BS: RosieO'Donnell&WillieNelson on 9/11

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.