BS: RosieO'Donnell&WillieNelson on 9/11

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 09:41 AM

"It does not in any way explain what can plainly be seen in a number of videos of the buildings collapsing...concentrated, very localized jets of smoke and debris bursting horizontally out of previously undamaged floors considerably below the point of the collapsing sections above, sometimes WAY below them....well ahead of the collapse wave."

Look at it again and remember that building is essentially a tube. The floors collapsing above is creating air pressure as the material is moving downward. Where the walls were the weakest, the smoke and debris would be pushed outward.

"buildings 5 & 6 did suffer major structural damage and extensive fires, yet did not collapse"
Different construction, different location. Don't forget, building 7 was built upon a Con-Ed substation.

Also, comparing it to surrounding buildings is not going to give you similar results. You can have 4 people in an automobile accident and each have different injuries - or none at all. When I was in high school my best friend was sitting in the back of a car and suffered neck injuries when the driver and other passengers escaped without any problems.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 10:00 AM

"Literal rocket scientists telling you the truth of 9/11:"

Froth, amigo:

****I**** AM a genuine rocket scientist. 29 years experience, Atlas/Agena, Delta, Titan 2 and 4, Pegasus, and Arianne, as well as others. So, I expect YOU to listen to ME.

The government had nothing to do with it- it was the Martians, as I have explained. If you don't believe me, just try to find someone who saw us... I mean THEM. Since no-one did, they OBVIOUSLY did it, using the gravity generators as I have stated. THAT explains all the missing facts that you keep stating.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 10:10 AM

btw, I also worked the first four STS ( Shuttle) launches. You know, back when they had ejection seats? ( at least for the first). You can tell the first two launches because the external tank was painted white- then they figured out that it saved hundreds of pounds of weight NOT to paint it.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 11:38 AM

"Bill, ferchrissakes, would you quit trying to get these tinfoil hat folks to accept logic and scientific evidence????? They have absolutely no desire for the real truth."

Mick

Thanks, Mick...I shoulda realized good advice when I saw it.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 11:51 AM

Nobody here, Bill, has even the slightest desire to hear a "truth" that differs in any way from his own. Such is the human ego in all its rage, deceit, dishonesty, and inglory.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Wesley S
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 12:40 PM

Froth - I'd be very interested to hear where you stand on two different issues:

The moon landing: Real event or faked?

The Kennedy Assasination: Single gunman or conspiracy?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Stringsinger
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 01:12 PM

This topic is being generated with no real factual science to back it up. Mainly, it's speculation from both sides of the argument. A thorough research has not yet been conducted and chances are it won't be for a long while.

There is credible evidence for the fact that JFK was done in by organized crime figures.
This is after Lamar Waldron and Thom Hartmann did a ten year study and released their findings in "Ultimate Sacrifice". Their documentation is quite extensive and done over time.

In the case of Griffin's "New Pearl Harbor", he has not stated that the case has been solved.
He is presenting possibilities because of all the elements that point to a certain direction but he states also that the component parts of these elements are by no means clear or do they purport to be accurate. I think Griffin's motivation is that the 9-11 Commission do a better job then their white-wash.

I think there are many questions that need to be answered about the events on 9-11 but that no real definitive conclusion can be reached.

There are a lot of statements being made that have nothing to back them up except prejudices. Rancor over this subject by name-calling is useless. We may not know all the facts for a long time.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 01:15 PM

Wasn't on the moon, so I couldn't say. They tell me a lot of people "saw" it on television. As far as JFK, I know what a bullet does, and I saw his skull split open from the front (Zapruder film). Which brings me back to Dan Rather. He was a "cub reporter" that day, standing in possibly the only vantage point where you could see the killing bullet coming from. If any question ever arose regarding a bullet coming from that particular place...well, there was a TRAINED observational reporter standing right there and HE didn't see anything. Rather was later rewarded for his service for the ego-boosting top slot in front of the CBS camera. I saw Kennedy shot from the front with my own eyes, and Dan Rather was in position to act as naysayer if needed. Rather then went on to lie to Americans for years and years as he presented govt propaganda.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 01:38 PM

"Nobody here, Bill, has even the slightest desire to hear a "truth" that differs in any way from his own"

That sort of cynicism and blanket generalizing is not becoming to a basically intelligent and concerned guy, LH...and if it describes YOU, I am sad...if it includes me, I am insulted, for I do NOT think & operate that way. I draw my conclusions...or lack of them...from the best evidence I can find, interpreted in the most careful, expert and intelligent way I can find.
I do NOT put 'seeing puffs of smoke on videos with my own eyes', nor most of the other subjective speculation based on personal interpretation of sond & images in news videos, in the category of careful, expert, intelligent analysis.

I do NOT have a pre-digested agenda and penchant for swallowing every paranoid conspiracy theory dreamed up. If anyone comes up with SOLID evidence, I'll listen...but I have a pretty high standard for SOLID.....unlike Rosie O'Donnell and some others.

Now...that is all from me on this subject. I can't debate on these terms.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Donuel
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 01:49 PM

If you smell cynacism 9 times out of ten the cynic is a comic or at least trying to play one.

However if witness #1 sees something in the sky at 8AM, and you go look at 10 AM and conclude there is nothing, you can't say there was no evidence at 8.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 03:15 PM

If you don't have enough guts to face your own subjectivity with as critical a scrutiny as you do the subjectivity of others, Bill, then you may never attain humility or true wisdom.

It is abundantly clear to me that one thing, and only one thing is ever happening in this and in all such discussions on Mudcat.

1. People initially commit themselves to an opinion on something, based on whatever they're heard about it...from wherever. (doesn't matter much where)

2. Following that commitment, which is a wholly emotional one, they interpret all further evidence that they are presented with strictly to suit their now sacred opinion no matter what. Ron's interpretation of the jets of smoke and debris coming out of a few concentrated spots on those buildings (as happens in a controlled demolition when charges have been set off) is a spectacular example of how that is done. Just work everything backward from your established conclusion. Work backwards from your conclusion at all times, and you will never find your conclusion in jeopardy. (and you will say...that's what YOU'RE doing! naturally...)

Cops do the same thing (sometimes) when they DECIDE in their gut that someone (who is really innocent) is the guilty party in a crime. So have innocent men been tried, convicted, and rotted in jail, even been executed, yet later found out to have been innocent. There are numerous examples of this, but cops are supposed to be ojective, aren't they? Anyone can rationalize available evidence to fit a pre-determined conclusion he holds dear, and people do it all the time.

We are all speaking largely on faith...based on an initial gut decision we made...based on our initial reaction to various evidence we saw or heard about...our interpretation of the evidence is usually highly subjective.

There IS no way for any of us (on this forum) to prove we are right...because we don't have the resources to. All we can do is use what reason we have and make a gut decision about it.

Don't imagine that your gut decision is any more guaranteed to be right than mine or anyone else's, and recognize the fact that it is an emotional decision of yours which has become part of your identity. People defend their identity as tenaciously as they defend their very life.

And THAT is the engine driving all this combative and endless BS on this forum, none of which will ever achieve anything! Not facts. Not objectivity. Not fairness. Not mutual respect. Not impartiality. Just defence of established identity against "other".

It's enough to make a person sick, frankly. It makes me sick to watch it. I only keep coming back here because I'm addicted to doing so. To paraphrase the 12-step thing, I recognize that I am not powerful enough (yet) to overcome this addiction.

You're a good guy, Bill, as people go, but you are not willing to really face your own fallibility, your own subjectivity, and look it in the eye. That's how I see it. We could just as easily be on the opposite sides of this 911 argument. And if we were...nothing would change. You'd still think I was being completely idiotic. I'd still think you were completely failing to recognize that you are just the same as me...and subject to the very same weaknesses.

Either one of us may be completely mistaken about 911, and I know it. I KNOW how little I know, and how fragile my sacred "truths" are. I don't think you realise how little YOU know. Most people would be terrified if they knew how little they know, believe me...and they'd have to reassess a whole lot of things. Their ego would find itself in real peril, and when the ego is in peril it attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Don Firth
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 03:26 PM

Considering that the Bush administration discounted or simply ignored the warnings it received from the outgoing Clinton administration, and from various intelligence agencies, both domestic and foreign, about the danger of organizations such as al Qaeda and of people like Osama bin Laden, it is patently obvious that the Bush administration was criminally incompetent. I am also of the opinion that, since from the very first days of the Bush administration, they were trying to figure a way to justify an invasion of Iraq to the American people, that they quite probably figured that terrorist groups may very well provide them with the "Pearl Harbor" they would need. Even so, when the attack on the World Trade Center did come, they had to pull out all the smoke and mirrors at their command to convince people that Iraq actually had something to do with it, even though almost every reasonable, well-informed person knew that was not the case.

I do not believe the Bush administration actively participated in the attack. The conspiracy put forth (or should I say "put Froth?") in this thread is so complex and convoluted that it would have Rube Goldberg stunned with admiration, and it requires ignoring science (see the article bodad linked to above) and invoking an extremely cynical view that, out of the thousands of people it would require to bring off such a plot, not one would feel morally outraged enough to speak out, "gag orders" notwithstanding.

No. The Bush administration is guilty of criminal negligence because it ignored the warnings, and because of lying and duplicity when it blamed Osama bin Laden (probably true), then attacked Saddam Hussein (who had nothing to do with it). There is more than enough guilt that can legitimately be laid at the Bush administration's door without having to make up improbable and overly complicated conspiracy fantasies. George W. Bush (including members of his administration, such as Cheney, Rumsfeld, and several others) will go down in history as one of the worst, if not the worst president this country has ever had.

Rosie O'Donnell has been a severe critic of the Bush administration all along. But she completely blows any credibility she ever had by embracing this ridiculous conspiracy theory. And furthermore, conspiracy theories like this one not only distract from the true charges that can be brought against the Bush administration, but they undercut those charges by making all critics of the Bush administration look like a bunch of brainless twits.

####

In an episode of "All In The Family," Edith had accidentally dented someone's fender in a grocery store parking lot, and much to Archie's upset, she left a note with her name and address under the windshield wiper of the dented car. The owner of the car, a priest, showed up at the Bunker's door. Wanting to avoid any responsibility, Archie tried to blow him off with a bunch of ridiculous arguments. The priest finally became exasperated and quoted the Bible:

"'Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.' Proverbs 26:4."

"What the hell is that supposed to mean!??" asked Archie.

The priest answered, "Don't waste your time arguing with an idiot!"

####

But there is a small controversy about that. Here is a commentary on a seeming contradiction in the Book of Proverbs:

Prov. 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him
.
Prov. 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

"Among alleged contradictions charged, this one wins a major award for silliness. What we have here is not contradiction, but dilemma -- an indication that when it comes to answering fools, you can't win -- because they are fools, and there is no practical cure for foolery (as this citation demonstrates). So:    It is unwise to argue with a fool at his own level and recognize his own foolish suppositions, but it is good sometimes to refute him soundly, lest his foolishness seem to be confirmed by your silence."

So although I feel it is a waste of time to engage in arguments like this one, I will probably continue, feeling that an obligation to add my own voice to the voices of Reason.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 03:43 PM

"Following that commitment, which is a wholly emotional one, they interpret all further evidence that they are presented with strictly to suit their now sacred opinion no matter what. Ron's interpretation of the jets of smoke and debris coming out of a few concentrated spots on those buildings (as happens in a controlled demolition when charges have been set off) is a spectacular example of how that is done. Just work everything backward from your established conclusion."

Yes and no. Of course this is one of the tools that any policework would use, but you over simplify the process and ignore the probability of the theory being correct. Also, what did you see? The videos that I have seen of the "smoke" shows small wisps that grew large as the floors above came down. I don't know how many controlled demolitions you've watched, but the few I remember show large puffs rapidly emitted and then the top falling down. The videos I have seen do not show this. I sincerely would appreciate seeing the video you are referring to.

Again, I have not witnessed a large number of controlled demolitions, and those I have are well known. It is very possible that if there were controlled demolition in this case they could have taken steps to create a different look - but again it keeps coming back to "why bother?"

Putting the psycho-babble aside about what our egos will and will not accept, it still boils down to logic and reason. You can be objective and fair and impartial.    I would not bet my house against this, but the odds keep looking slimmer and slimmer that there was a conspiracy. It doesn't add up - unless you subscribe to Abott & Costello mathmatics.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: beardedbruce
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 05:00 PM

Study: Red planet heating up
POSTED: 3:46 p.m. EDT, April 4, 2007
Adjust font size:
CHICAGO, Illinois (Reuters) -- Earth's dusty neighbor Mars is grappling with its own form of climate change as fluctuating solar radiation is kicking up dust and winds that may be melting the planet's southern polar ice cap, scientists said Wednesday.

Researchers have been watching the changing face of Mars for years, studying slight differences in the brightness and darkness of its surface.

These changes in brightness have been generally attributed to the presence of dust, but until now their effect on wind circulation and climate has not been clear.

NASA scientist Lori Fenton and colleagues, reporting this week in the journal Nature, now believe variations in radiation from the surface of Mars are fueling strong winds that stir up giant dust storms, trapping heat and raising the planet's temperature.

By studying changes in light reflected from the surface of Mars -- a measure known as an object's albedo -- they predict the red planet has warmed by around 1 degree Fahrenheit from the 1970s to the 1990s, which may in part have caused the recent retreat of the southern polar ice cap.

On Earth, carbon dioxide traps infrared radiation which can affect global climate. This a phenomenon is known as the greenhouse effect. Fossil fuel emissions add to the problem.

On Mars, it's the red-tinged dust.

Fenton's team compared thermal maps gathered from NASA's Viking mission in the 1970s with maps gathered more than two decades later by the Global Surveyor.

They saw that large swaths of the surface have darkened or brightened over the past three decades.

These albedo changes strengthened winds, picking up and circulating dust, creating a vicious cycle that is warming the planet.

"Our results suggests that documented albedo changes affect recent climate change and large-scale weather patterns on Mars," Fenton's team wrote.

They believe changes in albedo should be an important part of future studies on atmosphere and climate change."


*****************************************************************

See! Scientific proof that the Martians are warming up, and planned 9/11 just to kill humans off and cool earth down so they can live here.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 05:03 PM

I think Al Gore smells "sequel".

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 04 Apr 07 - 11:55 PM

"And furthermore, conspiracy theories like this one not only distract from the true charges that can be brought against the Bush administration, but they undercut those charges by making all critics of the Bush administration look like a bunch of brainless twits."

Over six years gone by and Bush is still President, and it don't look like there's any charges being brought against that asshole. Explain that, Don.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 01:07 AM

This topic is driving lotsa folks a bit batty. Ron and BB with Martians, Bill and LH arguing, BWL wants to know what Joan Rivers thinks (she thinks he'd look delightful yet refined in one of these. Guys, let's take a day off. You are all needed on the cannibis thread. (I figure one of you will post and I'll be able to find it again. I have three stories on it so far. I'm aiming for five.)

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 01:08 AM

On second thought, fu#k the lot of you. I just found the cannibis thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 01:12 AM

Damn. I lost the thread again.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 09:22 AM

I am not yet buying the Martian theory, but I do believe that many of these theories come from Uranus.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 09:55 AM

Like, where's the cannibis thread, man?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 01:29 PM

Lots of demonization of Rosie O'Donnell going on currently on Fox News. Don't have time to read the articles right now but I will later. The mainstream news media wants VERY MUCH to shut her up. Must be a reason for it. What's the saying about protesting too much? And where there's smoke there's fire?

I've been drawing up an outline for a citizen's investigation into 9/11 and should have that done in a couple of days. The issue will never be solved by looking at the forensics alone. One side gets their experts, the other gets theirs, and the whole thing is fought out in a govt-controlled arena called a courtroom? Won't work. And some of those forensic people...all I know is I'll never again use the term "rocket scientist" as the default measurement of intelligence, not after what I've read on this thread. Geez.

But if we look at people's behavior before, during and after 9/11 (and ESPECIALLY examine who did the covering up after the fact), we'll learn who's responsible. Look at Jack Abramhoff and Scooter Libbey--no forensics to speak of in their cases, just paper trails and testimony--and they were slam-dunk convicted. The same can be done with 9/11. Just follow the paper trails and put the Justice Dept in a position where it has no CHOICE but to issue indictments. And since the govt won't do that right now, even with all the public evidence, and since the Democrats demonstrate daily that they are just the second head of the two-party system in America, it's up to us citizens to take action.

So I'm working on a proposal. Simple and elegant. And do-able in a cost-effective manner. So sweet. And when I finish it I'll email it to the people I think can make it happen. Public, citizen hearings on 9/11. Details later.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Don Firth
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 01:40 PM

Not legal charges, Peace. But charges nevertheless, that influence public opinion in general and voters in particular, who can then pressure Congress to put the brakes on the little bugger. It's called "damage control." The legal charges may come later. I hope!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 01:43 PM

Thanks, Don. I too hope there are charges brought against Bush and Cheney. However, odds are that Bush will give everyone pardons, and the incoming President will give Bush a pardon. But, we can keep wishing.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 10:07 PM

Pardon for Bush? Depends on how much comes out about how he purposely misled the country into a tragic needless war. Pardon from Obama or Edwards? It ain't necessarily so.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 10:13 PM

Also, I believe I saw the incident ( saw it on My Space), which has stirred up this brouhaha. It's too bad--up to that absurd 9-11 theory she was doing great--posing great questions and representing the anti-Bush position well.

What it reminded me of was--believe it or not--Teribus. Having once made an absurd statement, she--and he--felt they could not back down. So the hole they dig for themselves gets progressively deeper.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 10:53 PM

Hmm... Physicist Steven Jones being interviewed. New information he's imparting. Analyzed a sample of dust from the WTC site and anticipated finding something which he did indeed find. Small spheres of metal in the dust. 10-50 microns. High in aluminum and sulfur (sulfur is added to aluminum-based thermite to create thermate). Chain of custody back to ground zero is established on this sample. Basically, the buildings were pulverized by the thermite explosions, and as the molten particles fell to the ground they cooled and formed spheres (as water freezes into round hail).

Jones also mentioned NIST was required by code to look for thermite at the crime scene but they didn't. No explanation, they just didn't.

This is so damning.

And here's a nice new site:

http://defendrosie.com/

Petitions, etc. to sign if you support freedom of speech.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Big Mick
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 11:41 PM

Damning? Is that why the media is jumping all over it????

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: balladeer
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 11:48 PM

If Rosie gets fired for her blog, maybe she'll become a real political commentator. Maybe CNN will exhume Crossfire and give her the chair on the left, across from ... who? Ann Coulter? Stephen Colbert? How would Rosie look in a bowtie, I wonder?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 05 Apr 07 - 11:57 PM

It's the media's job to misdirect. OJ Simpson & Anna Nicole, but no 9/11 questions. But then you know that. We all know that. Even back when I was watching TV they'd feed us dog and puppy stories while wars were raging around the world.

Physicist Jones also hinted that he's been invited to appear on The View. The show O'Donnell is a part of. Bunch of women sitting around chinwagging, then suddenly O'Donnell says WTC7 didn't fall naturally, and she's "Against America." But THIRTY MILLION PEOPLE in America heard "Ro" say that, and things are now starting to percolate. Steven Jones is a soft-spoken, non-threatening guy, and when he starts telling 30 million American TV watchers that thermite was used to bring down the towers, the game is gonna heat up, folks. The terrorists in the military-industrial complex are going to suddenly feel their asses hitting the corner. They'll be tempted to do another terrorist attack, but if they do, well...that would just kind of prove what "Ro" was talking about, wouldn't it? The crunch is coming, in my humble opinion. Who'd've thunk Rosie O'Donnell would be the catalyst? Life is curious.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: beardedbruce
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 01:46 PM

"High in aluminum and sulfur (sulfur is added to aluminum-based thermite to create thermate)."


Well, those Martian gravity generators had a lot of aluminum and sulfur in them...


Of course, so did the AIRCRAFT that crashed into the towers.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 09:03 PM

HIGH in aluminum content. The airplanes were a drop in the bucket. I'm sure someone had some sulphur-headed paper matches in their pocket, too, so maybe that would account for the sulphur.

You 9/11 deniers have turned this into a kind of religion, haven't you? It's all a matter of faith in your govt. So sad. The military-industrial complex had control of the airspace on 9/11, had total access to all the crime sites before, during and after, and now they have to keep you constantly hypnotized with televised terrorism. So sad.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 06 Apr 07 - 09:58 PM

You are always good for a laugh Froth.   Do you honestly think ANYONE buy your patter? You cut and paste from the same websites and never bother to check on the facts or get a single corroboration. You just drank too much Kool Aid. You are the denier who has turned this into a religion and you are too blind to see it, or you enjoy your posts. What hubris!

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

Stop encouraging him/her, Ron. You cannot reason with a nutter.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: balladeer
Date: 07 Apr 07 - 12:08 PM

For a while after 9/11, there was this rumour circulating that somehow the White House was behind that horrible day. It was said that GWB and co. were floundering with regard to domestic policy, that the electorate was growing restless, that something was needed to draw the country together against a common external enemy. Yes, people do make these things up when they feel helpless, but it's also true that the current administration has lied over and over again to its citizens, so it's hard for people to believe anything thay say, natural to raise questions. I mean, in a post-Warren-Commission, post-Watergate, post-Iran-contra universe, you can't just take a president at his word, can you? Don't you have to ask all the hard questions?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 07 Apr 07 - 12:42 PM

"so it's hard for people to believe anything thay say, natural to raise questions. I mean, in a post-Warren-Commission, post-Watergate, post-Iran-contra universe, you can't just take a president at his word, can you? Don't you have to ask all the hard questions?"

Absolutely!!!! You MUST keep asking questions. The problem is, often you can come to a logical conclusion after a question is asked. Because the current regime is drawing a similar conclusion, people like Froth won't allow themselves to believe what is stareing them in the face. She has a hard time accepting and by reading the posts, you see that she is a state of denial.

You have to ask questions, but when you fall victim to following the lead of another group with an agenda - you are doing the same thing as those who fall in line with whatever the administration tells you to think. Propaganda works on both sides, and both sides use similar tactics.   Froth is no different than George Bush in that regard.

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

Jones conducted research at the Idaho National Laboratory, in Arco, Idaho, from 1979 to 1985, where he was a senior engineering specialist. He was the principal investigator for experimental Muon-catalyzed fusion from 1982 to 1991 for the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Advanced Energy Projects. From 1990 to 1993, Jones researched fusion in condensed matter physics and deuterium, for the U.S. Department of Energy and for the Electric Power Research Institute.

Jones has also been a collaborator in several experiments, including experiments at TRIUMF (Vancouver, British Columbia), The National High Energy Laboratory, KEK (Tsukuba, Japan), and the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory at Oxford University.

Jones specializes in metal-catalyzed fusion, archaeometry and solar energy.[2][3]

Yeah, just another nutter.

Now give me one of those Popular Mechanics quotes written by the cousin of the Homeland Security Director.

I know a man who works for a school that sells Homeland Security degrees. He supports teaching kids how to spy and torture because the school tells him to. That's the level to which Americans are stooping. I guess the same happened in Nazi Germany

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 07 Apr 07 - 12:55 PM

I posted a link about those degrees more than a month back. No one was interested.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Peter Woodruff
Date: 07 Apr 07 - 09:44 PM

I don't want to believe this horrific conspiracy possibility, but I do. Too many unanswered questions, too much obstruction, too much of a motive to believe otherwise.

Peter

P.S. Hang ALL the war criminals!

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 08 Apr 07 - 10:05 PM

"The problem is that Rosie O'Donnell is accusing her own country of heinous things. She has embraced the insane theory that Sept. 11 was an ''inside job.'' She has apparently bought into the notion that elements inside the USA killed Americans on that terrible day. This kind of garbage is peddled on the Internet by America haters, and has been debunked step-by-step by Popular Mechanics magazine, which has actually published a book on the subject...."

http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=36&url_article_id=26629&url_subchannel_id=&change_well_id=2

Gee willikers! They published a BOOK on the subject, so she MUST be wrong.

Wait a minute. Popular Mechanics is a Hearst Publication. Wm. R. Hearst started the Spanish American War by printing lies in his papers. And wait a minute. Benjamin Chertoff wrote the Popular Mechanics article. He's the cousin of Homeland Security Czar Michael Chertoff. Seems the Chertoffs have quite a bit to gain by calling everyone al qeada, locking us up here at home and then selling armaments overseas.

So, why do people quote the Chertoffs when they could quote from REAL books, like:

http://www.amazon.com/11-Commission-Report-Omissions-Distortions/dp/1566565847/ref=sr_1_5/103-0270227-8599843?ie=UTF8&s=books&qi

http://www.amazon.com/9-11-Synthetic-Terror-First/dp/0930852311/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/103-0270227-8599843?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=11760838

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 01:21 PM

Would Rosie O'Donnell Deny The Holocaust?

By Aaron Goldstein

"Those who deny the events of September 11, 2001 are no better than the people who deny that 6 million Jews perished in the Holocaust."

Goldstein. He even has the same last name as the boogeyman in Orwell's 1984. What an asswipe. The ADL (the absurdly misnamed Anti-Defamation League) labels anyone that threatens zionist expansionism as anti-semitic, or as a Holocaust Denier, etc. What turds. I mean, the head of America's Homeland Security Agency is half American and half Israeli (look it up...Michael Chertoff), and Bush's top advisors are pro-Israel zionists. America's about to fight yet another war for Israel, and American Christians are supporting the racists in Israel because of some belief that Jesus is going to appear in Jerusalem. So what more do people like this turd Goldstein want? You can't even open your fucking mouth in America now? He goes on to say:

"...Of course, I have no idea if O'Donnell holds such views about the Holocaust. But it would come as no surprise to me if she did."

What a hemmorhoidic asswipe.

http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/04/09/would-rosie-o%E2%80%99donnell-deny-the-holocaust/

Oh, good, there's his email address. I'll get this post out to him posthaste. And there's a webpage. I'll send a copy to his office staff, let them know he's an asswipe, as if they don't suspect as much already.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 02:41 PM

Chertoff is half American and half Israeli? What are you talking about? There is nothing wrong or particularly notable about being a Jew- it takes something else to be an Israeli. Having a mother who was born or reared in Israel does not make him an Israeli, even half a one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Chertoff:

"Chertoff was born in Elizabeth, New Jersey, the son of Rabbi Gershon Baruch Chertoff, the former leader of the B'nai Israel Congregation in Elizabeth, and El Al flight attendant Livia Chertoff (née Eisen). His paternal grandfather, Rabbi Paul Chertoff, emigrated from Russia."

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 02:52 PM

Lot of serious money is going into a campaign to remove Rosie's website.

Dollars to donuts she will have to resort to mirror sites by the end of the month.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 03:13 PM

Is that your guess, Don? Would you provide a link?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 05:44 PM

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2007/030407stoprosie.htm



and on NBC Calling for her death sentence
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2007/300307Bonaduce.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Wesley S
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 06:00 PM

C-mon Donual - The story you link to says that Danny Bonaduce is calling for her head. Not the NBC network. Be accurate please. Don't you think there is a slight difference between the two?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 06:42 PM

opps that was on the MS NBC Joe Scarbourogh show not NBC.
thanks

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 06:51 PM

Danny Bonaduce? The man has the brain of a bird. -:)

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 06:56 PM

which makes him useful to the Bush admin

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 07:00 PM

It places him amongst his peers.