Anyone check this out? O man this was great, Fox does an awesome job putting these conspiracy NUTS in they’re place. I mean the host is just soo fucking witty reminds me of the drones who post daily here.
Oh yeah its now 87 degrees on Nov, 20th 2006. What the fuck? Imperialism? what? Nooo, 2 more years? 2 … more… years??
[quote]ssn0 wrote:
Anyone check this out? O man this was great, Fox does an awesome job putting these conspiracy NUTS in they’re place. I mean the host is just soo fucking witty reminds me of the drones who post daily here.
Oh yeah its now 87 degrees on Nov, 20th 2006. What the fuck? Imperialism? what? Nooo, 2 more years? 2 … more… years??
[/quote]
Just what fox needs, more nuts. When you find out you were wrong about the democrats, you have to move on to other things, other people. Conspiracy theorists and the like. Give fox more paper to burn their vicious language and views on.
Mancow is a flaming jackass. He’s even dumber than Howard Stern. Can’t Fox find a smart person to do that show?
Just what America needs, more dilrods doing political analysis in the mass media.
Hard to shout down the evidence though…
Firefighter Describes Flowing “Molten Metal” at Ground Zero, like a “Foundry”
http://www.infowars.net/articles/november2006/171106molten.htm
Some of those “nuts” Mancow wasn’t interested in hearing about
Senior Military, Intelligence, and Government
Officials Question 9/11 and the Commission Report
CENTCOM Sergeant Details Traitorous Stand Down Orders On 9/11
Military whistleblower comes forward with key information
http://infowars.net/articles/September2006/260906Chavez.htm
Pilots for 9/11 Truth
(Interesting Flt 77/NTSB discrepancies)
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html
[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Mancow is a flaming jackass. He’s even dumber than Howard Stern. Can’t Fox find a smart person to do that show?[/quote]
That’s an insult to flaming jackasses and Howard Stern.
And I think between show hosts, the Fox Network, and debunking conspiracy theories, and you’ve pretty much weeded out or deterred all the smart people.
Are you seriouse? I just thought it was a running joke that people believed the goverment did it? you mean to tell me Some retards believe that shit.
[quote]John S. wrote:
Are you seriouse? I just thought it was a running joke that people believed the goverment did it? you mean to tell me Some retards believe that shit.[/quote]
All 9/11 conspiracy theorists do not ascert the government attacked the country. However, most 9/11 conspiracy theorists do ascert there is sufficient evidence to demand further investigation. And to deny that demand is absurd.
Just like people asking about how to get in shape that have not done any research themselves, 9/11 concpiracy doubters simply do not do any homework on the matter. They quickly dismiss conspiracy theorists as “retards” whose research require no investigation or consideration because it is psycho babble. Did you click the links and read what is there? I doubt it.
I think many people do not want to think the government knew more about 9/11 than it has admitted to knowing, and therefore are driven to laugh away fact after fact of 9/11 inconsistencies.
Open your eyes and look because there are questions that remain unanswered.
A good site for debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
A good site for debunking 9/11 conspiracy[/quote]
Good read 
Manufacturing Consent - Wikipedia
[quote]John S. wrote:
Are you seriouse? I just thought it was a running joke that people believed the goverment did it? you mean to tell me Some retards believe that shit.[/quote]
[i]"What American would have expected that in the opening years of the 21st century the United States would become a country in which lies and deception by the president and vice president were the basis for a foreign policy of war and aggression, and in which indefinite detention without charges, torture, and spying on citizens without warrants have displaced the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution?..
What American ever would have thought that any U.S. president and attorney general would defend torture or that a Republican Congress would pass a bill legalizing torture by the executive branch and exempting the executive branch from the Geneva Conventions?"[/i]
US ‘planned attack on Taleban’
BBC
18 September, 2001
A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week’s attacks.
Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.
India and Iran will “facilitate” the planned US-Russia hostilities against the Taliban
26 June 2001
Pipeline Politics Taint US War
Chicago Tribune
March 18, 2002
The terrorist acts of Sept. 11, though tragic, provided the Bush administration a legitimate reason to invade Afghanistan, oust the recalcitrant Taliban and, coincidentally, smooth the way for the pipeline. To make things even smoother, the U.S. engineered the rise to power of two former Unocal employees: Hamid Karzai, the new interim president of Afghanistan, and Zalmay Khalizad, the Bush administration’s Afghanistan envoy.
“Osama bin Laden did not comprehend that his actions serve American interests,” writes Uri Averny, in a Feb. 14 column in the daily Ma’ariv in Israel. Averny, a former member of the Israeli Knesset and a noted peace activist, added, “If I were a believer in conspiracy theory, I would think that bin Laden is an American agent. Not being one, I can only wonder at the coincidence.”
Averny argues that the war on terrorism provides a perfect pretext for America’s imperial interests. “If one looks at the map of the big American bases created for the war, one is struck by the fact that they are completely identical to the route of the projected oil pipeline to the Indian Ocean.”
“To be truthful about it, there was no way we could have got the public consent to have suddenly launched a campaign on Afghanistan but for what happened on September 11.”
Tony Blair. July 17, 2002
Oh, and Popular Mechanics has a book out debunking much of the conspiracy stuff.
How come I end up where I started
How come I end up where I went wrong
Won’t take my eyes off the ball again
You reel me out and you cut the string
Popular Mechanics presented sixteen “Claims”, which it attributed to 9/11 “conspiracy theorists”, and to each one added its “Fact”, which it intended to be a debunking of the “Claim”. These “Claims” and “Facts” are reproduced verbatim in the boxes below, followed by a reply to Popular Mechanics’ “debunking”. The section headings are the titles used by Popular Mechanics, and the order of the sixteen items follows their order in the magazine.
It is not the intention of this article to defend all of the “Claims” given by Popular Mechanics. Some of them may in fact be ludicrous. This is the “straw man” tactic, where an intellectually dishonest proponent sets up some ridiculous claim, which he attributes to “conspiracy theorists”, and then proceeds to knock it down. This tactic is well-known to intelligent people, though apparently Popular Mechanics does not regard its readership as belonging to that class.
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm
Any structural engineers, or engineering journals support your conclusions?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Any structural engineers, or engineering journals support your conclusions?[/quote]
The most obvious lie is the official tower collapse theory. In the simplest terms it defies physics and is an absolute IMPOSSIBILITY as defined by the official story.
Then throw in a little photographic evidence of cutter charges and melted steel…
Collapse Theory Fails Reality Check
On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government’s “complete and final report” of 9/11, that the South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds. (That’s the government’s official number. Videos confirm that it fell unnaturally, if not precisely that, fast. See for yourself: QT Real)
But as we’ve just determined, that’s free-fall time. That’s close to the free-fall time in a vacuum, and an exceptionally rapid free-fall time through air.
But the “collapse” proceeded “through” the lower floors of the tower. Those undamaged floors below the impact zone would have offered resistance that is thousands of times greater than air. Recall that those lower floors had successfully supported the mass of the tower for 30 years.
Air can’t do that.
Can anyone possibly imagine the undamaged lower floors getting out of the way of the upper floors as gracefully and relatively frictionlessly as air would? Can anyone possibly imagine the undamaged lower floors slowing the fall of the upper floors less than would, say, a parachute?
It is beyond the scope of the simple, but uncontested, physics in this presentation to tell you how long the collapse should have taken. Would it have taken minutes? Hours? Days? Forever?
Perhaps. But what is certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the towers could not have collapsed gravitationally, through intact lower floors, as rapidly as was observed on 9/11…
It is utterly impossible for a “gravitational collapse” to proceed so destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near free-fall times. This fact debunks the preposterous contention that the observed WTC collapses can be blamed solely upon damages resulting from aerial assaults.
[quote]ssn0 wrote:
It is not the intention of this article to defend all of the “Claims” given by Popular Mechanics. Some of them may in fact be ludicrous. This is the “straw man” tactic, where an intellectually dishonest proponent sets up some ridiculous claim, which he attributes to “conspiracy theorists”, and then proceeds to knock it down. This tactic is well-known to intelligent people, though apparently Popular Mechanics does not regard its readership as belonging to that class.
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_mech/reply_to_popular_mechanics.htm
[/quote]
This is known as ‘dodging the issue’ combined with ad hominem attacks.
My favorite part of the page was the reply to the “Where’s the Pod?” question. It was effectively “Theorists asserted there was a pod, there wasn’t one, it doesn’t matter.” Or maybe it was the part where they make the ridiculous assertion that a close air support aircraft, whose maximum speed is a little over half the Boeing’s cruising speed, was used to intercept and shoot down a jet airliner.
And given the choice of believing the pro-engineering/science publication “Popular Mechanics” or the pro-LSD “Gaia Media Foundation”, I’ll choose those who advocate studying reality rather than advocating the escape/altering perception of it.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
And given the choice of believing the pro-engineering/science publication “Popular Mechanics” or the pro-LSD “Gaia Media Foundation”, I’ll choose those who advocate studying reality rather than advocating the escape/altering perception of it.[/quote]
Never mind the (for sake of arguement) “coincidence” that the 9/11 piece in PM was written by Benjamin Chertoff (cousin of Michael Chertoff, head of Homeland Security)
The more obvious point is that Popular Mechanics has a VERY specific agenda…
The military industrial porn complex
Salon
March 2004
Take the September 2003 issue of Popular Mechanics. The cover proclaims “American Megapower: Inside the Most Awesome Fighting Force on Earth.” A bat-winged stealth bomber presides over a group shot of tanks, an aircraft carrier and a visored soldier. The text inside amounts to an unabashed love letter to the Pentagon. No mention is made of how this megapower appears to be bogged down in Iraq or that there are any limits to military force, scientific or otherwise.
The megapower issue was only one of five cover stories that Popular Mechanics ran on the U.S. military in 2003, each one announced with all the subtlety of a tabloid (“Floating Self-Propelled Military Base Projects American Power Anywhere!”). Nearly every month last year featured a new celebration of the military’s know-how or sheer force…
While certainly more on the gung-ho side, Popular Mechanics is nevertheless very detailed in its coverage. Jim Wilson, science editor at P.M. and author of “Combat: The Great American War Planes,” relies on expert writers from specialized magazines who often report from a first-person perspective. Other magazines have borrowed P.M.'s style (and, in the case of PopSci, some of P.M.'s editors). In many ways, P.M. set the standard of embeddedness that the Pentagon applied to other media over the last two years.
http://dir.salon.com/story/tech/feature/2004/03/30/military_mags/index.html
If you really want an example of how much we’re being blatantly lied to, you might want to listen to some of the original news footage from the Oklahoma City bombing before you put anymore trust into the government version of 9/11.
“The second and third bombs that were found inside the building and luckily didn’t detonate, were bigger, if you can believe it, than the one that did all that damage to the front of the building…”
[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
lucasa wrote:
Never mind the (for sake of arguement) “coincidence” that the 9/11 piece in PM was written by Benjamin Chertoff (cousin of Michael Chertoff, head of Homeland Security)
[/quote]
One thing, that’s a myth. Here’s Benjamin Chertoff explaining it himself.
"Here’s the story, as best as I know: I’m not related to Michael Chertoff, at least in any way I can figure out. We might be distant relatives, 15 times removed, but then again, so might you and I. Bottom line is I’ve never met him, never communicated with him, and nobody I know in my family has ever met or communicated with him.
As for what my mom said: When Chertoff was nominated to be head of homeland security it was the first I’d heard of him, and the same for my family (and, FYI, we’d already sent the 9/11 issue to the press by then!). My dad and I thought there might be some distant relation. When Chris Bollyn called and asked my mom if there was a relation (introducing himself as only “Chris”), she said “they might be distant cousins.” Like much in the conspiracy world, this was taken WAY out of context. (Another case in point: Bollyn called me earlier and asked “Were you the senior researcher on the story?” I said, “I guess so,” – that’s not a title I have ever used, nor is it at all common in magazine journalism, but I was the research editor at the time, so it kinda made sense.) Nonetheless, I was one of 9 reporters on the story, not counting editors, photo researchers, photo editors, copy editors, layout designers, production managers, fact-checkers, etc., etc., etc. who worked on this story."
[quote]Sloth wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:
lucasa wrote:
Never mind the (for sake of arguement) “coincidence” that the 9/11 piece in PM was written by Benjamin Chertoff (cousin of Michael Chertoff, head of Homeland Security)
One thing, that’s a myth. Here’s Benjamin Chertoff explaining it himself.
"Here’s the story, as best as I know: I’m not related to Michael Chertoff, at least in any way I can figure out. We might be distant relatives, 15 times removed, but then again, so might you and I. Bottom line is I’ve never met him, never communicated with him, and nobody I know in my family has ever met or communicated with him.
As for what my mom said: When Chertoff was nominated to be head of homeland security it was the first I’d heard of him, and the same for my family (and, FYI, we’d already sent the 9/11 issue to the press by then!). My dad and I thought there might be some distant relation. When Chris Bollyn called and asked my mom if there was a relation (introducing himself as only “Chris”), she said “they might be distant cousins.” Like much in the conspiracy world, this was taken WAY out of context. (Another case in point: Bollyn called me earlier and asked “Were you the senior researcher on the story?” I said, “I guess so,” – that’s not a title I have ever used, nor is it at all common in magazine journalism, but I was the research editor at the time, so it kinda made sense.) Nonetheless, I was one of 9 reporters on the story, not counting editors, photo researchers, photo editors, copy editors, layout designers, production managers, fact-checkers, etc., etc., etc. who worked on this story."
http://www.911myths.com/html/benjamin_chertoff.html[/quote]
Is this government created website the only one you can come up with to debunk 9/11 conspiracy theorists?
WTF, this wesbite sucks and you fail to acknowldge how bad it is. Please link something else. That article proves nothing more than you believe cannon fodder is a viable option.
[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Any structural engineers, or engineering journals support your conclusions?
The most obvious lie is the official tower collapse theory. In the simplest terms it defies physics and is an absolute IMPOSSIBILITY as defined by the official story.
Then throw in a little photographic evidence of cutter charges and melted steel…
[/quote]
Um, you chose the wrong picture as evidence. That’s from a welding tool…
Scroll down to the welding pics…There’s your angle cut in progress. Note the slag directly below the cut. Oh, and note the yellow smoke in the pic with the guy cutting the beam. That’s important.
And then, read the whole thing, top to bottom. And realize how silly it was to use that picture.