GOP CONGRESSMAN SEES THE LIGHT!!!

Azselendor · #1 August 8th, 2006, 04:02 AM

People want to believe these kinds of things because it takes less work to verify gossip than fact.

There never was a conspiracy by this administration to do 9/11, maybe exploit it, but not to do it.

It's common knowledge that these buildings are designed, incase of catastrophic failure, to collapse down on top of itself as to avoid collatoral damage to the surrounding buildings.

And doesn't ann coulter of fox news make the assertation that Clinton was behind 9/11? It doens't matter, a large majority of her work is turning out to be copied from others.

Atrocities · #2 August 8th, 2006, 04:18 AM

Ann is, well Ann. What can we say that hasn't already been said. She scares even me. But I have to be honest, I love the fact that she is just as good at bling bling flinging as the people on the left. Even the right needs the occassional crack pot to stir up nonsense and raise a few eye brows once in a while. Besides, some of what she sputs on about does make sense in an odd, yet far off logic, that only a twisted mind like hers, and those opposite of her on the left, could come up with.

I say let them fight it out, and who ever wins, we lock up in a dark hole someplace and force them to watch endless reruns of Three's company and the Waltons.

Azselendor · #3 August 9th, 2006, 03:46 AM

I thought that's why the right had Fred Phelps? But I think Ann coulter hurts the right more than her anti-leftist rants, seriously. She doesn't know the difference between satan and satin at times.

I miss the era of .74 cent gas and neutral-point-of-view news.

Atrocities · #4 August 9th, 2006, 08:26 AM

I tend to think that there is too much TV, internet blogs, and news radio in our lives.

Lets just say for arguements sake that the US Government, and our beloved President, a man who has not been credited with an over abundance of brains, masterminded the 9/11 attacks. How did they do this in such a short period of time? Why did Al Gore fight so hard to take the Presidency away from Bush after Bush won, or stole depending upon your point of view the election? I think its because Clinton and Gore knew that 9/11 was going to happen and they had it all worked out as to how they were going to blame it on Israil and the NRA. Lets face it, 8 and a half months isn't enough time to hire, train, and mastermind a major operation as those of 9/11. So the fault, if the government is behind it, doesn't lie with Bush and boys, its lies with Clinton and Company.

Think about that the next time some one spins a novel idea for a conspiracy about Bush and his people being behind the 9/11 attacks. Do the math people, just do the math.

Atrocities · #5 August 9th, 2006, 04:44 PM

Hard evidence that proves that 9/11 was not a government plot.

Popular mechanics

Now the far lefties will say that PM is really a government funded magazine out to promote the false evidence and hide the proof that the Government is behind the 9/11 attacks and that the buildings were brought down by controlled blasts..... *shakes head at their stupidity*

Slaughtermeyer · #6 August 10th, 2006, 02:42 AM

The Popular Mechanics bunk has been debunked:

Killtown's Rebuttal
Debunking PM #1
Debunking PM #2
Alex Jones Talks PM

And yes, this has been made into a movie called Loose Change. Originally it was supposed to be fiction similar to V For Vendetta but the producer found more and more real-life evidence for government complicity. Vanity Fair recently reviewed the movie here: http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Ch...showtopic=7671

You can see Loose Change and other 9/11 movies at http://www.universalseed.org

And even the Presbyterian Church is waking up to the truth about 9/11:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/131/12.0.html

Atrocities · #7 August 10th, 2006, 01:03 PM

Thanks for the links. I have to be honest with you, I really don't believe those people who are attempting to prove that the government is behind 9/11 and the destruction of the two towers. Simply put those people are so off base that NO ONE takes them seriously. That is NO ONE with half a brain and any sort of IQ when it comes to structual design. You cannot debunk physics and the laws of nature.

As to your image there, we all know about how easy it is to doctor photo's, and we all know that many other buildings were severely damaged and later where dilibrately brought down because they were not structurally sound. Any one with an agenda could easily make a damning looking photo or video with enough talent, money, and desire to do so. Besides we cannot see the other side of the building so we do not know how damaged it truly is. For all we know, the other side of that building could be completely gone all the way to the back facete and that is what we are watching fall. Again there is no proof that the destruction of that building was dilibrate on 9/11 or that it even collapsed on 9/11.

I should tell you that I think this conspiracy that the GW and the US Government is behind the felling of the two towers to be an absolute joke that boarders on the histerically funny and suspect that most other people do as well. However given how many poeple where forever harmed by the events of that day, I can only now look at this nonsense that the US Government is behind 9/11 as an attempt to do more harm. A second wave of terrorism so to speak, one that supports what the terrorists did by trying to deny they even exist. I hate to say this, but only a handful of people actually support these conspiracy theories and those folks are often the subjects of water cooler jokes.

Now I would believe it, somewhat, if the people who are spreading this theory about would admit that GW had nothing to do with it and that it was Clinton and Gore who were behind it. They are devious enough to do something like this and blame it on the NRA or Israel. We all know how badly Gore contested loosing the election in 2000. Then just 8.5 short months later 9/11 went down. SOund more plausable to me that if our own government was behind this, that it was Clintons government and not Bushes that are the culprits. You can't hide from the math, and given just how much some folks consider Bush to be an idiot, its is really difficult to believe that he could master mind such a thing in such a short amount of time.

Slaughtermeyer · #8 September 1st, 2006, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Atrocities said:
Hard evidence that proves that 9/11 was not a government plot.

Popular mechanics

I think I know now why Popular Mechanics refuses to send anyone to the National 9/11 Debate. Here's an interview with a Popular Mechanics "researcher" on the Charles Goyette show:

http://www.911podcasts.com/files/aud...0823-am-c3.MP3

For those who'd rather read an abbreviated transcript:

Quote:

CG: Is there information that has not been given to the public?
PM: Very little�there is very little that has been held back as far as the basic facts of what happened that morning in terms of the material we looked into.
CG: I was under the impression that there were a lot of facts that were withheld. I mean, the surveillance videos, for example, around the Pentagon we were told about: a hotel video, a convenience store video, we haven�t seen those. Apparently they were swooped up very quickly or so the report goes.
PM: That is the case, those have been taken for larger criminal investigations those are now being disclosed to the public, you know with the Judicial Watch material�
CG: I�ve talked with the guys at Judicial Watch, and they�re not very happy about it, they released like four frames that don�t really show much of anything.
PM: They don�t show very much considering that the frame rate was one frame per second and the plane Flight 77 was moving about 780 feet per second, from that distance it�s not surprising that there was not a whole lot caught on that video.
CG: Are you telling me that�s the only video?
PM: No, I suspect there are other videos, I suspect they�re still being used for various investigations.
CG: What the hell is there to investigate? They told us who the guys were, they held onto some of that stuff for the Moussaoui trial for the love of God, like it was really relevant to his trial (sarcastic), it�s five years later, when are the American people entitled to the evidence?
PM: I think there�s plenty of evidence out there�
CG: It�s not the evidence we�ve seen that we�re concerned about, it�s the evidence we haven�t seen. Does that make any sense?
PM: Oh sure it makes sense�. The evidence is abundant�
CG: It�s the dog that didn�t bark... We know the evidence we�ve seen, that doesn�t cause any suspicion so much as the evidence that we don�t see. It�s not helpful in this country with a very secretive government when a big, powerful magazine like you guys, who owns Popular Mechanics?
PM: �Hearst.�
CG: Ok, with Hearst Corporation, with all of your might, instead of joining the people in their natural curiosity to see all the evidence, you try to say, �Oh shut up, you peons don�t know what you�re talking about, everything�s fine, keep on moving, there�s nothing to see here.� Hearst should be using their influence to get all the evidence released and that will end all the conspiracy talk! Wouldn�t it?
PM: (does answer this question)
CG: �I want to come back to the unseen evidence � the dog that didn�t bark. Hearst has a lot of muscle � where are you in lobbying for the release of all the evidence to put an end to all this madness, speculation and distrust?..
PM: It�s not up to us�
CG: I said use your influence.. Look, is there something we don�t know about this that they have to hide from us? No, or so I presume. We�re told who did it, we�ve invaded two countries in response to it, we�ve spent billions of dollars, I mean, what could be possibly secretive right now?
PM: How can I answer the question?
CG: Because you don�t know, we just want to see the evidence. If the plane flew into the building, show us the damn pictures. What could that possibly hurt?
PM: (Cannot answer question)
CG: �Building 7 is the first piece of evidence that I turn to. Popular Mechanics�say that a third of the face, approximately 25% of the depth of the building that was scooped out beforehand.
PM: When the North Tower collapsed� there was damage to Building 7�. What we found out was�about 25% of the building�s south face had been carved away from it� Each column that you remove that was destroyed by the wreckage from the North Tower�
CG: That would be very persuasive to me if it were true. And it may or may not be true� I go, oh that�s interesting�if that�s true that would go a long way towards explaining what happened to Building 7. So I turn to the pictures in your book about Building 7 you�ve got a picture of Building 7, but it doesn�t show that. So I�m going, OK, instead of just somebody asserting that a third of the building was scooped away, show me the picture. But you don�t show me the picture.
PM: �We have seen pictures that are property of the NY Police Department and various other governmental agencies that we were not given permission to disseminate�.
CG: Popular Mechanics got to see them, but the average American citizen can�t see them.
PM: Correct.
CG: Well, that�s a fine kettle of fish, isn�t it? �.What did you see there that I can�t see?
PM: Just what was described.
CG: Well it must be something that�s dangerous for me as an American citizen or a voter to see. You�re publishers, if anybody is concerned about evidence in a criminal case or something, they�ve done the worst possible thing, they�ve shown it to a damn magazine publisher!
PM: That was done for the purposes of our background research.
CG: What about my background research? Do you see the source of my frustration here? I didn�t know we had different classes of citizens. You can�t tell me it�s because it�s a criminal case because they�ve shown it to a damn magazine publisher.
PM: �.I can�t answer that question.
CG: I know you can�t.
PM: (is speechless)�.
�Caller (Mike): What about the 7 to 9 hijackers that were reported in the British press who came forward and said, �We�re alive, what are we doing on the FBI list of so-called hijackers? We�re alive and well.� How do you explain that one?
PM: It was one BBC report � I am saying that is false.
Caller: How did you verify that the British story was false?
PM: The remains of the hijackers who have been widely understood to have been on those planes�
Caller: What remains?
PM: There was DNA evidence collected all over the place.
Caller: The building was incinerated; the concrete was turned into powder, there were molten pools of steel in the bottom of the building that were still hot weeks after, and they were able do autopsies on bodies? Are you insane? Where are the autopsy reports you were referring to, on the hijackers, where are those reports? I haven�t heard anything about autopsy reports.
CG: I want to know, even if we presume you�re correct that they recovered the DNA of the 19 hijackers from the rubble, where did they get their original DNA with which to match it? Where did they get the original DNA of a bunch of middle-eastern Islamic madmen? Where did they get the DNA? Had they submitted DNA before they, uh�I mean, where the hell did they get it? You�re not even talking sensibly with me.
PM: Off the top of my head, I don�t know the answer to that.
CG: Of course you don�t.
PM: I�ll get back to you with it.
CG: Is that a promise?
PM: I will do my best.
CG: People all across the state of Arizona now are hearing Davin Coburn say on the show that he�s gonna find out how they got that DNA checked against those Islamic terrorists who had�hijacked those planes. Good, I�d like to hear it. Now do you understand why people scratch their head when these kinds of representations are made?
PM: No, actually I don�t�
CG: You don�t understand why when you tell us that they found the hijackers� DNA remains amongst the molten steel, and I ask you where did they get the original DNA from the hijackers to match it against � Do you think that�s bizarre to ask a question like that, do you think it�s conspiratorial just to want to know?...You told me that they have DNA evidence that matches the hijackers�
PM: I think the entire question is baseless. I think that it is not even a question that�s worth answering�.
CG: �You�ve told me that they checked their DNA, where did they get their original DNA to check it against? You�re the one with the answers, I�m not. I just ask questions.
PM: �A seven year old can ask why, over and over and over�.
CG: No, this is the worst attack on America in the history of this country, we�ve invaded two countries, maybe a third because of it, we�re gonna spend trillions of dollars. It�s not a seven year old asking why, I want to know where they got the evidence that they matched it against. What�s so hard about that?
PM: The way that you�re framing it is intentionally�
CG: Of course it is, �cause it�s five years later and we haven�t heard the answer. And you haven�t given it to us in Popular Mechanics. I swear to God, that�s it. You see, it�s the way I�m framing it makes it an illegitimate question? Well tell me how to reframe it, tell me how to ask it differently.
PM: I would start entirely over with the question that that gentleman asked.
CG: I want the question I asked. All right, that�s it. Hey Daven, thanks�the Charles Goyette Show.

Atrocities · #9 September 7th, 2006, 05:02 PM

Quote:

CAIRO, Egypt � Al-Jazeera aired on Thursday what it called previously unshown footage of Al Qaeda terrorist chief Usama bin Laden meeting with some of the Sept. 11 hijackers.

So much for the theory that Israel is beind the attacks of 9/11.

geoschmo · #10 September 21st, 2006, 11:26 AM

Quote:

KlvinoHRGA said:
It's common knowledge that these buildings are designed, incase of catastrophic failure, to collapse down on top of itself as to avoid collatoral damage to the surrounding buildings.

It's actually not exactly. It sounds trite but buildings fall more or less straight down because that's the direction gravity is pulling them. Skyscrapers are designed to withstand stress loads primarily in a downward direction. They don't actually fall over like trees because the structural supports fail and they collapse downard way before the center of gravity can get out to the point where the building would topple over sideways.

You could build a building that could be tipped over far enough that it would fall over instead of collapsing down, but it would take so much extra reinforcing material that it wouldn't have much usable interior space for offices and stuff. Kind of like a tree.