BS: RosieO'Donnell&WillieNelson on 9/11

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