BS: RosieO'Donnell&WillieNelson on 9/11

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 15 May 07 - 07:18 PM

Good luck wih your opening!

Thanks, Ron.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 15 May 07 - 07:22 PM

More from the Patriots Question site...


Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Also served on the staff of the Director of the National Security Agency. 20-year Air Force veteran.

* Contributor to 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out 8/23/06: Account of Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, Pentagon employee and eyewitness to the events at the Pentagon on 9/11.

"I believe the Commission failed to deeply examine the topic at hand, failed to apply scientific rigor to its assessment of events leading up to and including 9/11, failed to produce a believable and unbiased summary of what happened, failed to fully examine why it happened, and even failed to include a set of unanswered questions for future research. ...

It is as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it does not satisfy the rules of probability or physics. The collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics. ...

There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked [Pentagon] lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the secretary of defense [Donald Rumsfeld], who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a "missile".

... I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact - no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. ... all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident.

The same is true with regard to the kind of damage we expected. ... But I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight.

The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon.

... More information is certainly needed regarding the events of 9/11 and the events leading up to that terrible day."

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 15 May 07 - 07:29 PM

One more for now and then back to work for a while...


Commander Ted Muga, U.S. Navy (ret) – Retired Naval aviator (Grumman E-1 and E-2). Retired Pan-Am commercial airline pilot (Boeing 707 and 727).

    * Interview Alex Jones Show 4/11/07:
      Alex Jones: Recap Hani Hanjour's maneuver, what they claim -- go through the maneuver they claim he did and then what supposedly happened there at the Pentagon ...

      Commander Muga: The maneuver at the Pentagon was just a tight spiral coming down out of 7,000 feet. And a commercial aircraft, while they can in fact structurally somewhat handle that maneuver, they are very, very, very difficult. And it would take considerable training. In other words, commercial aircraft are designed for a particular purpose and that is for comfort and for passengers and it's not for military maneuvers. And while they are structurally capable of doing them, it takes some very, very talented pilots to do that. ...

      When a commercial airplane gets that high, it get very, very close to getting into what you refer to as a speed high-speed stall. And a high-speed stall can be very, very violent on a commercial-type aircraft and you never want to get into that situation. I just can't imagine an amateur even being able to come close to performing a maneuver of that nature.

      And as far as hijacking the airplanes, once again getting back to the nature of pilots and airplanes, there is no way that a pilot would give up an airplane to hijackers. ...

      I mean, hell, a guy doesn't give up a TV remote control much less a complicated 757. And so to think that pilots would allow a plane to be taken over by a couple of 5 foot 7, 150 pound guys with a one-inch blade boxcutter is ridiculous.

      And also in all four planes, if you remember, none of the planes ever switched on their transponder to the hijack code. There's a very, very simple code that you put in if you suspect that your plane is being hijacked. It takes literally just a split-second for you to put your hand down on the center console and flip it over. And not one of the four planes ever transponded a hijack code, which is most, most unusual. ...

      Commercial airplanes are very, very complex pieces of machines. And they're designed for two pilots up there, not just two amateur pilots, but two qualified commercial pilots up there. And to think that you're going to get an amateur up into the cockpit and fly, much less navigate, it to a designated target, the probability is so low, that it's bordering on impossible."

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 May 07 - 08:10 PM

Carol, if you read what I said carefully, you will note that I said I found the evidence unconvincing. At this point, I am not accepting anybody's story of what happened because I know there is much more to come out about this. Accepting either the government's position or the theory put forth by GUEST,froth, is rash and premature.

You are very quick to condemn.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 15 May 07 - 08:36 PM

I'm not condemning anyone, Don. I'm just noticing the kind of attacks some people (you included) are making against people who see things differently than you. Like this one, for instance...

Speaking of "froth," this thread just goes to show that watching daytime television can turn your brain to meringue.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 15 May 07 - 09:20 PM

Here's some more common sense from the Patriots Question site...

Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Former Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. Commercial pilot for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years, flying 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777 's. Had previously flown the actual two United Airlines airplanes that were hijacked on 9/11 (Flight 93, which impacted in Pennsylvania, and Flight 175, the second plane to hit the WTC).

    * Article 7/17/05: "The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple." … Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have "descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 270 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon's first floor wall without touching the lawn."…

      "For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible - there is not one chance in a thousand," said Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727's to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737's through 767's it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying."


    * Audio Interview 9/16/04: Regarding Flight 77, which allegedly hit the Pentagon. "The airplane could not have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into what they call a high speed stall. The airplane won't go that fast if you start pulling those high G maneuvers at those bank angles. … To expect this alleged airplane to run these maneuvers with a total amateur at the controls is simply ludicrous...

      It's roughly a 100 ton airplane. And an airplane that weighs 100 tons all assembled is still going to have 100 tons of disassembled trash and parts after it hits a building. There was no wreckage from a 757 at the Pentagon. … The vehicle that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77. We think, as you may have heard before, it was a cruise missile."


Capt. Daniel Davis, U.S. Army – Former U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director. Decorated with the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal for bravery under fire and the Purple Heart for injuries sustained in Viet Nam. Also served in the Army Air Defense Command as Nike Missile Battery Control Officer for the Chicago-Milwaukee Defense Area. Founder and former CEO of Turbine Technology Services Corp., a turbine (jet engine) services and maintenance company (15 years). Former Senior Manager at General Electric Turbine (jet) Engine Division (15 years). Private pilot.

    * Statement to this website 3/23/07: "As a former General Electric Turbine engineering specialist and manager and then CEO of a turbine engineering company, I can guarantee that none of the high tech, high temperature alloy engines on any of the four planes that crashed on 9/11 would be completely destroyed, burned, shattered or melted in any crash or fire. Wrecked, yes, but not destroyed. Where are all of those engines, particularly at the Pentagon? If jet powered aircraft crashed on 9/11, those engines, plus wings and tail assembly, would be there.

      Additionally, in my experience as an officer in NORAD as a Tactical Director for the Chicago-Milwaukee Air Defense and as a current private pilot, there is no way that an aircraft on instrument flight plans (all commercial flights are IFR) would not be intercepted when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, or stop communication with Air Traffic Control. No way! With very bad luck, perhaps one could slip by, but no there's no way all four of them could!

      Finally, going over the hill and highway and crashing into the Pentagon right at the wall/ground interface is nearly impossible for even a small slow single engine airplane and no way for a 757. Maybe the best pilot in the world could accomplish that but not these unskilled "terrorists".

      Attempts to obscure facts by calling them a "Conspiracy Theory" does not change the truth. It seems, "Something is rotten in the State."

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 15 May 07 - 09:34 PM

David L. Griscom, PhD – Research physicist, retired in 2001 from Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC, after 33 years service. Fellow of the American Physical Society. Fulbright-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City (1997). Visiting professorships of research at the Universities of Paris and Saint-Etienne, France, and Tokyo Institute of Technology (2000 - 2003). Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona (2004 - 2005). Winner of the 1993 N.F. Mott Award sponsored by the Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, the 1995 Otto Schott Award offered by the Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung (Germany), a 1996 Outstanding Graduate School Alumnus Award at Brown University, and the 1997 Sigma Xi Pure Science Award at NRL. Principal author of 109 of his 185 published works, a body of work which is highly cited by his peers. Officially credited with largest number of papers (5) by any author on list of 100 most cited articles authored at NRL between 1973 and 1988.

    * Personal blog 1/5/07: "David Ray Griffin has web-published a splendid, highly footnoted account of The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True: This scholarly work, rich in eyewitness accounts, includes 11 separate pieces of evidence that the World Trade Center towers 1, 2 [each 1300+ feet tall, 110 stories], and 7 were brought down by explosives. [Editor's note: WTC Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories, and was not hit by an airplane. It would have been the tallest buliding in 33 states. However, no mention of its collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks." Watch the collapse video here. And 5 1/2 years after 9/11, the Federal government has yet to publish its promised final report that explains the cause of its collapse.]

      ... I implore my fellow physicists and engineers who may have the time, expertise, and (ideally) supercomputer access to get to work on the physics of the World Trade Center collapses and publish their findings in refereed journals like, say, the Journal of Applied Physics.

      The issue of knowing who was really behind the 9/11 attacks is of paramount importance to the future of our country, because the "official" assumption that it was the work of 19 Arab amateurs (1) does not match the available facts and (2) has led directly to the deplorable Patriot Act, the illegal Iraq war, NSA spying on ordinary Americans, repudiation of the Geneva Conventions, and the repeal of habeas corpus (a fundamental point of law that has been with us since the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215).

      Surely these Orwellian consequences of public ignorance constitute more than sufficient motivation for any patriotic American physicist or engineer to join the search for 9/11 Truth!"


Statement of Capt. Gregory M. Zeigler, PhD, U.S Army
Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer
September 19, 2006

I knew from September 18, 2001, that the official story about 9/11 was false. That was when I realized that the perpetrators had made a colossal blunder in collapsing the South Tower first, rather than the North Tower, which had been hit more directly and earlier.

Other anomalies poured in rapidly: the hijackers' names appearing in none of the published flight passenger lists, BBC reports of stolen identities of the alleged hijackers or the alleged hijackers being found alive, the obvious demolitions of WTC 1 and 2 [each 1300+ feet tall, 110 stories], and WTC 7 [570 feet tall, 47 stories, and not hit by an airplane], the lack of identifiable Boeing 757 wreckage at the Pentagon, the impossibility of ordinary cell phone (as opposed to Airfone) calls being made consistently from passenger aircraft at cruising altitude, etc., etc., etc.

I have taken off my uniform as a US Army intelligence officer, but I have not taken back my oath of loyalty to the United States of America and its Constitution. If it comes to a fight to the finish for my nation: count me in!

http://patriotsquestion911.com/Zeigler%20Statement.html


Wayne Madsen – Former U.S. Navy Intelligence Officer, specialist in electronic surveillance and security. Formerly assigned to the National Security Agency and the State Department. Currently, investigative journalist, nationally distributed columnist, and author. Senior Fellow, Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC), a non-partisan privacy public advocacy group in Washington, DC. Frequent media commentator on terrorism and security matters. Author of Genocide and Covert Operations in Africa 1993-1999 (1999), co-author of America's Nightmare: The Presidency of George Bush II (2006), Jaded Tasks: Big Oil, Black Ops & Brass Plates (2006), The Handbook of Personal Data Protection (1992).

    * Speech 11/11/06 : "After five years of talking to many individuals in the intelligence community, in the military, foreign intelligence agencies, and a whole host of other people, people from the air traffic control community, the FAA, I came to the conclusion that after five years what we saw happen on that morning of September 11, 2001, was the result of a highly-compartmentalized covert operation to bring about a fascist coup in this country. ...

      These people need to be brought to justice, if not by our own Congress, then by an international tribunal in the Hague, in the Netherlands. Bush, Blair, Rumsfeld, Cheney should be sitting in the same dockets where Milosevic and the Croatia-Serbia war criminals sat."


    * Endorsement of The New Pearl Harbor: "David Griffin's The New Pearl Harbor belongs on the book shelves of all those who, in any way, doubt the veracity of the accounts presented to the public by the Bush administration concerning the worst terrorist attack in America's history. The facts presented in this book are disturbing — and they should be. Griffin's book goes a long way in answering the age-old question inherent in American political scandals: What did the President know, and when did he know it?"

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 15 May 07 - 11:02 PM

Gee. Lively exchange. Excellent articles CarolC.

I admit to being a bad, if not a first offender in the ad hominem area. A habit picked up at other sites. Mudcat is pretty polite. Folks do tend to gang up on me here, but that's fine. I abide it and bark back, and in the exchange I KNOW they're getting some information they might not come across otherwise. They can't discount everything.

What amazes me about 9/11 is that the govt didn't offer any explanation. Said it was "imperative" that we do something to combat the threat, then they didn't set about investigating the incident for 440+ days. Americans tend to trust govt, so we went along with a LOT in that year+, and now the govt still hasn't told us what happened on 9/11. The "final" report of the 9/11 commission didn't even mention WTC7.

I think people are desperate to believe the govt is telling the truth, and that's why ridiculous pieces like the Popular Mechanics thing gain traction. The PM piece is referred to constantly by the govt-controlled media now, and that's probably good because I imagine David Ray Griffin has done a thorough job disemboweling the piece. And the people who bought into the Popular Mechanics lie will just be that much more open to the truth when they learn they've been misled.

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

Interesting to see you back here, Carol.

Ron Olesko, you said several times of some things Carol had said on this thread: "that is a lie".

Ron, I wish to inform you that I know Carol personally, I know her well, and she is not a person who tells lies.

I think you might look for a different choice of words if you wish to disagree with her statements and her conclusions.

As usual, Carol is doing a very good job backing up and documenting what she has to say about the matter.

As for me, I've pretty well washed my hands of debating with people about 911 here, because it's an exercise in futility, and a source of frustration. Who needs it? I don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 May 07 - 11:21 PM

Carol, most of the time I respect your opinions. But on this matter. . . .

Some people have a very low tolerance for uncertainty. These are the folks who generally embrace conspiracy theories. That particular inability to handle uncertain also afflicts those who become religious fundamentalists.

If I don't know, I don't know. If you don't know, you don't know.

I seem to be able to handle an agnostic position on a number of things, including what actually happened to the World Trade Center. If I get a bit impatient with people who clutch onto a bit of what might be considered circumstantial evidence and then make up a whole elaborate scenario, then try to cobble together a mess of highly questionable "scientific" evidence to support their belief—well. . . .    And then they spend an inordinate amount of time and energy trying to get other people to believe it too. I think reality, to them, means how many people they can get to agree with them.

Contrary to the beliefs of some, reality is not a matter of opinion.

I also contend (after a lifetime of observing people) that those who absolutely have to fill that gap of uncertainty with elaborated Rube Goldberg strings of unlikely events may not actually have meringue for brains, but they do have a dangerous level of gullibility. Or disingenuousness.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Ebbie
Date: 15 May 07 - 11:30 PM

Carol C is only pasting the comments of various people one finds in that link. Which I, for one, read first hand and don't need reiterated.

What she may not have done is come from the other side and read the detailed step by step explanations of the phenomenon by experts in the field. Those explanations are a whole lot more convincing, to my mind.

Note that most of the people quoted in that link question the official findings- most of them do NOT say that the US government did it.

As others have also said, the thing that keeps me from swallowing the froth is the sheer numbers needed to be silent. That is not the nature of the beast that I know.

Isn't it possible that the US government doesn't want to investigate it thoroughly - and publicize it - because they are afraid of what they might find? The balance of power in the world is fragile as are alliances.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 15 May 07 - 11:43 PM

There are many possibilities, Ebbie. We who question the officially sanctioned government version, are, I think, well aware of that. We are simply asking questions about it, and proposing various alternative theories.......on a basis of what might seem more or less probable to us...and that is all. We are ALL agnostics on this issue, Don, but agnostics can still have hypothetical opinions.

Yes, Ebbie, one reason the US governmight might be covering things up is because if they didn't the revelations could threaten fragile alliances, like that with the Saudis, for example.

When people are afraid, however, to publicly ask certain questions because they will then be attacked, ridiculed, harassed, and insulted....well, what have you got then? Is it still a free society? Is it still an open dialogue?

In my case, I've been studiously avoiding these threads lately, because it wasn't worth it for me to be responded to in such an unpleasant way by people here. It didn't serve my life in any good fashion. The only reason I'm on today is to defend Carol against the same sort of nasty tactics, because I know her personally (in the 3-D world), and I know her intelligence and honesty.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 15 May 07 - 11:45 PM

Thanks, LH! :-)


Which experts would those be then, Ebbie?


Don, my opinion is that this is a discussion that needs to be taking place, and that all sides of the argument need to be heard. Where I have a problem with these kinds of discussions is when people try to silence those whose views contradict the official versions of events by attacking them and ridiculing them (as you have been doing yourself). This is a problem in many contexts, however, not just the Mudcat.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 16 May 07 - 12:00 AM

As others have also said, the thing that keeps me from swallowing the froth is the sheer numbers needed to be silent. That is not the nature of the beast that I know.

History proves you wrong on this point, Ebbie.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 May 07 - 12:03 AM

Experts like these:

One of Many

When compared with the paranoic froth so prevalent, isn't this refreshing?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 16 May 07 - 12:31 AM

Yeah, I was wondering which experts Ebbie was referring to. The link she posted leads to crap. The numbers don't add up. The piece was dismissed long ago. See, if the WTC towers could be brought down by simple airplanes, then new regulations must be needed, right? Notice the hurry-up date at the bottom of Ebbie's article. 2001. As I recall, this was published in Dec. of 2001. Halliburton needed SOMETHING on record before they could start grabbing those lucrative contracts (but building codes had to be "updated" first), and this article came to the rescue. It's all junk. The numbers are off, except for the numbers in the corporate bank accounts. Geez, Ebbie. Go to the PatriotsQuestion911 site and read some current science on this. The scary thing about that crap article you pointed to is that building codes HAVE been changed because of it.

Don Firth, as an expert in aeronautics, already discounted that airplane parts # thing some time ago. Surpried he didn't mention that when you posted the piece by "Col. George Nelson, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority. 34-year Air Force career."

The 9/11 thing is just getting interesting, Little Hawk. Bruce Willis is fixing to jump into the fray. People may not listen to Col. George Nelson and Dr. David Ray Griffin, but they're going to listen to Mr. Die Hard, dammit.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 May 07 - 12:43 AM

You say 'expert' as though it were a bad word, Froth. I am speaking of engineers, people who know just a bit more about this kind of subject than the people in the kind of article you espouse.

"The numbers don't add up"? What does that mean?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 16 May 07 - 01:18 AM

That article you posted really is nonsense, Ebbie, and not in the least refreshing. Just more lies. The central core was massive. If the floors had become separated from the central core and experienced a domino effect all the way down, the central core would have remained standing. There would have been a somewhat narrower tower than what had been their prior to the floor's collapse, but the central core would have remained standing.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 16 May 07 - 01:59 AM

Another problem with the "theory" in your link, Ebbie is that it fails to take into consideration the time it would take the buildings to fall given the amount of resistance each floor would experience as it fell onto the floor below it. The buildings fell at free fall speed. That would not be possible given the theory proposed by your experts. It also doesn't address what caused building 7 to fall. (And neither does the 9/11 commission report, which makes no mention of building 7 at all.)


Heikki Kurttila, D.Sc. (Tech.) (Doctor of Technology) – Safety Engineer and Accident Analyst, National Safety Technology Authority (TUKES), Finland. Specialist in the investigation of pressure vessel explosion accidents and the impacts of the shock waves caused by them.

    * Analysis of the collapse of WTC Building 7, 11/18/05: "Conclusion: The observed collapse time of WTC 7 was 6.5 seconds. That is only half a second longer than it would have taken for the top of the building to fall to the ground in a vacuum, and half a second shorter than the falling time of an apple when air resistance is taken into account. ... The great speed of the collapse and the low value of the resistance factor strongly suggest controlled demolition."   

http://www.saunalahti.fi


Letter to Congress regarding the 9/11 Commission Report 9/13/04, signed by the following 25 military, intelligence, and law enforcement veterans: http://www.pogo.org/


"[W]e the undersigned wish to bring to the attention of the Congress and the people of the United States what we believe are serious shortcomings in the report and its recommendations. …

Omission is one of the major flaws in the Commission's report. We are aware of significant issues and cases that were duly reported to the commission by those of us with direct knowledge, but somehow escaped attention. …

The omission of such serious and applicable issues and information by itself renders the report flawed, and casts doubt on the validity of many of its recommendations. ...

The Commission, with its incomplete report of "facts and circumstances", intentional avoidance of assigning accountability, and disregard for the knowledge, expertise and experience of those who actually do the job, has now set about pressuring our Congress and our nation to hastily implement all its recommendations. ...

We the undersigned, who have worked within various government agencies (FBI, CIA, FAA, DIA, Customs) responsible for national security and public safety, call upon you in Congress to include the voices of those with first-hand knowledge and expertise in the important issues at hand. We stand ready to do our part." http://www.pogo.org/


Edward J. Costello, Jr. – Former Special Agent, Counterterrorism, FBI. Former Judge pro tem., Los Angeles, CAA.


John M. Cole – Former Intelligence Operations Specialist, in the FBI's Counterintelligence Division. In charge of FBI's foreign intelligence investigations covering India, Pakistan and Afghanistan.18-year FBI career.


Mark Conrad, JD – Retired Agent in Charge, Internal Affairs, U.S. Customs, responsible for the internal integrity and security for areas encompassing nine states and two foreign locations. Former Federal Sky Marshall. 27-year U.S. Customs career. Currently Associate General Counsel, National Association of Federal Agents. Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at Troy University.


Rosemary N. Dew – Former Supervisory Special Agent, Counterterrorism and Counterintelligence, FBI. Former member of The President's National Security Telecommunications Advisory Committee (NSTAC) and the Electronic Commerce/Cyber Crime Working Group. 13-year FBI career.


Bogdan Dzakovic – Witness before the 9/11 Commission. 14-year Counter-terrorism expert in the Security Division of the Federal Aviation Administration. Team Leader of the FAA's Red (Terrorism) Team, which conducted undercover tests on airport security through simulated terrorist attacks. Former Team Leader in the Federal Air Marshal program. Former Coast Guard officer. (See also individual statement above.)


Sibel D. Edmonds – Witness before the 9/11 Commission. Former Language Translation Specialist, performing translations for counterterrorism and counterintelligence operations, FBI. (See also individual statement above.)


Steve Elson – Former Special Agent with the U.S. Navy and the FAA. Specialist in Counterterrorism, Intelligence, and Security. Twenty-two years military experience, primarily in Naval Special Warfare and nine years Federal service with the FAA and DEA. Retired Navy SEAL. (See also individual statement above.)


David Forbes – Former head of Thames Valley Police Fraud Squad, trained at New Scotland Yard. Over 30 years experience in law enforcement, commercial and industrial security-related risk management, and service sector business management. Currently Aviation, Logistics and Govt. Security Analyst, BoydForbes, Inc.


Melvin A. Goodman – Former Division Chief and Senior Analyst at the Office of Soviet Affairs, CIA,1966 - 1990.   Senior Analyst at the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, State Department, 1974 - 1976. Professor of International Security at the National War College 1986 - 2004. Currently Senior Fellow at the Center for International Policy and Adjunct Professor of International Relations at Johns Hopkins University. He is the author and co-author of five books on international relations. (See also individual statement above.)


Mark Graf – Former Security Supervisor, Planner, and Derivative Classifier, Department of Energy. Former Chairman of the Rocky Flats (DOE) Physical Security Systems Working Group from 1990 through 1995.


Gilbert M. Graham – Retired Special Agent, Counterintelligence, FBI. 24-year FBI career.


Diane Kleiman – Former Special Agent, US Customs.


Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Also served on the staff of the Director of the National Security Agency. 20-year Air Force veteran. (See also individual statement above.)


Lynne A. Larkin – Former CIA Operations Officer. Served in several CIA foreign stations and in the CIA's counter-intelligence center helping chair a multi-agency task force and seminars on coordinating intelligence among intelligence and crime prevention agencies.


David MacMichael, PhD – Former Senior Estimates Officer with special responsibility for Western Hemisphere Affairs at the CIA's National Intelligence Council. Former Captain, U.S. Marine Corps.


Raymond L. McGovern – Former Chairman, National Intelligence Estimates, CIA, responsible for preparing the President' Daily Brief (PDB) for Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. 27-year CIA veteran. Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer. (See also individual statement above.)


Theodore J. Pahle – Former Senior Intelligence Officer with the Defense Intelligence Agency. His 37-year intelligence career was exclusively as a HUMINT (Human Intelligence) operations officer with DIA, Office of Naval Intelligence and U.S. Army Intelligence. He is a Middle East and Latin American operations specialist. Today, he continues to support the HUMINT effort as a contract instructor.


Behrooz Sarshar – Retired Language Translation Specialist, performing Farsi translations for counterterrorism and counterintelligence operations dealing with Iran and Afghanistan, FBI.


Brian F. Sullivan – Retired Special Agent and Risk Management Specialist, FAA. Retired Lieutenant Colonel, Military Police.


Commander Larry J. Tortorich, U.S. Navy (ret) – Former Deputy Program Manager for Logistics – Tomahawk Cruise Missiles. 24-year Navy career in the fields of aviation and counterterrorism. Two years as a federal employee with DHS/TSA in the fields of security and counterterrorism.


Jane A. Turner – Retired Special Agent, FBI. 24-year FBI career.


John B. Vincent – Retired Special Agent, Counterterrorism, FBI. 27-year FBI career.


Fred Whitehurst, JD, PhD – Retired Supervisory Special Agent / Laboratory Forensic Examiner, FBI. Former U.S. Army Intelligence Officer.


Col. Ann Wright, U.S. Army (ret) – Retired Army officer and former U.S. Diplomat. Served 13 years on active duty with the U.S. Army and 16 years in the U.S. Army Reserves. She was a member of the International law team in Operation Urgent Fury in Grenada and served in Panama and Somalia. She joined the Foreign Service in 1987 and served as Deputy Chief of Mission of U.S. Embassies in Sierra Leone, Micronesia and Afghanistan. She helped reopen the US Embassy in Kabul in December, 2001.


Matthew J. Zipoli – Special Response Team (SRT) Officer, DOE. Vice President, Security Police Officer's Association, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 May 07 - 12:29 PM

It does address free fall speed versus pancaking, Carol C.

These persons linked to, impressive as they are, are citing political flaws. Not one of them is a structural engineer.

Neither, ao far as I can see, is any one of the Mudcatters involved here an engineer. We are all - some more than others - spouting off theories as though we knew what we are talking about.

We don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 16 May 07 - 12:50 PM

Okay. I glanced at Ebbie's Eagar & Musso article and remembered reading it a dozen times years ago. I got to the end of the first paragraph this time and had to give it up. Such bullshit. Collapse without significant tipping. Then what's this a photo of?

http://www.oilempire.us/graphics/wtc-southtower.jpg

The top 30 floors of the south tower falling sideways. The "angular momentum" of that part of the building should have continued sideways, and would have unless something other than the laws of nature were at work.

So, from memory, the Eagar & Musso paper was produced about 10 weeks after the attacks of 9/11. At that time, Rudy Giuliani was busy destroying the crime scene, and the U.S. govt was still more than a year away from even BEGINNING an investigation. So what data did these two scientists have to work with? None. The paper is sheer speculation. It says things COULD have happened this way, not DID, but even as speculation it fails miserably. It contradicts itself in fundamental ways that took time to become obvious to the shell-shocked public.

For example, within the paper Eager and Musso admit that the penetration of the structures would result in a redistribution of the weight bearing to the other, non-damaged steel supports in the structures. So the impact of the planes would have virtually no effect on the buildings. They also point out there was no wind stress on that day, so that leaves fire as the reason for the collapse of the towers.

And the numbers they present on fire don't take into account the probability that all the fuel would have burned in 5-10 minutes. Most of it burned in fireballs in 10-15 seconds, but some may have lasted 10 minutes. After that, you see black smoke from scattered furniture and paper fires coming from the towers. Fires not hot enough to affect steel. Firefighters radioed that they needed two hoses to knock out the remaining fires. Hardly the inferno needed to cause catastrophic collapse. So the temperatures needed to melt steel weren't there, yet much later, pools of molten steel were found beneath the rubble, at bedrock. So steel HAD melted on that day, and there's no way the numbers in Eager & Musso's paper support temperatures high enough to melt steel. (There's video on the internet of those pools of steel...footage shot by rescue workers).

But say a maximum of 10 minutes of fuel fire followed by trashcan fires DID burn hot enough to weaken the MASSIVE heat-absorbing beams in the WTC towers, the steel would only be weakened in small, specific areas. There was no raging inferno, or we wouldn't have pictures of people standing in the holes left from the planes' impacts. So the fires that were supposed to have caused loss of structural integrity were localized, and here you get back to what Eager and Musso themselves admit in their paper, that when one area of the structure is compromised, the weight-bearing shifts to other supports. So, say a half-dozen columns in the center of the building were heated to the point of compromise, the weight would just be shifted to the other 41 columns in the core.

That's just what I remember about the paper from 5 years ago, off the top of my head. The Eager-Musso "study" has been discounted for so long that I don't recall any other specifics, but they're out there, discussed in detail on the internet, if you search. And I imagine David Ray Griffin's new book does a brutal job on the paper.

The Eagar-Musso paper was junk science intended to give the green light to contractors, that's all. SOME sort of investigation-like paper was needed in order for government contracts to go forward. The govt couldn't fund building and re-building projects when it appeared to all clear-thinking people that the Newtonian laws of physics could be switched on and off, so a paper was needed to explain the WTC tower collapses more or less in accordance with those laws of physics. And this was that paper. It was intended to placate the public and grease the financial skids for the crooks who have seized the US govt.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 May 07 - 01:36 PM

"Then what's this a photo of?" It's a photo of a portion of the building tilting a bit, but still falling downward.

GUEST,(pick a name, any name, but make it different in every thread GUEST starts), has presented us with a whole menu of conspiracy theories on a variety of subjects over the past several months. This is merely another one that said individual wants us to have hissy-fits over.

I smell a troll. A troll with an immense amount of time on his or her hands.

I do entertain the idea that the government may have been involved in the WTC attack, but I need much better evidence than the cut-and-pastes from conspiracy web sites and from other "true believers" that GUEST,(whoever) offers. Many of the so-called scientific or engineering type bits of evidence simply do not stand up to close scrutiny. And some is mere speculation offered as facts and some of it is just outright wrong.

No, GUEST merely has a hobby-horse that he or she is riding. And GUEST responds to those who question his or her "evidence" by accusing them of either being too cowardly to face the horrible "truth" or a government shill and in on the conspiracy.

Now, that, ladies and gentlemen, is not a tactic of legitimate, logical debate. That is a personal attack. And that indicates to me that the person who uses it realizes that he or she is on very shaky ground.

If I ridicule people who use this kind of dodge, it's because I find them ridiculous.

This whole argument is pointless, and diverts attention from real issues—such, perhaps—as serious investigations into what really happened and who might be either responsible or criminally negligent.

Perhaps that's why GUEST is flooding us with conspiracy theories. Now, here's a conspiracy theory for you to contemplate:   GUEST is a government shill whose job it is to spread so many conspiracy theories about the WTO attack that the truth gets lost in all the nonsense. Not unlike the ink-like fluid that an octopus ejects when attacked, so while the attacker goes for the ink, the octopus jets quicky away, undetected.

I'm out of here. This is a waste of time.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 May 07 - 01:51 PM

Don, "hissy-fits" is another loaded phrase, similar to "tinfoil hats" and "little green men". Such phrases are used to trivialize an argument one doesn't agree with and dismiss the arguer as some kind of crank.

You are quite right that the Guest has a hobby horse in regards to 911. However, this particular hobby horse may be one of some real substance. We all have hobby horses. We all have things we like to focus on, and the more we like to focus on them, the more we usually end up knowing about them, correct?

I could bore you for hours and hours with stuff about the Kennedy assassination or detailed information about the Japanese Navy in WWII, but frankly, I can't be bothered... What would it achieve?

I could talk to you about my personal experiences in regards to UFOs. What would that achieve? Nothing. I have learned to enjoy the things I know about and am interested in, and not necessarily expect anyone else to know the same things or feel exactly the same way about them.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 16 May 07 - 01:55 PM

In your exiting backward glance, Firth, please observe that the top 30 floors are falling sideways, not downwards. If nature had taken its course, they would have fallen free of the building. They didn't. And the laws of physics weren't miraculously suspended so the situation could correct itself. The only POSSIBLE explanation for the interruption of the sideways angular momentum is explosives on the floors below. I can dig up the scientific papers that address that if you want, but the door just hit you in the ass on your way out.

And I'm not "flooding with conspiracy theories." The mother of all conspiracy theories is the government's, and I'm just pointing out flaws.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 16 May 07 - 02:54 PM

You didn't actually read the page you linked to, did you, Ebbie.

Unfortunately, there are dishonest people in every profession (otherwise there wouldn't be so many "experts" who can testify in court on both sides of any case).


Your experts are saying that the floors separated from the core and then fell independently of it. That is not a credible explanation of what happened. If it had happened that way, the core would have been left standing. And as I said before, it doesn't explain building 7. Your "experts" are lying to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Donuel
Date: 16 May 07 - 02:57 PM

An ignorant spamming nafarious troll?

GIT EM !

Spaw git the dawgs...Bobert, scout em out from the air,,, Susan, pray fer em.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 16 May 07 - 03:06 PM

Don, you're wrong. While I don't agree with everything the person posting in this thread as "Froth" is saying or postulating, he/she is keeping the conversation going. We need that if we are ever going to have a credible (and independent) investigation into what really happened on 9/11.

Don't try to silence people on this subject. You don't really accomplish what you think you're accomplishing by doing that. If you find the discussion a waste of time, don't read these kinds of threads. What's so difficult to understand about that?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 16 May 07 - 03:07 PM

My last post was for Don Firth.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Ebbie
Date: 16 May 07 - 03:16 PM

Does anyone really think that our debating the issue is going to get at the truth? I don't. We don't know enough; we may never know enough. I'm not impressed with the attitude of 'what might have happened' and therefore you are a naive fool who believes anything the authorities put forth. Frankly, I am more inclined to believe what the authorities - said authorities being people who do have the educational background that lends authenticity to their arguments. We here on Mudcat do not fit that mantle.

And, yes, Carol C, I did read the whole article. As I read conspiracists' articles.

Enough. Enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 16 May 07 - 04:09 PM

Silencing people won't accomplish anything, Ebbie.


Heh... I just had a look around. Even the NIST doesn't accept the theory being promoted by your experts, Ebbie. Apparently, even the "experts" you are more inclined to believe can't agree on what happened.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST, Ebbie
Date: 16 May 07 - 04:15 PM

Carol C, when you speak of "my" experts it tells me that you are not really interested in knowing the truth.

Incidentally, I suspect that you know Guest/Froth really, really well.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 16 May 07 - 04:22 PM

Sorry, Ebbie. I guess I should say "the experts you say you are more inclined to believe".


No, I don't have any idea who Froth is. But I do appreciate that he/she is providing me with some information that I might not have seen otherwise.

Interesting (and rather catty, I might add) that you would make such an insinuation. Who, exactly do you think this person is whom I know so well?

I should tell you that if you think it's me or JtS, you should know that if either of us were to try to post under any names other than CarolC or JtS, Joe Offer would out us here in the open forum faster than you could blink your eyes (as he has done before). So I suggest you spend some time in reflection about why you are so quick to make such insidious and defamatory accusations with no evidence to back them up.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,I'm not Hilary
Date: 16 May 07 - 04:27 PM

As investigations by unbiased researchers continue, it's become increasingly clear that 911 was a conspiracy unleashed by Zionist agents posing as Arabs.

The facts on 911.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Wolfgang
Date: 16 May 07 - 04:33 PM

Wolfgang, you seem not to understand that even the official version of events is a "conspiracy theory" (Carol)

A theory involving a conspiracy is something else than a conspiracy theory. Of course, conspiracy theorists (but not only them) have tried since long to change the meaning of that phrase, or rather, to broaden the sense of that phrase in such a way that it loses the original meaning.

I make a distinction and do not call each theory that has some people conspiring to do something a conspiracy theory. If you do not want to make this distinction it is up to you, Carol. But to post that I do not seem to understand just because I use an expression in its original sense, is silly.

Crap, BTW, doesn't become anything else by amassing a higher pile of it. It just becomes more crap.

There may be some gems hidden in all that crap, but they are hard to find. Don (or Ron?) is right: There are not two theories against each other, there would be hundreds more. Saddam could have planted the explosives to get his revenge for the first defeat and might have tried to blame Osama to get away with it. Doomsday Christians might have....

It is in a way the same poor thinking as in the creation against evolution debate. Creationists pick on problems in one of the evolution theories (there are many). They identify a problem and use it as if that was a proof for one completely different theory (their pet theory). Eventually, the problem is solved, then they pick on the next problem. Since these theories of evolution will never be complete, creationists will never be out of ammunition.

There is no way 9/11 conspiracy theorists will ever be satisfied by any answers.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 16 May 07 - 04:38 PM

A theory involving a conspiracy is something else than a conspiracy theory.

According to whom Wolfgang?


Crap, BTW, doesn't become anything else by amassing a higher pile of it. It just becomes more crap.

This one cuts both ways.


There is no way 9/11 conspiracy theorists will ever be satisfied by any answers.

This may be true. But those of us who are not 9/11 conspiracy theorists, but who are only interested in uncovering the truth will be satisfied when this is accomplished.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 16 May 07 - 08:59 PM

I don't know anyone on this forum, that I'm aware of. And I choose to post as a guest primarily because of the savaging I watch you folks inflict on each other. It's as if you care more about who's saying something rather than what's being said. That's not a criticism, just an observation. And it happens on the other forums where I post. Cliques are always that way. Human nature, I suppose.

I always use the same name in a particular thread on Mudcat, for what it's worth.

And the debate on 9/11 will never end. What WILL happen is that the most ridiculous conspiracy theory out there (the "19 men with boxcutters & the Cavemen of Tora Bora") will continue to undergo scrutiny. The story didn't work on Day 1, and it's utterly discredited now. Not one aspect of the government's story has survived critical analysis. The only reason the govt can continue to use the story is because they've slapped thousands of gag orders on people, and they control the court system where the racketeering and murder suits against the federal mafioso have been stalled. (Translator Sibell Edmonds & FBI agent Robert Wright are good examples of gag orders, Stanley Hilton is representing lots of the families of 9/11 victims...search those names and some interesting info will turn up. Ellen Mariani, too).

It's insulting that the people who control the U.S. govt put out a juvenile story of what happened, then they waited over a year to investigate, then they tell us to shut up when we point out the flaws in the unbelievable results of the "investigation." Do you folks know how DUMB the gangsters in Washington think you are? "The Cavemen of Tora Bora" is a work of juvenile fantasy. You're being fed dirt while they tell you it's caviar.

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

Wheee Dogies Froth, don't you know those tornadoes in Kansas were faked too?

Here's the proof: Actual pictures of the Greensburg tornado?
My office has been getting a lot of calls from media and charity groups looking for pictures of the Greensburg tornado. I have noticed a lot of fake Greensburg images and videos being posted on the Internet. If anyone has actual still images, or video frame grabs, I will be happy to forward the requests your way.

Suspicious 'tornado' wipes out 95% of Greensburg, Kansas.

Also why did Obama say: "In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died - an entire town destroyed," when only 1.943 people live there?

Reason is Howard Dean and Dick Durbin dreamed it all up to get Obama elected. Yeah. Here it is in his own words of the Governor: "Howard Dean called me around 5 o'clock and told me not to ask the White House for any help or make any statements until I heard back." "Dick called me an hour or two later, and that's when he told me that we needed to use this"

It was even on the radio so you know it has to be true.

Believe me, nothing the government tells you is true.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 16 May 07 - 10:33 PM

"It's as if you (the members of the Mudcat Forum) care more about who's saying something rather than what's being said."

HALLELUIA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is it! That is exactly what is so wrong and so sick with the debates on this forum, it is what continually poisons the atmosphere around here, and it is why I would frankly rather post as a "Guest" here myself much of the time. It's not worth the "savaging" one undergoes, as Froth so aptly puts it, to be a named member here and say what you really think about certain stuff.

And, yeah, that is what usually happens in any group of people who know each other after awhile, and think they know each other well. New subjects merely become an excuse to refight old battles and rehash old grudges. That is very, very sad, but yes, it is human nature.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 17 May 07 - 12:51 AM

Yeah, well, at least no one on Mudcat has threatened to make me eat my fingers. I got that guy into a rage with an "add hominid to the list of things you're not" attack.

I was thinking of getting Griffin's latest book, but I may not have to if this guy keeps posting:

http://us-amnesia.blogspot.com/2007/05/excerpt-debunking-911-debunking-experts.html

Looks like he's doing what I planned to do...thumbnail reviews of points and chapters. Some interesting links on this page.

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -Mahatma Gandhi

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Edward
Date: 17 May 07 - 01:04 AM

I know now that Hurricane Katrina and Rita were completely man made by the US government. They were Harrpicanes:

Officially, HAARP is a research station directed by the Air Force Research Laboratory's Space Vehicles Directorate in Gokona, Alaska, that opened in 1992 to gather data about the atmosphere and "radio propagation conditions." Their web site (www.haarp.alaska.edu) states that they are monitoring and archiving the naturally occurring variations with the sun's activities such as sunspots and solar flares.

HAARP constitutes a system of powerful antennas capable of creating "controlled local modifications of the ionosphere." However, there seems to be much more going on behind HAARP's public face.

THE IDEA FOR HAARP BASED ON TESLA TECHNOLOGY

HAARP is based on physicist Bernard J. Eastlund's U.S. Patent from 1987 titled "Method and Apparatus for Altering a Region in the Earth's Atmosphere, Ionosphere, and/or Magnetosphere" (US #4,686,605).   Eastlund's patent is based, in part, on the works of Nikola Tesla, who first suggested that RF could transmit approximately one watt per cubic centimeter to any point on the planet without the use of wires. Thus, power can generated on the ground and then sent through the air to the upper areas of the atmosphere miles above the surface of the planet.

WHAT HAARP COULD BE USED FOR

Today, HAARP has 48 antennas that can broadcast up to 960 kW of power, and plans to expand to 180 antennas and 3.6 megawatts of power by 2006. Even that is short of the thousands of antennas and hundreds of megawatts of power that Eastlund figures would be needed to control the weather or act as an effective missile shield. However, even at 3.6 megawatts, significant weather control experiments could be performed.

THE ALASKAN DEATH RAY

It has been alleged that the HAARP facility, located near Gokona, Alaska, is not the "real" HAARP project, and that the actual HAARP is conducting experiments that seem beyond the realm of possibility. Writer Dan Eden, of the Viewzone website, recently revealed that in 1998 he was shown a secret HAARP facility near Fairbanks, Alaska.

STRANGE WEATHER

Several years later, in 1999, Dan Eden received e-mails from a reader in Serbia, where the UN forces had been fighting Melosovich, mostly with American armed forces and equipment. The e-mails mentioned a strange phenomenon that accompanied attacks by the U.S. A-10, "warthog" fighter jet.
It was reported that, just prior to an air attack, the sky often filled with huge black clouds that would materialized out of nowhere, and stayed until the end of the campaign -- which was usually couple of weeks. However, instead of rain, falling on Belgrade, there were hailstones the size of eggs.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 18 May 07 - 02:10 PM

Excellent article. Rosie O'Donnell is criticized for saying the 600,000+ Iraqis killed since the start of the latest war aren't terrorists. LOTS of good links that give a good history of false-flag terrorism at the bottom of this story.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/media/odonnell_fox_gibson_stretched_thin_over_rosie_imagination.htm

Another good article from infowars.com -- NY Times Attempts To Debunk 9/11 Truth; Fails Miserably

"Although it is easily countered, the Times exposure highlights the fact that 9/11 truth movement has exploded into the mainstream. It also underlines the fact that the debunkers are losing the battle to quell the public's desire to uncover the lies and discover what really happened on 9/11 as their line of argument becomes more diluted and weakened with each ill informed and poor researched attack piece they produce."

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/ny_times_attempts_to_debunk_911_truth.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Donuel
Date: 18 May 07 - 02:25 PM

http://www.proliberty.com/observer/20070405.htm
shhh
Don't tell Rosie about this

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Ebbie
Date: 18 May 07 - 03:05 PM

I read the "documentary" on the other thread- frankly, the assertion that GHW Bush is George Scherff, Jr is no more convincing than the photo that is linked to on this thread. Any resemblance to Bush, the senior, is superficial in the extreme.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 18 May 07 - 06:11 PM

Well, O'Donnell has been talking about September 11, not Nazi connections, etc. This is interesting, though. Maybe it belongs on that Bush/Nazi thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Donuel
Date: 18 May 07 - 10:59 PM

Rosie should be on MSNBC to catch a predator show.

When the internet child molester shows up, she comes around the corner gives him a bear hug and starts french kissing the child predator until he dies or confesses.

IT would be a deterrent greater than prison

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 May 07 - 02:01 AM

Why? Is that her standard technique for dealing with all situations or have I missed something? ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 May 07 - 03:24 AM

No. He's just trying to say, Little Hawk, that Rosie O'Donnell is an outspoken lesbian and physically not appealing to him.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 27 May 07 - 05:20 PM

http://cdn5.tribalfusion.com/media/854966.jpeg

A link to one of the Drudge Report's bogus little teasers. The mainstream media is desperate to get rid of Rosie O'Donnell.

O'Donnell left "The View" when they wouldn't allow her to bring on William Rodriguez, the janitor who saved no telling how many people on 9/11. Had the master keys. He said a bomb went off in the basement of his building. Here's a 51 second clip of O'Donnell being made up for TV and telling the audience about him. She gets a figure or two wrong, but then she does better under the pressure than I could.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTMB7nM43Sc

On the day that The View was going to have William Rodriguez and some other 9/11 people on, GWBush held a press conference. Now, TV Guide and all schedules still showed that these 9/11 people were going to be on the show that day, even though they had cancelled because of threatened censorship (The View has installed a 15 minute delay since O'Donnell started talking about 9/11. They edit out her comments, and the guests didn't want to be a part of that abridgement of freedom of speech). But Bush's people had gone ahead and scheduled a press conference. It was fluff, nothing worth calling a conference for. And it was only covered by ABC television, which meant it pre-empted The View. THAT'S how desperate these criminals are. A President of the U.S. is dragged out to pre-empt Rosie O'Donnell.

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

The mainstream media is going to go nuts when Loose Change hits theaters this summer. It's the updated version, narrated by Charlie Sheen and bankrolled by billionaire owner of the Dallas Mavericks. It'll be on hundreds of screens around the nation--how the military-industrial complex carried out 9/11.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Mickey191
Date: 27 May 07 - 06:33 PM

See Donuel's 5/18/07 link. It such a very, very weird read. If you desire a giggle how does this suit you?

Martin Bormann (Hitler aide and S.S. assassin) and Adolph Hitler (photographed in 1997 at age 107).
The Hitler photo was taken during a "reunion" at the Lake McDonald Lodge in Glacier National Park, Montana, on August 27, 1997. According to Skorzeny, Adolph Hitler was alive and well in the U.S. in 1997!

Do you think he went skiing??

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Don Firth
Date: 27 May 07 - 07:16 PM

Well . . . member of a super-race, no?

Don Firth

P. S. déjà moo?