BS: RosieO'Donnell&WillieNelson on 9/11

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

Thanks for the link, Don.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 07:33 PM

Prisonplanet.com is a very far out and alarmist website full of hyperbolic opinions and flimsey facts, but they do recognize big brother when they see him.

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

OReilly is now making his career on Rosie's back
"She hates America and loves Iran"
http://infowars.net/articles/april2007/030407OReilly.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 08:51 PM

Chertoff's mom is an Israeli citizen. By Israeli law, that makes Chertoff an Israeli citizen. He has dual citizenship. Dual citizenship. Get your head out of Wikipedia's ass, Ebbie. It is BAD to have ANYONE with dual citizenship in a cabinet-level position. It would be bad enough if he were from some amusing little country, but he's a freakin' Israeli.

And Bonnaduce is just a test balloon. Same as the phony Khalid "confession" a while back. The govt sponsors this crap and then watches to see if you take the bait--if you approve. As soon as there is public support for the murder of an "opponent" of the U.S. government, those murders will start happening. You have to shout down these pricks.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Apr 07 - 09:27 PM

"Now it seems if he's Jewish then he'd also have an Israeli Citizenship as well as American. Since all Jews anywhere in the world are granted citizenship to Israel.

"Why, I ask, is this ocuntry giving a job of Head of Homeland Security to a guy who is a Dual Citizen????" Another Froth-enlightened human

Ebbie again: Does this mean that we cannot have any Jew anywhere in our government? LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 10 Apr 07 - 09:52 PM

Can't argue with senility, but having an Israeli citizen as head of Homeland Security is pretty damn bad, Ebbie. In my opinion. And having Pelosi running around the Middle East representing Israel instead of America is pretty damn bad.

Rosie O'Donnell questioned 9/11 in front of 30 million Americans. The attack dogs of the govt-controlled fascist media tried to savage her, but they lost. Now the govt-controlled media is falling back on proven old standbys like Don Imus. The media won't dare attack O'Donnell on the issue of 9/11, and she will bring it up if given a chance, so an old pervert like Imus calls a few names and now that's supposed to be the big new media attention-grabber. Imus is a pervert with no telling what sick history hanging over his head, so they make him call someone a ho and then trot out Al Sharpton for the other half of the distraction. Americans ought to know better.

Meanwhile, another pervert named Tony Blair damned near took us into WW3. 15 kids chucked to the Iranians as cannon fodder, Blair issued an ultimatum, the fleets all arrived, then...the Iranians released the Brit twits and criticized Blair for sending a woman with a child into a dangerous situation. We should be really, really thankful the Iranians show such reserve.

Just heard William Rodriguez interviewed. A janitor in one of the WTC towers on 9/11. He's helping to form 400 families of 9/11 victims into a group. The families question 9/11. So, are they CRAZY too? Are they LOUDMOUTHS too? Rodriguez was given a hero's medal by GWBush after 9/11 and now he's on the no-fly list because he questions 9/11. A bona fide hero being treated like dirt.

http://william911.com/

And then the link below. I heard it mentioned in passing on a radio program, just remembered it right now:

http://calgary911truth.org/

Someone in Calgary, Canada (the police state of Canada), has balls enough to put up a site like that. And there are DOZENS of 9/11 sites going up weekly. There is NO STOPPING the truth of what happened on September 11 now. The private banks running the whole thing will probably launch another terrorist attack to try to drive 9/11 from our minds, but the next attack will be INSTANTLY recognized for what it is, thanks to people constantly hacking away at the Achilles heel of 9/11.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 09:36 PM

Rosie O'Donnell's going to leave "The View."

For 11 minutes she lectured 30 million Americans on the inconsistencies of the September 11 attacks. That's probably why she's leaving (or being forced to). Here's what the liberal Fox News says about it:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,268560,00.html

"...They had to have decided she must go because of one reason: her insistence on pushing 9/11 conspiracy nutter theories on national network television, a deeply embarrassing thing for any self-respecting network, especially one that is vying for the top spot in the evening news wars...."

So Fox News is telling America you WILL be shut up if you talk about the government's coverup of 9/11.

The broadcast news industry is desperate to hold onto the fried minds that still watch TV. I bet O'Donnell saying "Gulf of Tonkin, Google it," resulted in 15 million searches as soon as that show was over. Panic in Washington. O'Donnell was the #2 news story for a week because of this. They tried to feed you Anna Nichole and Britney, but Rosie O'Donnell was the #2 story because she dared to speak the truth. I'm very, very grateful to her for what she did.

And Fox News IS turning liberal. In 2 years you liberals are going to LOVE Fox News. Roger Ailes is its Chairman and CEO. He personally elevated Rush Limbaugh, a phony conservative, to prominence. And now Limbaugh is telling the conservatives who can't see through his act that there's an "80% chance" that Hillary Clinton will be president. Republicans know we've just seen two stolen presidential elections, and now it'll be the Democrats turn to steal the office. And Limbaugh's prepping them for this "inevitability," while Fox News comes out for gun control a half hour after the Virginia Tech shootings. You liberals hate Fox News because of its association with George Bush, but it's morphing into a liberal propaganda machine that you are going to LOVE.

And people who can't morph with the networks have to go. O'Donnell morphed in the direction of truth, and that's why she's going. R.I.P.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 09:46 PM

Froth, you have not seen the last of Rosie. Trust me, ABC is not letting her go. She has turned herself into a valuable commodity again. Just watch what happens. I would not be surprised to hear of her new deal within days, or by the end of her run on The View.   She has exactly what the networks need. No one gives a crap what she says as long as people tune in.

As for Roger Ailes, I actually worked for him at another network. Trust me on this, he is a Republican and is not turning liberal. Even though I don't care for his politics, I happen to have a great admiration for the man because I had an opportunity to see how he works - and he does it right (no pun intended). The man helped Richard Nixon turn his image around he and Ailes played a large role in getting him elected President. Roger knows the media, and more importantly, he knows the audience. His liberal counterparts came into the game too late and never understood. I have no use for his politics, but the man knows how to do his job.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: balladeer
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 10:51 AM

I have no concerns about Rosie's career. The View has given her a platform from which she can springboard in so many different directions.
She may even opt for a political commentary gig. One thing is certain, she will have her pick of jobs and will choose one that will allow her to spend more time with her children, who are very young and clearly the centre of her life. Whether or not The View can survive her loss is another question altogether. She and Joy Behar together, two comics playing off each other, gave the show real bite. Barbara Walters just brings it down.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 11:30 AM

So, Froth, you dislike Jews do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Dickey
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 11:45 AM

One picture is worth a thousand words.
Fred R. Barnard

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 11:53 AM

The guy's no artist.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 12:30 PM

Some people still haven't digested this--the neocons are communists. The "right-wing" neo-conservatives (Bush, Perle, Wolfowitz, Limbaugh, etc) are followers of Trotskyite professor Leo Strauss. The Trotskyite communists realized in the 1960's that the only way they could ever achieve prominence in America was to hijack one of the two major political parties, and that's what they've done. They've hijacked the Republican party.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm

George W. Bush has federalized religion and education. He's in favor of gun-restricting legislation, completely open borders and legalizing criminal illegal aliens. He's tripled the size of the federal government, created mandatory mental health screening and forced drugging of school children. He's secretly signed on to the merger of the U.S. with Canada and Mexico. These are all "big government," "communist" actions.

Yet GWBush has been presented to liberals as some sort of conservative. I know Americans have been dumbed-down, but the inability to see through the fake Bush facade is really distressing. The facade has been created through the media and primarily Fox News, and now Fox News is going to become more "liberal friendly," and you folks will be told 1) that Hillary Clinton is "inevitable" as President, and 2) that she's not so bad after all. And you'll lap it up and never recall that you used to hate Fox News.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Mickey191
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 12:34 PM

Balladeer, I agree 100% with your sentiments. I started to watch View when Rosie came on. Will not watch when she's gone. Barbara brings the show down to the cellar!

Side thought: I'm totally fed up with Trump--what will he do when she's gone? Read that his dumb show was 97th in the ratings a few wks. ago. (TVGuide) Couldn't be happier!

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Dickey
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 12:48 PM

Some people love Rosie

Like this lucky guy.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Dickey
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 03:38 PM

Second try.

Like this lucky guy.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 10:19 PM

Turns out the Fox News story about O'Donnell's "firing" was false. She said no to a new EXTENDED contract:

...In addition, The View wanted O'Donnell to sign a three year contract when Rosie just wanted a shorter commitment of 12 months....

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

Didn't she get $10 million for a one-year contract on The View? I think that was the figure. And she was offered even more this time around. And she said no. So she wasn't "fired" after all. Turned down a hell of a lot of money in order to tell the truth, too. The article above talks about her arranging a new show. I bet she's back on TV telling the truth about 9/11 on her own show within 3 months. That'll be sooo coooool.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Donuel
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 11:56 PM

All these posts and no one has answered the question.

Did Rosie cause 9-11 or not?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Peace
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 12:14 AM

Rosie who?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: catspaw49
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 09:42 AM

I have read along here and finally been able to understand the conspiracy viewpoint after seeing this site which explains a lot.

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 01:47 PM

Go nad sand St rife weeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 14 May 07 - 10:13 PM

I suppose O'Donnell's working out the remainder of her contract on the program:

Rosie O'Donnell has returned 9/11 truth to prominence by laying out the facts for the controlled demolition of the twin towers and Building 7 on ABC's The View this morning.

http://prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/140507rosiesoundsoff.htm

Video of it at the link above. Part of the transcript below:

O'DONNELL: Joy, wait a minute, wait a minute. The command control center was in World Trade Center Seven, not in one or two. It was in the building that mysteriously collapsed at 5:30 P.M.

BEHAR: Well, it shouldn't have been in any of them.

O'DONNELL: It was not in tower one, it was not in tower two that got hit by a plane it was in tower seven that got hit by nothing, 47 floors and dropped at 5:30 into itself.

HASSELBECK: There was also internal fire in that building, which can melt steel which was holding up that building.

O'DONNELL: No way Elisabeth.

HASSELBECK: It can weaken it. If you ask physicists alone, the force by nature, the volcanic force alone could have taken that building.

O'DONNELL: 2700 degrees melts steel.

HASSELBECK: And how much does it take to weaken it? I think it's 270.

O'DONNELL: 270 degrees?

HASSELBECK: I'll check. I'll check. I'll check on that.

O'DONNELL: Well, if you watch all the documentaries --

HASSELBECK: Once steel is weakened, once steel is weakened. It doesn't have to be completely melted.

O'DONNELL: Did you know that there were three pools of molten steel? There was one pool underneath World Trade Center One

HASSELBECK: I read all the conspiracy theories on this. I know that, that's what they're saying.

O'DONNELL: So you labeled it a conspiracy. I'm just telling you there was a fact. There's a fact that there was molten steel under those three buildings.

HASSELBECK: And it is also a fact that volcanic pressure alone could take the building down.

O'DONNELL: The volcanic pressure of what volcano?

HASSELBECK: The pressure alone of those two buildings coming down.

BEHAR: The bomb, she's saying the bomb.

HASSELBECK: I'm saying the bomb, the force of the other two.

O'DONNELL: Wait, the bomb? You're saying the plane.

BEHAR: The plane, the plane, the plane. The explosion

HASSELBECK: The force of the other two buildings coming down could alone take that building down.

O'DONNELL: Do you know how fast it took those towers to fall?

HASSELBECK: I don't have the exact time on me.

O'DONNELL: Nine seconds. Do you know how fast it would taken something to free fall with no resistance from the top of that building? Nine seconds. It's physically impossible.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Bill D
Date: 14 May 07 - 10:39 PM

gee....I didn't know Rosie had an engineering degree along with her metallurgical certificate!

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 14 May 07 - 10:43 PM

Okay, Rosie reads the same sites that Froth reads. Both ladies seem to assume that they know the facts. Hmmmm.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 14 May 07 - 11:29 PM

Oh, so degrees are the measure of the truth? YOU guys are the ones who quote Benjamin Chertoff, the cousin of Homeland Security Czar Michael Chertoff. Here's Benjamin's Wikipedia entry. I fail to see anywhere in it a mention of a college degree. He's just a sensationalist tabloid reporter. I mean, that's about as brainless as a disc jockey:

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

Just prior to 9/11 Cathleen P. Black, who has family connections to the CIA and Pentagon and is president of Hearst Magazines, the owner of Popular Mechanics, fired the magazine's editor-in-chief and several senior veteran staff members and installed James B. Meigs and Benjamin Chertoff, cousin Michael Chertoff. Benjamin was put in the office to do a job, and he sure could have used a college degree, because the job he did was pretty sloppy.

Fortunately, we now have another in a series of excellent books by David Ray Griffin, 9/11 truth advocate. In his latest book he thoroughly guts high-school graduate Chertoff's bimbo assertions asbout September 11. DOCTOR Griffin's Wikipedia entry can be found at:

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

His latest book can be found at:

http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechanics-Defenders-Conspiracy/dp/156656686X/ref=sr_1_1/102-5749621-0549756?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1179198156&sr=1-1

About the book, one reviewer writes:

In his latest work Griffin dissects the so-called 9/11 debunkers. Those who claim that the Kean Commission was the "fullest possible accounting into the events of September 11th" basically have their hindquarters handed to them - gift-wrapped.

Another reviewer (who had the government-induced brainwashing broken by the book) writes:

Right now, as I write this, I honestly feel sick to my stomach. I've cried myself to sleep the last two nights. Why? Because this book has changed my mind on the events and aftermath of 9/11.

It's almost too much to handle all at once, all the revalations made by Mr. Griffin in this book. I feel like my mind has gone through a polar shift over the last 72 hours.

For over 5 years I've been blind. For 5 years I've been have been down-and-out lied to. Right under our noses, America was stolen by criminals. I'm infuriated, and don't know what to do with myself.

Reading this book was very much a life-altering event for me. I just hope enough people end up reading it. It could be the most important thing they ever do....

Another review says:

Griffin shows that the Popular Mechanics report consists of special pleading, circular reasoning, appeals to the authority of the NIST report, straw men, and internal contradictions in the report itself....

The two WTC towers did not collapse. They blew up and disintegrated, as did WTC 7. There is an enormous energy deficit in every account that rules out the use of explosives. Gravitational energy is insufficient to explain the pulverization of the buildings and contents and the severing of the 47 massive center core steel columns in each of the towers into convenient lengths to be picked up and loaded onto trucks; much less can gravitational energy account for the pulverization of the top floors of the towers and ejection of steel beams hundreds of feet horizontally just prior to the disintegration of the floors below....

Griffin's writings can also be found at this site under the heading "130 Professors question 9/11":

http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html

One of those professors talks about Newtonian physics and the pancake theory. For the floors to fall as outlined in the pancake theory would have taken 44 seconds, WITHOUT the most massive central core support columns in the world being taken into account. If the floors were just floating in space, suspended, and they began falling, each impact would absorb a bit of energy, then a bit more, and more, etc., down the length of 110 floors. He calculated 44 seconds under those conditions. The bldgs fell in 8 seconds and 10 seconds. His paper said that the most massive steel core columns in the world (which held the floors in place with thousands of bolts as big as your arm), and the steel latice work outer frame had not been factored in to arrive at the 44 seconds needed to comply with the laws of physics.

Maybe it's just the black helicopters forcing me to say this, but I think Rosie O'Donnell referencing the research of people like Professor Emeritus Griffin gives her just a bit more fire power than those of you who quote high schook grad-u-ate Chertoff.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 15 May 07 - 09:46 AM

Yawn. Nothing new here, same old froth. No substance, just froth.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 May 07 - 12:51 PM

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

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 15 May 07 - 01:27 PM

No, Ron. "Froth" is posting substance. You are merely making ad hominem attacks with no substance (froth) as are most of the others who are attacking this person simply because they don't like his/her position on this particular matter. No substance, just personal attacks. Same old same old.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 15 May 07 - 01:46 PM

Sorry Carol, but these are the same arguments that do not have any backing. This person attacks us when we show evidence to the contrary, so she deserves the same when she brings up her "ad hominem" attacks.   Give us some credible evidence.

Same old same old is very true.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: GUEST,Froth
Date: 15 May 07 - 01:47 PM

You know, I might be giving Benjamin Chertoff too much credit. The Wikipedia entry doesn't even state that he has a high school diploma. Just says he started working for a tabloid at the age of 19. After reading his Popular Mechanics piece, I wonder if he is even English-speaking.

I'm thinking of getting Griffin's new book to see what he has to say specifically about Chertoff's piece in Popular Mechanics. Griffin reportedly dissects the arguments point by point. He also goes to the heart of one of the documents the government's 9/11 supporters use--the NIST report. That's chapter 3 of the 4-chapter book. So the document that Chertoff, Olesko and the other government flunkies use is destroyed, then the space-junk orbiting it (like the Popular Mechanics article) is in turn destroyed. It's tiresome to have to debate the obvious, but if the government's going to employ comic book readers to try to perpetuate the myth of the Cavemen of Tora Bora ordering NORAD to stand down, I suppose I'll spring for the book.

In other O'Donnell news, she's apparently going to have a string of 9/11 experts on the program in her remaining time. 30 million viewers per day being schooled in the fundamentals of Newtonian physics and the tactics of coverup. Hopefully she'll set up a debate between Professor Emeritus Griffin and possible highschool graduate Chertoff.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 15 May 07 - 01:54 PM

Sorry I make you uncomfortable Froth, but I am far from a government flunkie. If you can't accept that there are people that do not but into your diatribe, you need to develop another tactic besides attacking the individual. If you cannot counter our arguements, your own position becomes worthless ramblings.   

If you think that by calling me a flunky or saying that Popular Mechanics is junk you are winning over converts, you are sadly mistaken. Look in a mirror, you haven't got a shred of evidence that can't be disproved with real science, not something you collect on the internet.

I know it would make your fantasy world a "safe place" if you were to actually uncover truth, but you haven't shown a thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 15 May 07 - 01:55 PM

... and please, call me Ron.   We are friends by now.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 15 May 07 - 02:00 PM

Those arguments have quite a lot of backing. From people who are far more qualified to make them than the people who wrote the Popular Mechanics article. If you bothered to look in the links that the poster you are attacking is providing for you, you would know this.

This one, for instance...

http://patriotsquestion911.com/


The people quoted in this site are credible, mainstream people who are perfectly qualified to debunk the official 911 conspiracy theory. Go ahead and read it. All of it. To attack "Froth" without bothering to read these kinds of links is intellectually lazy and quite disingenuous.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 15 May 07 - 02:04 PM

Carol, you are ignorant of the conversation that has been going on here.   I have read the links that Froth provided, as have most of us that have been involved in the discussion. We have shown counter evidence that has been dismissed by Froth, and now you, because of the source - not the content.

Please do not enter into a discussion by attacking the individuals with unfounded comments about what we have or have not read. You have no clue as to what we have studied and to make statements like that is rude and uncalled for.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 15 May 07 - 02:14 PM

I'm not at all ignorant of what you have been doing in these discussions, Ron. I've been following this and the other discussions on this subject. I've been seeing you and quite a few others resorting to ad hominem attacks whenever you are presented with information that you cannot refute, like the link I put in my last post. You keep saying the poster you are attacking hasn't provided any evidence, even when the evidence he/she provides is overwhelming. That is not a credible argument. If you disagree with the experts in the links, refute their arguments point by point. You have not been doing that. Whenever the poster you have been attacking provides credible sources for his/her positions, you resort to making comments like this one...

Yawn. Nothing new here, same old froth. No substance, just froth.

This is not an argument. It's an attack. It's not a refutation of the sources that have been provided, it's an attack on the person who provided them.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 15 May 07 - 02:16 PM

So you pick on our words but it is okay when Froth and others to do it?   Picking sides perhaps?

Read the history of these threads and see where it starts.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 15 May 07 - 02:19 PM

... and by the way Carol, the sites you have listed today list a number of people - an impressive list, that have "questions" about 9/11.   You can add me and most of the people on Mudcat to the list. There is a HUGE difference between questioning the report and believing in a conspiracy to bring the buildings down.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 15 May 07 - 02:25 PM

I've seen where it starts, Ron. As soon as anyone at all provides any credible evidence that the official 9/11 conspiracy theory is a lie, you and quite a few others start making fun of and attacking the person who posted the evidence. It's not just the person whom you are attacking in this thread. Pretty much anyone who contradicts the official 9/11 conspiracy theory gets the same treatment. It almost always starts with the first response to the initial post in the thread (lots of derisive jokes about things like "tin foil hats" mixed in with the outright attacks as well).

It's a knee-jerk reaction by people who find it emotionally disturbing to contemplate the possibility that their government is capable of murdering its own citizens. I understand why people feel this way, but it is, nevertheless, not a credible argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 15 May 07 - 02:32 PM

That is a lie Carol.

Read the history. You are making the same accusations about me that I made about Froth.   I often gave counter arguements to Froth's postings and asked questions of her, but was met with snide comments such as her recent comment that I am a government lackey. Everytime we tried to discuss it, I was attacked.   So yes, I restorted to the same.

Another lie is when you make a statement saying that I find it emotionally disturbing that our government is capable of murdering its own citizens.   It has happened numerous times in our short history.   Our ineptitude allowed 9/11 to happen. That does not mean we sent people in to wire the buildings. THAT is where I have a hard time being convinced.

Please take this discussion off a personal level. I would love to discuss this on a point by point basis but there is no reason to get personal.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 15 May 07 - 02:46 PM

It's not a lie, Ron. Whenever he/she posts documentation, you attack him/her. It's hardly surprising that he/she would eventually respond in kind. You look at the history yourself. If you don't feel up to it, I'll provide some links to your posts when I get time.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Wolfgang
Date: 15 May 07 - 02:50 PM

Making fun of this conspiracy theory is a very sane reaction. I can't speak for others but my reason for disbelieving this theory and considering it crap is not that I could not believe that a government would not kill its own citizens.

My reason is that this "theory" involves so many different people knowing at least part of the "truth" that assuming that all of them keeping silent is beyond reasonable. It is a conspiracy theory in the original sense of these words. Too many people involved.

Now, if someone would tell me that Bush and some close advisors knew of the attack before it occured and kept it to themselves in order to be able to wage war on the "axis of evil" I might not believe it without good arguments. But I wouldn't laugh and call it a conspiracy theory. Six people murdering, lying and keeping a secret is a possibility. Hundreds (and many of them without sharing a new world order agenda) isn't.

That's why the faked moon landing is a conspiracy theory and alternative theories about Kennedy's murder aren't. If LBJ had Kennedy murdered, only very few people would know about it. If the moon landing had been faked, hundreds would know and some would talk.

Little Hawk is someone who gets this distinction consistently wrong. In one of the 9/11 threads he posted (not verbatim quote): I believe in this conspiracy theory and you believe in the other. One is a conspiracy theory and the other is a theory involving a conspiracy of a few determined people.

Disbelieving this crap does not mean believing every single thing in the report. Governmental reports are usually not truthful in every respect. So I would expect that some details are wrong.

Froth's story just makes no sense but it serves some emotional needs and so there will always be suckers for such theories.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 15 May 07 - 02:55 PM

No need, I am not denying that I have attacked him or her. I may have even added to the "tin hat" comment at one point or another. It is out of frustration and I am not proud that I did so. Perhaps she feels the same way, but I doubt it from what I have read.

If you are going to look at the history,I would ask that you look at some of my earlier posts on this and other threads and see the response. Was it any different from the words you throw at me?

I am always willing to admit mistakes and to be disproven.   My comments have been focused on the idea that there was a consipiracy to bring down the towers and that the buildings were wired with explosives to collapse. The theories that have been presented by Froth and a few others do not hold up to scrutiny. When simple questions are asked such as how they could have wired it, we are asked to suspend belief and accept some implausible scenarios.

As for our governments piss poor response on 9/11, what connections Bush and other government officials had, I have lots of questions and anger. Yes, I believe there was a coverup - and I think the conspiracy theory is a smokescreen to divert attention from the real crimes that were committed on 9/11.

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

Wolfgang, you seem not to understand that even the official version of events is a "conspiracy theory". It just happens to be the one most people seem to be comfortable with, you included.

To your credit, Ron, you are not one of the ones who has tended to start with the ad hominem attacks; that has mostly been other people. When you accuse people like Froth of attacking others, however, you don't seem to notice that he/she has been the recipient of most of the attacks at the start of the discussion. As I said, under the circumstances, it's not hard to understand why eventually he/she starts to respond in kind. This thread is a pretty good example of this...

http://www.mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=96960#1902915

But it seems that every time a good source of information is presented, in which people who are not 'conspiracy theorists', but rather, experts in their field who know, based on scientific fact, that the official 9/11 conspiracy theory is impossible, you ignore those sources and make the kind of ad hominem attack that I quoted above. Your argument is that others haven't presented any credible documentation, even though tons of credible documentation has already been presented, and you are just ignoring it.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 May 07 - 04:08 PM

It's characteristic of believers in conspiracy theories to dismiss critics of the theory as not looking at the evidence presented or of being "too insecure and afraid" not to believe the generally accepted explanation. But that is an ad hominem attack geared to undercut what the critics have to say.

I have thoroughly examined the evidence presented, and have concluded that it lacks credibility. Wolfgang and others have pointed out that such a conspiracy would involve hundreds if not thousands of people, and for there to be not one person willing, if not eager, to come forward and blow the whistle stretches credibility beyond the breaking point. And there are many other highly questionable aspects of the so-called evidence offered.

For example, videos of the buildings collapsing have been offered, showing what appear to be a series of explosions many floors below where the collapse is occurring, providing "incontrovertible evidence" that the buildings were brought down by controlled explosions. The fact of the matter is that buildings such as those at the World Trade Center have transformers all through them to serve the electrical needs of buildings that size.

Have you ever seen or heard a transformer explode? This happens when a transformer shorts out, and what happened when the planes hit the buildings and when the floors started to "pancake" would cause many of the buildings' transformers to short out, burst into flame (very hot fire) and then explode violently. That is what those so-called "controlled explosions" really were.

Video of a transformer in a substation shorting out, and description of the process HERE (allow video to fully load, then replay).

One can go through the "evidence" offered by the conspiracy theorists point by point and demonstrate that most of it is bad science or just plain not what happened at all, or that there are more reasonable explanations. When all the ducks are in a row, there is little there to contradict the "official version" that holds up to scrutiny. The buildings were brought down as a result of being hit by aircraft.

Now—that leaves a great deal unexplained, much of which can arouse reasonable suspicion. Considering that the government was forewarned by a number of people, including its own intelligence agencies, and by the outgoing Clinton administration, of such an attack by Al Qaeda and the warnings were simply blown off, and that Norad didn't follow standard procedures when it became known that the planes had been hijacked and a whole variety of other appearances of asinine incompetence makes me highly suspicious that the Bush administration—for whatever reason, quite likely that it was the "Pearl Harbor" they were hoping for—allowed the attacks to take place.

God knows, that would be bad enough, and certainly grounds for criminal action. But is this conspiracy theory that GUEST,froth advocates real?

Not bloody likely!

And anyone who claims that those who get on GUEST,froth's case without reading the material, watching the videos, considering the evidence offered, or merely blowing it off, don't know what the hell they're talking about!

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 15 May 07 - 04:12 PM

Thanks Carol, and I appreciate the quote you pulled. In it, I was responding to a "theory" that controlled demolition was used. Yet none of the experts that you note came up with any plausible explanation as to how it can be done. It is not the so much the source, it is the infomration they are providing. I'm not IGNORING those sources, but the sources that are providing have shown little substance and explantion.   I'm sorry, you are saying it is "credible" but the sources I am seeing posted by Froth have not shown any evidence that can be proven.   

Even the video evidence that supposedly shows the building falling in a ridiculously short time have been shown false. Check the sources and you will find video that shows a different story, also from credible experts.

I'm not saying that we should ignore theories, but we need to explore them.   People like Froth have quoted it as "the truth" or "fact", when in reality it is not proven anything. Keep your options open.   If you accuse people of closing their minds to theories, you can't do the same when the theory or evidence is opposite yours.

Why is Popular Mechanics article so suspect?

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 15 May 07 - 05:15 PM

It's characteristic of believers in conspiracy theories to dismiss critics of the theory as not looking at the evidence presented or of being "too insecure and afraid" not to believe the generally accepted explanation. But that is an ad hominem attack geared to undercut what the critics have to say.

This argument cuts both ways, Don, with both the official and non official conspiracy theories. And you are just as guilty of these things as those you oppose. Your arguments are no more sound than any of the ones you say you don't accept. So there really is no reason to be making judgements about and ridiculing the people who accept a different version of events than the one you accept.


I'm sorry, you are saying it is "credible" but the sources I am seeing posted by Froth have not shown any evidence that can be proven.   

Ron, none of the official versions of events can be proven either, but that doesn't seem to stop you from believing them. On the other hand, the experts who have come out against the official conspiracy theory are using sound scientific principles (laws of nature and physics), to back up their claims, while those who are promoting the official conspiracy theory are not.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 15 May 07 - 05:32 PM

No, it doesn't stop me from believing them because after weighing both sides of the story, and using logic and common sense.

That's not quite true when you say that the official conspiriacy theory is not using the laws of nature and physics. Tell me what parts you feel are wrong. Let's talk specifics and maybe we can see each others point with some more clarity.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 15 May 07 - 05:44 PM

using logic and common sense

According to your way of looking at it perhaps. I don't happen to see it that way. I see the arguments being made by other people as being much more consistent with logic and common sense.

I'll provide examples as time allows. I have a gallery opening on Friday (my pieces are due on Thursday) and I have four pieces that still require a lot of work before I submit them.

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 15 May 07 - 06:47 PM

"According to your way of looking at it perhaps."
Absolutely. Myself and a lot of other people - including scientists and engineers.

"I don't happen to see it that way. I see the arguments being made by other people as being much more consistent with logic and common sense."
I look forward to discovering more about your ideas of logic.

Good luck wih your opening!

Subject: RE: BS: Rosie O'Donnell & 9/11
From: CarolC
Date: 15 May 07 - 07:17 PM

Here's a start...


(From my previous link) Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret) – Former Commanding General of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, 1981 - 1984. Also commanded the U.S. Army's Electronic Research and Development Command and the U.S. Army's Intelligence School and Center. Former head of Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence. 32-year Army career.

"One of my experiences in the Army was being in charge of the Army's Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence during the Cold War. I measured pieces of Soviet equipment from photographs. It was my job. I look at the hole in the Pentagon and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon. And I said, 'The plane does not fit in that hole'. So what did hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What's going on?"


Col. George Nelson, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority. 34-year Air Force career.


Aircraft Parts and the Precautionary Principle

Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True:
Aircraft Parts as a Clue to their Identity

by George Nelson
Colonel, USAF (ret.)

The precautionary principle is based on the fact it is impossible to prove a false claim. Failure to prove a claim does not automatically make it false, but caution is called for, especially in the case of a world-changing event like the alleged terror attacks of September 11, 2001. The Bush administration has provided no public evidence to support its claim that the terror attacks were the work of Muslim extremists or even that the aircraft that struck their respective targets on September 11 were as advertised. As I will show below, it would be a simple matter to confirm that they were - if they were. Until such proof is forthcoming, the opposite claim must be kept in mind as a precaution against rushing to judgment: the 911 hijackings were part of a black operation carried out with the cooperation of elements in our government.

In July 1965 I had just been commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the U. S. Air Force after taking a solemn oath that I would protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I would bear true faith and allegiance to the same. I took that oath very seriously. It was my constant companion throughout a thirty-year military career in the field of aircraft maintenance.

As an additional duty, aircraft maintenance officers are occasionally tasked as members of aircraft accident investigation boards and my personal experience was no exception. In 1989 I graduated from the Aircraft Mishap Investigation Course at the Institute of Safety and Systems Management at the University of Southern California. In addition to my direct participation as an aircraft accident investigator, I reviewed countless aircraft accident investigation reports for thoroughness and comprehensive conclusions for the Inspector General, HQ Pacific Air Forces during the height of the Vietnam conflict.

In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft — and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. This is because every military and civilian passenger-carrying aircraft have many parts that are identified for safety of flight. That is, if any of the parts were to fail at any time during a flight, the failure would likely result in the catastrophic loss of aircraft and passengers. Consequently, these parts are individually controlled by a distinctive serial number and tracked by a records section of the maintenance operation and by another section called plans and scheduling.

Following a certain number of flying hours or, in the case of landing gears, a certain number of takeoff-and-landing cycles, these critical parts are required to be changed, overhauled or inspected by specialist mechanics. When these parts are installed, their serial numbers are married to the aircraft registration numbers in the aircraft records and the plans and scheduling section will notify maintenance specialists when the parts must be replaced. If the parts are not replaced within specified time or cycle limits, the airplane will normally be grounded until the maintenance action is completed. Most of these time-change parts, whether hydraulic flight surface actuators , pumps, landing gears, engines or engine components, are virtually indestructible. It would be impossible for an ordinary fire resulting from an airplane crash to destroy or obliterate all of those critical time-change parts or their serial numbers. I repeat, impossible.

Considering the catastrophic incidents of September 11 2001, certain troubling but irrefutable conclusions must be drawn from the known facts. I get no personal pleasure or satisfaction from reporting my own assessment of these facts.

United Airlines Flight 93

This flight was reported by the federal government to be a Boeing 757 aircraft, registration number N591UA, carrying 45 persons, including four Arab hijackers who had taken control of the aircraft, crashing the plane in a Pennsylvania farm field.

Aerial photos of the alleged crash site were made available to the general public. They show a significant hole in the ground, but private investigators were not allowed to come anywhere near the crash site. If an aircraft crash caused the hole in the ground, there would have literally hundreds of serially-controlled time-change parts within the hole that would have proved beyond any shadow of doubt the precise tail-number or identity of the aircraft. However, the government has not produced any hard evidence that would prove beyond a doubt that the specifically alleged aircraft crashed at that site. On the contrary, it has been reported that the aircraft, registry number N591UA, is still in operation.

American Airlines Flight 11

This flight was reported by the government to be a Boeing 767, registration number N334AA, carrying 92 people, including five Arabs who had hijacked the plane. This plane was reported to have crashed into the north tower of the WTC complex of buildings.

Again, the government would have no trouble proving its case if only a few of the hundreds of serially controlled parts had been collected to positively identify the aircraft. A Boeing 767 landing gear or just one engine would have been easy to find and identify.

United Airlines Flight 175

This flight was reported to be a Boeing 767, registration number N612UA, carrying 65 people, including the crew and five hijackers. It reportedly flew into the south tower of the WTC.

Once more, the government has yet to produce one serially controlled part from the crash site that would have dispelled any questions as to the identity of the specific airplane.

American Airlines Flight 77

This was reported to be a Boeing 757, registration number N644AA, carrying 64 people, including the flight crew and five hijackers. This aircraft, with a 125-foot wingspan, was reported to have crashed into the Pentagon, leaving an entry hole no more than 65 feet wide.

Following cool-down of the resulting fire, this crash site would have been very easy to collect enough time-change equipment within 15 minutes to positively identify the aircraft registry. There was apparently some aerospace type of equipment found at the site but no attempt was made to produce serial numbers or to identify the specific parts found. Some of the equipment removed from the building was actually hidden from public view.

Conclusion

The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view. The hard evidence would have included hundreds of critical time-change aircraft items, plus security videotapes that were confiscated by the FBI immediately following each tragic episode.

With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged. Regarding the planes that allegedly flew into the WTC towers, it is only just possible that heavy aircraft were involved in each incident, but no evidence has been produced that would add credence to the government's theoretical version of what actually caused the total destruction of the buildings, let alone proving the identity of the aircraft. That is the problem with the government's 911 story. It is time to apply the precautionary principle.

As painful and heartbreaking as was the loss of innocent lives and the lingering health problems of thousands more, a most troublesome and nightmarish probability remains that so many Americans appear to be involved in the most heinous conspiracy in our country's history.

    Footnote: It will soon be five years since the tragic events of 9/11/01 unfolded, and still the general public has seen no physical evidence that should have been collected at each of the four crash sites, (a routine requirement during mandatory investigations of each and every major aircraft crash.) The National Transportation Safety Board has announced on its website that responsibility for the investigations and reports have been assigned to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but there is no indication that mandatory investigations were ever conducted or that the reports of any investigations have been written."

http://www.physics911.net/georgenelson