insight into 9-11.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 10:02 PM

Speaking of Dan Rather, here's a video clip of him and reporter Jacaqueline Adams telling you in 1993 that the FBI was responsible for the bombing of the WTC tower. Man what short memories some people have. The FBI was on top of the bombing the whole time and was supposed to replace the real explosives with dummy explosives. But then they decided not to. Here's Dan Rather TELLING you that.

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?f...eoid=1542894908

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 10:10 PM

"All of that was impossible since Marvin Bush, W's younger brother, was in charge of WTC security."

Check your facts. He was not "in charge" at all.   Another urban legend.   

As for Dan Rather, what the fuck is that supposed to prove? Absolutely no connection other than something you are attempting to make believable.   You should have paid more attention in school.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 10:14 PM

"Sorry! an unexpected error has occurred.

"This error has been forwarded to MySpace's technical group"

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 10:19 PM

Check out the video clip. William Kunsler waving a thousand pages of transcriptions from the taped conversations of Hamed Salem with his FBI handlers. Dan Rather's TELLING you the FBI was responsible for the bombing. This is not make believe. Earth to Olesko...the contact has been broken. You are drifting away. We will attempt to... send hel... You imbeci...

"George W. Bush's brother was on the board of directors of a company providing electronic security for the World Trade Center, Dulles International Airport and United Airlines, according to public records. The company was backed by an investment firm, the Kuwait-American Corp., also linked for years to the Bush family.

The security company, formerly named Securacom and now named Stratesec, is in Sterling, Va.. Its CEO, Barry McDaniel, said the company had a ``completion contract" to handle some of the security at the World Trade Center ``up to the day the buildings fell down."

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 10:27 PM

Hmm. It does appear the video's been taken down. It was there yesterday. MySpace, YouTube and the others spend lots of time nowadays taking down 9/11 truth videos. But the clips go up again constantly. Just go to YouTube or MySpace or GoogleVideo and type in "Dan Rather 1993 WTC". Some combination like that. Whatever's posted at the moment will turn up. The confession piece was reported by Jacqueline Adams. These online video clip sites are censoring heavily. To be expected in a police state.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: catspaw49
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 10:31 PM

Hmmm....It does appear you're full of shit.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 10:42 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F1Y6cGRXEs

A YouTube posting. 2 minutes 10 seconds, if y'all have the attention span.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 10:45 PM

If you are addressing Spaw, then the use of y'all is not correct. Y'all is reserved for many people--more than one, anyway. FYI and no offense meant.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: balladeer
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 10:49 PM

Rosie certainly seems to stir stuff up.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 10:52 PM

Thanks for proving our point Froth. NO WHERE does that video say the FBI "facilitated" or that the FBI was RESPONSIBLE for the bombing. You are the imbecile, and obviously you don't mind showing it in public! You twist the truth, you don't dig for the truth. Froth is a perfect name because you are obviously scum that is stirring up nonsense.

What you pointed out, and do not even realize it, is that the FBI in incompetent and could have prevented disasters like this if they did their job. That is far different from accusing them of doing the deed.

And your link about George's brother is incorrect. Keep searching and you will find out what his real connection was. Do you own homework and don't rely on the first crap that someone flings in your face.   Moron.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 10:56 PM

Y'all meant to address the several naysayers who barked immediately.

So anyway, there's Rather telling America the FBI did the bombing, and now, 14 years later, we have people defending the govt after it finally brought down the towers. Amazing. And O'Donnell's important only because she has visibility. One of her blog statements has the power of a million of mine, so more power to her.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Amergin
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 11:00 PM

Gee, isn't revisionist history fun? Now that we've pretended that flight 11 and 175 did not crash into the towers, but that it was a mass hallucination...and a magical editing job on live tv...let's now pretend the holocaust never happened....or I know....that AIDS is a government conspiracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 11:05 PM

You do NOT have Rather there saying that the FBI did the bombing. Dan Rather is saying, very carefully, that it appears that the FBI knew about the placing of the bomb material and might have, he said, been able to stop the event. Ron Olesko is right in saying that the only thing that has been demonstrated for sure is that the FBI was incompetent.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Dickey
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 11:06 PM

Rosie rocks! Rosie for Prez and Richard Simmons for Veep!

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 11:08 PM

Jacqueline Adams says of the FBI, "They discussed secretly substituting harmless powders for the explosives, but they didn't, according to the FBI's own informant, Ehmad Salem." And this is borne out in the 903 pages of transcriptions William Kuntsler is waving in the video. Salem knew the FBI couldn't be trusted, so he recorded his telephone calls and meetings with them. These transcripts turned up during the trials of the bombers, and the govt was so worried that they put out this piece trying to limit their liability. The FBI wasn't incompetent. It got the bomb into the basement, didn't it?

The govt must have you by the balls, Olesko, for you to be such a staunch supporter. Marvin Bush was involved with security for the WTC complex, Dulles Intl airport and United Airilnes until Sept 10, 2001. Prep work was kind of done by then, don't you imagine?

So what's the govt holding over your head to make you do this? You're not very good at it, so maybe you should just stop. If you become a LIABILITY to the Ministry of Propaganda, well, you might find yourself on the wet end of that waterboard you're defending.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 11:23 PM

The biggest problem with determining what happend on that day is separating government agency cover-ups from the truth. I doubt there would presently be any questions about the plane crashes had Bush's administration simply come clean by saying they fucked up. Fcat is that now between 26 and 36% of the American people think there was a conspiracy (I read two different 'studies'). Someone wasn't telling the whole truth back then. They still aren't today. Possibly the Bush bastards just capitalized on the 9-11 events to get a green light for the invasion of Iraq. But there was fucked up handling of pre 9-11 intelligence, and folks here should be giving taht a serious look instead of jumping on Froth. He may or may not be out to lunch, but then y'all ain't thinkin' clear about this, either, what with your headlong rush to defend one of the more corrupt governments on the planet.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 19 Mar 07 - 11:23 PM

Oh, and Dickey has his head where it usually is.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Dickey
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 12:12 AM

The WTC was bombed, two embassys were bombed and a Navy ship was attacked by al Qaeda before Bush came into office. Who came clean and admitted they fucked up for them?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: jeffp
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 06:05 AM

Y'all is singular.

All y'all is plural.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 07:08 AM

Thanks for that clarification jeffp - gave me the best laugh of the day. Up until your post the winner was Bobert picking up someone for a spelling error or a typo.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Dave'sWife
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 08:04 AM

Ever since she started blogging, people sometimes email me the weird stuff she says or post in forums. I am always left wondering why she has no one to tell her that obsessive blogging about topics likely to piss people off is a bad idea. Even more of a mystery is why the folks who send me that stuff think that i would care! ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 08:33 AM

The importance of govt involvement in the 1993 WTC bombing, by the way, is that if it was involved in '93, then why wouldn't it be involved in 2001? And you have Dan Rather and Jacqueline Adams telling you that an FBI employee who was working INSIDE the terrorist cell said the Bureau intentionally failed to substitute harmless powder for the explosives. Again, if the govt would do that in '93, they would again take part (either actively or passively) in 2001.

And why doesn't the media talk about O'Donnell and her 9/11 statement? They were all over the meaningless catfight between O'Donnell and Donald Trump, but now that she says something substantive, why is there utter silence from the media? Because the media is controlled by the govt.

Govts kill for advantage.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Bill D
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 09:13 AM

ah, 'froth'...I don't suppose you'd care to work your way thru THIS page

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 12:27 PM

I went to the site, clicked on the 'Stand down' button and immediately spotted a lie. I can post the June 1, 2001 order yet again showing that NORAD command was transferred to the Executive Branch. I can post video of Norman Mineta's testimony regarding Dick Cheney and the stand down order. So you govt shills have constructed mis-information sites? So what? 84% of Americans think the govt is covering up something about 9/11, and 1/3 think the govt did the job.

And as for Dan Rather, you have to consider the source on all his stories. He's a govt coverup guy from way back (this is a fascinating article. A grapefruit bag is a bag of film, by the way. They were hustled to the lab for development quick back in those days, and they had pickup points when big events were being filmed):

http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/05th_Issue/rather.html

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 12:38 PM

GUEST,froth (as in "frothing at the mouth," I presume),

Haven't you been here several times before? I thought I recognized you because of the pencils up your nostrils, the knickers on your head, and the tendency to mumble something about "wibble wibble."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: catspaw49
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 02:53 PM

Geeziz Froth, you really ARE a screamin' jackass aren't you? You ain't got the sense to chase a chicken down the stairs with a broom. Go look in the mirror, point at the reflection, and scream, "Holy Shit! What an ASSHOLE!" Do that for an hour or so huh?

Can we all just stop responding to this fanook?

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 08:08 PM

What works for you probably wouldn't work for me, Spew.

Rosie O'Donnell may be my least favorite "celebrity," but it is so cool that she's stepped forward on this issue. Another grain of sand on the wavering scales of justice. The govt's sooooo busted on 9/11. More and more people will continue to come forward and state the obvious facts in the case, and slowly America will start to come out of the mytholigizing mist that's been imposed on the country since 9/11. Like it or not Rosie O'Donnell is more recognized in America than Patrick Henry; she's a cornerstone of our society, and that cornerstone is shifting. Sooo cool.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Don Firth
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 08:22 PM

"Rosie O'Donnell is . . . a cornerstone of our society [Gee! Somehow I had never thought of her (whenever I thought of her at all) in quite those terms], and that cornerstone is shifting."

What the hell does that mean? Is Rosie O'Donnell shifting? And in what manner is she shifting? Or is the society shifting because Rosie O'Donnell is such a force? When did she gain all this power? I don't watch much daytime television, so I guess I missed it.

Please elucidate. Inquiring minds want to know.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 08:34 PM

Only a complete mook would call another person a fanook.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Peter Woodruff
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 08:44 PM

Anyone see Loose Change II?

Peter

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 09:05 PM

Spaw, you must always bear in mind the possibility that there are newcomers and relative newcomers to this forum who are completely unaware of your...ummm...shall we say illustrious past here, and who are misled by your oafish, buffoonish, vulgarian posts into thinking that you are nothing short of a complete moribund ass, not to be taken seriously or even responded to.

A broke-dick mamalucca of the worst sort, in other words. (grin)

Look, man, you cannot coast forever on the fading glories of the past. Like Shatner, you have to come up with something new now and then. He's got that lawyer role now. "Denny Crane". What've you got? Fer God's sake, man, get a grip on yourself!

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Peter Woodruff
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 09:30 PM

Anyone got some loose change?

Peter

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 09:47 PM

I hand out copies of Loose Change 2 every day. DVDs and CD-roms burned with hours and hours of 9/11 videos. The old guard media controllers have underestimated the internet and video. We can now SHOW each other the truth rather than try to describe it. The criminals in power have had their gooses cooked and they don't even know yet that they've been plucked. Terrorism will no longer work as a political tool in the U.S. Unfortunately the old guard doesn't know this, but after the next terrorist attack, Washington will be the first suspect.

As for Rosie O'Donnell being a cornerstone, she is. Sad to say. Look at her Donald Trump rasslin' match. Totally mindless tripe fed to television viewers, but they ate it up. Lots of water cooler chatter about "Rosie" after that one. And thankfully that recent ridiculousness has boosted O'Donnell into the public eye in a big way. So now, when she says 9/11 is fishy, tens of millions of braindead TV viewers are going to say "huh?" Maybe only 5% of them will look into what she's talking about, but that's still a big number.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 09:50 PM

"Fer God's sake, man, get a grip on yourself! "

NO COMMENT!

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Peter Woodruff
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 09:53 PM

Send a free copy to Spaw.

Peter

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: catspaw49
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 09:56 PM

Look Hawk, I AM a moribund ass and everytime I get a good grip on it, I go off........All the same, this Frothy mess of barely congealed shit and spit is the living proof that Henry the Dancing Bear butt-fucked caribou.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 09:58 PM

As long as my German Shepherd isn't involved, it's OK by me.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 10:04 PM

LOL! Look, man, you are going to be sorry someday. Number one, I KNOW people who know where you live, capiche? First thing is, we are going to send some of Chongo's buddies to kidnap you, tie your sorry ass in a large, comfy armchair in an otherwise empty room except for a large video screen, and force you to watch a free copy of "Loose Change 2" several times till you come to your senses and realize that your whole life up to now has been merely a rehearsal.

Number two, we are going to have you indicted before a grand jury for being a moribund ass, and have all your sillier posts put on public record to prove it.

After that...well...let's just say that it'll be a real wake-up call...

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: catspaw49
Date: 20 Mar 07 - 11:30 PM

Make it for 5 AM.....That's what time I start everyday with the kids. If you want kids, have them like normal folks...when you're young! Then again ...... When I was young, I was having way too much fun to have kids.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 06:29 AM

The Ratio show


Rosie ODonnel is to Donald Trump
as
John Stewart is to Tucker Carlson
as
Michael Moore is to Rush Limbaugh
as
George Carlin is to Enron's Skilling
as
Senator Leahy is to Dick Cheney

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: balladeer
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 02:01 PM

Rosie isn't exactly in the same league as John Stewart, and personally I'd like to see a Democratic ticket headed by Stewart and his adorable comrade-at-arms, Stephen Colbert, in any order - but I digress. Rosie O'Donnell is someone I wrote off a long time ago as a shallow celebrity groupie, but seeing her on The View has opened my eyes. She's intelligent, well-read, politically astute, socially awake, and very, very tenacious. She speaks for the underdog time after time and holds the line against demeaning gossip. Someone had to take on the insufferable Trump. I don't know much about blogging, but it's clearly an effective way to get your message out there - however wacko.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: balladeer
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 03:52 PM

That should read JON Stewart. Sorry, Jon.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Seiri Omaar
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 04:19 PM

Froth, the media is controlled by corporations, not the govt. Follow the money.
Please do some research.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 06:46 PM

Frothy, Rosie O'Donnell may be a cornerstone of your society, and if so, heaven pity you. But not of mine. Or the rest of the country in general. Or the world. The Cosmos is a bit larger than the screen of a 13" television set.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 06:50 PM

Happy Birthday, Rosie.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 08:37 PM

No, American society is essentially what you see on TV. Try to strike up a conversation about something BESIDES Rosie vs. Donald around the water cooler, and people don't know what to say. TV is the great uniter in America. It tells us what to think, what to buy, and how to behave.

And corporations ARE the govt, Seiri Omaar. Television serves govt/corporate interests. military-industrial, govt-corporate...we were warned. Can you tell me who warned us about that? Can you provide the complete quote? If not, do some research.

So do you like my homage to you in my choice of names, Firth? Ridicule is the sincerest form of flatulence, you know.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 08:40 PM

"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

1960

Dwight D Eisenhower

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 08:46 PM

It's enough to make you weep.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 09:00 PM

I often say tht WW II has never ended for the USA.
The compartmentalized covert and overt military budgets, projects and adventures are the same. Only targets have changed.

To have a war economy decade after decade that rivals and exceeds our spending during WWII has the taste of death in every bite.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 09:05 PM

BTW, that is not the complete speech from DDE. That can be read here.


NB The speech was written in 1960 but delivered in 1961. (My mistake above.)

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: catspaw49
Date: 21 Mar 07 - 09:20 PM

.......and the speech coined the name "Military Industrial Complex." We've even run threads about that here at Mudcat Frothballs. Now take your sanctimonius ass and your dipshit, factless, opinions, and put 'em where the sun don't shine.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: balladeer
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 01:29 AM

So I take it Froth, 'Spaw, and Little Hawk are old friends who enjoy
kicking the s**t out of each other in this forum. And I'm guessing the topic is less important than the exchange of ripostes. Is that right?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 02:20 PM

Yes, the Eisenhower quote is indeed depressing. The old fart was dying and finally spoke some truth, when he had nothing to lose. I forget...was he still alive in '63 when Kennedy got his head blown off for upholding principles? I bet at that moment he realized the world would remember him (Eisenhower) as a coward. After D-Day and all that, he didn't have the guts to stand up to the CIA. He should have disbanded the organization, the way Kennedy planned to do. Eisenhower should have risked the assassination. He might have got away with it, because of his stature and reputation. Instead, he just "warned" us. He talked a good political lesson, but he left behind a lousy one.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 02:52 PM

What makes you say that Eisenhower "was dying" when he wrote that? He lived until 1969.

For the record, I may be incredibly and terminally naive but the bloviating that one or more of posters persist in espouses views I don't see.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: bobad
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 02:55 PM

"bloviating" - perfect!

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Don Firth
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 02:59 PM

Very peculiar view of history there, Frothy. Also very peculiar water cooler you drink from if television determines the nature of your reality.

Sorry I didn't recognize you marvelous tribute to me in your choice of pseudonym. Firth is a time-honored Scottish place name (meaning "inlet" or "tributary," as in the Firth of Forth, or the strait between the Scottish mainland and the Orkneys, the Pentland Firth--my great-grandfather came from Orkney). Nothing particularly "frothy" about it.

Anyway, if I were you, I'd find another water cooler. As they say, "Maybe there's something in the water. . . ."

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 03:27 PM

Your supposition, balladeer, is correct insofar as concerns myself and Spaw. Yes, we enjoy the ripostes the kidding around. Froth is a somewhat different case, and is dead serious, I can assure you.

I try to maintain a sense of humor even in political discussions, and I try to remember not to hate people just because they disagree with me on some political question. It doesn't help matters any when one does that.

I tend to agree with much of what Froth is saying, but I can't say for sure how much of it is correct. I think some of it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 03:29 PM

I have no sense of humour. Too much bloviating in my younger days I guess. (I hope that's a good thing.)

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 03:31 PM

Also, I tend to go with the philosophy of "F#ck 'em if they can't take a joke."

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 03:47 PM

Yeah... LOL! Mick Jagger said that about various bad reactions people had to certain lines in the song "Some Girls".

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: balladeer
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 08:14 PM

Thanks for clearing that up, Little Hawk. The banter you lads have been swapping has brought my old pal, Rick Fielding, sharply into my mind. (He's never very far away.) I can't help thinking he'd be in the thick, wielding his sharply honed verbal axe (pun intended) and trading blows with the rest of you.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 08:34 PM

O'Donnell's action is important because of the following. Fascist radio host Glenn Beck said this:

BECK: I can't take it that Rosie O'Donnell can be put on ABC television, mainstream, unquestioned, by the mainstream media. She can say whatever she wants to say, she can take the sides with, what's his name, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a guy who was the mastermind behind 9-11...

http://mediamatters.org/items/200703220010

In that rant Beck told you that Khalid was the mastermind behind 9/11. What happened to bin Laden? This is Orwellian thought switching. You're told bin Laden did it, then Saddam, and now Khalid. You will forever be kept chasing bogeymen in this fashion unless the govt putting you through the chase is stopped. O'Donnell's doing what she can to stop it.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: balladeer
Date: 22 Mar 07 - 09:37 PM

Froth, I agree with you about Rosie. She is using that daytime forum of hers to draw attention to the many lies and distortions being fed to the public by the right-wing media.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 23 Mar 07 - 08:36 PM

Now it starts to fall into place. She's generating PR for a movie. This is the new, theatrical version of Loose Change. Big money behind it:

(CBS) NEW YORK A controversial new film about 9/11 is raising eyebrows, not only for its content, but also for the people involved in the project: Rosie O'Donnell and Charlie Sheen.

The sitcom actor and talk show hostess have both become spokespeople for the 9/11 conspiracy movement.

"If the government is lying about flight 93, is it hard to believe the rest is a lie?" That line can be heard on the video "Loose Change," which has been floating around the Internet for years, but now Sheen is in talks with Magnolia Pictures to narrate a new version of the video and redistribute it.

Sheen believes the government may have been behind the attacks, and said so in a recent interview.

"I have a hard time believing a fireball traveled down the elevator over 1100 feet, and still had the explosive energy to destroy the lobby as it was described," Sheen said on "The Alex Jones Show."

Meanwhile, O'Donnell has been using her Web site to reprint excerpts from the 9/11 conspiracy site, Whatreallyhappened.com.

The conspiracy theorists believe that the government blew up the twin towers and covered up the evidence by making it appear that commercial airplanes flew into the buildings. They also believe al-Qaida had nothing to do with the attacks. "I know it's hard to imagine the government would intentionally murder almost 3000 innocent people, but once you begin to accept that possibility you can never go back to the 19 Arabs," the movie's narrator goes on to say.

James Meigs is Editor in Chief of Popular Mechanics magazine, which published a book debunking the conspiracy theories put forth in the film and online. He says "Loose Change" has no merit whatsoever.

"It is a brilliantly patched-together stew of all kinds of misconceptions, misquotes and real mistakes about how things really worked on that day," said Meigs.

Magnolia Films founder Mark Cuban, who also owns the Dallas Mavericks, said they're also looking for a film telling the other side of the story, saying "we like controversial subjects."

http://wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_081173332.html

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Stringsinger
Date: 24 Mar 07 - 05:30 PM

I tend to defer to Noam Chomsky on this one. Someone would have leaked specific info about an inside job to the press or blogs. It's hard to keep that kind of a thing secret.

Now, did Bush benefit from 911? Damn right (the Trifecta). It gave him an excuse to invade pre-emptively a foreign country which became his Sudatenland.

Whether it was an inside job or not is really not provable and may now not be relevant.
Getting out of Iraq and bringing our troops home is, IMHO.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 24 Mar 07 - 10:38 PM

"Whether it was an inside job or not is really not provable and may now not be relevant."

That's not even the "I did not know" Nuremburg defense. That's the "I do not WANT to know, I'm a fucking jellyfish" defense. Shameful. You stop the wars by exposing the perpetrators of 9/11. We need a REAL investigation with family members of the dead on the commission. They won't allow another coverup.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 01:46 PM

From a neo-con talk show:

JOE SCARBOROUGH: ...But then you have Rosie O'Donnell saying on national television that the United States government took down the World Trade Centers, killed 3,000 Americans and did it to cover up for Enron's misdeeds. And again, the real tragedy here is that Barbara Walters, a woman who's been a real pioneer in journalism, the reason why so many people decided to become journalists is sitting there allowing this to happen on her show for ratings. It's, it is a sad, sad demise for a once great journalistic figure... But when you have somebody again who should be chiseled, who could have been chiseled into the Mount Rushmore of journalists until this, you get somebody like Barbara Walters who has lent her credibility to a woman going on national television and saying that the United States government killed 3,000 people by planting the September 11 attacks, that it was an inside job, is very disappointing as I said to a couple of media analysts last night who also agreed with me that we're seeing the sad demise of Barbara Walters. If somebody were on my show and they were a co-host of mine and they suggested that the United States government had killed 3,000 Americans on September 11 to cover up for Enron's misdeeds, I would politely say to this person: "Thank you so much for your service, to 'Scarborough Country' and MSNBC, I'm not going to see you here tomorrow night." But Barbara Walters is allowing Rosie O'Donnell to say the most extraordinary things and sadly, it's just for ratings. It's just like the Academy Award fluff show. If that's what Barbara Walters wants to do to end her career, I just think it's very sad and it's very disappointing. And I think that's, that's the real story here: The demise of a once great journalist.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11615

Walters' involvement in this affair is odd, because she's a member of the CFR, which is dedicated to the destruction of America. She's also a part owner of "The View" television program. So while the O'Donnell flap may look like a way to stimulate ratings, it could be that the CFR / globalists are finally going to allow their media to release the truth about 9/11, hoping the truth will rip the U.S. government apart. In the absence of a national govt, well, the U.N. would have to save us, wouldn't they? Interesting angles, especially the way they hype Walters while apparently criticizing her. "Mount Rushmore of journalists." lol. They're trying to make her look more trustworthy than she is, and that could be because she's about to put the stamp of approval on 9/11 skepticism. Interesting.

Old members list of anti-American globalist groups:

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/cfr-members.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 09:18 PM

What's interesting about the above is that Scarborough says O'Donnell claims 9/11 was carried out "to cover up for Enron's misdeeds." O'Donnell merely pointed out that the regional SEC office was in WTC 7, along with the offices of the BATF, FBI, etc. She pointed out that the files from hundreds of ongoing criminal prosecutions were in WTC7, and now those incriminating documents are gone. But Scarborough wants you to get fixated on Enron again.

And then there's talkshow host Bill O'Reilly. He has blasted O'Donnell several times over the past week:

O'REILLY: "Impact" segment tonight: The far-left fringe has embraced the conspiracy theory that elements of the U.S. government carried out the attacks on 9/11. It's unbelievable, but that's what they're saying.

Now some mainstream individuals are buying into it. Rosie O'Donnell discussed it on her blog. And the owner of the Dallas Mavericks, billionaire Mark Cuban, may distribute a movie called "Loose Change." That piece of propaganda may be narrated by Charlie Sheen. And it says the U.S. government was criminally negligent on 9/11....

THEY WISH THIS WAS ABOUT "NEGLIGENCE". They are very scared. The govt that carried out 9/11 knows their necks are on the block. They're trying desperately to admit to negligence, but the evidence of involvement is there from training the terrorists, to shutting down NORAD, to the coverup afterwards. And they killed people from dozens of countries in the attacks, so there's nowhere to run.

Anyway, O'Reilly trots out a man who has "mafia" stamped on every other word:

BO DIETL: I was an iron worker back in the late '60s, before I became a cop.

And the whole construction of the World Trade Center was heavy, thick, steel walls around the outside, with six inches of concrete floors. And what happened that day is, when that melted, that went down, and it became like potato chips....

(The "official" reports don't mention the biggest core columns in the world holding up the towers, and this Dietl guy doesn't mention them, either. 47 columns in the center of each tower. He's KNOWINGLY lying to you. Incredible. And then they go on to threaten Charlie Sheen--tell him he won't narrate "Loose Change, Final Edition" if he knows what's good for him. Read it yourself, the link below. Bunch of amateur gangsters, scared to death. This isn't like JFK, where the "killer" was killed for closure...3000 open murders, with no statute of limitations. Everyone involved, from Hitler to Himmler, is terrified because we WON'T SHUT THE HELL UP).

http://newsbusters.org/node/11608

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 09:28 PM

Guest/Froth, when you chose your moniker was it because you realized that froth has no substance?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 10:26 PM

Good clue Ebbie!   I was also very surprised to see Froth posting some negative comments about 9/11 conspiracies. Maybe this person is starting to see the light.

I did some checking Loose Change.   If these guys directed "Casablanca" it would have been released several times with the ending changed along with the location.   The first version of the film made a big issue of "pods" strapped to the wings of the planes. When that was proven wrong, they removed the references.

Froth, you seem to have a theory on why the government would blow up the building. Any idea of why these two individuals, without prior experience, would bankroll such a movie? Do you honestly believe it was made with "loose change"?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 11:00 PM

If I were speculating about a coverup, Ron, and I honestly believed I was onto something, and I made a film about it, then I would investigate all mysteries and anomalies. If it turned out presently that one of my theories was incorrect, then of course I would re-edit the film and remove references to that theory...otherwise I would be knowingly spreading false or misleading information.

So why do you see a problem with them making changes in the film "Loose Change" as new information comes forward?

It would indicate that they take the matter seriously and are prepared to listen to other people, wouldn't it?

At least, that is one possibility... I'm sure you can come up with some "bad" reasons for them changing the movie too, if you want to.

;-) Follow my drift? It can be seen as either "good" or "bad" that they have re-edited the film, depending entirely on which ax you are out to grind.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 11:37 PM

The 9/11 debunkers have seized on a few inaccuracies in Loose Change and claimed that because the filmmakers got this fact or that fact wrong, it destroys the credibility of the whole movie. Nonsense. The filmmakers nailed the essential facts of 9/11 in an astonishingly accurate way.

But there are some inconsistencies, so they've hired David Ray Griffin to fact-check the updated version of the film. Check out his bibliography at Amazon.com. My personal opinion...THIS is why the media establishment is so terrified. Griffin has written DEVASTATING books about 9/11. The evidence he's gathered would convict anyone in a trial. The establishment is terrified. The new Loose Change is going to be Charge, Trial & Conviction to even the most glazed-over pair of eyeballs.

But then Loose Change 2nd edition is already that. Even now, no government defender can tell me why Rumsfeld and Cheney got NORAD transferred to their hands on June 1, 2001 and then put it back in the hands of the military after 9/11. That, coupled with the fact that Norman Mineta heard Dick Cheney issue override orders regarding one of the shootdowns is pretty damning. The Secretary of Transportation, ferchrissake, testified before CONGRESS that Cheney had a hand in helping one of the planes reach its target.

O'Donnell and Walters may just be hyping for publicity's sake on this...who knows. Don't care. The only thing that will restore America is a complete accounting for 9/11.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 11:42 PM

Look, Froth... If there was a time for Hysterical rants about 9/11 cothpeewathy theeowees, that time is long past. Rant a rave all you like, and for an occasional diversion, some folks may occasionally look over your posts to see if anythings changed... 'new' truths, impeccable documented research, notorized confessions... etc...

But nothing has.

...and because nothing has changed... while you treat this issue with an implacable distain for the 'ordinary truth', you can somewhat irritating... perhaps much of the time.

Everyone has questions in their heart about 9/11... and we all are dealing with that pain the best that we can.

You are not making this any easier.

C'mon... give it a rest.
ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 11:50 PM

Ooops... sorry... I misspelled conthpeewathy.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 11:51 PM

"Earth to Planet Froth, Earth to Planet Froth.....(long pause - whistle, fizz, crackle).....no good, Commander, absolutely nothing. There's no intelligent life on that planet."

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 25 Mar 07 - 11:57 PM

There are HUNDREDS of new sites springing up monthly. You won't see ABC, BBC, CBS, NPR report on them because the monied interests that created the "pain" won't allow the truth to be reported. So alternative media is having to do the reporting, and that's good because the case against the government is now infinitely more damning than it would have been if just a few national reporters were asking questions.

Here are some credible sources...I found these just tonight...

Eyewitness stuff about the Pentagon bombing:

http://thepentacon.com/

Pilots speak out about the events of 9/11:

http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/

These are new sites, more going up daily.

9/11 was just the kickoff. You want pain, just sit around and do nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 12:05 AM

Cross-stitch or crochet, that's good therapy. Yoga or Tai Chi can help too. Personally I've always found cooking one of Delia's recipes works for me when I'm a bit uptight. Alternatively, if all else fails, there's the canvas jacket and the padded cell.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Peace
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 12:11 AM

Froth, there are many questions in my mind, too, about 9/11. At least you aren't letting it 'disappear'. That has been so convenient for the Bush administration. All the loose ends tied up, sooo neatly. I don't agree with every site you link to, but neither do I believe your detractors have the right of it, either. I ain't yer fan, but I ain't yer enemy.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 12:12 AM

Post above was me. Weekly cookie clean out.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 12:14 AM

It is interesting to observe that so many people who think Bush lied and concocted reasons to invade Iraq, out-source torture and corrupt the Constitution are aghast at the thought the Government could be involved in something like 9/11. Why IS that?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 12:48 AM

Peace, in my mind they are nothing like. Iraq is a "foreign" country- and Bush is not an internationalist. He never had a passport until he became president- if he has one now. Besides, as I said before, I suspect that he really did want the experience of "going to war." Just to see what it's like, you know. The man is not bright.

9/11 is different. Bush is a man of easy tears, and these were his countrymen. I don't think Bush could ever be called intelligent - but I don't think he is absolutely evil. Some of his 'handlers' may be though. *g*

The main reason, though, that I don't believe the government did the deed is because it is not human nature to do something like it- and then to stay quiet and quiescent about it. To find just the right people to do it and keep quiet about it would be a tremendous achievement. I just don't believe it.

There are many unanswered questions about 9/11. My guess is that eventually we'll have more answers but I don't think these guys are on the right track. People- Americans, specifically - have always been real big on conspiracies, even fulminating darkly on the "alleged" deaths of popular figures, people like Valentino, James Dean, Marilyn Monroe, Elvis. Lots more. And they have just as much evidence to prove their contentions as 9/11 is bringing to light today.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 01:48 AM

Ebbie, it is entirely possible that there was a high level conspiracy, but that Bush himself was not aware of what was going on. He could have been left out of "the loop" on that, and so could any number of people. You do not need everyone in high places in a government to know what is going on with a secret operation, you only need the few key people who make it happen.

So just as a theory, nothing more than that...what if Cheney was in on it and Bush wasn't? Or what if Rumsfeld was in on it? Or some other people like that?

Bush looked to me like a man who didn't know what the hell was going on on that morning. He looked frozen in that Florida classroom, like he just didn't know what to do.

What if Mr Bush was being manipulated by some far more clever conspirators, and what if he is still being manipulated...just like a little puppet? Mr Bush strikes me as a man, who even more than many people, usually believes what he wants to believe. Such people are easily led astray.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Ebbie
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 02:08 AM

That makes sense- except that it still leaves some important dangles. Unless you're proposing that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rove, et al, went out in the dark of night, so to speak, and laid the explosives with their own hands, and with their limited abilities did such a bang up job, that theory leaves 10-20 men still out there.

My contention is, quite beside the fact that I don't believe that people stay quiet, even if 'bought', that only relatively few people are capable of such horrendous things, and finding enough such people to commit such things would be way beyond probability. And that's true, imo, even if they used military people.

Those people would still have to live in this world- unless one supposes 'suiciders', as Bush says, did the deed and then saw to it that they died.

Nope.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 09:56 AM

"So why do you see a problem with them making changes in the film "Loose Change" as new information comes forward?"

The problem I see is that it shows either a lack of investigative skill on the part of the filmakers - or an attempt to create propaganda to sway audiences who don't bother to think. "Evidence" should be clearly investigated and alternate sources back up theories. If one scientist says that he can prove that toothpaste cures lip cancer, would it be prudent for any news organization to go forward and issue bold headlines "Toothpaste Proven to Cure Lip Cancer"?   No journalist with any conscious would do such a thing because the realize that the information can be faulty and it is nothing more than tabloid journalism without further proof.

If you wish to see a true example of how journalism works, watch "All the Presidents Men". Decades after the event, the film portrays the intent of all serious journalists and the system of checks and balances they SHOULD be using to verify theories, or at least show plausibility.

The version of Loose Change that I watched was shoddy. I can excuse bad filmmaking in a search for the truth, but I can't excuse sloppy journalism. The producers set up Rube Goldberg theories without any evidence. The version I saw said that Flight 93 was shot down by military aircraft. I understand the new version has the flight landing in Cleveland. What? The people onboard are being held captive?   Why?????

The individuals that created this film are not uncovering the truth. They are making fanciful tales that prey upon individuals who can't think for themselves. The same individuals that clip items from celebrity blogs and websites that have little academic, scientific or social value.   I'm convinced that these individuals would believe the moon is made of cheese if Rosie O'Donnel, Charlie Sheen and an unknown blogger told them so.

These filmmakers did not create a film that "nailed the essential facts of 9/11 in an astonishingly accurate way." They created a story that is full of fluff and whimsy and could have been generated from the mind of Jules Verne or Gene Roddenberry. It is science fiction, and while science fiction could become fact - these jokers have done little to search for the truth. They created a cottage industry and I am sure they are doing nicely for themselves. Isn't this how "Blair Witch" was created after all?

I worry that chasing after rainbows like this deludes the public from the real truth and horrors of 9/11. Our government was inept, unprepared, and yes - I do think they seized the opportunity. Did they "let" it happen? I don't know, and I would like to find out. Did they "make" it happen? I have yet to see anything that would point to such a plot.   If you weigh the costs, consequences and potential downfalls - you can easily see that there were "safer" ways to get their agenda done if they chose too. Too many risks with no guaranteed payoff for this plot.

If 9/11 never really occured, this movie would have been relegated to the drive-ins as a second feature.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 04:35 PM

Ron, there are 2 general possibilities here.

1. The government is telling us the truth about 911.
2. They aren't, and it was an inside job.

If it's #2, then I suspect that some of what is in "Loose Change" is correct, but almost surely not all of it. Okay? And neither you nor I is in a position to know for sure about which is the case. We can only theorize.

Ebbie, you said "Unless you're proposing that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rove, et al, went out in the dark of night, so to speak, and laid the explosives with their own hands..."

Good God, no. I am proposing no such thing. What I am proposing is that a small number of powerful men like them put together a plan some considerable time (probably years) before 911 to have a Pearl Harbor-level event which would shock the American public into supporting foreign wars in Afghanistan (so the oil industry can build its pipeline through there) and in the Middle East (so they can control all the oil there). If they did put together such a plan, then it would have been instrumented by highly trained professionals, agents and paramilitary personnel, and professional hitmen whose job is killing people, following orders, and maintaining total secrecy about it. Such people exist. They have in the past assassinated heads of foreign countries, brought down foreign governments, probably assassinated some prominent politicians in the USA itself, and caused the massacre and torture of up to hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in places like Guatemala, Chile, Nicaragua, Panama, Bolivia, etc...

These are ruthless and hardened professionals, they are people who follow orders from superiors, they are in the job for life, and they are trained not to ask why. They are each just one link in a very big chain. The price of belonging in such a chain is to do what you're told and keep your mouth shut about it...or die. It's that simple. They also usually believe that their bosses have an overall plan that is necessary for some reason in order to preserve "the American way of life", so that helps motivate them. A cog in such a machine as I'm describing only knows the one little part he does. He doesn't know the larger picture. If he has second thoughts about something he's doing, he has to consider the fact that what is at stake is his career, his family, and his very life.

Plus, there can be huge financial inducements to get people to keep their mouths shut.

Furthermore, the main media outlets are controlled by a few huge conglomerates who determine what is reported, and how, and what is not. Their business is disseminating propaganda and generating sales, not telling the public the truth (unless it's a half-truth which helps push some agenda).

If anyone in the organization "talks"...the major media will not cover it (except to discount it, scoff at it, or ridicule the person). It will only surface on some internet sites or in some books that will only be seen or read by a few people whose opinions will also be given no time in the major media.

That's how it could be done. Easily. And that may be how it is being done.

I don't know, because I'm only theorizing. I'm just saying that it can be done. The people who are in charge of the government and the major media have the means to do something like that.

If you think they wouldn't do it, you're basing that assumption on faith. If I think they would, I'm basing my assumption on faith too. I have little or no faith in the reliability of the current administration or the USA media chains. I think the people in the neocon movement, the people who put together the PNAC are capable of any atrocity to further their world gameplan, specially if they panic and think they are about to lose the whole show. I think they are capable of doing worse than 911. I think they are capable of going so far as to arrange an act of nuclear terrorism in a city on North American soil. If so, it would probably be a very "liberal" city that normally votes heavily Democratic (as most big cities do). That's what you call killing two birds with one stone. In such a case, who would get the official blame for it in the American media? Iran, naturally. It would be said that Iran had sent agents, perhaps allying itself with Al Queda, and that those agents had planted the bomb. As for where the mysterious bomb came from...there could be speculation that it came from a number of possible places, such as: former Soviet Union countries, North Korea, Pakistan, or Iran itself.

If such a theory was put forth on the main American media outlets, most Americans would buy it, and you would very quickly have another war on your hands, only an even much worse one than Iraq.

All these things are possible to arrange. It only takes a few men in powerful places who are sufficiently ruthless. I believe we have such men in the US government.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 04:45 PM

By the way, take a look at this if you haven't already:

Mercenaries get the job done...

Just another example of how this administration does its work.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 04:49 PM

The third possibility is that Bush knew SOMEthing would happen to allow him to get into Afghanistan but didn't know exactly WHAT would happen. Hence, his shock in the Florida classroom and his stunned silence for over five minutes. I think he was in what's generally called a blue funk.

Oddly enough, despite my belief that 9/11 involved some Americans at a high level, I do not think Bush was one of them. I agree with Ebbie. He is stupid to the point of being really stupid, but I don't perceive him to be evil. Some of his handlers I do see as being evil. Completely. Totally amoral bastards with agendas and goals to take over a planet--or maybe just a half of it.

I also realize that Mission Impossible was just a TV show. The retrofitting of explosives would be difficult. But someone called off NORAD. Someone gave information before the event, and the info was ignored. I don't doubt that 9/11 also contributed to the 'righteous' invasion of Iraq. Hell, Congress bought it. So did a majority of the American people. What I do know is this: we, the general public don't know jack shit about 9/11. Neither those who think it was a terrorist attack nor those who think it was a US Government attack to rally support for the Bush administration. I do not believe the Commission's report. Nor do I believe much of what Froth has posted.

But I for sure don't believe this administration has clean hands to do with it either.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 04:58 PM

Your "third" possibility is one that occurred to me also, Peace. I think he did expect something to occur to enable him to go to war...but I don't think he expected it to be that. He looked stunned to me.

Here's a quote from the stuff about Blackwater, the private paramilitary contractors who are killing people for the Bush administration in Iraq and elsewhere:

Our Mercenaries in Iraq: Blackwater Inc and Bush's Undeclared Surge. Democracy Now! [Friday, January 26th, 2007.]

On Tuesday, five employees of the private security firm Blackwater USA were killed in a violent Baghdad neighborhood. Hours later, President Bush used his State of the Union address to call on what some are calling an undeclared surge of private mercenaries in Iraq. We speak with Jeremy Scahill, author of the forthcoming "Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army."

About the book:
Meet BLACKWATER USA, the world's most secretive and powerful mercenary firm. Based in the wilderness of North Carolina, it is the fastest-growing private army on the planet with forces capable of carrying out regime change throughout the world. Blackwater protects the top US officials in Iraq and yet we know almost nothing about the firm's quasi-military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and inside the US. Blackwater was founded by an extreme right-wing fundamentalist Christian mega-millionaire ex- Navy Seal named Erik Prince, the scion of a wealthy conservative family that bankrolls far-right-wing causes.

Blackwater is the dark story of the rise of a powerful mercenary army, ranging from the blood-soaked streets of Fallujah to rooftop firefights in Najaf to the hurricane-ravaged US gulf to Washington DC, where Blackwater executives are hailed as new heroes in the war on terror. This is an extraordinary exposé by one of America's most exciting young radical journalists.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 05:03 PM

The thought I had at the time I first saw Bush in that chair just frozen (right after he received the news about the attacks on the Twin Towers) was that he had the look of a man who was bewildered and shocked. Almost like someone had said, "We will do something to rouse the American people, but we will leave you out of the loop so that you can't ever say you had warning." That was what I though looking at Bush back then, and nothing has happened to change that view for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 06:29 PM

I change my nomination to Rosie for Prez and Boy George for Veep!

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 06:53 PM

If you are limiting yourself to two or three possiblities, you are shutting your mind to other options that can lead to the truth.

My thought was that when Bush sat their in silence, he was truly bewildered and had no clue as to what a president was supposed to do. In those early days, you did not hear him as much as you were seeing Guiliani on the TV. I think it was unscripted and spoke volumes about the ineptitude of Bush and his handlers.

If this were an inside job, that part of the script would have been handled without opening up questions.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 07:36 PM

You may well be right, Ron.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,worker
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 07:40 PM

"My thought was that when Bush sat their in silence, he was truly bewildered"

Weren't we all, on that sunny September morning.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST, Ebbie
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 07:44 PM

Frankly, I don't want to live in that kind of world, as postulated. Haven't found an alternative though, yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 09:28 PM

Gosh, Ron, who ever said that I am "limiting myself to two or three possiblities"? ;-) I think there are hundreds of possibilities, and I thought that Peace's idea seemed like a reasonable one among those.

It's people who cling only to the official version of 911 who are limiting themselves....in their case: to more like one possiblity (19 Muslims with boxcutters, modern steel buildings that melt and fall down in less than 2 hours, and a giant commercial jet that makes a rather small, round hole through several armoured walls in the Pentagon and leaves behind no identifiable wing pieces, tail pieces, or jet engines. And where were the body remains of the passengers on the plane that is said to have hit the Pentagon? Did all those people who were on the hypothetical jet just...vanish into thin air? How about at Shanksville? Where were the body remains? When real commercial jets crash, no matter how hard they hit and how hot they burn, body remains are found scattered around afterward. Lots of them.

Have you ever noticed that the physical damage to the Pentagon looks a lot more like what might have been done by a cruise missile? Seen photos of the holes punched through those armoured walls? I have. The nose of a commercial jet is not armoured, and it has little or no armour piercing capability. The heavy wing-mounted engines, however, would have punched their way in on either side of the central hole. There is no evidence in any photos I've seen of their having done so. What did they do on impact, vaporize?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 09:54 PM

"Gosh, Ron, who ever said that I am "limiting myself to two or three possiblities"?"

You did when you said "Ron, there are 2 general possibilities here. " You did not say that there were hundreds of possibilities, you limited it to two.

"It's people who cling only to the official version of 911 who are limiting themselves"
I agree 100%

"And where were the body remains of the passengers on the plane that is said to have hit the Pentagon? "
They found body remains and there are photographs of the remains.

"Did all those people who were on the hypothetical jet just...vanish into thin air? "
You make an ASSUMPTION that it was a hypothetical jet. That is a critical leap of faith that you need to make in order for the theory to work, especially in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

"When real commercial jets crash, no matter how hard they hit and how hot they burn, body remains are found scattered around afterward. Lots of them."
Aside from the fact that there WERE remains found, most commercial jet crashes occure AFTER the pilot makes attempts to save the flight - not when it is flying 500 miles an hour into a building.

"Have you ever noticed that the physical damage to the Pentagon looks a lot more like what might have been done by a cruise missile?"
Have you seen a lot of cruise missle damage into buildings? Have you also seen a lot of airplanes fly into buildings at that speed? Can you make a judgement based on personal experience and knowledge, or are you making an assumption based on what others have told you?

"There is no evidence in any photos I've seen of their having done so."
Look harder, but don't expect to find a lot. Again, for your theory to work you have to disregard the possible damage a jet flying at that speed straight into a building can cause.

You are also asking people to believe that a cruise missle would have been fired into the Pentagon during morning rush hour in Washington DC. Have you ever driven by the Pentagon? Do you realize how difficult that would be to pull off?

Nothing is impossible, but when you cling to theories that have the least probability of being true, you end up missing the truth.

Perhaps Shatner was flying the plane?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 10:02 PM

That part of the pentagon had just been reinforced, too. They "finished the job" the day before. It was some kind of drone craft or a cruise missile. Most likely a Global Hawk. Inventory of those was incomplete on that day.

GWBush didn't know about 9/11. He couldn't be trusted with a secret like that. He started to realize what was going on when Card whispered to him. The curious thing, though, is that the Secret Service didn't snatch him out of there. The U.S. under attack, the president in a public place with his day's itinerary known worldwide, yet the Secret Service didn't remove him to a place of safety? They didn't move him because someone who had the power to override default procedural orders told them to let him continue reading his goat story. To me that sounds like satanic old Rumsfeld's touch...having Bush read a fucking kid's story about a mystical satanic animal while Rummy is sacrificing 3000+ to Lucifer.

And it has now come to light that they're filling in potholes on the streets of New York and New Jersey with the "landfill" from the WTC sites, so that just makes me MORE resolved to never drop this. They're lining up for WW3 as I type, and people are just "tired" of the "pain." They're paving streets with the bones of the 9/11 victims.

Oh, here, someone wants to say hi...

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_woman.html

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 10:14 PM

You know, lots of sites provide proof completely counter to the official govt version, Olesko. It's the GOVERNMENT that hasn't presented its case. So why don't you tend to some of these details? Where are all these photos of bodies and such? Post links to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: bobad
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 10:29 PM

# Review the facts

# Size of 757 matches the initial size of hole in the building - somewhere between 13 and 16 feet (757 is 13 feet wide/high)

# Rims found in building match those of a 757

# Small turbine engine outside is an APU

# Same engine has been clearly stated to not match a Global Hawk engine

# Blue seats from 757 laying on ground in photos

# Part of "American" fuselage logo visible in more than 1 photo

# Engine parts photographed inside match a Rolls-Royce RB211

# Structural components photographed in wreckage match Boeing paint primer schemes

# Large deisel generator in front of building hit by a large heavy object

# Large deisel engine outside is spun >towards the building - could not be result of bomb blast or missile explosion

# Multiple eye witnesses say they saw an airliner

# Multiple eye witnesses say they saw an airliner hit the Pentagon

# 60+ bodies, matching the passenger list and flight crew roster identified and returned to families from Pentagon wreckage

Photos, testimonials, eyewitness accounts

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 10:51 PM

I've seen that site. It's not convincing. Your bulleted points assert things as truth and "proven" that aren't. Suspect photos, shoddy work, ads for viagra.

But now HERE'S an interesting site:

http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/02/article_tro.htm

No Arabs were on Flight 77. Look at this article. The guy's a PhD, a psychiatrist, and he pieced this together with Freedom of Information Act requests.

What do the pre-fab government debunking sites say about this? There may be some perfectly logical explanation for no Arab DNA being found, but I haven't looked up the latest on this story in a while. I know...after these 4 or 5 Rambos with their boxcutters saw that they really could defy the laws of physics and fly the 757 just feet off the ground at near-mach speed, they kicked out some windows and jumped. Yeah. Then they did one of those jumping-off-the-train landings where they ran as fast as they could in the direction of travel until they were able to slow down and stop. And that, boys and girls, is why there was no Arab DNA at the Pentagon.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 11:06 PM

Froth, I'm detecting frustration in your post - as witnessed by your last message where you choose to call me only by my last name, as if you felt that was some sort of disrespect and it made you appear tougher than we all you know you are capable of being.   When you choose to attack me instead of debating my points, you merely show that your case is weak and you have no proof.

You have yet to show a site that has "proof". They are offering theories, and these theories have been shot down by lack of logic, evidence and scientific principles.

The picture of the woman in the WTC that you offered shows a person on the impact side of one of the towers. That plane was traveling at a high rate and physical evidence has shown the fires at the core and the other side.   Check out these photos:
WTC fires

I'm not sure where you were on 9/11, but I can introduce you to numerous witnesses that will tell you about the smoke they saw. One person was my wife. The burning towers were real.

I can admit it is very hard to understand how these towers could fall. If you like pictures, and have a few minutes to read, perhaps this page will give you some information. Decide for yourself.
http://www.debunking911.com/towers.htm


Here is another page about the Pentagon showing airplane parts and bodies. I will grant you that the photos do not indicate whether or not the bodies were from the plane or in the Pentagon. From what I have read, remains from the people on the plane were indeed found and buried.
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=Pentagon

None of the sites will mean anything to you Froth. Your comments are very steadfast and you truly want to believe the conspiracy happened. I will be glad to admit I'm wrong if evidence is found. I don't think you fathom the size of the consipiracy that would be needed. I am also guessing that you never visited the WTC or the Pentagon or have any idea of what the territory is like. Perhaps if you did, you would realize this is impossible.

I know you won't accept this either, but no one wants to see Bush's downfall more than I do. I would love to have proof that this was a setup. He is doing everything he can to set this country back to the stone age, and killing our young men and women as well as citizens around the globe. He is a criminal in my estimation and should never have been elected to his position.

Yet, we will never bring about his downfall by chasing after fairy tales. Dig for the truth, but don't accept a theory and THEN try to make it fit. That is a sign of a poor investigator, and your delusions of grandeur are coming across as lunatic ravings.   Get your act together and do it right.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 26 Mar 07 - 11:26 PM

hijacker DNA and remains

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 12:11 AM

No frustration here WFDU, if that's what you want to be called now. It's sad that you try to back up your claims with sites that incorporate "debunk" into their URLs. The govt actually has to identify their approved sites for their operatives now by labeling them "debunk". lol

Let's see...the CBS propaganda piece says, "...The remains that didn't match any of the samples were ruled to be the terrorists, said Chris Kelly, spokesman for the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, which did the DNA work. The nine sets of remains matched the number of hijackers believed to be on the two planes...." etc.

The remains were "ruled" to be those of the hijackers "believed" to be on the planes. That means no proof was produced. But Dr. Olmsted has proof. Sorry, you fail to convince yet again, WDFU. The govt is definitely NOT getting good value for money out of you.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 07:47 AM

LH,

"through several armoured walls in the Pentagon and leaves behind no identifiable wing pieces, tail pieces, or jet engines. And where were the body remains of the passengers on the plane that is said to have hit the Pentagon? Did all those people who were on the hypothetical jet just...vanish into thin air? How about at Shanksville? Where were the body remains? When real commercial jets crash, no matter how hard they hit and how hot they burn, body remains are found scattered around afterward. Lots of them.

Have you ever noticed that the physical damage to the Pentagon looks a lot more like what might have been done by a cruise missile? Seen photos of the holes punched through those armoured walls? I have. The nose of a commercial jet is not armoured, and it has little or no armour piercing capability. The heavy wing-mounted engines, however, would have punched their way in on either side of the central hole. There is no evidence in any photos I've seen of their having done so. What did they do on impact, vaporize? "

See bodad's post.

Did you SEE the damage?

Who told you the walls were armoured?

How do you explain the parts, engines, and bodies away, when so many people saw them?

Have you even looked to see WHERE the plane came in, and how many people would have seen it?

As for the terrorists on that plane, a friend of mine was the American Airlines agent who sold them the tickets- and lost several friends on that flight. Yes, he was interviewed by the 9/11 commission. No, he has STILL not recovered from 9/11, IMO.

Have all the conspiracy theories you want, but stop rtrying to change the facts to match what you think could have happened.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 08:42 AM

"And where were the body remains of the passengers on the plane that is said to have hit the Pentagon? Did all those people who were on the hypothetical jet just...vanish into thin air? How about at Shanksville? Where were the body remains?"


"In New York, where the monumental task of identifying the remains of 2,823 victims believed to be dead continues, no remains have been linked to the 10 hijackers who crashed two airliners into the World Trade Center. About half the victims' families still are waiting for their loved ones to be identified, though it's likely many never will be because so much of the site was incinerated.

In contrast, the remains of all 40 victims in the Pennsylvania crash and all but five of the 184 victims at the Pentagon site were identified months ago. "

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/08/17/attack/main519033.shtml

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 09:41 AM

Froth, you can call me Ron. I admire your perseverence but find it disturbing that people like you won't open up to the truth when faced with reality.

I find it sad that you are so paranoid that you feel that "debunk" is a government approved website. How are you so sure that the conspiracy websites are not government approved? You ask that we respect the "proof" that you present, yet we we present something you immediately call it "propaganda" or "government approved".   That shows your bias and that you lack the ability to reason for yourself. You have been cutting and pasting reports, often without reading what you are sharing. You try to speak as if you are an authority and make definitive statements, but in reality you have very little to work with and have been unable to backup ANY of your claims.   The sad reality that you won't face is that your theories cannot stand up to scrutiny and it is becoming evident that there is very little chance that any of this was "set up" by the government.

I've said it before and I will say it again. You are paying attention to the wrong story. You were directed to take an exit ramp off the information highway and now you have reached a dead end and you refuse to ask for directions.   I truly believe that you and the others were guided to follow this flight of fancy for the sole purpose of distracting from the real story - the governments ineptitude in preventing this from happening. We were outsmarted by a group of men with money and boxcutters. That appears to be the sad reality. We are also being distracted from stopping the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.   If the efforts of all the conspiracy theorists were focused on stopping the war, perhaps there would have been more effect.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: bobad
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 10:16 AM

I agree with you Ron, all this focus on far-fetched conspiracies is conveniently distracting from finding out who, in the upper echelons, fucked up. As is usually the case when something goes wrong to this magnitude there are people who were asleep at the switch and the cover ups begin. It is in the interest of those who fucked up to keep the wild theories fermenting as this puts the hounds off their scent.

I believe we are not being told everything that the government knows but the purpose is to protect their own who came up short when they should have taken action on the information they had. As is most often the case in human tragedies the cause is one of human failure.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 01:40 PM

No one fucked up. The job went off as planned. Only question is, who did the job? Even if it was 19 men with boxcutters, they were U.S.-trained govt agents. That's been proven. And if it wasn't 19 men with boxcutters, then who?

There are 3 possibilities:
1) 9/11 was the result of sheer incompetence
2) the govt knew in advance and Let it happen on purpose (LHOP)
3) the govt Made it happen on purpose (MHOP)

Two pieces of information prove it was #3:

Control of NORAD was transferred to the Dept of Defense on June 1, 2001 and then transferred back to the military after 9/11. The system had not been tampered with for half a century, so why was Dick Cheney in charge of NORAD on 9/11?   And Norman Mineta (#1 Transportation man in the U.S.) heard Cheney discussing override orders as one of the planes neared its targets. He told Congress that.

There are hundreds of other facts that bear out govt responsibility, but the investigation continues to stall. Bush took over a year to appoint a gangster-ridden partisan coverup committee, and not one member of an affected family was on the committee. The matter was hushed up with an absurdly incomplete "final report" that didn't even mention "unimportant" incidents like the collapse of WTC 7.

I find it interesting how the left-wing is now adopting the myths and proclivities of the right-wing. Now that the left feels it's about to come into some power, you lefties are suddenly defending GWBush's version of 9/11. And you're discouraging investigations. By doing this, you're also endorsing the wars of aggression that 9/11 led to.

You may not realize this change in your thinking is happening, but you need to consider it. Why is all the evil perpetrated under Bush suddenly becoming palatable to you? Answer: you're afraid the 9/11 truth movement will bring down the people in power when "your" people are in power. And that's bad thinking. Don't start defending the Bushes now. By supporting GWBush's version of events, you're supporting the terrorists who have seized the U.S. govt. Deal with your hypocrisy now, before a change in leadership occurs. The govt's attacks of 9/11 were bad, no matter which head of the single-party system you support.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 01:48 PM

"? Even if it was 19 men with boxcutters, they were U.S.-trained govt agents. That's been proven."

Really??? Claimed, I would believe. But PROVED??? Not here- please feel free to provide some proof of your statement.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 01:57 PM

"Why is all the evil perpetrated under Bush suddenly becoming palatable to you?"

Who ever said that????????????????????????????    You can put words into the mouths of others, but don't try to put words in my mouth.

"I find it interesting how the left-wing is now adopting the myths and proclivities of the right-wing. Now that the left feels it's about to come into some power, you lefties are suddenly defending GWBush's version of 9/11. And you're discouraging investigations. By doing this, you're also endorsing the wars of aggression that 9/11 led to."

You are twisting reality and showing that you have no concept of what being "to the left" really means. Being liberal and keeping an open mind does not mean you follow a dogmatic principle such as you are doing.   Defending right and wrong does not mean blindly agreeing or disagreeing with a statement just because of who said it.   In your analogy above, you would vehemently disagree if George Bush declared that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

YOU CAN'T IGNORE THE TRUTH, NO MATTER WHO IS SAYING IT.

Think for yourself. You are not a liberal or a progressive, you are a lemming if you choose to only follow what someone else tells you. GROW UP AND THINK!!!

And no one is discouraging investigation, but I am against wasting time and money. I would not spend money to investigate if there is a Santa Claus, nor would I waste money investigating something that evidence and logic shows does not have merit.   Your preach as if it were fact, when you damn well know there is no truth to what you are saying. You are a fakir. What is your point?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 01:58 PM

BeardedBruce - they were "trained" in the U.S. to be pilots. In this poor fools mind that makes them "trained U.S. agents". He is playing spin doctor with words.

By the way, if he offers you a glass of Kool-aid, I would advise to pass.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 02:10 PM

It is possible, Ron, that some of the existing conspiracy theories have been covertly invented BY the government as deliberate misinformation simply to distract people...as you say...and to help discredit all other conspiracy theories merely by association. ;-) Man, I wouldn't past it past some clever Black Ops people to lay a few false trails just to muddy the waters.

I still think Dick Cheney and some other high-ups in the administration were probably in on it, however. I think Giuliani probably was too. and Rumsfeld. I think Bush himself was at least partially in the dark as to what was going on...if not wholly so. In any case, what happened allowed those guys, Bush included, to set in motion exactly the international events they had been planning on for quite a number of years. It was so fortuitous for the planners of the PNAC that I find it hard to believe that they didn't have a hand in making it happen.

This is my opinion. I wouldn't claim to have proof. I'm in no position to have proof, and I know no way of determining if or when the media and government are telling me the truth about anything.

I am aware how completely powerless I am to determine if or when they are telling me the truth or not. Maybe a lot of other people are not aware of their powerlessness in that respect, and they cover their vulnerability over with a sense of certainty. I wonder? I fully expect to die and never find out for sure if they were telling the truth or not, just like I'll never find out for sure the whole truth about the Kennedy assassination either. Or about most things like that.

I accept the fact that I'm not going to ever know the whole truth, although (like anyone) I very much want to. I don't like it much, but I face it and I accept it. How many people do? How many people's absolute certainty about this or that...their loud and strong opinions...are an instinctive psychological defence reaction to the fact that in truth they don't know what's going on and they are never going to. Not knowing is scary. It's easier just to be in denial all the time and imagine that you DO know what's going on, because you heard it on the News and the guys that read the News wouldn't repeat a lie, would they?

Oh yes, they would. They could. And they frequently do (whether they know it or not). They read what they're told to read.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 02:19 PM

"Being liberal and keeping an open mind does not mean you follow a dogmatic principle such as you are doing."

Seems you're following the dogma with your "debunk" sites, WDFU. Would you say you're being open-minded on this topic?

Let's see...the govt agent part...some of the "hijackers" roomed with an FBI agent, some airport guards testified that they were told a group of the men were agents, etc. Lots of testimony I'd have to dig up. Lost that on my other hard drive. But this information has been around for SO LONG.

Tell you what...explain to me what was going on with Cheney, NORAD and Mineta, and I'll do the searches on the govt-agent stuff again. But FIRST you people need to come to grips with Dick Cheney and NORAD. That situation is the capper. It removes the zombie's head and makes all further discussion unnecessary. So tell me what was going on there and then we'll get to the agent stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 02:20 PM

"Not knowing is scary. It's easier just to be in denial all the time and imagine that you DO know what's going on, because you heard it on the News and the guys that read the News wouldn't repeat a lie, would they?"

It depends on who you think is in denial.   I could easily say that conspiracy theorists are in denial.

It is easy to relate to a fanciful story if that can relieve you of your fears, or make your worst fears come true.   Sometimes it is hard to accept reality, and that is when we start blindly looking for answers that fit our preconceived notions.

As for the news, I've worked in the industry and I know better than to believe what I hear on the news.   Yes, they do report back lies when given to them - but the better journalists check their sources and look for a second source to verify.

You are wrong when you say that they read what they are told to read. No news network that I've ever been in has that ability to fake a story in the fashion that has been suggested. There are too many different news organizations and thousands of reporters that would need to be "in" on the fix. You just do not realize how many people are involved in preparing a story for air.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 02:30 PM

But you never know where the tipping point will be, Little Hawk. All a person can do is pound away on the facts and hope that people wake up one by one. Someday one of those folks might make the difference.

The establishment is terrified now. Openly lying on TV. Saying the WTC towers were nothing but a steel skin and a bunch of 6-inch floors inside. "And what happened that day is, when that melted, that went down, and it became like potato chips...." lol. Morons can't even remember it's called the pancake theory, not the potato chip theory. (Hey! It just occurred to me the govt's admitting to a "theory" of the collapse).

It's a battle for the minds of the viewers, and the establishment has now resorted to BLATANT falsehoods. And if they would tell a lie like that (about the structure of the WTC towers), what other lies would they tell?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 02:34 PM

Frorth,

The nice thing about 'the establishment' is that damned near ANYone can be said to speak for it. So when one person gets caught talkin' shit--hey, another can come along and say, "Uh, he doesn't speak for us." Then someone else takes the piss. Very convenient.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 02:37 PM

"Would you say you're being open-minded on this topic?"

Absolutely.   Could you say the same thing after immediately referring to "debunk" sites as government plants? You may not be able to grasp this, but you have shown all of us that you have a preconceived notion and deny anything that is counter.

NORAD? That is an example of our ineptitude. The failure of the FAA to get timely notification to NORAD to interecept shows one of our weaknesses.   Dick Cheney was involved in the war games that were taking place that day, but there is no credible evidence showing that he had, or could have done anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 03:25 PM

Ron, I keep getting the sense that you are missing my philosophical drift and thereby missing my point. I am suggesting that most people are in denial all the time, regardless of whether or they believe the government OR the conspiracy theorists. I am suggesting that most people would rather cover up their extreme lack of real knowledge of what is going on with an outer facade of certainty and a strong opinion. I am suggesting that it has always been that way and probably always will be.

To put it simply: most people would be absolutely terrified to admit to themselves or others how little they really know, so they spend their whole lives pontificating and grandstanding about stuff as if they did know, because that makes them feel a lot more secure.

I've been watching people do it ever since I was a little kid, and it's a sorry thing to see.

As for Cheney and his friends, Ron...I doubt that they are as inept as you think (except in the sense of moral ineptitude).

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 03:32 PM

Little Hawk, I do get your drift - but I also think that comment can have a negative effect on those that do try to search for the truth and look at both sides. It also becomes an easy answer to negate a person who has come to some sort of conclusion after a lot of searching.

I don't think any of us, except for maybe Froth, have closed our minds to any option.

As for Cheney & crew, perhaps they are more calculating than I give them credit for - but they are still human beings, and they have shown flaws. I sincerely doubt that Dead Eye Dick Cheney could pull this off when he can't even shoot a gun properly.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 03:36 PM

By the way, while I never like playing "what if" games, I do wonder what the outcome would have been if we shot down all the planes before they hit their targets?   I can imagine there would have been an outcry against killing innocent civilians during a hijacking.   Previous to 9/11, our policies were not really clear - and post 9/11 they have become and incredible attack on our freedoms in a vain attempt to correct mistakes.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 03:43 PM

So what. I have heard with my own ears the recording of the emergency band radios with the fire chief asking, "Shall we pull it?"... and another voice responded "Yes pull it now!". WTC 7 then fell in its footprint.

Obviously the authorities knew what they were doing and are far more qualified than you or I in dealing with a disaster scene.

There is nothing wrong with yearning for the truth but demanding the truth at all costs, is costly.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 04:33 PM

Would that member speaking through many Guest hats please come clean? What the hell are you afraid of?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 05:37 PM

"I do wonder what the outcome would have been if we shot down all the planes before they hit their targets?"

Yeah, that is one to ponder, Ron. It's unlikely that action would have been taken though, until at least one plane had deliberately struck a target and it was realized by the military what was going on. I mean, look, I wouldn't shoot down a hijacked airliner until I had very strong reasons to believe that it was the ONLY course of action possible to prevent many more lives being lost than just those on that airplane. However, suppose it had been done. Suppose they had shot down all those airliners...or all except one of them.

I think the outcome would have been absolute shock and horror on the part of the whole country at the loss of civilian life (which would have certainly included anger at the US military for possibly "jumping the gun")...that it would, however, very soon have been blamed on Osama Bin Laden and Al Queda...that public anger would have then have mostly shifted to them as the guilty parties...and that the attack on Afghanistan would have gone forward in exactly the same way as it did. And later the attack on Iraq as well.

No appreciable difference to foreign policy, but a more than appreciable difference to the WTC buildings, the Pentagon, and almost 3,000 dead Americans who would not have died on that day.

A preferable result, in other words, but still not too good on the whole.

Mind you, I think they had other reasons to knock down the WTC (financial reasons), and I think they had reasons to have as big and publicly shocking an event as possible, something that could be seen on live TV. You can't do that nearly as effectively by just shooting down some airliners.

It's like...suppose (just for the sake of argument) that the Americans on Dec 7 '41 had intercepted the oncoming Japanese carrier force (or its aircraft in the air) and destroyed them before they had a chance to hit Pearl Harbour? What if? Would it have worked as well as a psychological motivator to mobilize an entire nation as the historical Japanese attack on the harbour and the spectacular sinking of the Arizona and those other ships did?

Hell no. You need a real sense of damage to get people damn angry. That requires suffering a very visible surprise attack by someone and taking significant losses. FDR needed that report from that radar station on Oahu to be ignored or discounted when they saw the Japanese planes coming in! I'm not saying that necessarily proves it was planned that way...I'm just pointing out how these events work psychologically, and what is required to enrage an entire nation and make them forget about anything except striking back.

The Neocons had a more difficult proposition on their hands than FDR in '41. He knew he could provoke another nation-state into striking the first blow militarily...but there was no way that the USA could get Afghanistan or Iraq to attack the USA like that. It was not even logistically possible. So they had a more subtle problem on their hands if they wanted a war, and it required the existence of shadowy undercover killers to do it (whether or not they were foreign or domestic-based). If Osama didn't exist, they would have had to invent him... ;-) If Saddam didn't exist, they might have had to invent him too. Ditto for Ahmadinejad.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Ebbie
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 05:52 PM

Question: IF the US government created/allowed the WTC disaster, why didn't they blame Saddam from the start? Why have Saudi hijackers? The Saudis are our 'friends'- why risk that friendship?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 06:26 PM

It depends on whether they created the situation...or simply facilitated it, Ebbie, but here's why it was Afghanistan.

The USA had been negotiating with the Taliban in the summer of 2001 and had offered them (off the record) this choice: "a carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs". Over what? Over the fact that the USA wanted to move in American contractors to build a major oil pipeline through Afghanistan in order to move oil from the Caspian region through to the Indian Ocean. The Taliban said "No". They refused to cooperate. That was when the decision was made to invade Afghanistan. From that point on it was necessary to create media coverage that would motivate the American people to support an unprovoked war on Afghanistan. Various stories had been in the media already, like the destruction of those ancient Buddhist statues and the mistreatment of Afghan women, but none of those stories were big enough to get the American people to back a war. Something much bigger was needed.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 06:33 PM

Blaming FDR for starting World War II is a favorite sport of those who hated his domestic policies (the "New Deal," and imposing regulations on businesses that had run the country into a major depression by operating solely on the basis of runaway greed). In fact, it is such a popular sport that even those who favored FDR's reforms seem to believe the allegations. And that's all they are:   allegations. No proof, beyond merely having heard the allegations so many times that they may seem to true by "virtue" of repetition alone. Little Hawk, as a student of World War II, you might want to take a look at this web site. Clicky. Among other things, it contains the following item:

MYTH : The Opana Point Radar reported the Japanese attack 1 hour before the planes arrived over the harbor, but Adm. Kimmel refused to do anything about it.

FACT: Pvts. Eliot and Lockard were manning the radar at Opana Point. They noticed a large blip on the scope and call in to the as-yet not fully functional Fighter Information Center. Pvt. McDonald took the call and located the sole officer at the Center and asked him to call the operators back. Lt. Kermit Tyler, having ending his first tour of training at the newly established Fighter Control Center, received the report and, thinking it was a flight of B-17s due in from the mainland, told the operators to "forget it." The report went no higher than that. Interestingly enough, the new radars tracked the planes coming and going, but the Army did not tell the Navy about this pointer to the Japanese carriers until the 8th, a fact which quite possibly saved our carriers.

There are only a few people who were actually involved in either the sighting or the establishment of the Fighter Information Center. Privates Lockard and Elliot were at Opana Point, Pvt. McDonald and Lt. Tyler were in the FIC. Other "interested parties" were Col. Bergquist, who with Col. Tindal established the FIC, and Cmdr. Taylor, USN, who was in Hawaii to teach the Navy how to use radar (and was on "loan" to the Army for the same purpose on Dec. 7th.) All of their testimonies are now vailable. Links to relevant documents.

By the way, I was pretty young at the time, but old enough to have a good idea of what was in the news. There was a Japanese diplomatic party in Washington, D. C. at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack. It was essentially a kamikazi mission. Their purpose was to lull the American government into "diplomacy mode" and divert attention from the coming sucker-punch.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 27 Mar 07 - 11:10 PM

Please, Don. I am NOT blaming FDR for starting WWII!!! Jesus Murphy. If I were to assign blame for starting WWII, I would blame Adolf Hitler for it. He should have left Poland alone. Secondarily, I would blame the Japanese for a lengthy and totally irresponsible policy of engaging in aggression in East Asia, starting with their first incursions into Korea, expanding into war with China, invading mainland China, and finally attacking the USA, Britain and the Dutch East Indies. Thirdly, I would blame Mussolini, for various other illegal acts of aggression. THAT's who I blame for WWII, not FDR.

I am simply saying that FDR wanted very much to get the USA into that war ASAP, primarily to defeat Germany, and to do that he needed to somehow get Japan to attack the USA first because he had an isolationist Congress and public who did not want to get into any foreign war.

So FDR deliberately created a situation where the Japanese definitely would attack America, and he knew it, as did the American military...the only thing they weren't quite sure of (I would assume) was exactly how, where, and when the Japanese would make the initial attacks. They were expecting it to come anytime from late November '41. They knew the Phillipines would get hit for sure. They may not have been so sure about Hawaii.

I am fully aware that Kimmel never got the radar report, because it never got past a minor officer who thought it was a flight of B-17s from California. I was not implying that it was deliberately according to plan that that happened. It was simply a misjudgement by a minor officer.

I was saying, however, that Roosevelt needed a major provocation to get his public and Congress onside for getting into a world war...and he got it. This was very helpful to Roosevelt's overall gameplan.

I am not in any way opposed to Roosevelt's economic and social policies, I think he did a great job with the New Deal. I am not in principle opposed to him finding a way to go to war with Germany and Japan in '41, even if it involved pushing one of them into attacking first, because I think he basically did what needed to be done at the time.

I was simply raising examples of what may or may not be fortuitious when one wants to get one's public in a mood for war. My example was not meant as a heavy moral judgement against FDR.

In Bush's case, he also got his major provocation...but not by the armed forces of a foreign country! It was by a small secret group of conspirators (either foreign...or homegrown...or both), and it is totally illegitimate to attack any foreign country because of a criminal act by a small independently acting group or organization of conspirators.

Therefore I do make a heavy moral judgement against the Bush administration for attacking Afghanistan, and later Iraq. Neither Afghanistan nor Iraq have ever attacked the USA, and they should not have been attacked by the USA.

I was recounting the WWII story simply as an analogy on what governments can and may do to get a public in a war mood, that's all.

Don, I am a nut on WWII history. I never subscribed to any such silly myth such as the one you quote about Kimmel.

By the way, there's an interesting twist to the Japanese diplomatic mission in Washington on Dec 7. They had received a lengthy message from Tokyo, by wireless, which they were supposed to translate and give to the American ambassador, very shortly prior to the scheduled time of the first attacks hitting Pearl Harbor. It was in code. Their office staff had such a hard time transcribing the coded message that they were unable to deliver the message on time. They were only able to present it to the American ambassador after Pearl had already been hit. The message was essentially an ultimatum, amounting to a declaration of war. This would technically make the attack NOT a sneak attack (as the Japanese reasoned it). This was their idea of saving face. As it turned out, the Japanese ambassador was totally humiliated. He had failed to deliver the message on time, thus disgracing himself and his country. I'm not saying that this in any way justified the Japanese or excused what they did, I'm just saying it's an interesting insight into their complex notions of honor.

The Americans wouldn't have given a damn anyway if they'd got the ultimatum an hour or so before the attack or even a day before. ;-) They'd have been just as mad as ever about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 01:02 AM

Little Hawk, would you please give your source for your 6:26 post?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 01:13 AM

The source may be 'Bin Laden, la verité interdite' by Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie. (I didn't know that, but Mr Google is my friend.)

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 02:08 AM

I recall reading it in any number of different sources over the last few years, Ebbie. I mean there were a whole bunch of them. Danged if I recall specifically who and when, it's just part of the general background I'm familiar with by now about that war, only I do recall this: it wasn't Bin Laden that I am quoting. ("a carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs") ;-) It was various American sources, I believe. And it might have been some British sources as well, but I'm not sure. The Afghans were offered a deal which it was felt they could not refuse. They refused.

I'll see if I can find one of those sources maybe tomorrow sometime.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 01:36 PM

"At one moment during the negotiations, the US representatives told the Taliban, 'either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs,'" Brisard said in an interview in Paris.

http://www.atimes.com/c-asia/CK20Ag01.html

The main intent behind invading Afghanistan was to build pipelines to China...oil and natural gas. One of the pipeline projects was headed by former mayor of San Francisco, Willie Brown. I believe this is now the largest natural gas pipeline in the world. Pumping in fuel to make China the most powerful economy in the world.

Let me go over the Cheney situation again. Pretend you're a prosecutor looking for a suspect in the 9/11 murders, and this information comes to your attention:

1) A document was produced a year before 9/11. The PNAC document. It lays out a new middle-east strategy calling for warfare and says a Pearl Harbor like event will be needed to get Americans behind the plan.

2) That PNAC document is on the desks of Dick Cheney, members of the Bush family and others.

3) Dick Cheney refuses to cooperate with investigators who want records of his Energy Task Force meetings. It later comes out that those meetings re-drew the map of who would own what in the Iraqi oil fields...someday.

4) June 1, 2001, control of NORAD is handed over to the Dept of Defense. NORAD has been under military control since it was set up a half century before.

5) On the morning of 9/11, Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta observes Dick Cheney monitoring air activity, and he hears Cheney issue override orders regarding one of the hijacked planes. He testifies to this before congress.

6) After the attacks, control of NORAD is given back to the military.

7) When congress demands an immediate investigation into 9/11, Dick Cheney says there WILL be another attack if the administration is "distracted" by an investigation.

8) Flight control tapes and records are shredded, thousands of gag orders are issued by the Executive Branch.

If you were a prosecutor, what would you infer about Dick Cheney? If you were on a grand jury, would you vote to charge him for complicity in 9/11? Be honest.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 01:43 PM

Greater minds than mine weighed in on the PNAC proposal.

Great statesmen like Danny Qualye signed the PNAC mission statement document as if it were the new US Constitution.

In many ways it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 02:38 PM

Little Hawk, I wasn't trying to imply that you were passing on the canard about FDR knowingly allowing that Pearl Harbor attack (some people maintaining that he knew exactly when and where it was going to happen, right down to the serial numbers on the tails of the Japanese planes [if any]). And I'm aware that you're very knowledgeable about WWII and if I have any questions about the subject, I know you're the person to ask.

Calling on my young memory of the times, I heard a lot of people (my father included) who, somewhat appalled at what the Japanese were doing in China, and regarding them as nearly as dangerous as Germany was in Europe—ambitions to conquer the world—were glad when the United States stopped selling scrap metal to Japan to be made into weapons to use on other countries. There may have been a lot of other things that pissed Japan off at the U. S., but as I recall, at the time, this was considered to be a biggy. There may have been other "provocations" (you're probably more up on that than I am), but not everyone in the U. S. was indifferent to what was going on in Europe and Asia.

What has me grinding my teeth is when neo-cons try to draw a parallel between Roosevelt's seeing the necessity of getting the United States involved in the war to try to stop the Axis cancer from growing and engulfing the world, and Bush's preemptively invading another country that was not the base for al Qaeda and terrorist attacks in general;   in fact, Bush and his cohorts knew perfectly well that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden hated each other's guts. Al Quada's activity such as the attack on the World Trade Center was a criminal act, not an act of war, and should have been responded to as such.

Trying to compare Bush with Roosevelt is like trying to compare a yapping jackal with a lion.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 04:19 PM

I agree entirely with all that, Don. ;-)

As to the provocations FDR employed against Japan in '41, I believe there were basically 2 really serious ones.

1. He cut off their supplies of American scrap metal...quite serious, because they needed that to build their warships and other equipment.

2. He cut off their overseas oil sources! This was the decisive move, and it absolutely guaranteed that the Japanese would go to war against Britain, America, and Holland (Free Dutch forces)...their objective, to secure the huge oilfields in the Dutch East Indies. Without that oil their military machine would grind to a halt in about one year, and it was inconceivable that they would allow this to happen when they had already committed the resources of the nation to a major war in China. There was no going back for the Japanese at that point, because it is not in their national character to just give up, surrender, and go home. They would fight. No doubt about it.

The only questions were, how soon would they fight? And how would they go about launching their initial attacks? And how effective would those attacks be?

I think that the USA badly underestimated the abilities of the Japanese Navy and its aircraft...so the early going was very, very tough indeed until the Japanese ran out of luck at Midway. After that it was still tough going, but the end result was inevitable. The Brits also badly underestimated their Japanese foes, and took a pounding from them. The Japanese had the world's finest navy in 1941, its finest aircraft carrier squadrons, its best torpedoes, its best naval fighter plane by far, its most rigorously trained personnel...and a cadre of battle-hardened veterans from the war in China. They were utterly deadly in 1941-42, and the American Navy had to play catchup. Assisted by breaking the Japanese code, they were able to ambush Yamamoto's carriers at Midway and score an incredible victory. After that they ground the Japanese down island by island.

By early 1943 the US Navy had become the best in the world, eclipsing the forces of Japan, and its aircraft carrier forces had become unrivalled, and still are to this day.

Admiral Yamamoto, who had gone to University in the USA, had told the Japanese Army government that if he was ordered to use the Navy to fight the USA he could run wild for 6 months to a year...after that he could guarantee nothing. It turned out to be about 6 months. His gloomy assessment was dramatically confirmed at Midway. The man was given a miserable job to do by people far less wise and prescient than himself.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Don Firth
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 06:33 PM

Little Hawk, as I read what you wrote, a lot of the details started coming back to me. I recall being glued to the radio (big console jobber with "magic eye tuner;" I was 10 when Pearl Harbor occurred) during the battle of the Coral Sea (lost the carrier Lexington) in May, '42, then the battle of Midway about a month later. Turning point.

Life Magazine. Every week, 10¢ a copy, big format, lots of pictures!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 11:22 PM

The ANSWER, you gutless morons, is that you would JAIL a suspect like Cheney and prosecute him for a MILLION death sentences.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Mar 07 - 11:58 PM

What?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 01:17 AM

Yes, Froth, I would have Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and a number of others in that admininstration arrested at this point, charged with treason, terrorism, and major war crimes, and put on trial. After that...well, that would be up to the tribunal.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 02:24 AM

"The ANSWER, you gutless morons, is that you would JAIL a suspect like Cheney and prosecute him for a MILLION death sentences.

First, your question was rhetorical, and therefore required no answer.

Second, do the words 'fuck off' mean something to you?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: balladeer
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 09:32 AM

Oh that Rosie, she sure gets stuff stirred up ....

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: catspaw49
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 10:08 AM

Froth sees a guy shift from one foot to another and immediately knows this is just a cover because he doesn't want to scratch in public and in reality the guy has the clap......and crabs! Having both of these means he is sexually active so Froth knows he is also HIV positive and when the dude clears his throat, Froth figures it to be a bad cough and assumes he is in full blown aids. And when the sun comes out from behind a cloud it makes the guy sneeze so Froth now has proof that this character is trying to infect the entire city!!!!

Seriously Froth....Go have a Coke and a smile and shut the fuck up. Hang a "Vacancy" sign on your forehead and perhaps someone will give you a brain to use that actually works.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 11:32 AM

Froth:

I wish to offer a word of avvice--unsolicited.

Basically, I enjoy the posts you make. I have read amny of them before, because I happen to think there is an attempt to take over governments, people, economies. This is not news to me. My looking into it goes back over twenty years. I do not care who thinks I'm crazy. Hell, I AM crazy. I will and do argue with Ron, Spaw, Ebbie, Don Firth (sometimes LH) and a few other people about it. But I also happen to respect them and their views. I think they are wrong. They think the same of my views. However, not you or anyone else is going to refer to them as morons simply because no one rose to your post. In short words, shove THAT up yer ass. Keep that in mind, boychik.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 01:46 PM

Oh, is this a popularity contest? What's the goal, to see who can be the most gutless, or the most moronic? You folks would make it a hard choice. Dick Cheney is guilty (a third grader playing DA for a Day would consider the points I made sufficient for an indictment), yet you can't even answer the fucking question. And the answer is SO obvious that your reluctance to acknowledge Cheney and Rumsfeld did 9/11 must be due to cowardice. You want to quibble over bullshit speculative issues and ignore the blood-smeared murderer glaring straight into your eyes. So I retract the moron designation but I have to stick with gutless. And if I had to pick a winner in that category, it would be a hard, hard choice. Cheney's getting ready to nuke Iran, so fuck your civility. You either get on the blower to your representatives and tell them to stop the war, or the world of Anglo-America is going to be dead in 5 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 01:54 PM

Tell you what: If he doesn't nuke Iran will you please piss off? You just hit my shit list, and from now on NO civility at all from me. Fuck you, shitforbrains.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 02:00 PM

BTW, I was blowin' the whistle on this on Mudcat two/three years ago. Fuck you again.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 02:05 PM

"What's the goal, to see who can be the most gutless, or the most moronic?"

Congratulations Froth, you win!


"a third grader playing DA for a Day would consider the points I made sufficient for an indictment"

Which is probably why the rest of us have learned that your points don't add up. You just don't have the guts to admit you are living a lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 10:41 PM

Thank you. Thank you for the accolades. I don't recall you blowing me 2-3 years ago Peace. Could be that it was all in your head.

Olesko once again avoids the obvious. Dick Cheney exhibited criminal demeanor before, during and after the crime. He stood to gain, he had motivation, access, means, etc. The public record alone can convict him of taking part in 9/11. You 9/11 truth deniers are a sad lot. You have enabled the trigger man of 9/11 to assume the commandant's seat for the upcoming nuking of Iran. History will revile you. My country will be destroyed because you supported an obviously criminal regine.

O'DONNELL: ...I'm saying that in America we are fed propaganda and if you want to know what's happening in the world go outside of the U.S. media because it's owned by four corporations one of them is this one. And you know what, go outside of the country to find out what's going on in our country because it's frightening. It's frightening.

HASSELBECK: So you think we're being brainwashed as a whole country? I think not. I think it's a media

O'DONNELL: Democracy is threatened in a way it hasn't been in 200 years and if America doesn't stand up we're in big trouble.

HASSELBECK: Do you believe that the government had anything to do with the attack of 9/11? Do you believe in a conspiracy in terms of the attack of 9/11?

O'DONNELL: No. But I do believe the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel. I do believe that it defies physics for the World Trade Center Tower Seven, building seven, which collapsed in on itself, it is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved, World Trade Center Seven. World Trade Center one and Two got hit by plains. Seven, miraculously, for the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible.

HASSELBECK: And who do you think is responsible for that?

O'DONNELL: I have no idea. But to say that we don't know it was imploded, that there was implosion in the demolition, is beyond ignorant. Look at the film. Get a physics expert here from Yale, from Harvard. Pick the school. It defies reason.

http://newsbusters.org/node/11710

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: balladeer
Date: 29 Mar 07 - 11:04 PM

"My country will be destroyed because you supported an obviously criminal regime."

This kind of accusation goes way beyond acceptable debate language, Froth. Clearly you're feeling upset and helpless and frustrated with the political process, but do you really think suggesting your fellow debaters are quislings will help you get your points across?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 12:04 AM

Fuck you, froth. You talk about people here being so inferior to you. Look, prickface, if you had the sense God gave a turnip, you wouldn't alienate the people who might be inclined to agree with you. It's assholes like you who make us look like fucking lunatics. YOU are as much the fucking problem as are the damned Neocons. Stop being so goddamned self-righteous. And fuck yourself while you're at it.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 12:39 AM

As to your remark: it's the last of your posts I will read. You juat ain't worth it. Your egocentric and ethnocentric shit defies logic. It is not the United States of America that stands to lose the most. It's the whole damned world that stands to lose. You sound like another colonialist worrying only about what happens to YOUR country. Idiot!

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 12:58 AM

Thinking that the USA is far more important than the whole rest of the world put together is a little pill that all American kids are given right from the day they enter 1st Grade, Peace. They are told so again and again and again that they are living in "the greatest country on Earth" and that they have more freedom and liberty and goodness and truth than any other place on Earth. They are brainwashed to go out and help conquer the world, supposedly for its own good! They are constantly being psychologically prepared for the next war. You know how many of their presidents were former generals and military men and how much it helped them get elected that they were? Quite a few. That tells you something. I know about this brainwashing and ethnocentricity firsthand, cos I went to school mostly in the USA. Being an expatriate Canadian, however, I wasn't susceptible to the barrage of political programming directed at us young minds. I questioned what very few of the others did. I knew I was being manipulated. They didn't (although some of them were woken up quite a bit by the protest movement in the 60s).

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Big Mick
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 06:27 AM

I finally understand, LH. Shit, I wish I had known this!!!! So being an expatriate kid from Canada gave you some unknown wisdom, and you had a genetic predisposition not to fall for the brainwashing that all the other kids fell for. Had I know this, I would have had my kids in Canada.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 09:19 AM

Well, I simply already had a basis of comparison, Mick. I lived in Canada from age 1 to 10. It's a very different psychological upbringing, because the root assumptions about our country and its role in the world are radically different than in the USA. We don't see ourselves as the boss/mentor/example/policeman to everyone else, telling them how they shoud live. We see ourselves as one country among many, that's all...an association of relative equals in a large and varied world. We seek accomodation, not confrontation. We do not assume the mantle of "ruling superpower".

Then we moved to upstate New York when I was 10...because of what my father considered a business opportunity at the time.

So as a younger child I had been brought up in a society that still proudly considered itself part of the British tradition. To us Canadians the Redcoats were the "good guys" of history...just like our mounted police. Suddenly I find myself transplanted into a society where the Redcoats are the "bad guys" and are vilified constantly in history classes. I become acutely aware of this right from Grade 4 on, and it just keeps getting worse. Well, that made me suspicious right away, because it went against my cultural grain, so I wasn't about to buy it.

*(In all fairness, the American revolutionaries had quite legitimate reasons to pick a fight with Great Britain in the 1770s, and you can definitely argue for the rightness of their cause. On the other hand, many colonists sided with the British at the time. They were called "Loyalists" and many of them fled to Canada at the conclusion of that war. I grew up in a country that honoured the Loyalist tradition and that had remained somewhat suspicious of the American approach to things ever since the 1770s, and that had also been attacked by the USA in 1812-1814. None of that has been forgotten.)*

So I was a natural sceptic when it came to standard American rhetoric, because it had not been implanted in me since day one of my life, and it rubbed me the wrong way. I had seen something else first. However, I had to put up with it right through till I was 21...when I moved back to Canada. I fought it every inch of the way.

And that's just a brief explanation. There was a lot more to it than that. The entire time I was in the USA I felt like an alien living in a foreign land, and I deeply missed my own country which is every bit as free as the USA (if not more so) and which is a hell of a lot less inclined to go all over the world attacking other people (although we are not completely innocent in that regard...we used to be a satellite of Imperial England and its policies...we are now a satellite of corporate America and its policies...but we remain essentially far more liberal and far less aggressive internationally than America).

America nowadays is in the same position of hubris in the world that Great Britain was in, say, 1816 to 1914...it sees itself as the dominant conquering empire and greatest financial power of its time. So far. Someone else will come along and supplant America in that role presently. Someone always does. Maybe China.

That won't necessarily be so great either...but it is as inevitable as the changing of the seasons. Empires have their day and then it's over.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 09:22 AM

Peace, don't let Froth get you upset. He/she is suffering as all of us can see from the ranting posts.   I love how he gets upset and starts using my surname as if that makes him tough. It is a well known move that troll use when they are unveiled as cowards. He/she would wet their pants if they came face to face with one of us in a real debate. The name "Froth" becomes so fitting!

Anyone that uses Rosie O'Donnell as a source of information has a warped sense or reality. Rosie has no more knowledge than any of us, but she has to build an audience in order to keep her career going. Celebrities as spokespeople serve a purpose - but star-struck people like Froth blur the fine line of reality and treat celebs like prophets.   I really hope Froth gets the help that he/she needs so that they can get back their grip on reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 09:28 AM

"Well, that made me suspicious right away, because it went against my cultural grain, so I wasn't about to buy it."

Little Hawk, that one statement shows that you too are "brainwashed". Your comments are reflecting what you consider to be a better way of life due to your upbringing in Canada. It is a bias, just like the rest of us have to our homes. There is nothing different here. The folks from the UK speak with an air of superiority as well - it is cultural bias that none of us can esacpe from.

As for the U.S. being a superpower - yes it is. It is also a country that other nations seem to turn to for support as well. Yes, there are extremists like our current regime that feels it gives us carte blanche to be the boss of the world - but don't let you bias fool you into thinking that the entire country is like that. You aren't the only one who feels the way you do.

It should also be remembered that when we were known as isolationists, the world's view of us was just as bad.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 01:08 PM

Of course I'm biased, Ron. Everybody is biased in that sense.   Everyone has a natural tendency to believe in and back the values that were around them when they first came into this existence. They take it for granted.

However, growing up in 2 different countries does give a person a bit more awareness of possible options, I think. It's an eye-opener. You don't take stuff quite so much for granted after that. I totally supported the British empire traditions in my mind when I was a little boy. I was innocent, and they were my 'good guys'. By the time I became an adult I began to see that the British themselves had gone out aggressively into the world and done many of the sort of things I now criticize the USA for doing. They inflicted their way of life on other people for their own gain, caused a lot of bloodshed and exploitation, and pretended to be doing it for all kinds of very laudable reasons.

I am as sceptical of British intentions now as I am of American or Russian or Chinese intentions.

And I am fully aware that I am biased, and I even poke fun at it sometimes. It's the people who are completely unaware of their habitual biases that worry me. They can be dangerous.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 01:44 PM

I was watching u tube 911 conspiracy videos last night
The strangest one showed isolated WTC steel beams seemingly turning to dust. (easy to fake video but I haven't seen that shot without the dust phenomenon yet)

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 01:53 PM

http://patriotsquestion911.com/media.html

A list of prominent people questioning 9/11. More added every day. The dam is breaking.

Let's see...yes balladeer, people need to be slapped upside the head intellectually from time to time. If the truth doesn't get through, then make them mad. Anything to get the blood flowing through the neurons. As far as 'quislings' the only one I see on this thread is Olesko. He's actually turned against his country and is arguing there's some validity to the terrorist govt's transparent lie about what happened on 9/11. The other defenders of the lie are just in denial, probably willful at this point since the evidence of govt involvement in the terrorism is so overwhelming.

As for the Canadians, they live at the sufference of the Queen of England and they don't even know it. What more can you say? They also have no immigration policy, which they boast about, but because of that lack of policy, Canada is used as a toilet stop for illegals on their way to the U.S. But then Canadians probably don't see it that way. They just think they're tolerant and advanced and all that.

Peace seems to want acknowledgement for some real or imagined contributions to something, so I hereby grant him full acknowledgement for whatever that undefined thing is. His use of the term 'colonialist' is interesting. The liberal left has been duped into thinking a one-world govt is the answer to everything, but to enter into that state of affairs, nations will have to be sacrificed. And that's a problem. The only protection against a tyrannical world govt is nationalism. Not expansive colonialism, but nationalism. I favor the U.S. bringing home all troops now and letting the world live in peace. Hardly a colonialist mindset. The TRUE colonialist mindset is the U.N. approach...an ever-expanding governmental agency that will absorb all nations.

Centralized/federalized govt is bad. Smaller govt is good. And hopefully this O'Donnell thing will now create a rush of people coming out with their opinions on 9/11. That could create a backlash against the wars of aggression and against the expanding, oppressive govt. About time. I hope it's not too late.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 02:01 PM

You're talking about the 'spire', Donuel. That is also, to me, the strangest thing I've seen in all those videos. The MASSIVE array of central support core columns that just seem to turn to dust and blow away, like chaff in a wind. Amazing. Could have been thermite wraps going off late, atomizing the steel. A freaky sight.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 03:48 PM

Thermite can be used to very quickly destroy steel beams.

Froth, Canada does have an immigration policy. You have to apply for landed immigrant status to move here. To do that and secure such status you have to meet various educational and professional guidelines, relating to what kind of work you are able to contribute. Many people can't pass those guidelines. Some people get in as refugees, depending on the situation. It is certainly not the case that everyone gets in who wants to. I think our immigration policy is fairly similar to many other developed countries in the West, but we do take in more immigrants per capita than any other country in the G8. We can afford to, because we have a lot of land for the size of our population, and there is room to expand.

Your talk about the Queen's power over us is pointless. People here think very little about the Queen anymore. Who really controls Canada is the same as in your country. The big multinational financial interests control Canada. That means: the major corporations and the major banking houses. They are, of course, in collusion with the House of Windsor and the other royal houses in Europe and they also run the American government. They run just about every western government. Why? Because "money talks".

We are in the same hole you are in, except for one thing: we don't share a common border with Mexico!!! That's where it really hits you guys. People have to fly to get to Canada...or else they have to go all the way through the USA first...and why would they bother to do that when they can get work in California or Texas or Arizona? Any surprise why fewer Latin American illegal immigrants get across the Canadian border under those georaphical circumstances?

We're just geographically lucky, that's all! We've got the biggest buffer state in the world between us and the impoverished millions in Mexico and south of there. ;-) Too bad for you Yanks. Seems to me you deserve it though, because the USA stole California and the entire American Southwest from Mexico back in the 1800s. It's poetic justice for the Latinos to move back in there.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 11:50 PM

The freaky part was all the steel that was left in the rubble. The steel did not evaporate as you have been led to believe.

Froth, if you wish to say that I've turned against my country, I invite you to say that to my face. Your credibility was low to begin with and when you start questioning someone elses feeling about their country while acting like a coward and hiding out anonymously, then you have just shown that your own deficiencies. Get some help. You are spending too much time alone.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Peter Woodruff
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 10:04 PM

We use thermite at Bath Iron Works to fuse crane rails together.

Peter

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 10:10 PM

Cool. Now what we need is something similarly powerful that can disconnect a dachshund from a sparerib bone that he has gotten hold of.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 10:15 PM

Maybe we could fuse the dachshund to a cran rail.

Peter

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 10:26 PM

LH. Put a dash of mustard just underneath his tail. Trust me, he'll let the sparerib bone go.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 10:43 PM

LOL!!! Yeah, but would he ever trust me again?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 10:43 PM

Not if you use Keen's Mustard.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 10:47 PM

I had a German Shepherd that did something similar with the thigh bone of a calf. I got it for her as a joke. She thought I was serious. She dragged that damned thing around with her for about two weeks before I took it away from her. She sulked--honest, SULKED--for about two days. I got the cold shoulder, the 'look', the sighs. LOL. Loved that dog.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 12:58 AM

Yeah, dogs take ownership damn seriously when it comes to things like that.

We had a dog that didn't "talk" to my father for about three days after such an incident. He wouldn't even acknowledge my Dad's existence. Wouldn't even look at him.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 02:14 PM

Some years back, my sister Pat and her husband John owned a poodle. Not the full-sized one or the smallest one. The medium-sized poodle. Neat dog. Very intelligent.

They usually didn't have her clipped in the usual poodle manner, so most of the time she looked like a small, wooly black sheep. They did have her done up once. Pat took her to one of those canine beauty parlors where she was given the full treatment:   clipped, bathed, perfumed, manicured, and fitted with a red bow. When my sister brought the dog home, for the next several days, she pranced around the house, posing. She knew she was gorgeous! They didn't do that often, though. Pricey.

On one occasion, Pat and John took a trip, and left her—and the house—in the care of a house-sitter. Apparently, the dog resented not being taken along and/or being left in the care of a relative stranger. When Pat and John returned, instead of meeting them at the door as she usually did, she just stood in the middle of the living room, glared reproachfully at them, and peed on the carpet.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 10:16 PM

Let's see...

Okay, Little Hawk, there's no queen. Canada is a stand-alone giant among the G-8 and has a rigid immigration policy, except that it lets in more than any of the other G-8 country and then most of those "immigrants to Canada" don't even put the seat down on their way to the U.S. Thank you in advance for the open-door policy that the CIA will point to after it nukes an American city.

And as far as people stealing land, unless "Latinos" are indigenous Americans, they're Spanish/Indian. So it's okay for Europeans to "take back" an area of land as long as they raped the natives hundreds of years before? I'm missing something there. But probably a quarter or more of the couples around here are Anglo/Hispanic, so the racial thing is moot. Besides, when illegals show up, we just tell them to go north because there's lots of land and room to expand in Canada.

Let's see...dogs, dogs, dogs, Firth.

Back on topic:

ROSIE O'DONNELL TOKYO ROSIE
http://www.postchronicle.com/commentary/article_21272284.shtml
(Gotta stir up misplaced patriotic fervor among the WW2 crowd)

'POPULAR MECHANICS' ANSWERS ROSIE O'DONNELL'S CHALLENGE TO 9/11 EXPERTS
http://newsbusters.org/node/11737
(Problem is Pop Mech is a Hearst yellow journalism publication, and the "debunking" piece was written by Benjamin Chertoff, cousin of Homeland Security director Michael Chertoff. Michael Chertoff isn't even a real American, and his cousin has written the "9/11 debunking" article most often quoted. Gimme a break)

(And here's a battle of the celebrities. Wasn't Bonaduce on the Partidge Family TV show?):
MSNBC's Joe Scarborough had the washed up childhood actor and former drug addict Danny Bonaduce on his show. "Personally I think at this point if anyone had a rope thick enough, I think that Rosie should be strung up for treason,"....
http://uruknet.info/?p=m31794&s1=h1

That's nice. If you speak out against the govt's absurd 19-men-with-boxcutters conspiracy, you should be hanged. Bonaduce's such a pervert they could get him to say anything. No telling what kind of dirt they have on him. I guess he's going to be the lead govt spokesman on 9/11 now, huh? Sheen and O'Donnell may not be saints...unless you compare them to Bonaduce. Unfortunately, this is the kind of mud rasslin' that will make non-internet people aware of the govt crime committed on 9/11.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Don Firth
Date: 01 Apr 07 - 11:24 PM

Frothing at the keyboard. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 12:27 AM

What ever happened to the debris from the Twin Towers? Anyone know?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 12:39 AM

They got rid of it as quickly as possible, Peace. If you commit a crime and don't want to get caught, it's important to remove all the evidence if you possibly can.

Thermite melts steel. Very quickly. An aviation fuel fire does not burn anywhere near hot enough to melt steel, no matter how big that fire is, and no matter how long it burns. To melt the steel support structures in those buildings you would have needed a blast furnace, an atomic bomb, or some strategically placed thermite...which would have to be put in place by professional demolition people who knew exactly what they were doing.

Since a blast furnace and an A-bomb are out of the question, I suggest that it was thermite which melted the steel. Al Queda did not put it there.

Froth - Don't worry about Canada. You have way bigger stuff to worry about than Canada, I assure you.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 10:13 AM

The debris from the WTC is in a landfill in Staten Island.   Many portions were also removed and have become memorials in many local towns, as well as perhaps elsewhere in the country. I have heard some of the steel was melted down and used in the construction of navy ships.

I know it is easy to think that the steel melted, but that has not been proven - at least that I have found. There is evidence of aluminum melting, which would be common in a building fire that also involved an airplane.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Wolfgang
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 11:01 AM

On the domestic front, an example of the Illuminati "dialectic" at work is Rosie O'Donnell's recent pronouncements on 9-11. The Lesbian poster child sounds like Alex Jones. Her function is to cast the opposition in the mold of the 1960's anti-war movement, focusing blame on Bush and "the government" instead of the long-term international conspiracy ultimately responsible.

from here

Wolfgang (fighting one conspiracy theory with another)

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: bobad
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 11:10 AM

Aha!

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 02:24 PM

Competing conspiracy theories are fun. They can really add spice to a debate.

Ron, does the official view on 911 not assert that the steel beams were weakened by the heat of the fire, bent and gave way, and the buildings then fell down, floor by floor?

An aviation fuel fire does not burn hot enough to have that effect on steel beams. Not nearly hot enough, in fact.

A steel frame skyscaper building in Madrid burned hot and hard, eventually right up to the top floor for over 24 hours. It did not collapse and fall, despite having a huge construction crane sitting on its roof. The steel beams remained rigid and in place. No other modern steel frame skyscrapers in the world have ever collapsed and fallen into their own footprint due to a fire. Only the 3 at the WTC (supposedly).

Steel beams cannot fail due to the heat of burning aviation fuel. They could, however, easily fail if taken out by thermite and shaped charges...as can be done in a controlled demolition. If so, the building will come down at virtually freefall speed and fall into its own footprint. That's if you do it right...which takes a good deal of prior experience.

I think the airplanes were a spectacular visual demonstration intended to deceive. They did major damage, all right. They provided a red herring for people to focus on. But I don't think they were what ultimately brought down those buildings, because you can't melt steel beams (or cause them to bend and give way) by burning aviation fuel around them...although you certainly can melt the aluminum in the airplanes themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 02:42 PM

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/wtc_7_huge_amounts_of_smoke_came_from_wtc_5_6.htm

Just go there for a comparison of Bldgs 7, 5 & 6. 5&6 still standing...burned out hulks of steel girders. 7 barely damaged and brought down in a neat little pile. This is an incredibly well-presented article but it takes a minute to load.

Building 7 was perhaps the most solidly-built civilian building in the world. It was a steel building on top of a steel building, and in addition, it had just undergone an additional multi-million dollar upgrade to fortify its 20-floor observation deck which overlooked the rest of the complex. 7 housed the regional offices of all the major law enforcement and regulatory agencies. It was as indestructible as a civilian building could be.

Yet look at the pictures farther down in the article. Hardly any fires in 7 = total collapse. All-consuming fires in 6 & 5 = leftover steel frame.

That's what O'Donnell is talking about. Firemen and cops said the building was going to be "pulled" (industry term for "demolished"), the owner Silverstein said it too. So the building came down as the owner wanted. What's the big deal? Why does that make O'Donnell a conspiracy nut? Answer: because it goes against the official "myth" that was created and broadcast by the media beginning on 9/11. The media must demonize O'Donnell to keep you from looking at what she's SAYING.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 02:57 PM

I believe the official view does state that they were weakened - but they do not use the word "melt" as you are doing. That is a huge difference.

Burning fuel, not to mention other materials in the building, can create heat that would weaken the structure - but not "melt".

Your inference gives an impression that the steel melted away, and if you saw the site you would have realized that the beams did not disappear.

You also need to add the stress caused by the impact of the planes that damaged the core. It was not simply the fires.

The Madrid skyscraper is not a apt comparision because
a)the buildings were not the same construction.
b)the Madrid skyscraper was significantly smaller
c)the Madrid skyscraper did not suffer structurual damage from a plane loaded with fuel crashing into it at 500 miles per hour

You are right, thermite could also cause distress to the steel - but no one has shown any logical way that the thermite could have been planted in the building and orchestrated in such a fashion.   

It does not make any sense that a plot would have been approved that would require a Rube Goldberg plan that requires that many steps and points of complication. That is the crap of science fiction that depends on a reader dropping all logic to accept the premise.

Also, here is a Canadian report on the collapse - A Canadian Report

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 03:02 PM

Here's a theory, Froth... Perhaps Building 7 contained the control and observation center from which the controlled demolitions were managed, from which the signals that triggered a sequence of explosive charges were sent. It was well positioned for such a purpose. If so, it would have been then destroyed itself in order to erase all evidence of such an operation...as well as for a number of other purposes which have already been talked about quite a bit on various sites.

There's another conspiracy theory. Love it or hate it, depending on your bias.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 03:09 PM

Steel melts at about 2500 F. Aluminum and magnesium at about 1250 F. I have never seen steel burn, but I have seen magnesium and aluminum burn. Quite a sight. New engine blocks are a bit of a nightmare for firefighters. Basically, if yer gonna put water on a burning block, you'd better have enough to KEEP putting water on that block until the temperature is lowered below its ignition point or it can and sometimes does explode. The 'shrapnel' from that can cause serious injury/death.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Don Firth
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 03:11 PM

Good science fiction begins with known science and then extrapolates from that. Just making stuff up is fantasy--but even good fantasy has to be consistent with some facts.

Considering the number of people that would have to be involved in Froth's conspiracy, I find that the fact that there have been no leaks or whistle-blowers stretches the "willing suspension of disbelief" beyond the breaking point.

And that's just for openers.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 03:15 PM

"but no one has shown any logical way that the thermite could have been planted in the building and orchestrated in such a fashion."

Huh? No one has? What about the people who worked in the building who saw various work crews going in and out with heavy containers, rolls of wire, for what purpose no one knew? What about the weekend before Sept 11th, when some kind of extensive work was going on of that sort? There's all kinds of stuff about it on the Net, for heaven's sake.

All you need is a bunch of supposed "workers", clad in ordinary construction gear, to go in and place thermite and explosive charges in predetermined places and wire it up. And why would anyone suspect they were doing anything wrong whatsoever until maybe some time after the 911 attacks happened? It would just have looked like they were doing some kind of normal maintenance work. What's so hard about arranging that?

All it takes, Ron, is the decision at a high enough level to do it. The rest is a snap. No one questions an official looking maintenance crew that is going around in a building doing some kind of what appears to be routine maintenance. People take stuff like that for granted.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 03:16 PM

Here's a theory, Little Hawk... Perhaps Building 7 contained the control and observation center from which the Martians observed, from which the signals that triggered the gravity generators were sent. It was well positioned for such a purpose. If so, it would have been then destroyed itself in order to erase all evidence of such an operation...

I have as much proof as you do for your theory... The buildings did collapse, you know.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 03:18 PM

And if someone did ask questions, they would naturally have a credible sounding answer ready, wouldn't they?

"We're upgrading the phone lines." "We're installing new fireproofing." Whatever.....

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 03:18 PM

After all, we all could see how gravity brought the buildings down. Obviously there were gravity generators brought in by those work"men"
to increase the pull of gravity until the buildiong collapsed.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 03:25 PM

Yeah, BB, but your theory was obviously tongue-in-cheek, intended simply to ridicule. Mine wasn't.

Neither one of us is in a position to provide proof. That's why I said it was a theory. Some theories are more plausible than others, but it depends on your pre-existing emotional bias how you will rate any given theory for plausibility.

Why didn't gravity bring down buildings 5 and 6? They burned much worse than building 7 did, and one of them got a great big hole knocked in the center of it by falling debris from the main tower nearest to it. Gravity still did not bring them down. Why?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Big Mick
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 03:26 PM

So ... I am probably just a little slow ..... but I need to know. If there was a conspiracy ..... why?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 03:29 PM

Martians have nothing to gain from getting the American public mad enough to go to war. Therefore no motive.

(at least I don't think so) ;-)

But maybe you know something about those devious Martians that I don't, BB. By all means, tell us more...

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 03:32 PM

200!!!

Man, I just can't wait to hear more about the Martian angle...

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 03:39 PM

"Why didn't gravity bring down buildings 5 and 6? They burned much worse than building 7 did, and one of them got a great big hole knocked in the center of it by falling debris from the main tower nearest to it. Gravity still did not bring them down. Why? "

The aliens did not turn the gravity generators ON in those buildings.

So, the fact that only the lesser "damaged" building collapsed is proof that my theory is correct.

Obviuosly, the Martians, a dying race ( see Burroughs et al) are HAPPY about the melting of their icecaps, and the warming of their planet. Since humans were about to stop global warming by sutting CO2 emissions, the Martans took steps that will lead to a global nuclear war, which will cool off the earth enough for them to live here comfortably, as well as keep humans from altering the increased solar output.

It is so obvious- if you can't see it, you must be part of the Martian coverup!

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 03:42 PM

I like it. ;-) Why don't you start up a website about it and become an internet celebrity?

But I still like my theory a bit better. I'm pro-Martian, you see. I spotted you as a Martian-hater right from the getgo, BB, and I can't stand Martian-haters.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 03:47 PM

"I'm pro-Martian, you see. I spotted you as a Martian-hater right from the getgo, BB, and I can't stand Martian-haters. "


Hate Martians???

NEVER!

As long as I state nothing but the truth, no-one will pay any attention, and our... Opps, THEIR plans will be successful.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 03:52 PM

Oh. Well, that's okay then.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 04:21 PM

And obviously Martians would have gravity ( and anti-gravity) generators- otherwise, how could they be comfortable here on Earth?


And NO-ONE has looked for any mascons under the former site of the WTC... Nor will they!

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 04:23 PM

Lighten up with the Martian angle and be careful what you say. Some of mt family members--well, that's more than you need to know.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 04:24 PM

As I said, as long as I stick to the truth, no-one will pay any attention to what I say.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 04:30 PM

I figure that any mascot that was under there would have been obliterated, BB. You did mean "mascot", right?

I think you're the kind of person, BB, that no one listens to regardless of whether or not you're telling the truth. I can relate to that. I had that very same experience when I was a child and it was damned frustrating, I can tell you! It left emotional scars till this day, and it accounts for my secret desire to destroy Mel Gibson and turn the White House into a home for the criminally insane.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 04:35 PM

Mascon- Mass concentration. We.. THEY left a bunch on the moon, too.


The gravity generator was set to implode, which causes a small shere of neutonium to be produced. It would sink into the earth ( aftre collapsing the building due to its gravitational effect.

BTW, the same generator can be used to reduce gravity, making it comfortable for those used to a lower gravity. Just suspend it ABOVE the area to be affected- it counterbalances a part of the Earth's gravity.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 04:39 PM

Sounds like a very useful device, BB. I wonder if anyone but me is listening?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 04:42 PM

Not a chance. First, I speak only what I know to be true- AND I have established a reputation as a "Conservative". This has them so confused that they CANNOT acknowledge anything I say, or even that I have said something.

No-one will pay any attention.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 04:43 PM

Yes, it's sad, isn't it? You should conspire to destroy them all, as I am doing in regards to Mel Gibson.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 04:45 PM

"You should conspire to destroy them all,"

See? Even you are not reading what I said. ( We... THEY are conspiring to destroy you all.)

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 04:46 PM

Who is???? Hey, I am not an "all", BB, I'm a singularity. What are you trying to say?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 04:47 PM

"Obviously, the Martians, a dying race ( see Burroughs et al) are HAPPY about the melting of their icecaps, and the warming of their planet. Since humans were about to stop global warming by cutting CO2 emissions, the Martans took steps that will lead to a global nuclear war, which will cool off the earth enough for them to live here comfortably, as well as keep humans from altering the increased solar output."

OK, I did fix the spelling errors. You all really need to get up to speed and use telepathy.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 04:50 PM

And YOU need to watch a video on Andy Kaufman's entire wrestling career in order to get your head straight.

It's here...

Now DO it.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 04:52 PM

"turn the White House into a home for the criminally insane. "

It worked.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 04:54 PM

Yeah. (grin) Isn't that neat? Thanks for noticing.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 05:21 PM

"Huh? No one has? What about the people who worked in the building who saw various work crews going in and out with heavy containers, rolls of wire, for what purpose no one knew? What about the weekend before Sept 11th, when some kind of extensive work was going on of that sort? There's all kinds of stuff about it on the Net, for heaven's sake."

Huh? For heavens sake, there is "stuff" about flying pigs on the internet, but that doesn't count as evidence. There WERE reports of workers in the building, but nothing to indicate anything out of the ordinary.

I'm not sure what life is like in the sticks, but I can tell you from first hand experience that the WTC was bustling with activity 7 days a week. These are not buildings that were only occupied 9-5 Monday through Friday. These buildings were in use 24/7 and seeing workers like you described would not be unusual. I think what you are seeing is someone trying to make their theory work and pinning the extraordinary on the ordinary.

Based on what theorists are saying, it would have required a large number of people to plant the devices. COULD they have been planting thermite? Of course there is a CHANCE. Logically, it does not seem like a very good plan because the CHANCE of being caught far outweighs any potential benefit these individuals would have gained.

If you want to start a war, there are far simpler ways of doing it.   Crashing the planes into the building would have been enough. Bringing the buildings down did not reap any additional benefits. The buildings were not in poor financial shape as some people are making them out to be.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 05:36 PM

"seeing workers like you described would not be unusual"

Yeah, that is exactly my point. That's why it would have been so easy to do once the decision was made. You see, Ron, how looking at the same thing from 2 different sets of assumptions can lead to 2 totally opposite conclusions? It happens all the time. ;-)

I assume there was an inside job. You assume there wasn't. That determines how we look at things. We aren't in disagreement about facts or events, basically, we're in disagreement about interpretation of those facts or events.

" it would have required a large number of people to plant the devices."

For sure. Several work crews.

"Crashing the planes into the building would have been enough."(to start a war)

Agreed. It would indeed have been enough. I think they had additional private incentives to knock down those buildings. I think there were many powerful people who stood to gain monetarily. What we have seen is just the tip of the iceberg.

But I am extrapolating from a different basic assumption than you. That's the only reason that we disagree about the probability of this or that.

At least we do agree that thermite could have destroyed those steel beams. That's a start. And you do agree, I take it, that an aviation fuel fire cannot burn hot enough to cause a steel frame building's structural supports to bend and collapse?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 05:53 PM

"Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 04:52 PM

"turn the White House into a home for the criminally insane. "

It worked."

Sorry, that was me w/o cookie.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 05:59 PM

oh, boy, oh boy....I can understand a lot of things. I can analyze ideas and dispute bad logic. I can see thru Republican strategy and see the tricks in pro wrestling hype.....but if I live to be 113, I will NEVER understand Andy Kaufman! He was either deranged, or he was one of the most creative comedians who ever lived...or both. Even a crazy man like Robin Williams was at a loss to follow Kaufman's motives.

.....and Andy Kaufman was one of the best Elvis impersonators ever!

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 06:03 PM

Yeah, I can't figure out Andy Kaufman either, Bill. His routines were either brilliant....or just plain incomprehensible....depending on which day of the week or something.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 06:04 PM

I think he was a genius. BUT, he wasn't funny, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 06:16 PM

I found him hysterically funny...now and then. When he was taunting the outraged residents of Memphis, for instance. To see a man show that much nerve in public! It's...unusual. Well, you just gotta laugh out loud at the sheer outrageousness of it all. I bet he was in real danger of being punched out, just walking down the streets in that town.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 07:21 PM

For most comedians who have a set cast of characters they've created as part of their acts, there's a clear delineation between performer and character. On the one hand, we had Red Skelton. On the other hand, we had Clem Kadiddlehopper.

Andy Kaufman's genius was not in the characters he created, but in the way he blurred the line between performer and character so that we never knew how much of what we were watching was Kaufman himself and how much was one of his creations. His performances were as much psychological slight-of-hand as comedy. If you allowed yourself to be taken in by the trick, he was great. If you didn't, you never got him.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 07:39 PM

" "seeing workers like you described would not be unusual"

Yeah, that is exactly my point. That's why it would have been so easy to do once the decision was made. "

No, you don't get it - the issue is not getting the workers in the building, it is getting them into the areas that would be required to plant such devices. The buildings were occupied and access to the core structure would have required a lot of activity - activity that was never noticed. You would have needed more than the handful of workers that were reported.

You were correct though - it is easy for two people to look at one picture and draw different conclusions. That doesn't mean that both people are correct.   

As you said, you "assume" it was an inside job, so it is easy to disregard the logic and make it work.

"At least we do agree that thermite could have destroyed those steel beams. That's a start. And you do agree, I take it, that an aviation fuel fire cannot burn hot enough to cause a steel frame building's structural supports to bend and collapse?"

We agree that thermite could not have DESTROYED those steel beams, nor could thermite have made the clean cuts that were noticed. That seems to be caused by the building snapping apart.   I do think that the FIRE, caused by the fuel and fed by other material normally found in office buildings could have caused the supports to collapse.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 08:44 PM

oops... in that last paragraph I mean to say that thermite COULD have destroyed the integrity of those beams, but thermite would not have made the clean cuts that were noticed.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 08:49 PM

I really question the idea that jet fuel could not burn hot enough to weaken steel beams. I'm no expert, and I don't know how jet fuel compares with diesel fuel, but I know of potters who have fired kilns to cone 10 (2300ºF) using diesel fuel.

There are a lot of variables involved in how hot a fuel burns. A piece of wood in my woodstove burns at around 500ºF, but I can fire a wood-fired kiln up to over 2300ºF. It's all a matter of surface area, ventilation, and time.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 09:30 PM

The clean cuts you mention, Ron, could have been caused by shaped charges. I'm suggesting that thermite was used, and shaped charges, as can be done in a professional building demolition. I don't think there were any materials in there that could have produced a hot enough fire to either melt steel beams or cause them to bend and collapse. If the impact of the aircraft was what was required to weaken the structures enough to cause a collapse, then what made building 7 fall down? No plane hit it. It suffered little collateral structural damage from debris. If the fire was hot enough to cause buildings 1, 2, and 7 to collapse from heat damage to the beams, then what made buildings 5 and 6 not fall down (they both got burned out in much more extensive, widespread and long-lasting fires than what affected buildings 1, 2, and 7...they also both suffered far greater structural damage from falling debris than building 7 did...but they did not collapse.

Ron - "You were correct though - it is easy for two people to look at one picture and draw different conclusions. That doesn't mean that both people are correct."

No, Ron, it means either that (1) one person is right and the other wrong...or....it means that (2) they're BOTH wrong! (grin) ...and there is yet another possibility that they have both missed. I'm humble enough to consider alternative 2, believe me. How about you?

What if we are both mistaken in a number of respects? I think it's a distinct possibility.

Regarding the workers in the buildings: there were a lot of unoccupied areas in those buildings, whole floors that were vacant at different levels. There was also a lot of heavy work heard not long prior to 911 that was being done on some of those floors, heard by people working in the office floors below. What was that work? Nobody seems to know.

Bee-dub, I've seen the temperature charts. Jet fuel cannot burn anywhere near the temperature needed to bend and melt steel beams. It burns with a red-orange flame. That's not a fire that will melt steel. You need blast furnace temperatures to melt steel. That can only be achieved in a controlled setup with an oxygen feed, as far as I know. The fires in the WTC weren't what you call superhot fires, because they burned very smoky, and with red-orange flames. That indicates a fire that is relatively speaking not very hot (as fires go) and that is lacking enough oxygen to burn cleanly. Such a fire will not melt or bend large steel beams.

The big highrise in Spain burned for 24 hours, very hot, very big raging fire right to the top of the building...its steel structure did not fail. The fire stopped when it simply had nothing combustible left to burn, and the building was still standing afterward.

Buildings 5 and 6 burned very extensively, and they did not fall.

You see, how people interpret all this is quite predictable. Those who think there was no controlled demolition interpret it all to support their position. Those who think, as I do, that there was a controlled demolition interpret it to support their position.

That's how the human brain generally works. If it has a definite bias already (and that's usually the case), it interprets   available data to support its bias. It rationalizes and sifts through all the info to find anything that will support its argument. It discounts or reinterprets things that appear to threaten its argument. It is primarily subjective, not objective. I admit to being like that (as are 99.995% of the rest of humanity), and I would sure appreciate if a few other people were forthright and honest enough about themselves to also admit it.....but I guess that might be asking a wee bit too much, eh? ;-)

You know, I go out of my way on this forum to be fair when I say things like that. I freely admit to my own fallibility. Who else here has the guts to do that? Would you all rather be dead than admit sometime that you could be wrong about something? If so, you are in good company, because that is the psychology that has sent uncountable millions of people out to kill and die in a thousand wars that need never have been fought. Just NEVER admit you might be wrong, and unleash the dogs of war. That's what presidents normally do, right?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 09:51 PM

"The clean cuts you mention, Ron, could have been caused by shaped charges."
They could have been - or they could have been caused simply by the building splintering apart.

"I'm suggesting that thermite was used, and shaped charges, as can be done in a professional building demolition."
Perhaps you have used thermite and have more experience, but my understanding from reading a number of sources is that thermite would create more a melting pattern.

"I don't think there were any materials in there that could have produced a hot enough fire to either melt steel beams or cause them to bend and collapse."
I, and many others, disagree. Aside from the jet fuel, there are other materials in the building that could have caused a hot enough fire that would have caused them to bend. You can read about it on the internet.

" If the impact of the aircraft was what was required to weaken the structures enough to cause a collapse, then what made building 7 fall down?"
The damage, which is clearly visible, from being hit by debris from the WTC and the fires that were caused - plus the way the building was constructed on top of a substation.

"Regarding the workers in the buildings: there were a lot of unoccupied areas in those buildings, whole floors that were vacant at different levels."
Check your source. The building had less than 20% that was unoccupied - and those sections were not necessarily entire floors.   It seems unlikely that they would have had enough access to the points required.

"There was also a lot of heavy work heard not long prior to 911 that was being done on some of those floors, heard by people working in the office floors below. What was that work? Nobody seems to know."
I would love to see the source of that information. I did some checking today - on a variety of sites both pro and con, and could not find this.   I too have heard that story, but I am suspecting there is more urban legend and "phone game" at work then reality. I would love to hear more, maybe this is the "clue". Don't rely on memory!!!


"The big highrise in Spain burned for 24 hours, very hot, very big raging fire right to the top of the building...its steel structure did not fail. The fire stopped when it simply had nothing combustible left to burn, and the building was still standing afterward."
Once again, the building in Spain had a very different construction, it was much smaller, and it was not subjected to the damage caused by the planes. You are comparing apples to oranges.

"You see, how people interpret all this is quite predictable. Those who think there was no controlled demolition interpret it all to support their position. Those who think, as I do, that there was a controlled demolition interpret it to support their position."
Then you are admitting that your position is biased.

Look, I will be the first to wave a white flag and admit I was wrong. Until ANY strong evidence can be produced, or a reasonable theory as to "why" is created, I have to rely on what I saw with my own eyes, what I've read through numerous sources, and what deduction and logic tell me. If ANYONE can put aside their bias and be subjective, I think you will draw the same conclusion.

Go ahead and say it - I have come to a conclusion and won't agree to anything else. You are wrong.   No one has produced any evidence on these sites or in that schlock film that makes credible sense.   

"You know, I go out of my way on this forum to be fair when I say things like that. I freely admit to my own fallibility. Who else here has the guts to do that?"
I congratulate you, but don't think you are the only one. I can point to a number of times when I have been wrong and freely admitted it here on Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 09:56 PM

"Then you are admitting that your position is biased."

Darned right I am! (grin) I'm just like everybody else I know...I'm biased.

And yes, Ron, I do regard you as one of the people on Mudcat who is willing to admit, now and then, that he made a mistake.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Bill D
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 11:04 PM

Good Grief! You are STILL at it, LH! You keep repeating that mantra about how fire affects steel beams....have you READ the explanations from such strange folks as, oh...the guy who designed the WTC? And competent structural engineers who explain VERY carefully why the effect of damage from planes PLUS loss of insulation PLUS burning jet fuel and other items PLUS the weight of the building caused structural members to fail? (structural members that were different...NOT the "steel beams" you usually think of in older buildings! The WTC 'beams' were lighter and differently constructed...especially designed for this project! They did NOT 'melt, they were weakened by damage AND heat and pulled away from their mounts in a few places, causing bending and allowing the weight above to further bend them until..................

Don't take my word - go **READ** the detailed analysis by experts!

And I'd better not even start on the parroting of all those flawed stories about the Pentagon and 'missles'......Ron Olesko has done a fine job anyway. (yes, they DID find relevant pieces..of plane, of people, and of ID papers!)

I'll bet the damn Martians would understand it better than many Earthlings who flatly will NOT hear the truth when there is a juicy conspiracy to wallow in!

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 11:49 PM

Bill, you have no way of knowing which "experts" and which witnesses are lying or are telling the truth. If the government is covering up anything, then they will definitely find plenty of people who will lie for them. Easily. If not, then they don't need to do that.

There is no way, no fucking way whatsoever, that you or I can be certain as to who is lying about it and who is not.

How do you know you can trust those guys? What assurances do you have of their truthfullness?

I think you just trust people who say what you want to hear. I think that's what everybody does.

Not one of us can be 100% sure who is telling the truth and who is not.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 12:01 AM

"Saying nothing is always more true than saying something."

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Big Mick
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 12:01 AM

Sometimes I think folks get so caught up in the debate and their theories that they just lose sight.

I asked a question a while back. If this is a conspiracy...why?

I have seen it postulated that the buildings were in financial trouble. So you are saying they brought in thermite and killed 3000 folks to get out of financial trouble? And how could someone plan and execute this plan and not one person has come forward with inside knowledge?

So others suggest that GWB had something to do with it? To what end? To justify the war? That is so absurd as to defy giving it credence. And once again, not one soul with inside knowledge, from the workmen who would have had to place it, to the suppliers who would have to provided the thermite, has come to light?

There is absolutely no way that a politician could plan as much as an act of oral sex, let alone the destruction of the towers and killing 3000+ people, without someone knowing about it. Hell, anyone who understands leverage (in politics and government) knows that it would be impossible to hide this.

Bill, ferchrissakes, would you quit trying to get these tinfoil hat folks to accept logic and scientific evidence????? They have absolutely no desire for the real truth.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 12:14 AM

Everyone has the keenest desire imaginable for the real truth, Mick. There is no desire deeper in people than the desire to know what is going on. It is precisely that desire that makes people so passionate in their concern over controversial matters. People desperately want to know what is going on.

The trouble is, most of us have no recourse but to fall back on what a host of other people tell us. We rely on secondhand and thirdhand information and opinions disseminated mostly through the media. Only those directly involved in an incident know for sure what happened, and even many of them may not know for sure. Only a handful of them may know. If so, are they telling? And if so...who will give them air time? And without air time who will listen to them?

I have seen things that most people don't believe in once or twice in my life, and my telling people about them will not convince them of a darned thing, because I am not CNN. Okay? I'm not the President. I'm not NBC. I'm not NASA. I don't have official authority. It is the people who society has placed in certain powerful positions of authority who other people listen to. If those people lie...and they sometimes do...then most other people will believe them most of the time. They're in a much stronger position that way than you or I.

They could be lying about 911.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Big Mick
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 12:19 AM

Hawk, I get all that. But at some point one must look at the evidence with a clear eye. I have read this thread top to bottom and I see a helluva lot of denial, for who knows what reason.

And by the way, you still didn't answer why? I asked some pretty straightforward questions, and pointed out that it would not be possible to hide this, and still no answer.

I am out of this one, because arguing with folks that are so convinced of conspiracy is a waste of time. No amount of explanation will satisfy them.

So carry on, friends.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 12:42 AM

Okay, Mick. You asked, "If this is a conspiracy...why?"

In order to enable a hugely angry and fearful public reaction in the USA early in the Bush administration which would further enable the launching of one or more unprovoked foreign wars of aggression in the Middle Eastern area, which wars would advance the interests of a group of neo-conservative planners, most of whom are deeply entrenched in the oil industry and the Bush administration.

And secondarily to that, a host of other factors could come in, but the primary reason would have been to put the public in a mood for war. Not a legitimate defensive war, but unprovoked attacks on sovereign nations which have not attacked the USA.

911 was not an attack by a nation on a nation. It was a criminal act by a clandestine group of conspirators (either foreign or domestic or both). As such, attacking another nation over it was not a rational or appropriate response. Since the strategic realities in the world did not make it even remotely feasible to provoke Afghanistan or Iraq into attacking the USA first (Why would they be that suicidally stupid? How could they even do it?), it was necessary to arrange some other form of attack and then blame the Afghans and the Iraqis for it by association.

Crude but effective. It worked. A mob is easily led, particularly when they are very angry and fearful. Just tell them who the "enemy" is, and they will go and kill him for you...or they will cheer while you do it, supposedly on their behalf.

A major provocation was needed to get the public onside for a war. That's why.

(And that's simply my theory. I don't know if it is correct. But you did ask the question, and that's my answer.)

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 01:21 AM

Maybe someone's missing the point on this latest development. WTC 7 was an ADMITTED demolition. Cops, firefighters and the owner said it was demolished. But O'Donnell says it, and she's labeled a 'kook.'

Let's see...Olesko's gibberish. Every single thing he posts has been disproven. Amazing. His folks need to get him a new handbook.

Firth...the administration started issuing gag orders the day of 9/11 to silence potential critics. Thousands of gag orders have been issued regarding 9/11. FBI agent Robert Wright, Cathleen Rowley, translator Sibel Edmonds spring to mind. Hundreds of firefighters at the scene, cops, lots of people at ground zero. No case can move forward now because of gag orders issued on the basis of 'national security.' Also, these are neocons pulling off this scam...neo-communists. Trotskyite communists. As I'm sure you recall, the communists in America got really good at using the "cell" system during the Red Scare, so that if they were ever arrested, they could only give up a handful of names. The FBI knew this and wrote books complaining about it. And since there's no need to fix something that isn't broke, I'd imagine today's neocons are still using the cell system. On the day of 9/11 that would mean only a handful knew the entire plan. Others were just going about their jobs as usual, or at most they were following a directive from someone up the line to contrevene standard operating procedure. The ones who did see crimes committed (like Robert Wright saw his superiors intentionally block investigations that would have prevented 9/11), they were gagged. Probably 5-6 knew the whole picture. I'd guess Cheney and Rumsfeld for sure, and probably George H.W. Bush. Others probably got tips that "something" was going to happen with United and American Airlines and some other companies, and they fit together the puzzle beforehand and made money on the stock market. And don't forget that before 9/11 it was against U.S. law for the CIA to operate on American soil, so that's why MI-6 and the Mossad had always done the wetwork in America, and the CIA reciprocated in kind in other countries. A British firm was involved in "renovating" the Pentagon just before 9/11, and Israeli workmen could have hauled tons of explosives into the WTC complex without being noticed. Manhattan, you know...would an Israeli have stood out? Using the cell system's need-to-know system, and then gagging everyone afterwards (and offing an occasional person like pilot Chic Burlingame's daughter), it's not surprising at all that more hasn't come out.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 01:55 AM

"(and offing an occasional person like pilot Chic Burlingame's daughter)"

Wendy Burlingame would not approve of your post. She believed her father was a hero on September 11, 2001, and she even said so. In response to some youtube videos about conspiracy and the crash of Flight 77, this is what she had to say:

'The other Internet related reference to Wendy Burlingame took place last July, when a video circulated through e-mails and on the popular website Youtube.com was stating that the crash into the Pentagon was only a hoax and that Capt. Burlingame was part of some distorted conspiracy.

Wendy Burlingame posted a message on the Youtube.com message board protesting the video, saying her father was an American hero, and noting, "We realize that this is being done by sick individuals who need to deal with 9-11 in a different way than others. It does not make it any easier when you read your father was involved with terrorists when you Google his name...I will let you now get back to making fun of my father as he lays at rest in Arlington Cemetery."'

Please don't throw names about with implications that you think might "baffle them with bullshit if you can't beat them with brains."

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 02:06 AM

Her dad's plane disappeared from radar somewhere over Ohio, as I recall. I'm sure she wanted to believe he was a hero, and he may have been, but his plane didn't make it to D.C. Either he was part of the operation, or he was killed on 9/11 (and not in the way we've been told). The odds are pretty long that she should've died in the way she did. Arkancide wasn't invented by the Clintons. The gag order that can't be violated.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 02:28 AM

And her death was to cause what to happen?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 07:10 AM

"At least we do agree that thermite could have destroyed those steel beams. That's a start. And you do agree, I take it, that an aviation fuel fire cannot burn hot enough to cause a steel frame building's structural supports to bend and collapse? "

Point of fact: the aluminum in the plane did melt because of the jet fuel fire.

Point of fact: the melting point of aluminum is about 1200 degrees

Point of fact: the temperature that is required to reduce the structural strength of steel beams by at least 50% is about 1000 degrees.

Ergo, a jet fuel fire CAN burn hot enough to cause a steel frame building's structural supports to bend and collapse.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 07:27 AM

"or....it means that (2) they're BOTH wrong!"

I told you. We... THE Martians did it, to cause a nuclear war , both to cool off the earth and to get rid of all those pesky people.

After all, Martians COULD have put those gravity generators into the WTC, using transporters. And NO-ONE would have seen them, so that must be how they did it.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 07:39 AM

BillD,

the "damn" Martians ????????


8-{E

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 07:44 AM

Little Hawk,

Re my Date: 03 Apr 07 - 07:10 AM

You had stated:

******************************************************
Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk - PM
Date: 02 Apr 07 - 02:24 PM

Competing conspiracy theories are fun. They can really add spice to a debate.

Ron, does the official view on 911 not assert that the steel beams were weakened by the heat of the fire, bent and gave way, and the buildings then fell down, floor by floor?

An aviation fuel fire does not burn hot enough to have that effect on steel beams. Not nearly hot enough, in fact.

............

*********************************************************

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: bobad
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 08:06 AM

Explanation, information and analysis including temperature effects available at:
The Journal of The Minerals, Metals & Materials Society

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 09:18 AM

Little Hawk,

Having now disproven your claims, I expect you to see the truth of the Martian theory, and help me in letting everyone know what really happened- that way, they will NEVER believe it, and the plot will be completely successful.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 09:32 AM

"Let's see...Olesko's gibberish. Every single thing he posts has been disproven"

Froth, you are either a liar or just in an incredible state of denial.   I don't believe any of my posts have been disproven, in fact my posts have been answers to theories that you have posed as supposed facts - and I believe I have proved to most sane people that your theories hold no water, and they are certainly not "facts".

You can can call my postings gibberish, you can call me names. You can hide behind your cowardice all you wish - but it will never make you right.   Post all the ramblings that you wish, but I think most people who step back and really look at this can make their own decisions.

People are pointing to the "official" explanations as if they were made up and part of the conspiracy, but anyone who is willing to spend the time can look back at science, architecture and simple manufacturing technology that has been published for decades to realise the real facts behind this. Go to your library and find an old book that tells you how steel is created, and then see who is making up stories. Take a look at the photos and descriptions of how the WTC was constructed and see if it doesn't make sense.   You can deny all you wish, but the information is out there and any reasonable person can make sense of the facts.

Froth, I get the feeling that you are merely a troll trying to stir up crap on Mudcat.   It is hard to fathom your supposed anger and lack of understanding. You constantly deny any information that is counter to your theory - and try to smear the source instead of the facts. If you were truly the progressive that you try to preach to be, you would not be using the tactics that you do. A real progressive tries to understand and does not resort to retaliatory measures such as you have been doing. You might be a neo-con in sheeps clothing, fostering this "conspiracy" to cloud the real issues. The blood is on your own hands.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 09:45 AM

Little Hawk,

I just noticed you have already started to help us... THEM.

*****************************************************


Subject: RE: BS: In every thread someone has to be last!
From: Little Hawk - PM
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 07:02 PM

George Bush is an alien who has been planted on Earth to destroy western civilization. Paris Hilton is another. The question is, which one is the greater threat?
******************************************************


Keep letting them know the truth- the more we tell them, the less they will believe it.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Big Mick
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 09:46 AM

Actually, Froth is just an old nut case that has been here a long time. Still just as nuts as ever.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 09:47 AM

I think Froth spends too much time in the tar paper shack. She needs to get out more and talk to real people.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 12:57 PM

I want some of what he/she's been on.
Second thoughts, I'd rather stay sane.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Wolfgang
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 01:18 PM

Froth is just an old nut case that has been here a long time. Still just as nuts as ever.

The first handle I recollect was "dreaded guest" and some plain GUEST posting before that.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 01:27 PM

No point telling you people about the time I had crabs. BUT, something I read a few weeks back said that crabs crossed to the human population from gorilas/gorrillas/gorellas/gori--big monkeys. I will say here and now, THAT ain't how I got them. Anyway, if you see LH around, tell him to watch his friggin' chimp Chongo.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 01:31 PM

You folks sound downright paranoid. Seems I've seen a few guests around here, and they couldn't all be me. I guess it makes you feel more secure to attribute all dissenting voices to one individual.

But back to the issue at hand. The government needs to prove its case. That hasn't been done.

Several of the men the U.S. govt "Final, Official Report" of 9/11 accuses of doing the hijackings are still alive. They're still alive. Let me repeat...they're still alive.

With a starting point like that, I would say the proof of burden is on the government to prove it's case, and not on common sensical people to disprove.

So let's start at the beginning. Why are some of the hijackers still alive? And don't give the "incompetence" or "confusion" or "fog of war" crap as a response. The govt was 100% sure the 19 men named did the deed. 7 announced their life immediately after being named, but a few have met with "mysterious" deaths since, so I don't know what the live count is at the moment, but tell me how those live individuals could be in two places at one time.

This will be in the "Hijackers" section of your govt response manual, Olesko.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 01:36 PM

Thanks for the post Froth.   Need I say anything more? You accurately proved the points I made earlier.

You can't hide from your own paranoia and your false sense of reality. You are either a troll or need serious help. Best of luck to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 01:44 PM

"You folks sound downright paranoid."

Don't lead with your chin . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 01:50 PM

You can't address the hijacker issue, Olesko. That's how phony your whole stance is. It can't even answer one question honestly.

Some of the "19 men with boxcutters" are still alive, people. Since Olesko won't do the research he knows will verify this, do it yourself. The whole govt story of what happened on 9/11 is a lie. The govt media hit you upside the head with fear-based conditioning during the week following 9/11, and now the govt feels it doesn't even have to account for little details like the fact that some of the "hijackers" are still alive.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Wesley S
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 01:57 PM

Froth - I'd be very interested to hear where you stand on two different issues:

The moon landing: Real event or faked?

The Kennedy Assasination: Single gunman or conspiracy?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 02:11 PM

Keep it up Froth, you are your own worst enemy.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 02:18 PM

"Some of the "19 men with boxcutters" are still alive, people. Since Olesko won't do the research he knows will verify this, do it yourself. The whole govt story of what happened on 9/11 is a lie."

OK, you caught me... I mean, THEM. All the hijackers were really Martian clones traveling under fake passports. And we ... THEY teleported the engines of the AA airliner into the Pentegon, as well as all the other parts, after hypnotizing the drivers on US 395 into thinking that the purple flying saucer was really an airliner.

One photon torpedo was all it took!

Now, just keep telling everyone, so that our.. THEIR plan of thermonuclear war to cool the earth will be successful.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 02:30 PM

Still all busily rolling along, are we?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 02:33 PM

merrily

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 02:36 PM

Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily, life is but a dream.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 02:39 PM

Oh, by the way, here's my vote on those other 2 things...

Moon landing: Real, not faked.

John Kennedy assassination: more than one gunman involved, Oswald may well have been one of them, fatal shot probably fired from ahead of motorcade from grassy knoll area. Well-organized high-level conspiracy? Yes. Involving whom? Possibly the Mafia, possibly various US government operatives (CIA? FBI?), or possibly the Cubans (either Castro's or ours)...or possibly various combinations of the above. Will we ever know for sure? Not a dog's chance in hell. So there's really little use discussing it, unless you just can't resist doing so. ;-)

And the same applies to the subject of this thread, I'm afraid.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 02:42 PM

Moon Landing - consipiracy
Kennedy - real, not faked

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 02:43 PM

BS: One compelling reason for a god? 168* d 03 Apr 07 - 02:37 PM   
BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11            266* d 03 Apr 07 - 02:36 PM   
Origins: Merrily We Roll Along          6 03 Apr 07 - 02:35 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 02:45 PM

sounds like a conspiracy among the threads, but you are missing the one about Alpha Waves

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: beardedbruce
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 02:45 PM

Ron,

"Moon Landing - consipiracy"


Hardly! If it had been faked we... THE Martians would not have needed to move all the bases to the back side of the moon.

So there!

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 02:47 PM

I never said it was faked. It was a government consipiracy that sent a man to the moon.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 02:58 PM

Not so, Ron! A conspiracy, by definition, must be hidden from public knowledge. It was openly declared as early as John Kennedy's administration that the government had an intention to put a man on the moon. Therefore, it was not a conspiracy.

Hmmm. But maybe that's why they killed Kennedy. He let the cat out of the bag about the moon landing conspiracy...

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 03:02 PM

"A conspiracy, by definition, must be hidden from public knowledge"

Screw definitions! Let's not get anal about things. We make our own rules.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 03:05 PM

But...I thought that being anal was a requirement around here...

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 03:07 PM

From what I'm seeing, it appears to be!!

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 03:12 PM

That's just what I thought. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 03:21 PM

and we are members!!! :)

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 03:25 PM

It's a heady feeling, isn't it? The exclusivity. The sense of being among the "in group", the people who really count in this world. The freedom to be anal all the livelong day with no consequences...

You, me, Bearded Bruce...we're lucky people, Ron. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 03:40 PM

I've never felt like part of an "in-group" in any facet of my life. I do feel very lucky though.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 03:41 PM

Sorry to interrupt, but I have a serious question. WHO is Rosie O'Donnell? She some sort of news person? Talk show hostess?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Wesley S
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 04:06 PM

I think she started as a standup comic - then an actress, then she head her own talk show that got good ratings. Now she's on a talk show by Barbara Walters called the View. Also an outspoken gay activist.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 04:06 PM

She is an actress/talk show host. She was in the movie "A League of their Own" with Madonna. She can be very funny.   She hosted her own talk show for a number of years before giving it up, and now she is one of the members of The View, a daily talk show on ABC-TV.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 04:21 PM

So Rosie O'Donnell is an actress, comedienne, and talk show hostess, huh? Heck, if that qualifies someone to be an expert on 9/11 let's find out what Joan Rivers' thoughts on the subject are.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 04:23 PM

Joan can give you her opinion on what the hijackers were wearing.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 04:42 PM

Thank you all. LH used to joke about having a blow-up doll of her. I never thoght to ask him who she was/is.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 04:58 PM

You think he was joking??

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 06:22 PM

Bee-Dub, if it's okay for you to ridicule Rosie O'Donnell for being self-important enough to publicly express an opinion on 911 (the NERVE of the woman!)...is it okay for me to ridicule you for the same failing?

Or are you more reliable a source than Rosie? Could it be that if she agreed with you about 911, she would suddenly be seen as far more reliable in every way?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 08:57 PM

Ho-hum. My purpose on this thread was only to put O'Donnell's actions on the record, for later reference. Then it turned into yet another disinformation attempt by people citing bogus "facts" I disproved to my own satisfaction long ago.

The links below are the real deal. Literal rocket scientists telling you the truth of 9/11:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wrh_9-11_index.html
http://patriotsquestion911.com/media.html
http://911proof.com/11.html
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/kfiles/b43926.html
http://physics911.net/
http://st911.org/
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html
http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/
http://www.911weknow.com/

Look up an online movie called "911 mysteries" and watch it, then you'll understand why 80-90% of Americans think the US govt is not telling the truth about Sept 11.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 09:02 PM

You don't go be make a fish bark just by calling it a dog. Where'd ya get the 80-90 figure from? FAWK. If those numbers are correct, then this is the first time in my life I've had a 'political' opinion that agrees with the majority. I am tickled taupe.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 09:30 PM

Little Hawk, you may ridicule me for anything you wish and it's no skin off my ass.

And I did not "ridicule Rosie O'Donnell for being self-important enough to publicly express an opinion on 911". If I'm ridiculing anything it's the celebrity-addicted culture that holds the opinions of famous people in higher regard than those who may be far more knowledgeable but less well known. People tend to put their critical-thinking skills on hold when ideas are presented by the famous.

And if Ms O'Donnell's opinions coincided 100% with my own it would make no difference. I'd still want to know what Joan Rivers thinks.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 09:58 PM

Well, Joan Rivers is one person whose opinion I never want to hear, regardless of what it is... ;-)

The only value to being a celebrity is this: people are a lot more likely to listen to you than to someone they haven't heard of before. That can be good or that can be bad. Depends on what you've got to say. It's a mixed blessing, in other words.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 10:26 PM

Peace, she is making up figures that are like the fact she has pointed to. If I gave Froth a list of websites that disprove her facts, she would call me a government plant and say everything is a coverup. You can't argue with that type of twisted logic. Froth has her mind made up and the rest of us do not matter. More power to her.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 10:56 PM

back there 40-50 silly posts ago, bobad posted this link to the **EXPERT** explanation of what happened to the Twin Towers. Which of you conspiracy theorists bothered to read it? It is detailed, it is clear, it is compelling...it is filled with FACTS. It is not about just deciding to believe or 'trust' someone, Little Hawk, it is about looking at real evidence and science and realizing that there ARE good reasons to accept that those building collapses were just as explained, no matter HOW many speculations you can concoct about how various political/financial/religious/cultural zealots 'might' have had a hand in it!!!!

Yeah...I AM getting royally pissed at this stupidity being propagated and repeated...like the idea the Holocaust 'didn't really happen'.

You KNOW me....I argue a lot, but I seldom get actually angry....but I can feel the smoke rising from my ears...and it ain't no plot.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 03 Apr 07 - 11:18 PM

Bill,

I read that when you posted it a while back--to my knowledge, Bobad's is the second posting of that link. (I think it was by you, anyway.) What Eager and Musso describe is a way the buildings could have collapsed without there being other things involved. It is elegant. And possible. But it is not necessarily the whole story.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 12:56 AM

The White House declassified and released Saturday the daily intelligence briefing delivered to President Bush a month before the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

The declassified intelligence report said the FBI had detected "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/bush.briefing/index.html

Sound familiar? After years of stonewalling, the Bush cabal was forced to release that memo. It was like a roadmap of what was about to happen.

Maybe we should all quit pretending to be experts in fields we're not and discuss something we all DO have some knowledge about--who did what when. We should be looking at things like Condoleeza Rice releasing that memo. Years of saying "we had no idea," then she casually produces the thing. And now people are discussing steel melting points, but we've just let Rice's admission that they were forewarned slide down the memory hole.

It's almost as if we're meant to focus on the unprovable technical aspects of the crime so we won't look at the provable human aspects.

What CAN be proven about 9/11 is that there is an ongoing government coverup regarding the event. It began with former prosecutor Guiliani (who as a prosecutor knew better), intentionally tainting a crime scene in order to get the WTC steel onto boats bound for China as fast as possible. The coverup continues today under the guise of gag orders and court-blocked legal proceedings.

So instead of speculating on HOW 9/11 was carried out, maybe we should be asking who's benefitting from 9/11? Who had motive, means and opportunity? Who demonstrated criminal intent before, during and after the crime? Who exhibited "criminal demeanor" before and after the crime, and during the coverup "investigations"? Looking at those points will tell you who the perpetrators were. The Cavemen of Tora Bora did not aim their flintlock muskets at the West and force Dick Cheney to make NORAD stand down.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 02:11 AM

Okay, Bill, I read the article. It's interesting. It proposes a fairly plausible sounding theory of, as Peace says, one possibility of what might have happened, but certainly not the only possibility. It does not in any way explain what can plainly be seen in a number of videos of the buildings collapsing...concentrated, very localized jets of smoke and debris bursting horizontally out of previously undamaged floors considerably below the point of the collapsing sections above, sometimes WAY below them....well ahead of the collapse wave. Those powerful, very surgical looking lateral bursts of smoke and debris suggest to me...secondary explosions, such as are typically seen in many controlled demolitions of buildings...explosions intended to take out key structural points and permit the demolition to proceed in a rapid and symmetrical manner. Your article makes no mention of what I can plainly see with my own eyes in live film taken on that day. Funny that they don't, I think! It gives no recognition to many firefighters, police, reporters, and many civilian witnesses on that day who testified (and can be heard doing so on live news reports on 911) to both seeing and hearing numerous large secondary explosions in parts of the buildings far from the area hit by the planes (even in the basement, for heaven's sake). Were they all too stupid to be reliable or were they all lying on behalf of a vast civilian conspiracy to implicate the government? I don't think so. It also gives no explanation of why or how Building 7 collapsed neatly into its footprint, just like a controlled demolition, despite the fact that it had not suffered major structural damage or extensive fires, while buildings 5 & 6 did suffer major structural damage and extensive fires, yet did not collapse. They were both "pulled" in officially sanctioned control demolitions months later. You can see that on film too. The means is there to bring a modern steel frame building down in seconds, and you can see it...both unofficially (on 911) and officially months later (on buildings 5 & 6).

Go ahead and get mad because I don't think your theory is the only good one out there and the only one worth respecting. I don't care if you get mad about it. We all get mad about one thing or another that somebody else says on this forum.

Just think how mad you'd be if you were there on that day and SAW or HEARD something to make you think that there were bombs planted in the building, and you lost loved ones there...and NO ONE in the media will give you the time of day about it now.

That's mad, Bill. You could get a lot madder than you are now, believe me.

And I'm not saying I know...I'm just saying you don't know either. We are both dependent on second or third hand information from this witness or that witness...this expert or that expert...this article or that article.   We don't know, Bill. We theorize as best we can, based on second and thirdhand information from people who may well have some ax to grind that you or I don't know about either.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 02:26 AM

Bldgs 5,6 & 7 are the key. No way to sidle around what happened there. It is as you say, Little Hawk. 5 & 6 should have fallen if 7 did.

Video evidence of demolition signs are also plentiful. Also telling, on the video front, is that NYC police were ordered to collect all recording devices (cameras, video cameras, tape recorders). Ostensibly it was to "gather evidence," but in reality those things were just swallowed up and forgotten. Criminal demeanor, on orders from whom?

Pressure needs to be brought to bear on the worst offenders. I'm going to start urging these high-profile people to sponsor their own investigations into 9/11. There are thousands of scientists, cops, analysts, military experts, etc., who would attend an impartial investigation. And include surviving family members on the panel that hears the evidence. Someone like Mark Cuban (billionaire who is going to finance the new Loose Change movie) might foot the bill if he thought it would boost ticket sales.

An independent investigation, by Americans, is the only thing that will blow the lid off things.

What do you think about that? Good idea? Bad?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 02:29 AM

Any investigation that doesn't involve government would be welcome.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 02:40 AM

Excellent idea, Froth. But think how angry Bill will get. He may stop talking to me soon... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 09:41 AM

"It does not in any way explain what can plainly be seen in a number of videos of the buildings collapsing...concentrated, very localized jets of smoke and debris bursting horizontally out of previously undamaged floors considerably below the point of the collapsing sections above, sometimes WAY below them....well ahead of the collapse wave."

Look at it again and remember that building is essentially a tube. The floors collapsing above is creating air pressure as the material is moving downward. Where the walls were the weakest, the smoke and debris would be pushed outward.

"buildings 5 & 6 did suffer major structural damage and extensive fires, yet did not collapse"
Different construction, different location. Don't forget, building 7 was built upon a Con-Ed substation.

Also, comparing it to surrounding buildings is not going to give you similar results. You can have 4 people in an automobile accident and each have different injuries - or none at all. When I was in high school my best friend was sitting in the back of a car and suffered neck injuries when the driver and other passengers escaped without any problems.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 10:00 AM

"Literal rocket scientists telling you the truth of 9/11:"

Froth, amigo:

****I**** AM a genuine rocket scientist. 29 years experience, Atlas/Agena, Delta, Titan 2 and 4, Pegasus, and Arianne, as well as others. So, I expect YOU to listen to ME.

The government had nothing to do with it- it was the Martians, as I have explained. If you don't believe me, just try to find someone who saw us... I mean THEM. Since no-one did, they OBVIOUSLY did it, using the gravity generators as I have stated. THAT explains all the missing facts that you keep stating.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 10:10 AM

btw, I also worked the first four STS ( Shuttle) launches. You know, back when they had ejection seats? ( at least for the first). You can tell the first two launches because the external tank was painted white- then they figured out that it saved hundreds of pounds of weight NOT to paint it.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 11:38 AM

"Bill, ferchrissakes, would you quit trying to get these tinfoil hat folks to accept logic and scientific evidence????? They have absolutely no desire for the real truth."

Mick

Thanks, Mick...I shoulda realized good advice when I saw it.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 11:51 AM

Nobody here, Bill, has even the slightest desire to hear a "truth" that differs in any way from his own. Such is the human ego in all its rage, deceit, dishonesty, and inglory.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Wesley S
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 12:40 PM

Froth - I'd be very interested to hear where you stand on two different issues:

The moon landing: Real event or faked?

The Kennedy Assasination: Single gunman or conspiracy?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Stringsinger
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 01:12 PM

This topic is being generated with no real factual science to back it up. Mainly, it's speculation from both sides of the argument. A thorough research has not yet been conducted and chances are it won't be for a long while.

There is credible evidence for the fact that JFK was done in by organized crime figures.
This is after Lamar Waldron and Thom Hartmann did a ten year study and released their findings in "Ultimate Sacrifice". Their documentation is quite extensive and done over time.

In the case of Griffin's "New Pearl Harbor", he has not stated that the case has been solved.
He is presenting possibilities because of all the elements that point to a certain direction but he states also that the component parts of these elements are by no means clear or do they purport to be accurate. I think Griffin's motivation is that the 9-11 Commission do a better job then their white-wash.

I think there are many questions that need to be answered about the events on 9-11 but that no real definitive conclusion can be reached.

There are a lot of statements being made that have nothing to back them up except prejudices. Rancor over this subject by name-calling is useless. We may not know all the facts for a long time.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 01:15 PM

Wasn't on the moon, so I couldn't say. They tell me a lot of people "saw" it on television. As far as JFK, I know what a bullet does, and I saw his skull split open from the front (Zapruder film). Which brings me back to Dan Rather. He was a "cub reporter" that day, standing in possibly the only vantage point where you could see the killing bullet coming from. If any question ever arose regarding a bullet coming from that particular place...well, there was a TRAINED observational reporter standing right there and HE didn't see anything. Rather was later rewarded for his service for the ego-boosting top slot in front of the CBS camera. I saw Kennedy shot from the front with my own eyes, and Dan Rather was in position to act as naysayer if needed. Rather then went on to lie to Americans for years and years as he presented govt propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 01:38 PM

"Nobody here, Bill, has even the slightest desire to hear a "truth" that differs in any way from his own"

That sort of cynicism and blanket generalizing is not becoming to a basically intelligent and concerned guy, LH...and if it describes YOU, I am sad...if it includes me, I am insulted, for I do NOT think & operate that way. I draw my conclusions...or lack of them...from the best evidence I can find, interpreted in the most careful, expert and intelligent way I can find.
I do NOT put 'seeing puffs of smoke on videos with my own eyes', nor most of the other subjective speculation based on personal interpretation of sond & images in news videos, in the category of careful, expert, intelligent analysis.

I do NOT have a pre-digested agenda and penchant for swallowing every paranoid conspiracy theory dreamed up. If anyone comes up with SOLID evidence, I'll listen...but I have a pretty high standard for SOLID.....unlike Rosie O'Donnell and some others.

Now...that is all from me on this subject. I can't debate on these terms.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 01:49 PM

If you smell cynacism 9 times out of ten the cynic is a comic or at least trying to play one.

However if witness #1 sees something in the sky at 8AM, and you go look at 10 AM and conclude there is nothing, you can't say there was no evidence at 8.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 03:15 PM

If you don't have enough guts to face your own subjectivity with as critical a scrutiny as you do the subjectivity of others, Bill, then you may never attain humility or true wisdom.

It is abundantly clear to me that one thing, and only one thing is ever happening in this and in all such discussions on Mudcat.

1. People initially commit themselves to an opinion on something, based on whatever they're heard about it...from wherever. (doesn't matter much where)

2. Following that commitment, which is a wholly emotional one, they interpret all further evidence that they are presented with strictly to suit their now sacred opinion no matter what. Ron's interpretation of the jets of smoke and debris coming out of a few concentrated spots on those buildings (as happens in a controlled demolition when charges have been set off) is a spectacular example of how that is done. Just work everything backward from your established conclusion. Work backwards from your conclusion at all times, and you will never find your conclusion in jeopardy. (and you will say...that's what YOU'RE doing! naturally...)

Cops do the same thing (sometimes) when they DECIDE in their gut that someone (who is really innocent) is the guilty party in a crime. So have innocent men been tried, convicted, and rotted in jail, even been executed, yet later found out to have been innocent. There are numerous examples of this, but cops are supposed to be ojective, aren't they? Anyone can rationalize available evidence to fit a pre-determined conclusion he holds dear, and people do it all the time.

We are all speaking largely on faith...based on an initial gut decision we made...based on our initial reaction to various evidence we saw or heard about...our interpretation of the evidence is usually highly subjective.

There IS no way for any of us (on this forum) to prove we are right...because we don't have the resources to. All we can do is use what reason we have and make a gut decision about it.

Don't imagine that your gut decision is any more guaranteed to be right than mine or anyone else's, and recognize the fact that it is an emotional decision of yours which has become part of your identity. People defend their identity as tenaciously as they defend their very life.

And THAT is the engine driving all this combative and endless BS on this forum, none of which will ever achieve anything! Not facts. Not objectivity. Not fairness. Not mutual respect. Not impartiality. Just defence of established identity against "other".

It's enough to make a person sick, frankly. It makes me sick to watch it. I only keep coming back here because I'm addicted to doing so. To paraphrase the 12-step thing, I recognize that I am not powerful enough (yet) to overcome this addiction.

You're a good guy, Bill, as people go, but you are not willing to really face your own fallibility, your own subjectivity, and look it in the eye. That's how I see it. We could just as easily be on the opposite sides of this 911 argument. And if we were...nothing would change. You'd still think I was being completely idiotic. I'd still think you were completely failing to recognize that you are just the same as me...and subject to the very same weaknesses.

Either one of us may be completely mistaken about 911, and I know it. I KNOW how little I know, and how fragile my sacred "truths" are. I don't think you realise how little YOU know. Most people would be terrified if they knew how little they know, believe me...and they'd have to reassess a whole lot of things. Their ego would find itself in real peril, and when the ego is in peril it attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 03:26 PM

Considering that the Bush administration discounted or simply ignored the warnings it received from the outgoing Clinton administration, and from various intelligence agencies, both domestic and foreign, about the danger of organizations such as al Qaeda and of people like Osama bin Laden, it is patently obvious that the Bush administration was criminally incompetent. I am also of the opinion that, since from the very first days of the Bush administration, they were trying to figure a way to justify an invasion of Iraq to the American people, that they quite probably figured that terrorist groups may very well provide them with the "Pearl Harbor" they would need. Even so, when the attack on the World Trade Center did come, they had to pull out all the smoke and mirrors at their command to convince people that Iraq actually had something to do with it, even though almost every reasonable, well-informed person knew that was not the case.

I do not believe the Bush administration actively participated in the attack. The conspiracy put forth (or should I say "put Froth?") in this thread is so complex and convoluted that it would have Rube Goldberg stunned with admiration, and it requires ignoring science (see the article bodad linked to above) and invoking an extremely cynical view that, out of the thousands of people it would require to bring off such a plot, not one would feel morally outraged enough to speak out, "gag orders" notwithstanding.

No. The Bush administration is guilty of criminal negligence because it ignored the warnings, and because of lying and duplicity when it blamed Osama bin Laden (probably true), then attacked Saddam Hussein (who had nothing to do with it). There is more than enough guilt that can legitimately be laid at the Bush administration's door without having to make up improbable and overly complicated conspiracy fantasies. George W. Bush (including members of his administration, such as Cheney, Rumsfeld, and several others) will go down in history as one of the worst, if not the worst president this country has ever had.

Rosie O'Donnell has been a severe critic of the Bush administration all along. But she completely blows any credibility she ever had by embracing this ridiculous conspiracy theory. And furthermore, conspiracy theories like this one not only distract from the true charges that can be brought against the Bush administration, but they undercut those charges by making all critics of the Bush administration look like a bunch of brainless twits.

####

In an episode of "All In The Family," Edith had accidentally dented someone's fender in a grocery store parking lot, and much to Archie's upset, she left a note with her name and address under the windshield wiper of the dented car. The owner of the car, a priest, showed up at the Bunker's door. Wanting to avoid any responsibility, Archie tried to blow him off with a bunch of ridiculous arguments. The priest finally became exasperated and quoted the Bible:

"'Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.' Proverbs 26:4."

"What the hell is that supposed to mean!??" asked Archie.

The priest answered, "Don't waste your time arguing with an idiot!"

####

But there is a small controversy about that. Here is a commentary on a seeming contradiction in the Book of Proverbs:

Prov. 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him
.
Prov. 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

"Among alleged contradictions charged, this one wins a major award for silliness. What we have here is not contradiction, but dilemma -- an indication that when it comes to answering fools, you can't win -- because they are fools, and there is no practical cure for foolery (as this citation demonstrates). So:    It is unwise to argue with a fool at his own level and recognize his own foolish suppositions, but it is good sometimes to refute him soundly, lest his foolishness seem to be confirmed by your silence."

So although I feel it is a waste of time to engage in arguments like this one, I will probably continue, feeling that an obligation to add my own voice to the voices of Reason.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 03:43 PM

"Following that commitment, which is a wholly emotional one, they interpret all further evidence that they are presented with strictly to suit their now sacred opinion no matter what. Ron's interpretation of the jets of smoke and debris coming out of a few concentrated spots on those buildings (as happens in a controlled demolition when charges have been set off) is a spectacular example of how that is done. Just work everything backward from your established conclusion."

Yes and no. Of course this is one of the tools that any policework would use, but you over simplify the process and ignore the probability of the theory being correct. Also, what did you see? The videos that I have seen of the "smoke" shows small wisps that grew large as the floors above came down. I don't know how many controlled demolitions you've watched, but the few I remember show large puffs rapidly emitted and then the top falling down. The videos I have seen do not show this. I sincerely would appreciate seeing the video you are referring to.

Again, I have not witnessed a large number of controlled demolitions, and those I have are well known. It is very possible that if there were controlled demolition in this case they could have taken steps to create a different look - but again it keeps coming back to "why bother?"

Putting the psycho-babble aside about what our egos will and will not accept, it still boils down to logic and reason. You can be objective and fair and impartial.    I would not bet my house against this, but the odds keep looking slimmer and slimmer that there was a conspiracy. It doesn't add up - unless you subscribe to Abott & Costello mathmatics.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 05:00 PM

Study: Red planet heating up
POSTED: 3:46 p.m. EDT, April 4, 2007
Adjust font size:
CHICAGO, Illinois (Reuters) -- Earth's dusty neighbor Mars is grappling with its own form of climate change as fluctuating solar radiation is kicking up dust and winds that may be melting the planet's southern polar ice cap, scientists said Wednesday.

Researchers have been watching the changing face of Mars for years, studying slight differences in the brightness and darkness of its surface.

These changes in brightness have been generally attributed to the presence of dust, but until now their effect on wind circulation and climate has not been clear.

NASA scientist Lori Fenton and colleagues, reporting this week in the journal Nature, now believe variations in radiation from the surface of Mars are fueling strong winds that stir up giant dust storms, trapping heat and raising the planet's temperature.

By studying changes in light reflected from the surface of Mars -- a measure known as an object's albedo -- they predict the red planet has warmed by around 1 degree Fahrenheit from the 1970s to the 1990s, which may in part have caused the recent retreat of the southern polar ice cap.

On Earth, carbon dioxide traps infrared radiation which can affect global climate. This a phenomenon is known as the greenhouse effect. Fossil fuel emissions add to the problem.

On Mars, it's the red-tinged dust.

Fenton's team compared thermal maps gathered from NASA's Viking mission in the 1970s with maps gathered more than two decades later by the Global Surveyor.

They saw that large swaths of the surface have darkened or brightened over the past three decades.

These albedo changes strengthened winds, picking up and circulating dust, creating a vicious cycle that is warming the planet.

"Our results suggests that documented albedo changes affect recent climate change and large-scale weather patterns on Mars," Fenton's team wrote.

They believe changes in albedo should be an important part of future studies on atmosphere and climate change."


*****************************************************************

See! Scientific proof that the Martians are warming up, and planned 9/11 just to kill humans off and cool earth down so they can live here.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 05:03 PM

I think Al Gore smells "sequel".

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 11:55 PM

"And furthermore, conspiracy theories like this one not only distract from the true charges that can be brought against the Bush administration, but they undercut those charges by making all critics of the Bush administration look like a bunch of brainless twits."

Over six years gone by and Bush is still President, and it don't look like there's any charges being brought against that asshole. Explain that, Don.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 01:07 AM

This topic is driving lotsa folks a bit batty. Ron and BB with Martians, Bill and LH arguing, BWL wants to know what Joan Rivers thinks (she thinks he'd look delightful yet refined in one of these. Guys, let's take a day off. You are all needed on the cannibis thread. (I figure one of you will post and I'll be able to find it again. I have three stories on it so far. I'm aiming for five.)

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 01:08 AM

On second thought, fu#k the lot of you. I just found the cannibis thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 01:12 AM

Damn. I lost the thread again.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 09:22 AM

I am not yet buying the Martian theory, but I do believe that many of these theories come from Uranus.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 09:55 AM

Like, where's the cannibis thread, man?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 01:29 PM

Lots of demonization of Rosie O'Donnell going on currently on Fox News. Don't have time to read the articles right now but I will later. The mainstream news media wants VERY MUCH to shut her up. Must be a reason for it. What's the saying about protesting too much? And where there's smoke there's fire?

I've been drawing up an outline for a citizen's investigation into 9/11 and should have that done in a couple of days. The issue will never be solved by looking at the forensics alone. One side gets their experts, the other gets theirs, and the whole thing is fought out in a govt-controlled arena called a courtroom? Won't work. And some of those forensic people...all I know is I'll never again use the term "rocket scientist" as the default measurement of intelligence, not after what I've read on this thread. Geez.

But if we look at people's behavior before, during and after 9/11 (and ESPECIALLY examine who did the covering up after the fact), we'll learn who's responsible. Look at Jack Abramhoff and Scooter Libbey--no forensics to speak of in their cases, just paper trails and testimony--and they were slam-dunk convicted. The same can be done with 9/11. Just follow the paper trails and put the Justice Dept in a position where it has no CHOICE but to issue indictments. And since the govt won't do that right now, even with all the public evidence, and since the Democrats demonstrate daily that they are just the second head of the two-party system in America, it's up to us citizens to take action.

So I'm working on a proposal. Simple and elegant. And do-able in a cost-effective manner. So sweet. And when I finish it I'll email it to the people I think can make it happen. Public, citizen hearings on 9/11. Details later.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 01:40 PM

Not legal charges, Peace. But charges nevertheless, that influence public opinion in general and voters in particular, who can then pressure Congress to put the brakes on the little bugger. It's called "damage control." The legal charges may come later. I hope!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 01:43 PM

Thanks, Don. I too hope there are charges brought against Bush and Cheney. However, odds are that Bush will give everyone pardons, and the incoming President will give Bush a pardon. But, we can keep wishing.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 10:07 PM

Pardon for Bush? Depends on how much comes out about how he purposely misled the country into a tragic needless war. Pardon from Obama or Edwards? It ain't necessarily so.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 10:13 PM

Also, I believe I saw the incident ( saw it on My Space), which has stirred up this brouhaha. It's too bad--up to that absurd 9-11 theory she was doing great--posing great questions and representing the anti-Bush position well.

What it reminded me of was--believe it or not--Teribus. Having once made an absurd statement, she--and he--felt they could not back down. So the hole they dig for themselves gets progressively deeper.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 10:53 PM

Hmm... Physicist Steven Jones being interviewed. New information he's imparting. Analyzed a sample of dust from the WTC site and anticipated finding something which he did indeed find. Small spheres of metal in the dust. 10-50 microns. High in aluminum and sulfur (sulfur is added to aluminum-based thermite to create thermate). Chain of custody back to ground zero is established on this sample. Basically, the buildings were pulverized by the thermite explosions, and as the molten particles fell to the ground they cooled and formed spheres (as water freezes into round hail).

Jones also mentioned NIST was required by code to look for thermite at the crime scene but they didn't. No explanation, they just didn't.

This is so damning.

And here's a nice new site:

http://defendrosie.com/

Petitions, etc. to sign if you support freedom of speech.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Big Mick
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 11:41 PM

Damning? Is that why the media is jumping all over it????

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: balladeer
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 11:48 PM

If Rosie gets fired for her blog, maybe she'll become a real political commentator. Maybe CNN will exhume Crossfire and give her the chair on the left, across from ... who? Ann Coulter? Stephen Colbert? How would Rosie look in a bowtie, I wonder?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 11:57 PM

It's the media's job to misdirect. OJ Simpson & Anna Nicole, but no 9/11 questions. But then you know that. We all know that. Even back when I was watching TV they'd feed us dog and puppy stories while wars were raging around the world.

Physicist Jones also hinted that he's been invited to appear on The View. The show O'Donnell is a part of. Bunch of women sitting around chinwagging, then suddenly O'Donnell says WTC7 didn't fall naturally, and she's "Against America." But THIRTY MILLION PEOPLE in America heard "Ro" say that, and things are now starting to percolate. Steven Jones is a soft-spoken, non-threatening guy, and when he starts telling 30 million American TV watchers that thermite was used to bring down the towers, the game is gonna heat up, folks. The terrorists in the military-industrial complex are going to suddenly feel their asses hitting the corner. They'll be tempted to do another terrorist attack, but if they do, well...that would just kind of prove what "Ro" was talking about, wouldn't it? The crunch is coming, in my humble opinion. Who'd've thunk Rosie O'Donnell would be the catalyst? Life is curious.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 01:46 PM

"High in aluminum and sulfur (sulfur is added to aluminum-based thermite to create thermate)."


Well, those Martian gravity generators had a lot of aluminum and sulfur in them...


Of course, so did the AIRCRAFT that crashed into the towers.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 09:03 PM

HIGH in aluminum content. The airplanes were a drop in the bucket. I'm sure someone had some sulphur-headed paper matches in their pocket, too, so maybe that would account for the sulphur.

You 9/11 deniers have turned this into a kind of religion, haven't you? It's all a matter of faith in your govt. So sad. The military-industrial complex had control of the airspace on 9/11, had total access to all the crime sites before, during and after, and now they have to keep you constantly hypnotized with televised terrorism. So sad.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 09:58 PM

You are always good for a laugh Froth.   Do you honestly think ANYONE buy your patter? You cut and paste from the same websites and never bother to check on the facts or get a single corroboration. You just drank too much Kool Aid. You are the denier who has turned this into a religion and you are too blind to see it, or you enjoy your posts. What hubris!

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Strollin' Johnny
Date: 07 Apr 07 - 02:02 AM

Stop encouraging him/her, Ron. You cannot reason with a nutter.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: balladeer
Date: 07 Apr 07 - 12:08 PM

For a while after 9/11, there was this rumour circulating that somehow the White House was behind that horrible day. It was said that GWB and co. were floundering with regard to domestic policy, that the electorate was growing restless, that something was needed to draw the country together against a common external enemy. Yes, people do make these things up when they feel helpless, but it's also true that the current administration has lied over and over again to its citizens, so it's hard for people to believe anything thay say, natural to raise questions. I mean, in a post-Warren-Commission, post-Watergate, post-Iran-contra universe, you can't just take a president at his word, can you? Don't you have to ask all the hard questions?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 07 Apr 07 - 12:42 PM

"so it's hard for people to believe anything thay say, natural to raise questions. I mean, in a post-Warren-Commission, post-Watergate, post-Iran-contra universe, you can't just take a president at his word, can you? Don't you have to ask all the hard questions?"

Absolutely!!!! You MUST keep asking questions. The problem is, often you can come to a logical conclusion after a question is asked. Because the current regime is drawing a similar conclusion, people like Froth won't allow themselves to believe what is stareing them in the face. She has a hard time accepting and by reading the posts, you see that she is a state of denial.

You have to ask questions, but when you fall victim to following the lead of another group with an agenda - you are doing the same thing as those who fall in line with whatever the administration tells you to think. Propaganda works on both sides, and both sides use similar tactics.   Froth is no different than George Bush in that regard.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 07 Apr 07 - 12:51 PM

Jones conducted research at the Idaho National Laboratory, in Arco, Idaho, from 1979 to 1985, where he was a senior engineering specialist. He was the principal investigator for experimental Muon-catalyzed fusion from 1982 to 1991 for the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Advanced Energy Projects. From 1990 to 1993, Jones researched fusion in condensed matter physics and deuterium, for the U.S. Department of Energy and for the Electric Power Research Institute.

Jones has also been a collaborator in several experiments, including experiments at TRIUMF (Vancouver, British Columbia), The National High Energy Laboratory, KEK (Tsukuba, Japan), and the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory at Oxford University.

Jones specializes in metal-catalyzed fusion, archaeometry and solar energy.[2][3]

Yeah, just another nutter.

Now give me one of those Popular Mechanics quotes written by the cousin of the Homeland Security Director.

I know a man who works for a school that sells Homeland Security degrees. He supports teaching kids how to spy and torture because the school tells him to. That's the level to which Americans are stooping. I guess the same happened in Nazi Germany

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 07 Apr 07 - 12:55 PM

I posted a link about those degrees more than a month back. No one was interested.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Peter Woodruff
Date: 07 Apr 07 - 09:44 PM

I don't want to believe this horrific conspiracy possibility, but I do. Too many unanswered questions, too much obstruction, too much of a motive to believe otherwise.

Peter

P.S. Hang ALL the war criminals!

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 08 Apr 07 - 10:05 PM

"The problem is that Rosie O'Donnell is accusing her own country of heinous things. She has embraced the insane theory that Sept. 11 was an ''inside job.'' She has apparently bought into the notion that elements inside the USA killed Americans on that terrible day. This kind of garbage is peddled on the Internet by America haters, and has been debunked step-by-step by Popular Mechanics magazine, which has actually published a book on the subject...."

http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=36&url_article_id=26629&url_subchannel_id=&change_well_id=2

Gee willikers! They published a BOOK on the subject, so she MUST be wrong.

Wait a minute. Popular Mechanics is a Hearst Publication. Wm. R. Hearst started the Spanish American War by printing lies in his papers. And wait a minute. Benjamin Chertoff wrote the Popular Mechanics article. He's the cousin of Homeland Security Czar Michael Chertoff. Seems the Chertoffs have quite a bit to gain by calling everyone al qeada, locking us up here at home and then selling armaments overseas.

So, why do people quote the Chertoffs when they could quote from REAL books, like:

http://www.amazon.com/11-Commission-Report-Omissions-Distortions/dp/1566565847/ref=sr_1_5/103-0270227-8599843?ie=UTF8&s=books&qi

http://www.amazon.com/9-11-Synthetic-Terror-First/dp/0930852311/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-0270227-8599843?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=11760838

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 01:21 PM

Would Rosie O'Donnell Deny The Holocaust?

By Aaron Goldstein

"Those who deny the events of September 11, 2001 are no better than the people who deny that 6 million Jews perished in the Holocaust."

Goldstein. He even has the same last name as the boogeyman in Orwell's 1984. What an asswipe. The ADL (the absurdly misnamed Anti-Defamation League) labels anyone that threatens zionist expansionism as anti-semitic, or as a Holocaust Denier, etc. What turds. I mean, the head of America's Homeland Security Agency is half American and half Israeli (look it up...Michael Chertoff), and Bush's top advisors are pro-Israel zionists. America's about to fight yet another war for Israel, and American Christians are supporting the racists in Israel because of some belief that Jesus is going to appear in Jerusalem. So what more do people like this turd Goldstein want? You can't even open your fucking mouth in America now? He goes on to say:

"...Of course, I have no idea if O'Donnell holds such views about the Holocaust. But it would come as no surprise to me if she did."

What a hemmorhoidic asswipe.

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/04/09/would-rosie-o%E2%80%99donnell-deny-the-holocaust/

Oh, good, there's his email address. I'll get this post out to him posthaste. And there's a webpage. I'll send a copy to his office staff, let them know he's an asswipe, as if they don't suspect as much already.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 02:41 PM

Chertoff is half American and half Israeli? What are you talking about? There is nothing wrong or particularly notable about being a Jew- it takes something else to be an Israeli. Having a mother who was born or reared in Israel does not make him an Israeli, even half a one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Chertoff:

"Chertoff was born in Elizabeth, New Jersey, the son of Rabbi Gershon Baruch Chertoff, the former leader of the B'nai Israel Congregation in Elizabeth, and El Al flight attendant Livia Chertoff (née Eisen). His paternal grandfather, Rabbi Paul Chertoff, emigrated from Russia."

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 02:52 PM

Lot of serious money is going into a campaign to remove Rosie's website.

Dollars to donuts she will have to resort to mirror sites by the end of the month.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 03:13 PM

Is that your guess, Don? Would you provide a link?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 05:44 PM

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2007/030407stoprosie.htm



and on NBC Calling for her death sentence
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/300307Bonaduce.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Wesley S
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 06:00 PM

C-mon Donual - The story you link to says that Danny Bonaduce is calling for her head. Not the NBC network. Be accurate please. Don't you think there is a slight difference between the two?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 06:42 PM

opps that was on the MS NBC Joe Scarbourogh show not NBC.
thanks

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 06:51 PM

Danny Bonaduce? The man has the brain of a bird. -:)

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 06:56 PM

which makes him useful to the Bush admin

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 07:00 PM

It places him amongst his peers.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST, Ebbie
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 07:03 PM

Thanks for the link, Don.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 07:33 PM

Prisonplanet.com is a very far out and alarmist website full of hyperbolic opinions and flimsey facts, but they do recognize big brother when they see him.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 07:56 PM

OReilly is now making his career on Rosie's back
"She hates America and loves Iran"
http://infowars.net/articles/april2007/030407OReilly.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 08:51 PM

Chertoff's mom is an Israeli citizen. By Israeli law, that makes Chertoff an Israeli citizen. He has dual citizenship. Dual citizenship. Get your head out of Wikipedia's ass, Ebbie. It is BAD to have ANYONE with dual citizenship in a cabinet-level position. It would be bad enough if he were from some amusing little country, but he's a freakin' Israeli.

And Bonnaduce is just a test balloon. Same as the phony Khalid "confession" a while back. The govt sponsors this crap and then watches to see if you take the bait--if you approve. As soon as there is public support for the murder of an "opponent" of the U.S. government, those murders will start happening. You have to shout down these pricks.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 09:27 PM

"Now it seems if he's Jewish then he'd also have an Israeli Citizenship as well as American. Since all Jews anywhere in the world are granted citizenship to Israel.

"Why, I ask, is this ocuntry giving a job of Head of Homeland Security to a guy who is a Dual Citizen????" Another Froth-enlightened human

Ebbie again: Does this mean that we cannot have any Jew anywhere in our government? LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 09:52 PM

Can't argue with senility, but having an Israeli citizen as head of Homeland Security is pretty damn bad, Ebbie. In my opinion. And having Pelosi running around the Middle East representing Israel instead of America is pretty damn bad.

Rosie O'Donnell questioned 9/11 in front of 30 million Americans. The attack dogs of the govt-controlled fascist media tried to savage her, but they lost. Now the govt-controlled media is falling back on proven old standbys like Don Imus. The media won't dare attack O'Donnell on the issue of 9/11, and she will bring it up if given a chance, so an old pervert like Imus calls a few names and now that's supposed to be the big new media attention-grabber. Imus is a pervert with no telling what sick history hanging over his head, so they make him call someone a ho and then trot out Al Sharpton for the other half of the distraction. Americans ought to know better.

Meanwhile, another pervert named Tony Blair damned near took us into WW3. 15 kids chucked to the Iranians as cannon fodder, Blair issued an ultimatum, the fleets all arrived, then...the Iranians released the Brit twits and criticized Blair for sending a woman with a child into a dangerous situation. We should be really, really thankful the Iranians show such reserve.

Just heard William Rodriguez interviewed. A janitor in one of the WTC towers on 9/11. He's helping to form 400 families of 9/11 victims into a group. The families question 9/11. So, are they CRAZY too? Are they LOUDMOUTHS too? Rodriguez was given a hero's medal by GWBush after 9/11 and now he's on the no-fly list because he questions 9/11. A bona fide hero being treated like dirt.

http://william911.com/

And then the link below. I heard it mentioned in passing on a radio program, just remembered it right now:

http://calgary911truth.org/

Someone in Calgary, Canada (the police state of Canada), has balls enough to put up a site like that. And there are DOZENS of 9/11 sites going up weekly. There is NO STOPPING the truth of what happened on September 11 now. The private banks running the whole thing will probably launch another terrorist attack to try to drive 9/11 from our minds, but the next attack will be INSTANTLY recognized for what it is, thanks to people constantly hacking away at the Achilles heel of 9/11.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 09:36 PM

Rosie O'Donnell's going to leave "The View."

For 11 minutes she lectured 30 million Americans on the inconsistencies of the September 11 attacks. That's probably why she's leaving (or being forced to). Here's what the liberal Fox News says about it:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,268560,00.html

"...They had to have decided she must go because of one reason: her insistence on pushing 9/11 conspiracy nutter theories on national network television, a deeply embarrassing thing for any self-respecting network, especially one that is vying for the top spot in the evening news wars...."

So Fox News is telling America you WILL be shut up if you talk about the government's coverup of 9/11.

The broadcast news industry is desperate to hold onto the fried minds that still watch TV. I bet O'Donnell saying "Gulf of Tonkin, Google it," resulted in 15 million searches as soon as that show was over. Panic in Washington. O'Donnell was the #2 news story for a week because of this. They tried to feed you Anna Nichole and Britney, but Rosie O'Donnell was the #2 story because she dared to speak the truth. I'm very, very grateful to her for what she did.

And Fox News IS turning liberal. In 2 years you liberals are going to LOVE Fox News. Roger Ailes is its Chairman and CEO. He personally elevated Rush Limbaugh, a phony conservative, to prominence. And now Limbaugh is telling the conservatives who can't see through his act that there's an "80% chance" that Hillary Clinton will be president. Republicans know we've just seen two stolen presidential elections, and now it'll be the Democrats turn to steal the office. And Limbaugh's prepping them for this "inevitability," while Fox News comes out for gun control a half hour after the Virginia Tech shootings. You liberals hate Fox News because of its association with George Bush, but it's morphing into a liberal propaganda machine that you are going to LOVE.

And people who can't morph with the networks have to go. O'Donnell morphed in the direction of truth, and that's why she's going. R.I.P.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 09:46 PM

Froth, you have not seen the last of Rosie. Trust me, ABC is not letting her go. She has turned herself into a valuable commodity again. Just watch what happens. I would not be surprised to hear of her new deal within days, or by the end of her run on The View.   She has exactly what the networks need. No one gives a crap what she says as long as people tune in.

As for Roger Ailes, I actually worked for him at another network. Trust me on this, he is a Republican and is not turning liberal. Even though I don't care for his politics, I happen to have a great admiration for the man because I had an opportunity to see how he works - and he does it right (no pun intended). The man helped Richard Nixon turn his image around he and Ailes played a large role in getting him elected President. Roger knows the media, and more importantly, he knows the audience. His liberal counterparts came into the game too late and never understood. I have no use for his politics, but the man knows how to do his job.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: balladeer
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 10:51 AM

I have no concerns about Rosie's career. The View has given her a platform from which she can springboard in so many different directions.
She may even opt for a political commentary gig. One thing is certain, she will have her pick of jobs and will choose one that will allow her to spend more time with her children, who are very young and clearly the centre of her life. Whether or not The View can survive her loss is another question altogether. She and Joy Behar together, two comics playing off each other, gave the show real bite. Barbara Walters just brings it down.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 11:30 AM

So, Froth, you dislike Jews do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Dickey
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 11:45 AM

One picture is worth a thousand words.
Fred R. Barnard

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 11:53 AM

The guy's no artist.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 12:30 PM

Some people still haven't digested this--the neocons are communists. The "right-wing" neo-conservatives (Bush, Perle, Wolfowitz, Limbaugh, etc) are followers of Trotskyite professor Leo Strauss. The Trotskyite communists realized in the 1960's that the only way they could ever achieve prominence in America was to hijack one of the two major political parties, and that's what they've done. They've hijacked the Republican party.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm

George W. Bush has federalized religion and education. He's in favor of gun-restricting legislation, completely open borders and legalizing criminal illegal aliens. He's tripled the size of the federal government, created mandatory mental health screening and forced drugging of school children. He's secretly signed on to the merger of the U.S. with Canada and Mexico. These are all "big government," "communist" actions.

Yet GWBush has been presented to liberals as some sort of conservative. I know Americans have been dumbed-down, but the inability to see through the fake Bush facade is really distressing. The facade has been created through the media and primarily Fox News, and now Fox News is going to become more "liberal friendly," and you folks will be told 1) that Hillary Clinton is "inevitable" as President, and 2) that she's not so bad after all. And you'll lap it up and never recall that you used to hate Fox News.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Mickey191
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 12:34 PM

Balladeer, I agree 100% with your sentiments. I started to watch View when Rosie came on. Will not watch when she's gone. Barbara brings the show down to the cellar!

Side thought: I'm totally fed up with Trump--what will he do when she's gone? Read that his dumb show was 97th in the ratings a few wks. ago. (TVGuide) Couldn't be happier!

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Dickey
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 12:48 PM

Some people love Rosie

Like this lucky guy.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Dickey
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 03:38 PM

Second try.

Like this lucky guy.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 10:19 PM

Turns out the Fox News story about O'Donnell's "firing" was false. She said no to a new EXTENDED contract:

...In addition, The View wanted O'Donnell to sign a three year contract when Rosie just wanted a shorter commitment of 12 months....

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/odonnell_stop_rosie_founder_admits_defeat.htm

Didn't she get $10 million for a one-year contract on The View? I think that was the figure. And she was offered even more this time around. And she said no. So she wasn't "fired" after all. Turned down a hell of a lot of money in order to tell the truth, too. The article above talks about her arranging a new show. I bet she's back on TV telling the truth about 9/11 on her own show within 3 months. That'll be sooo coooool.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 11:56 PM

All these posts and no one has answered the question.

Did Rosie cause 9-11 or not?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 12:14 AM

Rosie who?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: catspaw49
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 09:42 AM

I have read along here and finally been able to understand the conspiracy viewpoint after seeing this site which explains a lot.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 01:47 PM

Go nad sand St rife weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 14 May 07 - 10:13 PM

I suppose O'Donnell's working out the remainder of her contract on the program:

Rosie O'Donnell has returned 9/11 truth to prominence by laying out the facts for the controlled demolition of the twin towers and Building 7 on ABC's The View this morning.

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/140507rosiesoundsoff.htm

Video of it at the link above. Part of the transcript below:

O'DONNELL: Joy, wait a minute, wait a minute. The command control center was in World Trade Center Seven, not in one or two. It was in the building that mysteriously collapsed at 5:30 P.M.

BEHAR: Well, it shouldn't have been in any of them.

O'DONNELL: It was not in tower one, it was not in tower two that got hit by a plane it was in tower seven that got hit by nothing, 47 floors and dropped at 5:30 into itself.

HASSELBECK: There was also internal fire in that building, which can melt steel which was holding up that building.

O'DONNELL: No way Elisabeth.

HASSELBECK: It can weaken it. If you ask physicists alone, the force by nature, the volcanic force alone could have taken that building.

O'DONNELL: 2700 degrees melts steel.

HASSELBECK: And how much does it take to weaken it? I think it's 270.

O'DONNELL: 270 degrees?

HASSELBECK: I'll check. I'll check. I'll check on that.

O'DONNELL: Well, if you watch all the documentaries --

HASSELBECK: Once steel is weakened, once steel is weakened. It doesn't have to be completely melted.

O'DONNELL: Did you know that there were three pools of molten steel? There was one pool underneath World Trade Center One

HASSELBECK: I read all the conspiracy theories on this. I know that, that's what they're saying.

O'DONNELL: So you labeled it a conspiracy. I'm just telling you there was a fact. There's a fact that there was molten steel under those three buildings.

HASSELBECK: And it is also a fact that volcanic pressure alone could take the building down.

O'DONNELL: The volcanic pressure of what volcano?

HASSELBECK: The pressure alone of those two buildings coming down.

BEHAR: The bomb, she's saying the bomb.

HASSELBECK: I'm saying the bomb, the force of the other two.

O'DONNELL: Wait, the bomb? You're saying the plane.

BEHAR: The plane, the plane, the plane. The explosion

HASSELBECK: The force of the other two buildings coming down could alone take that building down.

O'DONNELL: Do you know how fast it took those towers to fall?

HASSELBECK: I don't have the exact time on me.

O'DONNELL: Nine seconds. Do you know how fast it would taken something to free fall with no resistance from the top of that building? Nine seconds. It's physically impossible.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Bill D
Date: 14 May 07 - 10:39 PM

gee....I didn't know Rosie had an engineering degree along with her metallurgical certificate!

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 14 May 07 - 10:43 PM

Okay, Rosie reads the same sites that Froth reads. Both ladies seem to assume that they know the facts. Hmmmm.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 14 May 07 - 11:29 PM

Oh, so degrees are the measure of the truth? YOU guys are the ones who quote Benjamin Chertoff, the cousin of Homeland Security Czar Michael Chertoff. Here's Benjamin's Wikipedia entry. I fail to see anywhere in it a mention of a college degree. He's just a sensationalist tabloid reporter. I mean, that's about as brainless as a disc jockey:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Chertoff

Just prior to 9/11 Cathleen P. Black, who has family connections to the CIA and Pentagon and is president of Hearst Magazines, the owner of Popular Mechanics, fired the magazine's editor-in-chief and several senior veteran staff members and installed James B. Meigs and Benjamin Chertoff, cousin Michael Chertoff. Benjamin was put in the office to do a job, and he sure could have used a college degree, because the job he did was pretty sloppy.

Fortunately, we now have another in a series of excellent books by David Ray Griffin, 9/11 truth advocate. In his latest book he thoroughly guts high-school graduate Chertoff's bimbo assertions asbout September 11. DOCTOR Griffin's Wikipedia entry can be found at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ray_Griffin

His latest book can be found at:

http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechanics-Defenders-Conspiracy/dp/156656686X/ref=sr_1_1/102-5749621-0549756?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1179198156&sr=1-1

About the book, one reviewer writes:

In his latest work Griffin dissects the so-called 9/11 debunkers. Those who claim that the Kean Commission was the "fullest possible accounting into the events of September 11th" basically have their hindquarters handed to them - gift-wrapped.

Another reviewer (who had the government-induced brainwashing broken by the book) writes:

Right now, as I write this, I honestly feel sick to my stomach. I've cried myself to sleep the last two nights. Why? Because this book has changed my mind on the events and aftermath of 9/11.

It's almost too much to handle all at once, all the revalations made by Mr. Griffin in this book. I feel like my mind has gone through a polar shift over the last 72 hours.

For over 5 years I've been blind. For 5 years I've been have been down-and-out lied to. Right under our noses, America was stolen by criminals. I'm infuriated, and don't know what to do with myself.

Reading this book was very much a life-altering event for me. I just hope enough people end up reading it. It could be the most important thing they ever do....

Another review says:

Griffin shows that the Popular Mechanics report consists of special pleading, circular reasoning, appeals to the authority of the NIST report, straw men, and internal contradictions in the report itself....

The two WTC towers did not collapse. They blew up and disintegrated, as did WTC 7. There is an enormous energy deficit in every account that rules out the use of explosives. Gravitational energy is insufficient to explain the pulverization of the buildings and contents and the severing of the 47 massive center core steel columns in each of the towers into convenient lengths to be picked up and loaded onto trucks; much less can gravitational energy account for the pulverization of the top floors of the towers and ejection of steel beams hundreds of feet horizontally just prior to the disintegration of the floors below....

Griffin's writings can also be found at this site under the heading "130 Professors question 9/11":

http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html

One of those professors talks about Newtonian physics and the pancake theory. For the floors to fall as outlined in the pancake theory would have taken 44 seconds, WITHOUT the most massive central core support columns in the world being taken into account. If the floors were just floating in space, suspended, and they began falling, each impact would absorb a bit of energy, then a bit more, and more, etc., down the length of 110 floors. He calculated 44 seconds under those conditions. The bldgs fell in 8 seconds and 10 seconds. His paper said that the most massive steel core columns in the world (which held the floors in place with thousands of bolts as big as your arm), and the steel latice work outer frame had not been factored in to arrive at the 44 seconds needed to comply with the laws of physics.

Maybe it's just the black helicopters forcing me to say this, but I think Rosie O'Donnell referencing the research of people like Professor Emeritus Griffin gives her just a bit more fire power than those of you who quote high schook grad-u-ate Chertoff.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 15 May 07 - 09:46 AM

Yawn. Nothing new here, same old froth. No substance, just froth.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 May 07 - 12:51 PM

Speaking of "froth," this thread just goes to show that watching daytime television can turn your brain to meringue.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 15 May 07 - 01:27 PM

No, Ron. "Froth" is posting substance. You are merely making ad hominem attacks with no substance (froth) as are most of the others who are attacking this person simply because they don't like his/her position on this particular matter. No substance, just personal attacks. Same old same old.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 15 May 07 - 01:46 PM

Sorry Carol, but these are the same arguments that do not have any backing. This person attacks us when we show evidence to the contrary, so she deserves the same when she brings up her "ad hominem" attacks.   Give us some credible evidence.

Same old same old is very true.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 15 May 07 - 01:47 PM

You know, I might be giving Benjamin Chertoff too much credit. The Wikipedia entry doesn't even state that he has a high school diploma. Just says he started working for a tabloid at the age of 19. After reading his Popular Mechanics piece, I wonder if he is even English-speaking.

I'm thinking of getting Griffin's new book to see what he has to say specifically about Chertoff's piece in Popular Mechanics. Griffin reportedly dissects the arguments point by point. He also goes to the heart of one of the documents the government's 9/11 supporters use--the NIST report. That's chapter 3 of the 4-chapter book. So the document that Chertoff, Olesko and the other government flunkies use is destroyed, then the space-junk orbiting it (like the Popular Mechanics article) is in turn destroyed. It's tiresome to have to debate the obvious, but if the government's going to employ comic book readers to try to perpetuate the myth of the Cavemen of Tora Bora ordering NORAD to stand down, I suppose I'll spring for the book.

In other O'Donnell news, she's apparently going to have a string of 9/11 experts on the program in her remaining time. 30 million viewers per day being schooled in the fundamentals of Newtonian physics and the tactics of coverup. Hopefully she'll set up a debate between Professor Emeritus Griffin and possible highschool graduate Chertoff.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 15 May 07 - 01:54 PM

Sorry I make you uncomfortable Froth, but I am far from a government flunkie. If you can't accept that there are people that do not but into your diatribe, you need to develop another tactic besides attacking the individual. If you cannot counter our arguements, your own position becomes worthless ramblings.   

If you think that by calling me a flunky or saying that Popular Mechanics is junk you are winning over converts, you are sadly mistaken. Look in a mirror, you haven't got a shred of evidence that can't be disproved with real science, not something you collect on the internet.

I know it would make your fantasy world a "safe place" if you were to actually uncover truth, but you haven't shown a thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 15 May 07 - 01:55 PM

... and please, call me Ron.   We are friends by now.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 15 May 07 - 02:00 PM

Those arguments have quite a lot of backing. From people who are far more qualified to make them than the people who wrote the Popular Mechanics article. If you bothered to look in the links that the poster you are attacking is providing for you, you would know this.

This one, for instance...

http://patriotsquestion911.com/


The people quoted in this site are credible, mainstream people who are perfectly qualified to debunk the official 911 conspiracy theory. Go ahead and read it. All of it. To attack "Froth" without bothering to read these kinds of links is intellectually lazy and quite disingenuous.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 15 May 07 - 02:04 PM

Carol, you are ignorant of the conversation that has been going on here.   I have read the links that Froth provided, as have most of us that have been involved in the discussion. We have shown counter evidence that has been dismissed by Froth, and now you, because of the source - not the content.

Please do not enter into a discussion by attacking the individuals with unfounded comments about what we have or have not read. You have no clue as to what we have studied and to make statements like that is rude and uncalled for.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 15 May 07 - 02:14 PM

I'm not at all ignorant of what you have been doing in these discussions, Ron. I've been following this and the other discussions on this subject. I've been seeing you and quite a few others resorting to ad hominem attacks whenever you are presented with information that you cannot refute, like the link I put in my last post. You keep saying the poster you are attacking hasn't provided any evidence, even when the evidence he/she provides is overwhelming. That is not a credible argument. If you disagree with the experts in the links, refute their arguments point by point. You have not been doing that. Whenever the poster you have been attacking provides credible sources for his/her positions, you resort to making comments like this one...

Yawn. Nothing new here, same old froth. No substance, just froth.

This is not an argument. It's an attack. It's not a refutation of the sources that have been provided, it's an attack on the person who provided them.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 15 May 07 - 02:16 PM

So you pick on our words but it is okay when Froth and others to do it?   Picking sides perhaps?

Read the history of these threads and see where it starts.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 15 May 07 - 02:19 PM

... and by the way Carol, the sites you have listed today list a number of people - an impressive list, that have "questions" about 9/11.   You can add me and most of the people on Mudcat to the list. There is a HUGE difference between questioning the report and believing in a conspiracy to bring the buildings down.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 15 May 07 - 02:25 PM

I've seen where it starts, Ron. As soon as anyone at all provides any credible evidence that the official 9/11 conspiracy theory is a lie, you and quite a few others start making fun of and attacking the person who posted the evidence. It's not just the person whom you are attacking in this thread. Pretty much anyone who contradicts the official 9/11 conspiracy theory gets the same treatment. It almost always starts with the first response to the initial post in the thread (lots of derisive jokes about things like "tin foil hats" mixed in with the outright attacks as well).

It's a knee-jerk reaction by people who find it emotionally disturbing to contemplate the possibility that their government is capable of murdering its own citizens. I understand why people feel this way, but it is, nevertheless, not a credible argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 15 May 07 - 02:32 PM

That is a lie Carol.

Read the history. You are making the same accusations about me that I made about Froth.   I often gave counter arguements to Froth's postings and asked questions of her, but was met with snide comments such as her recent comment that I am a government lackey. Everytime we tried to discuss it, I was attacked.   So yes, I restorted to the same.

Another lie is when you make a statement saying that I find it emotionally disturbing that our government is capable of murdering its own citizens.   It has happened numerous times in our short history.   Our ineptitude allowed 9/11 to happen. That does not mean we sent people in to wire the buildings. THAT is where I have a hard time being convinced.

Please take this discussion off a personal level. I would love to discuss this on a point by point basis but there is no reason to get personal.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 15 May 07 - 02:46 PM

It's not a lie, Ron. Whenever he/she posts documentation, you attack him/her. It's hardly surprising that he/she would eventually respond in kind. You look at the history yourself. If you don't feel up to it, I'll provide some links to your posts when I get time.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Wolfgang
Date: 15 May 07 - 02:50 PM

Making fun of this conspiracy theory is a very sane reaction. I can't speak for others but my reason for disbelieving this theory and considering it crap is not that I could not believe that a government would not kill its own citizens.

My reason is that this "theory" involves so many different people knowing at least part of the "truth" that assuming that all of them keeping silent is beyond reasonable. It is a conspiracy theory in the original sense of these words. Too many people involved.

Now, if someone would tell me that Bush and some close advisors knew of the attack before it occured and kept it to themselves in order to be able to wage war on the "axis of evil" I might not believe it without good arguments. But I wouldn't laugh and call it a conspiracy theory. Six people murdering, lying and keeping a secret is a possibility. Hundreds (and many of them without sharing a new world order agenda) isn't.

That's why the faked moon landing is a conspiracy theory and alternative theories about Kennedy's murder aren't. If LBJ had Kennedy murdered, only very few people would know about it. If the moon landing had been faked, hundreds would know and some would talk.

Little Hawk is someone who gets this distinction consistently wrong. In one of the 9/11 threads he posted (not verbatim quote): I believe in this conspiracy theory and you believe in the other. One is a conspiracy theory and the other is a theory involving a conspiracy of a few determined people.

Disbelieving this crap does not mean believing every single thing in the report. Governmental reports are usually not truthful in every respect. So I would expect that some details are wrong.

Froth's story just makes no sense but it serves some emotional needs and so there will always be suckers for such theories.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 15 May 07 - 02:55 PM

No need, I am not denying that I have attacked him or her. I may have even added to the "tin hat" comment at one point or another. It is out of frustration and I am not proud that I did so. Perhaps she feels the same way, but I doubt it from what I have read.

If you are going to look at the history,I would ask that you look at some of my earlier posts on this and other threads and see the response. Was it any different from the words you throw at me?

I am always willing to admit mistakes and to be disproven.   My comments have been focused on the idea that there was a consipiracy to bring down the towers and that the buildings were wired with explosives to collapse. The theories that have been presented by Froth and a few others do not hold up to scrutiny. When simple questions are asked such as how they could have wired it, we are asked to suspend belief and accept some implausible scenarios.

As for our governments piss poor response on 9/11, what connections Bush and other government officials had, I have lots of questions and anger. Yes, I believe there was a coverup - and I think the conspiracy theory is a smokescreen to divert attention from the real crimes that were committed on 9/11.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 15 May 07 - 04:04 PM

Wolfgang, you seem not to understand that even the official version of events is a "conspiracy theory". It just happens to be the one most people seem to be comfortable with, you included.

To your credit, Ron, you are not one of the ones who has tended to start with the ad hominem attacks; that has mostly been other people. When you accuse people like Froth of attacking others, however, you don't seem to notice that he/she has been the recipient of most of the attacks at the start of the discussion. As I said, under the circumstances, it's not hard to understand why eventually he/she starts to respond in kind. This thread is a pretty good example of this...

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=96960#1902915

But it seems that every time a good source of information is presented, in which people who are not 'conspiracy theorists', but rather, experts in their field who know, based on scientific fact, that the official 9/11 conspiracy theory is impossible, you ignore those sources and make the kind of ad hominem attack that I quoted above. Your argument is that others haven't presented any credible documentation, even though tons of credible documentation has already been presented, and you are just ignoring it.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 May 07 - 04:08 PM

It's characteristic of believers in conspiracy theories to dismiss critics of the theory as not looking at the evidence presented or of being "too insecure and afraid" not to believe the generally accepted explanation. But that is an ad hominem attack geared to undercut what the critics have to say.

I have thoroughly examined the evidence presented, and have concluded that it lacks credibility. Wolfgang and others have pointed out that such a conspiracy would involve hundreds if not thousands of people, and for there to be not one person willing, if not eager, to come forward and blow the whistle stretches credibility beyond the breaking point. And there are many other highly questionable aspects of the so-called evidence offered.

For example, videos of the buildings collapsing have been offered, showing what appear to be a series of explosions many floors below where the collapse is occurring, providing "incontrovertible evidence" that the buildings were brought down by controlled explosions. The fact of the matter is that buildings such as those at the World Trade Center have transformers all through them to serve the electrical needs of buildings that size.

Have you ever seen or heard a transformer explode? This happens when a transformer shorts out, and what happened when the planes hit the buildings and when the floors started to "pancake" would cause many of the buildings' transformers to short out, burst into flame (very hot fire) and then explode violently. That is what those so-called "controlled explosions" really were.

Video of a transformer in a substation shorting out, and description of the process HERE (allow video to fully load, then replay).

One can go through the "evidence" offered by the conspiracy theorists point by point and demonstrate that most of it is bad science or just plain not what happened at all, or that there are more reasonable explanations. When all the ducks are in a row, there is little there to contradict the "official version" that holds up to scrutiny. The buildings were brought down as a result of being hit by aircraft.

Now—that leaves a great deal unexplained, much of which can arouse reasonable suspicion. Considering that the government was forewarned by a number of people, including its own intelligence agencies, and by the outgoing Clinton administration, of such an attack by Al Qaeda and the warnings were simply blown off, and that Norad didn't follow standard procedures when it became known that the planes had been hijacked and a whole variety of other appearances of asinine incompetence makes me highly suspicious that the Bush administration—for whatever reason, quite likely that it was the "Pearl Harbor" they were hoping for—allowed the attacks to take place.

God knows, that would be bad enough, and certainly grounds for criminal action. But is this conspiracy theory that GUEST,froth advocates real?

Not bloody likely!

And anyone who claims that those who get on GUEST,froth's case without reading the material, watching the videos, considering the evidence offered, or merely blowing it off, don't know what the hell they're talking about!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 15 May 07 - 04:12 PM

Thanks Carol, and I appreciate the quote you pulled. In it, I was responding to a "theory" that controlled demolition was used. Yet none of the experts that you note came up with any plausible explanation as to how it can be done. It is not the so much the source, it is the infomration they are providing. I'm not IGNORING those sources, but the sources that are providing have shown little substance and explantion.   I'm sorry, you are saying it is "credible" but the sources I am seeing posted by Froth have not shown any evidence that can be proven.   

Even the video evidence that supposedly shows the building falling in a ridiculously short time have been shown false. Check the sources and you will find video that shows a different story, also from credible experts.

I'm not saying that we should ignore theories, but we need to explore them.   People like Froth have quoted it as "the truth" or "fact", when in reality it is not proven anything. Keep your options open.   If you accuse people of closing their minds to theories, you can't do the same when the theory or evidence is opposite yours.

Why is Popular Mechanics article so suspect?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 15 May 07 - 05:15 PM

It's characteristic of believers in conspiracy theories to dismiss critics of the theory as not looking at the evidence presented or of being "too insecure and afraid" not to believe the generally accepted explanation. But that is an ad hominem attack geared to undercut what the critics have to say.

This argument cuts both ways, Don, with both the official and non official conspiracy theories. And you are just as guilty of these things as those you oppose. Your arguments are no more sound than any of the ones you say you don't accept. So there really is no reason to be making judgements about and ridiculing the people who accept a different version of events than the one you accept.


I'm sorry, you are saying it is "credible" but the sources I am seeing posted by Froth have not shown any evidence that can be proven.   

Ron, none of the official versions of events can be proven either, but that doesn't seem to stop you from believing them. On the other hand, the experts who have come out against the official conspiracy theory are using sound scientific principles (laws of nature and physics), to back up their claims, while those who are promoting the official conspiracy theory are not.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 15 May 07 - 05:32 PM

No, it doesn't stop me from believing them because after weighing both sides of the story, and using logic and common sense.

That's not quite true when you say that the official conspiriacy theory is not using the laws of nature and physics. Tell me what parts you feel are wrong. Let's talk specifics and maybe we can see each others point with some more clarity.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 15 May 07 - 05:44 PM

using logic and common sense

According to your way of looking at it perhaps. I don't happen to see it that way. I see the arguments being made by other people as being much more consistent with logic and common sense.

I'll provide examples as time allows. I have a gallery opening on Friday (my pieces are due on Thursday) and I have four pieces that still require a lot of work before I submit them.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 15 May 07 - 06:47 PM

"According to your way of looking at it perhaps."
Absolutely. Myself and a lot of other people - including scientists and engineers.

"I don't happen to see it that way. I see the arguments being made by other people as being much more consistent with logic and common sense."
I look forward to discovering more about your ideas of logic.

Good luck wih your opening!

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 15 May 07 - 07:17 PM

Here's a start...


(From my previous link) Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret) – Former Commanding General of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, 1981 - 1984. Also commanded the U.S. Army's Electronic Research and Development Command and the U.S. Army's Intelligence School and Center. Former head of Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence. 32-year Army career.

"One of my experiences in the Army was being in charge of the Army's Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence during the Cold War. I measured pieces of Soviet equipment from photographs. It was my job. I look at the hole in the Pentagon and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon. And I said, 'The plane does not fit in that hole'. So what did hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What's going on?"


Col. George Nelson, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority. 34-year Air Force career.


Aircraft Parts and the Precautionary Principle

Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True:
Aircraft Parts as a Clue to their Identity

by George Nelson
Colonel, USAF (ret.)

The precautionary principle is based on the fact it is impossible to prove a false claim. Failure to prove a claim does not automatically make it false, but caution is called for, especially in the case of a world-changing event like the alleged terror attacks of September 11, 2001. The Bush administration has provided no public evidence to support its claim that the terror attacks were the work of Muslim extremists or even that the aircraft that struck their respective targets on September 11 were as advertised. As I will show below, it would be a simple matter to confirm that they were - if they were. Until such proof is forthcoming, the opposite claim must be kept in mind as a precaution against rushing to judgment: the 911 hijackings were part of a black operation carried out with the cooperation of elements in our government.

In July 1965 I had just been commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the U. S. Air Force after taking a solemn oath that I would protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I would bear true faith and allegiance to the same. I took that oath very seriously. It was my constant companion throughout a thirty-year military career in the field of aircraft maintenance.

As an additional duty, aircraft maintenance officers are occasionally tasked as members of aircraft accident investigation boards and my personal experience was no exception. In 1989 I graduated from the Aircraft Mishap Investigation Course at the Institute of Safety and Systems Management at the University of Southern California. In addition to my direct participation as an aircraft accident investigator, I reviewed countless aircraft accident investigation reports for thoroughness and comprehensive conclusions for the Inspector General, HQ Pacific Air Forces during the height of the Vietnam conflict.

In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft — and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. This is because every military and civilian passenger-carrying aircraft have many parts that are identified for safety of flight. That is, if any of the parts were to fail at any time during a flight, the failure would likely result in the catastrophic loss of aircraft and passengers. Consequently, these parts are individually controlled by a distinctive serial number and tracked by a records section of the maintenance operation and by another section called plans and scheduling.

Following a certain number of flying hours or, in the case of landing gears, a certain number of takeoff-and-landing cycles, these critical parts are required to be changed, overhauled or inspected by specialist mechanics. When these parts are installed, their serial numbers are married to the aircraft registration numbers in the aircraft records and the plans and scheduling section will notify maintenance specialists when the parts must be replaced. If the parts are not replaced within specified time or cycle limits, the airplane will normally be grounded until the maintenance action is completed. Most of these time-change parts, whether hydraulic flight surface actuators , pumps, landing gears, engines or engine components, are virtually indestructible. It would be impossible for an ordinary fire resulting from an airplane crash to destroy or obliterate all of those critical time-change parts or their serial numbers. I repeat, impossible.

Considering the catastrophic incidents of September 11 2001, certain troubling but irrefutable conclusions must be drawn from the known facts. I get no personal pleasure or satisfaction from reporting my own assessment of these facts.

United Airlines Flight 93

This flight was reported by the federal government to be a Boeing 757 aircraft, registration number N591UA, carrying 45 persons, including four Arab hijackers who had taken control of the aircraft, crashing the plane in a Pennsylvania farm field.

Aerial photos of the alleged crash site were made available to the general public. They show a significant hole in the ground, but private investigators were not allowed to come anywhere near the crash site. If an aircraft crash caused the hole in the ground, there would have literally hundreds of serially-controlled time-change parts within the hole that would have proved beyond any shadow of doubt the precise tail-number or identity of the aircraft. However, the government has not produced any hard evidence that would prove beyond a doubt that the specifically alleged aircraft crashed at that site. On the contrary, it has been reported that the aircraft, registry number N591UA, is still in operation.

American Airlines Flight 11

This flight was reported by the government to be a Boeing 767, registration number N334AA, carrying 92 people, including five Arabs who had hijacked the plane. This plane was reported to have crashed into the north tower of the WTC complex of buildings.

Again, the government would have no trouble proving its case if only a few of the hundreds of serially controlled parts had been collected to positively identify the aircraft. A Boeing 767 landing gear or just one engine would have been easy to find and identify.

United Airlines Flight 175

This flight was reported to be a Boeing 767, registration number N612UA, carrying 65 people, including the crew and five hijackers. It reportedly flew into the south tower of the WTC.

Once more, the government has yet to produce one serially controlled part from the crash site that would have dispelled any questions as to the identity of the specific airplane.

American Airlines Flight 77

This was reported to be a Boeing 757, registration number N644AA, carrying 64 people, including the flight crew and five hijackers. This aircraft, with a 125-foot wingspan, was reported to have crashed into the Pentagon, leaving an entry hole no more than 65 feet wide.

Following cool-down of the resulting fire, this crash site would have been very easy to collect enough time-change equipment within 15 minutes to positively identify the aircraft registry. There was apparently some aerospace type of equipment found at the site but no attempt was made to produce serial numbers or to identify the specific parts found. Some of the equipment removed from the building was actually hidden from public view.

Conclusion

The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view. The hard evidence would have included hundreds of critical time-change aircraft items, plus security videotapes that were confiscated by the FBI immediately following each tragic episode.

With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged. Regarding the planes that allegedly flew into the WTC towers, it is only just possible that heavy aircraft were involved in each incident, but no evidence has been produced that would add credence to the government's theoretical version of what actually caused the total destruction of the buildings, let alone proving the identity of the aircraft. That is the problem with the government's 911 story. It is time to apply the precautionary principle.

As painful and heartbreaking as was the loss of innocent lives and the lingering health problems of thousands more, a most troublesome and nightmarish probability remains that so many Americans appear to be involved in the most heinous conspiracy in our country's history.

    Footnote: It will soon be five years since the tragic events of 9/11/01 unfolded, and still the general public has seen no physical evidence that should have been collected at each of the four crash sites, (a routine requirement during mandatory investigations of each and every major aircraft crash.) The National Transportation Safety Board has announced on its website that responsibility for the investigations and reports have been assigned to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but there is no indication that mandatory investigations were ever conducted or that the reports of any investigations have been written."

http://www.physics911.net/georgenelson

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 15 May 07 - 07:18 PM

Good luck wih your opening!

Thanks, Ron.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 15 May 07 - 07:22 PM

More from the Patriots Question site...


Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Also served on the staff of the Director of the National Security Agency. 20-year Air Force veteran.

* Contributor to 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out 8/23/06: Account of Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, Pentagon employee and eyewitness to the events at the Pentagon on 9/11.

"I believe the Commission failed to deeply examine the topic at hand, failed to apply scientific rigor to its assessment of events leading up to and including 9/11, failed to produce a believable and unbiased summary of what happened, failed to fully examine why it happened, and even failed to include a set of unanswered questions for future research. ...

It is as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it does not satisfy the rules of probability or physics. The collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics. ...

There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked [Pentagon] lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the secretary of defense [Donald Rumsfeld], who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a "missile".

... I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact - no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. ... all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident.

The same is true with regard to the kind of damage we expected. ... But I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight.

The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon.

... More information is certainly needed regarding the events of 9/11 and the events leading up to that terrible day."

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 15 May 07 - 07:29 PM

One more for now and then back to work for a while...


Commander Ted Muga, U.S. Navy (ret) – Retired Naval aviator (Grumman E-1 and E-2). Retired Pan-Am commercial airline pilot (Boeing 707 and 727).

    * Interview Alex Jones Show 4/11/07:
      Alex Jones: Recap Hani Hanjour's maneuver, what they claim -- go through the maneuver they claim he did and then what supposedly happened there at the Pentagon ...

      Commander Muga: The maneuver at the Pentagon was just a tight spiral coming down out of 7,000 feet. And a commercial aircraft, while they can in fact structurally somewhat handle that maneuver, they are very, very, very difficult. And it would take considerable training. In other words, commercial aircraft are designed for a particular purpose and that is for comfort and for passengers and it's not for military maneuvers. And while they are structurally capable of doing them, it takes some very, very talented pilots to do that. ...

      When a commercial airplane gets that high, it get very, very close to getting into what you refer to as a speed high-speed stall. And a high-speed stall can be very, very violent on a commercial-type aircraft and you never want to get into that situation. I just can't imagine an amateur even being able to come close to performing a maneuver of that nature.

      And as far as hijacking the airplanes, once again getting back to the nature of pilots and airplanes, there is no way that a pilot would give up an airplane to hijackers. ...

      I mean, hell, a guy doesn't give up a TV remote control much less a complicated 757. And so to think that pilots would allow a plane to be taken over by a couple of 5 foot 7, 150 pound guys with a one-inch blade boxcutter is ridiculous.

      And also in all four planes, if you remember, none of the planes ever switched on their transponder to the hijack code. There's a very, very simple code that you put in if you suspect that your plane is being hijacked. It takes literally just a split-second for you to put your hand down on the center console and flip it over. And not one of the four planes ever transponded a hijack code, which is most, most unusual. ...

      Commercial airplanes are very, very complex pieces of machines. And they're designed for two pilots up there, not just two amateur pilots, but two qualified commercial pilots up there. And to think that you're going to get an amateur up into the cockpit and fly, much less navigate, it to a designated target, the probability is so low, that it's bordering on impossible."

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 May 07 - 08:10 PM

Carol, if you read what I said carefully, you will note that I said I found the evidence unconvincing. At this point, I am not accepting anybody's story of what happened because I know there is much more to come out about this. Accepting either the government's position or the theory put forth by GUEST,froth, is rash and premature.

You are very quick to condemn.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 15 May 07 - 08:36 PM

I'm not condemning anyone, Don. I'm just noticing the kind of attacks some people (you included) are making against people who see things differently than you. Like this one, for instance...

Speaking of "froth," this thread just goes to show that watching daytime television can turn your brain to meringue.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 15 May 07 - 09:20 PM

Here's some more common sense from the Patriots Question site...

Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Former Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. Commercial pilot for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years, flying 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777 's. Had previously flown the actual two United Airlines airplanes that were hijacked on 9/11 (Flight 93, which impacted in Pennsylvania, and Flight 175, the second plane to hit the WTC).

    * Article 7/17/05: "The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple." … Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have "descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 270 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon's first floor wall without touching the lawn."…

      "For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible - there is not one chance in a thousand," said Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727's to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737's through 767's it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying."


    * Audio Interview 9/16/04: Regarding Flight 77, which allegedly hit the Pentagon. "The airplane could not have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into what they call a high speed stall. The airplane won't go that fast if you start pulling those high G maneuvers at those bank angles. … To expect this alleged airplane to run these maneuvers with a total amateur at the controls is simply ludicrous...

      It's roughly a 100 ton airplane. And an airplane that weighs 100 tons all assembled is still going to have 100 tons of disassembled trash and parts after it hits a building. There was no wreckage from a 757 at the Pentagon. … The vehicle that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77. We think, as you may have heard before, it was a cruise missile."


Capt. Daniel Davis, U.S. Army – Former U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director. Decorated with the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal for bravery under fire and the Purple Heart for injuries sustained in Viet Nam. Also served in the Army Air Defense Command as Nike Missile Battery Control Officer for the Chicago-Milwaukee Defense Area. Founder and former CEO of Turbine Technology Services Corp., a turbine (jet engine) services and maintenance company (15 years). Former Senior Manager at General Electric Turbine (jet) Engine Division (15 years). Private pilot.

    * Statement to this website 3/23/07: "As a former General Electric Turbine engineering specialist and manager and then CEO of a turbine engineering company, I can guarantee that none of the high tech, high temperature alloy engines on any of the four planes that crashed on 9/11 would be completely destroyed, burned, shattered or melted in any crash or fire. Wrecked, yes, but not destroyed. Where are all of those engines, particularly at the Pentagon? If jet powered aircraft crashed on 9/11, those engines, plus wings and tail assembly, would be there.

      Additionally, in my experience as an officer in NORAD as a Tactical Director for the Chicago-Milwaukee Air Defense and as a current private pilot, there is no way that an aircraft on instrument flight plans (all commercial flights are IFR) would not be intercepted when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, or stop communication with Air Traffic Control. No way! With very bad luck, perhaps one could slip by, but no there's no way all four of them could!

      Finally, going over the hill and highway and crashing into the Pentagon right at the wall/ground interface is nearly impossible for even a small slow single engine airplane and no way for a 757. Maybe the best pilot in the world could accomplish that but not these unskilled "terrorists".

      Attempts to obscure facts by calling them a "Conspiracy Theory" does not change the truth. It seems, "Something is rotten in the State."

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 15 May 07 - 09:34 PM

David L. Griscom, PhD – Research physicist, retired in 2001 from Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC, after 33 years service. Fellow of the American Physical Society. Fulbright-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City (1997). Visiting professorships of research at the Universities of Paris and Saint-Etienne, France, and Tokyo Institute of Technology (2000 - 2003). Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona (2004 - 2005). Winner of the 1993 N.F. Mott Award sponsored by the Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, the 1995 Otto Schott Award offered by the Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung (Germany), a 1996 Outstanding Graduate School Alumnus Award at Brown University, and the 1997 Sigma Xi Pure Science Award at NRL. Principal author of 109 of his 185 published works, a body of work which is highly cited by his peers. Officially credited with largest number of papers (5) by any author on list of 100 most cited articles authored at NRL between 1973 and 1988.

    * Personal blog 1/5/07: "David Ray Griffin has web-published a splendid, highly footnoted account of The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True: This scholarly work, rich in eyewitness accounts, includes 11 separate pieces of evidence that the World Trade Center towers 1, 2 [each 1300+ feet tall, 110 stories], and 7 were brought down by explosives. [Editor's note: WTC Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories, and was not hit by an airplane. It would have been the tallest buliding in 33 states. However, no mention of its collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks." Watch the collapse video here. And 5 1/2 years after 9/11, the Federal government has yet to publish its promised final report that explains the cause of its collapse.]

      ... I implore my fellow physicists and engineers who may have the time, expertise, and (ideally) supercomputer access to get to work on the physics of the World Trade Center collapses and publish their findings in refereed journals like, say, the Journal of Applied Physics.

      The issue of knowing who was really behind the 9/11 attacks is of paramount importance to the future of our country, because the "official" assumption that it was the work of 19 Arab amateurs (1) does not match the available facts and (2) has led directly to the deplorable Patriot Act, the illegal Iraq war, NSA spying on ordinary Americans, repudiation of the Geneva Conventions, and the repeal of habeas corpus (a fundamental point of law that has been with us since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215).

      Surely these Orwellian consequences of public ignorance constitute more than sufficient motivation for any patriotic American physicist or engineer to join the search for 9/11 Truth!"


Statement of Capt. Gregory M. Zeigler, PhD, U.S Army
Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer
September 19, 2006

I knew from September 18, 2001, that the official story about 9/11 was false. That was when I realized that the perpetrators had made a colossal blunder in collapsing the South Tower first, rather than the North Tower, which had been hit more directly and earlier.

Other anomalies poured in rapidly: the hijackers' names appearing in none of the published flight passenger lists, BBC reports of stolen identities of the alleged hijackers or the alleged hijackers being found alive, the obvious demolitions of WTC 1 and 2 [each 1300+ feet tall, 110 stories], and WTC 7 [570 feet tall, 47 stories, and not hit by an airplane], the lack of identifiable Boeing 757 wreckage at the Pentagon, the impossibility of ordinary cell phone (as opposed to Airfone) calls being made consistently from passenger aircraft at cruising altitude, etc., etc., etc.

I have taken off my uniform as a US Army intelligence officer, but I have not taken back my oath of loyalty to the United States of America and its Constitution. If it comes to a fight to the finish for my nation: count me in!

http://patriotsquestion911.com/Zeigler%20Statement.html


Wayne Madsen – Former U.S. Navy Intelligence Officer, specialist in electronic surveillance and security. Formerly assigned to the National Security Agency and the State Department. Currently, investigative journalist, nationally distributed columnist, and author. Senior Fellow, Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), a non-partisan privacy public advocacy group in Washington, DC. Frequent media commentator on terrorism and security matters. Author of Genocide and Covert Operations in Africa 1993-1999 (1999), co-author of America's Nightmare: The Presidency of George Bush II (2006), Jaded Tasks: Big Oil, Black Ops & Brass Plates (2006), The Handbook of Personal Data Protection (1992).

    * Speech 11/11/06 : "After five years of talking to many individuals in the intelligence community, in the military, foreign intelligence agencies, and a whole host of other people, people from the air traffic control community, the FAA, I came to the conclusion that after five years what we saw happen on that morning of September 11, 2001, was the result of a highly-compartmentalized covert operation to bring about a fascist coup in this country. ...

      These people need to be brought to justice, if not by our own Congress, then by an international tribunal in the Hague, in the Netherlands. Bush, Blair, Rumsfeld, Cheney should be sitting in the same dockets where Milosevic and the Croatia-Serbia war criminals sat."


    * Endorsement of The New Pearl Harbor: "David Griffin's The New Pearl Harbor belongs on the book shelves of all those who, in any way, doubt the veracity of the accounts presented to the public by the Bush administration concerning the worst terrorist attack in America's history. The facts presented in this book are disturbing — and they should be. Griffin's book goes a long way in answering the age-old question inherent in American political scandals: What did the President know, and when did he know it?"

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 15 May 07 - 11:02 PM

Gee. Lively exchange. Excellent articles CarolC.

I admit to being a bad, if not a first offender in the ad hominem area. A habit picked up at other sites. Mudcat is pretty polite. Folks do tend to gang up on me here, but that's fine. I abide it and bark back, and in the exchange I KNOW they're getting some information they might not come across otherwise. They can't discount everything.

What amazes me about 9/11 is that the govt didn't offer any explanation. Said it was "imperative" that we do something to combat the threat, then they didn't set about investigating the incident for 440+ days. Americans tend to trust govt, so we went along with a LOT in that year+, and now the govt still hasn't told us what happened on 9/11. The "final" report of the 9/11 commission didn't even mention WTC7.

I think people are desperate to believe the govt is telling the truth, and that's why ridiculous pieces like the Popular Mechanics thing gain traction. The PM piece is referred to constantly by the govt-controlled media now, and that's probably good because I imagine David Ray Griffin has done a thorough job disemboweling the piece. And the people who bought into the Popular Mechanics lie will just be that much more open to the truth when they learn they've been misled.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 May 07 - 11:02 PM

Interesting to see you back here, Carol.

Ron Olesko, you said several times of some things Carol had said on this thread: "that is a lie".

Ron, I wish to inform you that I know Carol personally, I know her well, and she is not a person who tells lies.

I think you might look for a different choice of words if you wish to disagree with her statements and her conclusions.

As usual, Carol is doing a very good job backing up and documenting what she has to say about the matter.

As for me, I've pretty well washed my hands of debating with people about 911 here, because it's an exercise in futility, and a source of frustration. Who needs it? I don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 May 07 - 11:21 PM

Carol, most of the time I respect your opinions. But on this matter. . . .

Some people have a very low tolerance for uncertainty. These are the folks who generally embrace conspiracy theories. That particular inability to handle uncertain also afflicts those who become religious fundamentalists.

If I don't know, I don't know. If you don't know, you don't know.

I seem to be able to handle an agnostic position on a number of things, including what actually happened to the World Trade Center. If I get a bit impatient with people who clutch onto a bit of what might be considered circumstantial evidence and then make up a whole elaborate scenario, then try to cobble together a mess of highly questionable "scientific" evidence to support their belief—well. . . .    And then they spend an inordinate amount of time and energy trying to get other people to believe it too. I think reality, to them, means how many people they can get to agree with them.

Contrary to the beliefs of some, reality is not a matter of opinion.

I also contend (after a lifetime of observing people) that those who absolutely have to fill that gap of uncertainty with elaborated Rube Goldberg strings of unlikely events may not actually have meringue for brains, but they do have a dangerous level of gullibility. Or disingenuousness.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 May 07 - 11:30 PM

Carol C is only pasting the comments of various people one finds in that link. Which I, for one, read first hand and don't need reiterated.

What she may not have done is come from the other side and read the detailed step by step explanations of the phenomenon by experts in the field. Those explanations are a whole lot more convincing, to my mind.

Note that most of the people quoted in that link question the official findings- most of them do NOT say that the US government did it.

As others have also said, the thing that keeps me from swallowing the froth is the sheer numbers needed to be silent. That is not the nature of the beast that I know.

Isn't it possible that the US government doesn't want to investigate it thoroughly - and publicize it - because they are afraid of what they might find? The balance of power in the world is fragile as are alliances.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 May 07 - 11:43 PM

There are many possibilities, Ebbie. We who question the officially sanctioned government version, are, I think, well aware of that. We are simply asking questions about it, and proposing various alternative theories.......on a basis of what might seem more or less probable to us...and that is all. We are ALL agnostics on this issue, Don, but agnostics can still have hypothetical opinions.

Yes, Ebbie, one reason the US governmight might be covering things up is because if they didn't the revelations could threaten fragile alliances, like that with the Saudis, for example.

When people are afraid, however, to publicly ask certain questions because they will then be attacked, ridiculed, harassed, and insulted....well, what have you got then? Is it still a free society? Is it still an open dialogue?

In my case, I've been studiously avoiding these threads lately, because it wasn't worth it for me to be responded to in such an unpleasant way by people here. It didn't serve my life in any good fashion. The only reason I'm on today is to defend Carol against the same sort of nasty tactics, because I know her personally (in the 3-D world), and I know her intelligence and honesty.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 15 May 07 - 11:45 PM

Thanks, LH! :-)


Which experts would those be then, Ebbie?


Don, my opinion is that this is a discussion that needs to be taking place, and that all sides of the argument need to be heard. Where I have a problem with these kinds of discussions is when people try to silence those whose views contradict the official versions of events by attacking them and ridiculing them (as you have been doing yourself). This is a problem in many contexts, however, not just the Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 16 May 07 - 12:00 AM

As others have also said, the thing that keeps me from swallowing the froth is the sheer numbers needed to be silent. That is not the nature of the beast that I know.

History proves you wrong on this point, Ebbie.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 May 07 - 12:03 AM

Experts like these:

One of Many

When compared with the paranoic froth so prevalent, isn't this refreshing?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 16 May 07 - 12:31 AM

Yeah, I was wondering which experts Ebbie was referring to. The link she posted leads to crap. The numbers don't add up. The piece was dismissed long ago. See, if the WTC towers could be brought down by simple airplanes, then new regulations must be needed, right? Notice the hurry-up date at the bottom of Ebbie's article. 2001. As I recall, this was published in Dec. of 2001. Halliburton needed SOMETHING on record before they could start grabbing those lucrative contracts (but building codes had to be "updated" first), and this article came to the rescue. It's all junk. The numbers are off, except for the numbers in the corporate bank accounts. Geez, Ebbie. Go to the PatriotsQuestion911 site and read some current science on this. The scary thing about that crap article you pointed to is that building codes HAVE been changed because of it.

Don Firth, as an expert in aeronautics, already discounted that airplane parts # thing some time ago. Surpried he didn't mention that when you posted the piece by "Col. George Nelson, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority. 34-year Air Force career."

The 9/11 thing is just getting interesting, Little Hawk. Bruce Willis is fixing to jump into the fray. People may not listen to Col. George Nelson and Dr. David Ray Griffin, but they're going to listen to Mr. Die Hard, dammit.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 May 07 - 12:43 AM

You say 'expert' as though it were a bad word, Froth. I am speaking of engineers, people who know just a bit more about this kind of subject than the people in the kind of article you espouse.

"The numbers don't add up"? What does that mean?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 16 May 07 - 01:18 AM

That article you posted really is nonsense, Ebbie, and not in the least refreshing. Just more lies. The central core was massive. If the floors had become separated from the central core and experienced a domino effect all the way down, the central core would have remained standing. There would have been a somewhat narrower tower than what had been their prior to the floor's collapse, but the central core would have remained standing.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 16 May 07 - 01:59 AM

Another problem with the "theory" in your link, Ebbie is that it fails to take into consideration the time it would take the buildings to fall given the amount of resistance each floor would experience as it fell onto the floor below it. The buildings fell at free fall speed. That would not be possible given the theory proposed by your experts. It also doesn't address what caused building 7 to fall. (And neither does the 9/11 commission report, which makes no mention of building 7 at all.)


Heikki Kurttila, D.Sc. (Tech.) (Doctor of Technology) – Safety Engineer and Accident Analyst, National Safety Technology Authority (TUKES), Finland. Specialist in the investigation of pressure vessel explosion accidents and the impacts of the shock waves caused by them.

    * Analysis of the collapse of WTC Building 7, 11/18/05: "Conclusion: The observed collapse time of WTC 7 was 6.5 seconds. That is only half a second longer than it would have taken for the top of the building to fall to the ground in a vacuum, and half a second shorter than the falling time of an apple when air resistance is taken into account. ... The great speed of the collapse and the low value of the resistance factor strongly suggest controlled demolition."   

http://www.saunalahti.fi


Letter to Congress regarding the 9/11 Commission Report 9/13/04, signed by the following 25 military, intelligence, and law enforcement veterans: http://www.pogo.org/


"[W]e the undersigned wish to bring to the attention of the Congress and the people of the United States what we believe are serious shortcomings in the report and its recommendations. …

Omission is one of the major flaws in the Commission's report. We are aware of significant issues and cases that were duly reported to the commission by those of us with direct knowledge, but somehow escaped attention. …

The omission of such serious and applicable issues and information by itself renders the report flawed, and casts doubt on the validity of many of its recommendations. ...

The Commission, with its incomplete report of "facts and circumstances", intentional avoidance of assigning accountability, and disregard for the knowledge, expertise and experience of those who actually do the job, has now set about pressuring our Congress and our nation to hastily implement all its recommendations. ...

We the undersigned, who have worked within various government agencies (FBI, CIA, FAA, DIA, Customs) responsible for national security and public safety, call upon you in Congress to include the voices of those with first-hand knowledge and expertise in the important issues at hand. We stand ready to do our part." http://www.pogo.org/


Edward J. Costello, Jr. – Former Special Agent, Counterterrorism, FBI. Former Judge pro tem., Los Angeles, CAA.


John M. Cole – Former Intelligence Operations Specialist, in the FBI's Counterintelligence Division. In charge of FBI's foreign intelligence investigations covering India, Pakistan and Afghanistan.18-year FBI career.


Mark Conrad, JD – Retired Agent in Charge, Internal Affairs, U.S. Customs, responsible for the internal integrity and security for areas encompassing nine states and two foreign locations. Former Federal Sky Marshall. 27-year U.S. Customs career. Currently Associate General Counsel, National Association of Federal Agents. Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at Troy University.


Rosemary N. Dew – Former Supervisory Special Agent, Counterterrorism and Counterintelligence, FBI. Former member of The President's National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee (NSTAC) and the Electronic Commerce/Cyber Crime Working Group. 13-year FBI career.


Bogdan Dzakovic – Witness before the 9/11 Commission. 14-year Counter-terrorism expert in the Security Division of the Federal Aviation Administration. Team Leader of the FAA's Red (Terrorism) Team, which conducted undercover tests on airport security through simulated terrorist attacks. Former Team Leader in the Federal Air Marshal program. Former Coast Guard officer. (See also individual statement above.)


Sibel D. Edmonds – Witness before the 9/11 Commission. Former Language Translation Specialist, performing translations for counterterrorism and counterintelligence operations, FBI. (See also individual statement above.)


Steve Elson – Former Special Agent with the U.S. Navy and the FAA. Specialist in Counterterrorism, Intelligence, and Security. Twenty-two years military experience, primarily in Naval Special Warfare and nine years Federal service with the FAA and DEA. Retired Navy SEAL. (See also individual statement above.)


David Forbes – Former head of Thames Valley Police Fraud Squad, trained at New Scotland Yard. Over 30 years experience in law enforcement, commercial and industrial security-related risk management, and service sector business management. Currently Aviation, Logistics and Govt. Security Analyst, BoydForbes, Inc.


Melvin A. Goodman – Former Division Chief and Senior Analyst at the Office of Soviet Affairs, CIA,1966 - 1990.   Senior Analyst at the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, State Department, 1974 - 1976. Professor of International Security at the National War College 1986 - 2004. Currently Senior Fellow at the Center for International Policy and Adjunct Professor of International Relations at Johns Hopkins University. He is the author and co-author of five books on international relations. (See also individual statement above.)


Mark Graf – Former Security Supervisor, Planner, and Derivative Classifier, Department of Energy. Former Chairman of the Rocky Flats (DOE) Physical Security Systems Working Group from 1990 through 1995.


Gilbert M. Graham – Retired Special Agent, Counterintelligence, FBI. 24-year FBI career.


Diane Kleiman – Former Special Agent, US Customs.


Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Also served on the staff of the Director of the National Security Agency. 20-year Air Force veteran. (See also individual statement above.)


Lynne A. Larkin – Former CIA Operations Officer. Served in several CIA foreign stations and in the CIA's counter-intelligence center helping chair a multi-agency task force and seminars on coordinating intelligence among intelligence and crime prevention agencies.


David MacMichael, PhD – Former Senior Estimates Officer with special responsibility for Western Hemisphere Affairs at the CIA's National Intelligence Council. Former Captain, U.S. Marine Corps.


Raymond L. McGovern – Former Chairman, National Intelligence Estimates, CIA, responsible for preparing the President' Daily Brief (PDB) for Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. 27-year CIA veteran. Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer. (See also individual statement above.)


Theodore J. Pahle – Former Senior Intelligence Officer with the Defense Intelligence Agency. His 37-year intelligence career was exclusively as a HUMINT (Human Intelligence) operations officer with DIA, Office of Naval Intelligence and U.S. Army Intelligence. He is a Middle East and Latin American operations specialist. Today, he continues to support the HUMINT effort as a contract instructor.


Behrooz Sarshar – Retired Language Translation Specialist, performing Farsi translations for counterterrorism and counterintelligence operations dealing with Iran and Afghanistan, FBI.


Brian F. Sullivan – Retired Special Agent and Risk Management Specialist, FAA. Retired Lieutenant Colonel, Military Police.


Commander Larry J. Tortorich, U.S. Navy (ret) – Former Deputy Program Manager for Logistics – Tomahawk Cruise Missiles. 24-year Navy career in the fields of aviation and counterterrorism. Two years as a federal employee with DHS/TSA in the fields of security and counterterrorism.


Jane A. Turner – Retired Special Agent, FBI. 24-year FBI career.


John B. Vincent – Retired Special Agent, Counterterrorism, FBI. 27-year FBI career.


Fred Whitehurst, JD, PhD – Retired Supervisory Special Agent / Laboratory Forensic Examiner, FBI. Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer.


Col. Ann Wright, U.S. Army (ret) – Retired Army officer and former U.S. Diplomat. Served 13 years on active duty with the U.S. Army and 16 years in the U.S. Army Reserves. She was a member of the International law team in Operation Urgent Fury in Grenada and served in Panama and Somalia. She joined the Foreign Service in 1987 and served as Deputy Chief of Mission of U.S. Embassies in Sierra Leone, Micronesia and Afghanistan. She helped reopen the US Embassy in Kabul in December, 2001.


Matthew J. Zipoli – Special Response Team (SRT) Officer, DOE. Vice President, Security Police Officer's Association, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 May 07 - 12:29 PM

It does address free fall speed versus pancaking, Carol C.

These persons linked to, impressive as they are, are citing political flaws. Not one of them is a structural engineer.

Neither, ao far as I can see, is any one of the Mudcatters involved here an engineer. We are all - some more than others - spouting off theories as though we knew what we are talking about.

We don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 16 May 07 - 12:50 PM

Okay. I glanced at Ebbie's Eagar & Musso article and remembered reading it a dozen times years ago. I got to the end of the first paragraph this time and had to give it up. Such bullshit. Collapse without significant tipping. Then what's this a photo of?

http://www.oilempire.us/graphics/wtc-southtower.jpg

The top 30 floors of the south tower falling sideways. The "angular momentum" of that part of the building should have continued sideways, and would have unless something other than the laws of nature were at work.

So, from memory, the Eagar & Musso paper was produced about 10 weeks after the attacks of 9/11. At that time, Rudy Giuliani was busy destroying the crime scene, and the U.S. govt was still more than a year away from even BEGINNING an investigation. So what data did these two scientists have to work with? None. The paper is sheer speculation. It says things COULD have happened this way, not DID, but even as speculation it fails miserably. It contradicts itself in fundamental ways that took time to become obvious to the shell-shocked public.

For example, within the paper Eager and Musso admit that the penetration of the structures would result in a redistribution of the weight bearing to the other, non-damaged steel supports in the structures. So the impact of the planes would have virtually no effect on the buildings. They also point out there was no wind stress on that day, so that leaves fire as the reason for the collapse of the towers.

And the numbers they present on fire don't take into account the probability that all the fuel would have burned in 5-10 minutes. Most of it burned in fireballs in 10-15 seconds, but some may have lasted 10 minutes. After that, you see black smoke from scattered furniture and paper fires coming from the towers. Fires not hot enough to affect steel. Firefighters radioed that they needed two hoses to knock out the remaining fires. Hardly the inferno needed to cause catastrophic collapse. So the temperatures needed to melt steel weren't there, yet much later, pools of molten steel were found beneath the rubble, at bedrock. So steel HAD melted on that day, and there's no way the numbers in Eager & Musso's paper support temperatures high enough to melt steel. (There's video on the internet of those pools of steel...footage shot by rescue workers).

But say a maximum of 10 minutes of fuel fire followed by trashcan fires DID burn hot enough to weaken the MASSIVE heat-absorbing beams in the WTC towers, the steel would only be weakened in small, specific areas. There was no raging inferno, or we wouldn't have pictures of people standing in the holes left from the planes' impacts. So the fires that were supposed to have caused loss of structural integrity were localized, and here you get back to what Eager and Musso themselves admit in their paper, that when one area of the structure is compromised, the weight-bearing shifts to other supports. So, say a half-dozen columns in the center of the building were heated to the point of compromise, the weight would just be shifted to the other 41 columns in the core.

That's just what I remember about the paper from 5 years ago, off the top of my head. The Eager-Musso "study" has been discounted for so long that I don't recall any other specifics, but they're out there, discussed in detail on the internet, if you search. And I imagine David Ray Griffin's new book does a brutal job on the paper.

The Eagar-Musso paper was junk science intended to give the green light to contractors, that's all. SOME sort of investigation-like paper was needed in order for government contracts to go forward. The govt couldn't fund building and re-building projects when it appeared to all clear-thinking people that the Newtonian laws of physics could be switched on and off, so a paper was needed to explain the WTC tower collapses more or less in accordance with those laws of physics. And this was that paper. It was intended to placate the public and grease the financial skids for the crooks who have seized the US govt.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 May 07 - 01:36 PM

"Then what's this a photo of?" It's a photo of a portion of the building tilting a bit, but still falling downward.

GUEST,(pick a name, any name, but make it different in every thread GUEST starts), has presented us with a whole menu of conspiracy theories on a variety of subjects over the past several months. This is merely another one that said individual wants us to have hissy-fits over.

I smell a troll. A troll with an immense amount of time on his or her hands.

I do entertain the idea that the government may have been involved in the WTC attack, but I need much better evidence than the cut-and-pastes from conspiracy web sites and from other "true believers" that GUEST,(whoever) offers. Many of the so-called scientific or engineering type bits of evidence simply do not stand up to close scrutiny. And some is mere speculation offered as facts and some of it is just outright wrong.

No, GUEST merely has a hobby-horse that he or she is riding. And GUEST responds to those who question his or her "evidence" by accusing them of either being too cowardly to face the horrible "truth" or a government shill and in on the conspiracy.

Now, that, ladies and gentlemen, is not a tactic of legitimate, logical debate. That is a personal attack. And that indicates to me that the person who uses it realizes that he or she is on very shaky ground.

If I ridicule people who use this kind of dodge, it's because I find them ridiculous.

This whole argument is pointless, and diverts attention from real issues—such, perhaps—as serious investigations into what really happened and who might be either responsible or criminally negligent.

Perhaps that's why GUEST is flooding us with conspiracy theories. Now, here's a conspiracy theory for you to contemplate:   GUEST is a government shill whose job it is to spread so many conspiracy theories about the WTO attack that the truth gets lost in all the nonsense. Not unlike the ink-like fluid that an octopus ejects when attacked, so while the attacker goes for the ink, the octopus jets quicky away, undetected.

I'm out of here. This is a waste of time.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 May 07 - 01:51 PM

Don, "hissy-fits" is another loaded phrase, similar to "tinfoil hats" and "little green men". Such phrases are used to trivialize an argument one doesn't agree with and dismiss the arguer as some kind of crank.

You are quite right that the Guest has a hobby horse in regards to 911. However, this particular hobby horse may be one of some real substance. We all have hobby horses. We all have things we like to focus on, and the more we like to focus on them, the more we usually end up knowing about them, correct?

I could bore you for hours and hours with stuff about the Kennedy assassination or detailed information about the Japanese Navy in WWII, but frankly, I can't be bothered... What would it achieve?

I could talk to you about my personal experiences in regards to UFOs. What would that achieve? Nothing. I have learned to enjoy the things I know about and am interested in, and not necessarily expect anyone else to know the same things or feel exactly the same way about them.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 16 May 07 - 01:55 PM

In your exiting backward glance, Firth, please observe that the top 30 floors are falling sideways, not downwards. If nature had taken its course, they would have fallen free of the building. They didn't. And the laws of physics weren't miraculously suspended so the situation could correct itself. The only POSSIBLE explanation for the interruption of the sideways angular momentum is explosives on the floors below. I can dig up the scientific papers that address that if you want, but the door just hit you in the ass on your way out.

And I'm not "flooding with conspiracy theories." The mother of all conspiracy theories is the government's, and I'm just pointing out flaws.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 16 May 07 - 02:54 PM

You didn't actually read the page you linked to, did you, Ebbie.

Unfortunately, there are dishonest people in every profession (otherwise there wouldn't be so many "experts" who can testify in court on both sides of any case).


Your experts are saying that the floors separated from the core and then fell independently of it. That is not a credible explanation of what happened. If it had happened that way, the core would have been left standing. And as I said before, it doesn't explain building 7. Your "experts" are lying to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Donuel
Date: 16 May 07 - 02:57 PM

An ignorant spamming nafarious troll?

GIT EM !

Spaw git the dawgs...Bobert, scout em out from the air,,, Susan, pray fer em.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 16 May 07 - 03:06 PM

Don, you're wrong. While I don't agree with everything the person posting in this thread as "Froth" is saying or postulating, he/she is keeping the conversation going. We need that if we are ever going to have a credible (and independent) investigation into what really happened on 9/11.

Don't try to silence people on this subject. You don't really accomplish what you think you're accomplishing by doing that. If you find the discussion a waste of time, don't read these kinds of threads. What's so difficult to understand about that?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 16 May 07 - 03:07 PM

My last post was for Don Firth.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 May 07 - 03:16 PM

Does anyone really think that our debating the issue is going to get at the truth? I don't. We don't know enough; we may never know enough. I'm not impressed with the attitude of 'what might have happened' and therefore you are a naive fool who believes anything the authorities put forth. Frankly, I am more inclined to believe what the authorities - said authorities being people who do have the educational background that lends authenticity to their arguments. We here on Mudcat do not fit that mantle.

And, yes, Carol C, I did read the whole article. As I read conspiracists' articles.

Enough. Enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 16 May 07 - 04:09 PM

Silencing people won't accomplish anything, Ebbie.


Heh... I just had a look around. Even the NIST doesn't accept the theory being promoted by your experts, Ebbie. Apparently, even the "experts" you are more inclined to believe can't agree on what happened.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST, Ebbie
Date: 16 May 07 - 04:15 PM

Carol C, when you speak of "my" experts it tells me that you are not really interested in knowing the truth.

Incidentally, I suspect that you know Guest/Froth really, really well.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 16 May 07 - 04:22 PM

Sorry, Ebbie. I guess I should say "the experts you say you are more inclined to believe".


No, I don't have any idea who Froth is. But I do appreciate that he/she is providing me with some information that I might not have seen otherwise.

Interesting (and rather catty, I might add) that you would make such an insinuation. Who, exactly do you think this person is whom I know so well?

I should tell you that if you think it's me or JtS, you should know that if either of us were to try to post under any names other than CarolC or JtS, Joe Offer would out us here in the open forum faster than you could blink your eyes (as he has done before). So I suggest you spend some time in reflection about why you are so quick to make such insidious and defamatory accusations with no evidence to back them up.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,I'm not Hilary
Date: 16 May 07 - 04:27 PM

As investigations by unbiased researchers continue, it's become increasingly clear that 911 was a conspiracy unleashed by Zionist agents posing as Arabs.

The facts on 911.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Wolfgang
Date: 16 May 07 - 04:33 PM

Wolfgang, you seem not to understand that even the official version of events is a "conspiracy theory" (Carol)

A theory involving a conspiracy is something else than a conspiracy theory. Of course, conspiracy theorists (but not only them) have tried since long to change the meaning of that phrase, or rather, to broaden the sense of that phrase in such a way that it loses the original meaning.

I make a distinction and do not call each theory that has some people conspiring to do something a conspiracy theory. If you do not want to make this distinction it is up to you, Carol. But to post that I do not seem to understand just because I use an expression in its original sense, is silly.

Crap, BTW, doesn't become anything else by amassing a higher pile of it. It just becomes more crap.

There may be some gems hidden in all that crap, but they are hard to find. Don (or Ron?) is right: There are not two theories against each other, there would be hundreds more. Saddam could have planted the explosives to get his revenge for the first defeat and might have tried to blame Osama to get away with it. Doomsday Christians might have....

It is in a way the same poor thinking as in the creation against evolution debate. Creationists pick on problems in one of the evolution theories (there are many). They identify a problem and use it as if that was a proof for one completely different theory (their pet theory). Eventually, the problem is solved, then they pick on the next problem. Since these theories of evolution will never be complete, creationists will never be out of ammunition.

There is no way 9/11 conspiracy theorists will ever be satisfied by any answers.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 16 May 07 - 04:38 PM

A theory involving a conspiracy is something else than a conspiracy theory.

According to whom Wolfgang?


Crap, BTW, doesn't become anything else by amassing a higher pile of it. It just becomes more crap.

This one cuts both ways.


There is no way 9/11 conspiracy theorists will ever be satisfied by any answers.

This may be true. But those of us who are not 9/11 conspiracy theorists, but who are only interested in uncovering the truth will be satisfied when this is accomplished.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 16 May 07 - 08:59 PM

I don't know anyone on this forum, that I'm aware of. And I choose to post as a guest primarily because of the savaging I watch you folks inflict on each other. It's as if you care more about who's saying something rather than what's being said. That's not a criticism, just an observation. And it happens on the other forums where I post. Cliques are always that way. Human nature, I suppose.

I always use the same name in a particular thread on Mudcat, for what it's worth.

And the debate on 9/11 will never end. What WILL happen is that the most ridiculous conspiracy theory out there (the "19 men with boxcutters & the Cavemen of Tora Bora") will continue to undergo scrutiny. The story didn't work on Day 1, and it's utterly discredited now. Not one aspect of the government's story has survived critical analysis. The only reason the govt can continue to use the story is because they've slapped thousands of gag orders on people, and they control the court system where the racketeering and murder suits against the federal mafioso have been stalled. (Translator Sibell Edmonds & FBI agent Robert Wright are good examples of gag orders, Stanley Hilton is representing lots of the families of 9/11 victims...search those names and some interesting info will turn up. Ellen Mariani, too).

It's insulting that the people who control the U.S. govt put out a juvenile story of what happened, then they waited over a year to investigate, then they tell us to shut up when we point out the flaws in the unbelievable results of the "investigation." Do you folks know how DUMB the gangsters in Washington think you are? "The Cavemen of Tora Bora" is a work of juvenile fantasy. You're being fed dirt while they tell you it's caviar.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Bert
Date: 16 May 07 - 10:01 PM

Wheee Dogies Froth, don't you know those tornadoes in Kansas were faked too?

Here's the proof: Actual pictures of the Greensburg tornado?
My office has been getting a lot of calls from media and charity groups looking for pictures of the Greensburg tornado. I have noticed a lot of fake Greensburg images and videos being posted on the Internet. If anyone has actual still images, or video frame grabs, I will be happy to forward the requests your way.

Suspicious 'tornado' wipes out 95% of Greensburg, Kansas.

Also why did Obama say: "In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died - an entire town destroyed," when only 1.943 people live there?

Reason is Howard Dean and Dick Durbin dreamed it all up to get Obama elected. Yeah. Here it is in his own words of the Governor: "Howard Dean called me around 5 o'clock and told me not to ask the White House for any help or make any statements until I heard back." "Dick called me an hour or two later, and that's when he told me that we needed to use this"

It was even on the radio so you know it has to be true.

Believe me, nothing the government tells you is true.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 May 07 - 10:33 PM

"It's as if you (the members of the Mudcat Forum) care more about who's saying something rather than what's being said."

HALLELUIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is it! That is exactly what is so wrong and so sick with the debates on this forum, it is what continually poisons the atmosphere around here, and it is why I would frankly rather post as a "Guest" here myself much of the time. It's not worth the "savaging" one undergoes, as Froth so aptly puts it, to be a named member here and say what you really think about certain stuff.

And, yeah, that is what usually happens in any group of people who know each other after awhile, and think they know each other well. New subjects merely become an excuse to refight old battles and rehash old grudges. That is very, very sad, but yes, it is human nature.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 17 May 07 - 12:51 AM

Yeah, well, at least no one on Mudcat has threatened to make me eat my fingers. I got that guy into a rage with an "add hominid to the list of things you're not" attack.

I was thinking of getting Griffin's latest book, but I may not have to if this guy keeps posting:

http://us-amnesia.blogspot.com/2007/05/excerpt-debunking-911-debunking-experts.html

Looks like he's doing what I planned to do...thumbnail reviews of points and chapters. Some interesting links on this page.

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -Mahatma Gandhi

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Edward
Date: 17 May 07 - 01:04 AM

I know now that Hurricane Katrina and Rita were completely man made by the US government. They were Harrpicanes:

Officially, HAARP is a research station directed by the Air Force Research Laboratory's Space Vehicles Directorate in Gokona, Alaska, that opened in 1992 to gather data about the atmosphere and "radio propagation conditions." Their web site (www.haarp.alaska.edu) states that they are monitoring and archiving the naturally occurring variations with the sun's activities such as sunspots and solar flares.

HAARP constitutes a system of powerful antennas capable of creating "controlled local modifications of the ionosphere." However, there seems to be much more going on behind HAARP's public face.

THE IDEA FOR HAARP BASED ON TESLA TECHNOLOGY

HAARP is based on physicist Bernard J. Eastlund's U.S. Patent from 1987 titled "Method and Apparatus for Altering a Region in the Earth's Atmosphere, Ionosphere, and/or Magnetosphere" (US #4,686,605).   Eastlund's patent is based, in part, on the works of Nikola Tesla, who first suggested that RF could transmit approximately one watt per cubic centimeter to any point on the planet without the use of wires. Thus, power can generated on the ground and then sent through the air to the upper areas of the atmosphere miles above the surface of the planet.

WHAT HAARP COULD BE USED FOR

Today, HAARP has 48 antennas that can broadcast up to 960 kW of power, and plans to expand to 180 antennas and 3.6 megawatts of power by 2006. Even that is short of the thousands of antennas and hundreds of megawatts of power that Eastlund figures would be needed to control the weather or act as an effective missile shield. However, even at 3.6 megawatts, significant weather control experiments could be performed.

THE ALASKAN DEATH RAY

It has been alleged that the HAARP facility, located near Gokona, Alaska, is not the "real" HAARP project, and that the actual HAARP is conducting experiments that seem beyond the realm of possibility. Writer Dan Eden, of the Viewzone website, recently revealed that in 1998 he was shown a secret HAARP facility near Fairbanks, Alaska.

STRANGE WEATHER

Several years later, in 1999, Dan Eden received e-mails from a reader in Serbia, where the UN forces had been fighting Melosovich, mostly with American armed forces and equipment. The e-mails mentioned a strange phenomenon that accompanied attacks by the U.S. A-10, "warthog" fighter jet.
It was reported that, just prior to an air attack, the sky often filled with huge black clouds that would materialized out of nowhere, and stayed until the end of the campaign -- which was usually couple of weeks. However, instead of rain, falling on Belgrade, there were hailstones the size of eggs.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 18 May 07 - 02:10 PM

Excellent article. Rosie O'Donnell is criticized for saying the 600,000+ Iraqis killed since the start of the latest war aren't terrorists. LOTS of good links that give a good history of false-flag terrorism at the bottom of this story.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/media/odonnell_fox_gibson_stretched_thin_over_rosie_imagination.htm

Another good article from infowars.com -- NY Times Attempts To Debunk 9/11 Truth; Fails Miserably

"Although it is easily countered, the Times exposure highlights the fact that 9/11 truth movement has exploded into the mainstream. It also underlines the fact that the debunkers are losing the battle to quell the public's desire to uncover the lies and discover what really happened on 9/11 as their line of argument becomes more diluted and weakened with each ill informed and poor researched attack piece they produce."

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/ny_times_attempts_to_debunk_911_truth.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Donuel
Date: 18 May 07 - 02:25 PM

http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20070405.htm
shhh
Don't tell Rosie about this

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 May 07 - 03:05 PM

I read the "documentary" on the other thread- frankly, the assertion that GHW Bush is George Scherff, Jr is no more convincing than the photo that is linked to on this thread. Any resemblance to Bush, the senior, is superficial in the extreme.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 18 May 07 - 06:11 PM

Well, O'Donnell has been talking about September 11, not Nazi connections, etc. This is interesting, though. Maybe it belongs on that Bush/Nazi thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Donuel
Date: 18 May 07 - 10:59 PM

Rosie should be on MSNBC to catch a predator show.

When the internet child molester shows up, she comes around the corner gives him a bear hug and starts french kissing the child predator until he dies or confesses.

IT would be a deterrent greater than prison

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 May 07 - 02:01 AM

Why? Is that her standard technique for dealing with all situations or have I missed something? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 May 07 - 03:24 AM

No. He's just trying to say, Little Hawk, that Rosie O'Donnell is an outspoken lesbian and physically not appealing to him.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 27 May 07 - 05:20 PM

http://cdn5.tribalfusion.com/media/854966.jpeg

A link to one of the Drudge Report's bogus little teasers. The mainstream media is desperate to get rid of Rosie O'Donnell.

O'Donnell left "The View" when they wouldn't allow her to bring on William Rodriguez, the janitor who saved no telling how many people on 9/11. Had the master keys. He said a bomb went off in the basement of his building. Here's a 51 second clip of O'Donnell being made up for TV and telling the audience about him. She gets a figure or two wrong, but then she does better under the pressure than I could.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTMB7nM43Sc

On the day that The View was going to have William Rodriguez and some other 9/11 people on, GWBush held a press conference. Now, TV Guide and all schedules still showed that these 9/11 people were going to be on the show that day, even though they had cancelled because of threatened censorship (The View has installed a 15 minute delay since O'Donnell started talking about 9/11. They edit out her comments, and the guests didn't want to be a part of that abridgement of freedom of speech). But Bush's people had gone ahead and scheduled a press conference. It was fluff, nothing worth calling a conference for. And it was only covered by ABC television, which meant it pre-empted The View. THAT'S how desperate these criminals are. A President of the U.S. is dragged out to pre-empt Rosie O'Donnell.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/odonnell_was_bush_speech_scheduled_pre_empt_view.htm

The mainstream media is going to go nuts when Loose Change hits theaters this summer. It's the updated version, narrated by Charlie Sheen and bankrolled by billionaire owner of the Dallas Mavericks. It'll be on hundreds of screens around the nation--how the military-industrial complex carried out 9/11.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Mickey191
Date: 27 May 07 - 06:33 PM

See Donuel's 5/18/07 link. It such a very, very weird read. If you desire a giggle how does this suit you?

Martin Bormann (Hitler aide and S.S. assassin) and Adolph Hitler (photographed in 1997 at age 107).
The Hitler photo was taken during a "reunion" at the Lake McDonald Lodge in Glacier National Park, Montana, on August 27, 1997. According to Skorzeny, Adolph Hitler was alive and well in the U.S. in 1997!

Do you think he went skiing??

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 May 07 - 07:16 PM

Well . . . member of a super-race, no?

Don Firth

P. S. déjà moo?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Mickey191
Date: 27 May 07 - 10:55 PM

Referencing Donuel's post May 18-2:25pm

There is a report in that link that the Fluoride in our toothpaste is actually a government plot. It will induce _lethargy_ & make us _slow of wit_; so the "The Takeover" will meet with little or no resistance.

Jeeze-Do you think Bush is using Crest with Fluoride?

Now I know where all the great comedy writers are.

Subject: Willy Nelson speaks out
From: GUEST,keeping my head down
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 04:53 AM

is this what really happened?

make up your own mind

ah

Subject: RE: Willy Nelson speaks out
From: The Sandman
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 07:09 AM

nothing would surprise me.

Subject: RE: Willy Nelson speaks out
From: Teribus
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 09:26 AM

W shucks, they missed the chance to put up an MP3 of "Ol Shoe"

Subject: RE: Willy Nelson speaks out
From: GUEST,ms lemon
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 11:56 AM

That was THE most interesting 1 1/2 hours i have ever spent. What a brave man Dave vonKliest is! Thanks for pointing me in that direction. Phew...!

Sal

Subject: RE: Willy Nelson speaks out
From: Wesley S
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 12:12 PM

Yeah - Willie's a real engineer. You should see the size of the doobies he can roll.

Subject: RE: Willy Nelson speaks out
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 12:45 PM

Those who are afraid to let questions be asked have something to hide.

Subject: RE: Willy Nelson speaks out
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 06:35 PM

That last link doesn't work - and nor do any of the other ones in this thread....

But here's another copy of the first one which is still there.

Subject: RE: Willy Nelson speaks out
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 07:11 PM

The first two links worked earlier today (I don't know about the others, because I didn't try to open them). The people responsible for those pages seem to have (for some reason) been persuaded to delete them. I have to assume that the others worked at the time they were posted. If that's the case, that would mean that all of the pages posted to this thread, all from different sources, were deleted since early this morning. Even your copy no longer works, McGrath.

Hmmmmm.....

Subject: RE: Willy Nelson speaks out
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 07:14 PM

Here's another copy. It works right now. I wonder how long it'll stay up...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1en0rUx_s0

Subject: RE: Willy Nelson speaks out
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 07:28 PM

Here's a bunch of others with Willie (different interview). I wonder how long they'll stay up. They all work as of the time of this posting...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tmw5X0k5st0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qDcAHV2wJ0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDBWDuOcz0E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6HIGvQJjhQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqGFf7vqZaE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u59SIHtiyiI

Subject: RE: BS: RosieO'Donnell&WillieNelson on 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 09:49 PM

Here's the 911: Ripple Effect video (again)...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6847507648836588010

Subject: RE: BS: RosieO'Donnell&WillieNelson on 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 12:07 AM

Thanks for the link, Carol. I just finished watching the entire thing.

Subject: RE: BS: RosieO'Donnell&WillieNelson on 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 12:16 AM

What was the thing you posted at 05 Feb 08 - 12:45 PM, LH? It was one of the ones that was removed (before I had a chance to see it).

Subject: RE: BS: RosieO'Donnell&WillieNelson on 9/11
From: GUEST
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 12:28 AM

This thread was pretty nasty until CarolC showed up and called a spade a spade, way back when. Then people remembered their manners again and resumed a very civil discourse, asking nicely for supporting evidence for arguments they respectfully disagreed with.

That's pretty close to a miracle.

Subject: RE: BS: RosieO'Donnell&WillieNelson on 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 12:34 AM

It was a shorter video where David von Kleist was speaking to an audience about various related stuff. It's on YouTube. I'll see if I can find a link to it that works.

Try this...

Subject: RE: BS: RosieO'Donnell&WillieNelson on 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 12:57 AM

Thanks, LH!

Subject: RE: BS: RosieO'Donnell&WillieNelson on 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 01:03 AM

Have you seen this one, LH?

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=4251254971488610838

Subject: RE: BS: RosieO'Donnell&WillieNelson on 9/11
From: bankley
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 09:19 AM

I heard ol' Willie on the Alex Jones radio show the other day... good interview, one of his newer songs was played 'Peace on Earth', I believe it was called...there's a line in there that stuck with me.. 'what's a liars word worth'.... well, they can't rattle him much, like what was done to 'Dixie Chicks'... good for Willie, but I still can't figure out which looks more weathered....him or his guitar..