Rosie O'Donnell's Latest Bout of Stupidity

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BrokenVisage

Lifer
Jan 29, 2005
24,770
12
81
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Don't mind him- he's ATOT's resident loony conspiracy theorist.
Coming from ATOT's resident close-minded elitist, I'm sure he would take that as a compliment.

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
You know what's funny about conspiracy theorists?

They make good jokes at dinner parties? They are good at charades?

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
They're so wrong

Oh ok, see you give me the impression you know them intimately every time you post in threads like this. I mean you know enough to lump any single person who has a thought outside what is written in History books into one big group and call them all wrong.

You heard it here folks.. there are no UFOs, no one has ever been abducted, the Reichstag fire wasn't caused by Göring, and of course 9/11 was masterminded and carried out by Bin Laden and 19 terrorists. Any one of you who believe differently are morons and should be shunned by society, for 91TTZ has spoken and has decided you are all ultimately wrong.

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
yet so sure of themselves as if they've just uncovered some mystery.

Again, your knowledge in this matter is so vast. No conspiracy theorist (including those who DARE research stories that conflict with the official version of something) has EVER struggled with their beliefs as they weigh 2 sides of a story, deciding which one is more believable to them. Nope, they are simply born with with this affliction of sureness (sound familiar?) and each one has a feeling of pride as they uncover the clues to a mystery they're SURE is true.. (even being facetious I have to roll my eyes at such an accusation)

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Not only are they barking up the wrong tree

Say what? :laugh:

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
they're in an organized group sharing stories support each other, all the while barking up the wrong tree in the wrong forest in the wrong country in the wrong continent.

Of course! They're ALL organized! Like a secret society, right? But of course.. there are no "real" secret societies, just snobby groups of nerds at Ivy League schools that like to dress up and check each other out at meetings.

And again with this "barking up the wrong tree" statement? I love how you expanded it into the wrong tree being in the wrong continent and what-not, but come on.. have you ran out of good cliches or something?

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Yet they have complete faith in their beliefs.

Pot meet kettle, anyone? Why don't you tell us what it's like to have complete faith in Fox News, The White House, Karl Rove, Wolf Blitzer, and all the other talking heads of the world. Forgive me if I'm wrong about *your* faith here, but there are just so many similarities between you and an innocent German civilian in 1940, loyal to his Fuhrer no matter what people may say about his actions.

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
It's easy to see why everyone else can tell that these people are completely out of touch with reality.

Especially over the Internet, you can read people like an open book on here, amirite? Text from complete strangers is the gateway to ones mind! :laugh:

My dear 91TTZ.. you know I love you and your little quasi-diatribes, but you seriously need to concede the possibility that exists with some things in life like I do my friend. I don't know everything, you don't know everything, notorious doesn't know everything.. but if questioning authority in this respect is being "out of touch with reality" I guess we should go back to living in a society where speaking such unpatriotic words would be grounds for execution, that oughta weed out the lunatics and get everybody on the same page once and for all.
 

Luthien

Golden Member
Feb 1, 2004
1,721
0
0
Originally posted by: BrokenVisage
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Yeah, burn someone at the stake for questioning how weakly-explained history happened!

Are you kidding me? The 9/11 conspiracy videos have been utterly destroyed point by point. They are complete nonsense.

Not this again.. :roll:

I suppose now you're going to link us to "Screw Loose Change" or something, right?

Heh, you say "the 9/11 videos'" like they're all one in the same, do you even KNOW how many "9/11 videos" there are that focus on aspects of 9/11 that HAVEN'T been answered, let alone "virtually destroyed"? Keep posting news articles instead of debating them if you're going to make asinine blanket statements and promote disinformation like that.

"The 9/11 videos" aren't even the best evidence to suggest complicity, so you can "destroy" them all you want with your powerful, unflinching opinions. The proof is in documents, peer reviewed papers, and testimony that "completely destroys" the conspiracy theory YOU believe.

Never liked Rose but she's doing a good thing by bringing this issue up in a public forum, it deserves an explanation after all these years.

Point-by-point.. riiiiight.

Lol, you dumb dumb want gum gum?
 

Hyperblaze

Lifer
May 31, 2001
10,027
1
81
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Yeah, burn someone at the stake for questioning how weakly-explained history happened!

Are you kidding me? The 9/11 conspiracy videos have been utterly destroyed point by point. They are complete nonsense.

Why are people not allowed to question spoon-fed government-issued explanations?

Because the conspiracy theories are as ignorant of the clear-cut scientific facts as a Creationist arguing against evolution. It has nothing to do with the Bush administration.

And I suppose you believe everything Bush says?

I didn't hear what Rosie mentioned but to say Bush had absolutely nothing to do with what happened is pure BS. One way or another, he was involved.

This is why I hate politics. Always makes you dirty in one way or another.
 

blackllotus

Golden Member
May 30, 2005
1,875
0
0
Originally posted by: noto12ious
1) Lead 9/11 Hijacker Atta was wired $100,000 shortly before 9/11. ABC News/ Wall street Journal / India Times reports that transfer came from the head of Pakistani ISI. US government officials were meeting with that head days before 9/11. No mention of this in any US official report. Cover-up. We should be bombing Pakistan.

The man who wired the money resigned as did the general who knew about the transfer but didn't stop it. Just because there were two people in the Pakistani government involved with the attack does not warrant war with Pakistan.

Originally posted by: noto12ious
2) FBI translator Sibel Edmonds believes 9/11 was an inside job. Concidentally, she has the most gag orders placed on her in history :) Why could they possibly be silencing her? I haven't a clue ;)

Thats not evidence.

Originally posted by: noto12ious
3) Explosions can be heard + smoke rising up from the streets before any collapse began.
Bombs in the towers

All that video did was place a little rectangle around the bottom of one of the towers and claim thats where the initial sound came from. It did nothing to prove that claim.

Originally posted by: noto12ious
4) Secretary of Transportion Mineta testified that Cheney monitored Flight 77's path into the Pentagon. The 9/11 Commission then changed Cheney's timeline so that Cheney appeared to have arrived in the PEOC bunker after flight 77 was struck. Proof of cover-up / strong concealment of conspiracy charges + negligence charges. Oh yeah, Mineta's devastating testimony was omitted from all official records. What a coincidence.

What basis do you have for believing Mineta over the 9/11 Commission?

Originally posted by: noto12ious
5) At least 4 different wargames involving US Fighter jets were active and ongoing during the morning of 9/11 (Thank you Cynthia and General Myers ;)). this helps to explain why the first 3 airliners were not intercepted. Talk about luck...those terrorists should've played the lottery!

This point makes no sense at all. Not only was it not U.S policy to intercept hijacked airliners but the planes had their transponders turned off anyways.

Originally posted by: noto12ious
6) WTC Building 7: Too easy. Looks exactly like a classic Las Vegas styled demolition. The government can't even issue a report explaining why it "collapsed". NIST's report was supposed to be due out in Spring of 2006. Haha.

The explanation for why it fell makes sense. Furthermore, you haven't actually provided any evidence that it was demolition.

Originally posted by: noto12ious
Former FBI Director Louis Freeh has gone public and said there is a cover-up of 9/11. Again, too easy.

The "cover-up" that Freeh alleges is that the government covered up its incompetance in preventing 9/11, not that the government caused 9/11.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Originally posted by: BrokenVisage
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
They're so wrong

Oh ok, see you give me the impression you know them intimately every time you post in threads like this. I mean you know enough to lump any single person who has a thought outside what is written in History books into one big group and call them all wrong.

You heard it here folks.. there are no UFOs, no one has ever been abducted, the Reichstag fire wasn't caused by Göring, and of course 9/11 was masterminded and carried out by Bin Laden and 19 terrorists. Any one of you who believe differently are morons and should be shunned by society, for 91TTZ has spoken and has decided you are all ultimately wrong.

Hold on, are you saying you believe in alien abductions?
 

KingofCamelot

Golden Member
Aug 20, 2004
1,074
0
0
Originally posted by: noto12ious
6) WTC Building 7: Too easy. Looks exactly like a classic Las Vegas styled demolition. The government can't even issue a report explaining why it "collapsed". NIST's report was supposed to be due out in Spring of 2006. Haha.

Heaven forbid it might take a lot of time to prepare a detailed and accurate report on a building that collapsed during a very chaotic time.

This isn't your run of the mill small building collapse that the city engineers write up real quick. The collapse was complicated and it takes time to create a report of the detail that will be expected, especially when they had other things to do first.
 

redgtxdi

Diamond Member
Jun 23, 2004
5,464
8
81
Just wanted to say "thanks" to Blacklottus for keeping me from having to write a book!!!


Notorious are exactly the skeptics and conspiracy theorists that scare the sh!t outta' me in this country.

ONce you go that far, our problems are far greater than a oil-hungry president. They're worse than we can ever imagine anyway. A president as mediocre as Bush conspiring to create as complex a tragedy as 9/11???


Wake the fvck UP people!!!! The Rosie O'Donnell's of the world have you SNOWED!! :roll:
 

Miramonti

Lifer
Aug 26, 2000
28,651
100
91
If Rosie says it defies the laws of physics, then it defies the laws of physics.

Like the Roadrunner knows zoom, Rosie knows physics.
 

hans030390

Diamond Member
Feb 3, 2005
7,326
2
76
Originally posted by: noto12ious
Originally posted by: hans030390
Originally posted by: noto12ious
<3 Rosie. 9/11 Truth in your faces :)

In fact, the USA has been guilty of conspiring against the public in the past. This is no secret.

Operation Northwoods: Proof of US. Government conspiracy.

I'm not one to really care about conspiracies or even believe them, but your logic isn't too solid.

"Because the government is guilty (not saying it is) of conspiring in the PAST, it is conspiring NOW." That is essentially what you are saying.

Truth in my face? No. False logic on your part? Yes.

Wow, someone had the guts to admit the government committed treason in the past :)

Logic has been presented in numerous other threads... oh wait, they were deleted because nobody could refute the facts :)

Short summary again...this is fun:

1) Lead 9/11 Hijacker Atta was wired $100,000 shortly before 9/11. ABC News/ Wall street Journal / India Times reports that transfer came from the head of Pakistani ISI. US government officials were meeting with that head days before 9/11. No mention of this in any US official report. Cover-up. We should be bombing Pakistan.

2) FBI translator Sibel Edmonds believes 9/11 was an inside job. Concidentally, she has the most gag orders placed on her in history :) Why could they possibly be silencing her? I haven't a clue ;)

3) Explosions can be heard + smoke rising up from the streets before any collapse began.
Bombs in the towers

4) Secretary of Transportion Mineta testified that Cheney monitored Flight 77's path into the Pentagon. The 9/11 Commission then changed Cheney's timeline so that Cheney appeared to have arrived in the PEOC bunker after flight 77 was struck. Proof of cover-up / strong concealment of conspiracy charges + negligence charges. Oh yeah, Mineta's devastating testimony was omitted from all official records. What a coincidence.

5) At least 4 different wargames involving US Fighter jets were active and ongoing during the morning of 9/11 (Thank you Cynthia and General Myers ;)). this helps to explain why the first 3 airliners were not intercepted. Talk about luck...those terrorists should've played the lottery!

6) WTC Building 7: Too easy. Looks exactly like a classic Las Vegas styled demolition. The government can't even issue a report explaining why it "collapsed". NIST's report was supposed to be due out in Spring of 2006. Haha.

7) Able Danger: Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer tried to move in on the lead 9/11 hijackers, who were identified at least a year in advance of the 9/11 attacks. However, a US military general told him to back off the 9/11 hijackers. Who gave that general these orders? Why hasn't he been punished or questioned? Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer has been blackballed as a result. No mention of Able Danger in any official report...government continues to deny existance of said data mining program. Cover-up. Too easy.

Former FBI Director Louis Freeh has gone public and said there is a cover-up of 9/11. Again, too easy.

Edit: Truth ftw.

Edit: I haven't even started with the "logic" ;)

I don't know all the answers to these (I'm sure someone on here will or already has started to "attack" them), but you missed my whole point. (Edit: Yeah, someone did point out how they could mean nothing)

You're trying to "convince" people that you are right by *basically* saying "Conspiracies have happened way in the past, therefore they happened during 9/11."

"Lack of logic" wasn't the right way to phrase that so called "technique" to persuade people. I forget the exact term used for it. But if you want to come off as credible, you can't go around saying "It's the truth!" (or more like "truth in your faces") and then using a false technique to try and persuade the people.

Are those logical points that *could* point to a conspiracy? Yes, but they've likely been "disproved". Logic wasn't the right word for me to use in my previous post.

To me this is like the whole "we never went to the moon" deal. People used what seemed to be "good" points, but it's pretty easily able to be disproved.

 

bonkers325

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
13,076
1
0
if you weren't an engineer that was on-site for the months after 9/11, you really have no clue what happened. there were extensive tests and models developed that discredit all the "bomb" theories.

WTC-7 collapsed because it was allowed to burn until it collapsed. this was a decision made by the administration, whose intent was to find survivors, not fight the hundreds of fires around ground zero. for those who say "this is the first steel building to collapse due to fire", you're absolutely right. the building burned for 2-3 days, no other building has ever burned for that amount of time. steel loses 50% of its strength at around 800 degrees fahrenheit. fires burn at around 3000 degrees. although the steel is fireproofed, the fireproofing is typically rated as 2-hours - that is, once a fire breaks out u are guaranteed 2 hours to gtfo "safely". after the 2 hours are up, the life of the building boils down to how it was designed and how structurally redundant it is.

also, jimmy hoffa is buried under the giants stadium.
 

Luthien

Golden Member
Feb 1, 2004
1,721
0
0
My conspiracy theory is that the 911 conspiracy theories are the direct result of American hating foreigners / Islamic terrorists posting all over the net in an effort to dissemble the truth and obfuscate the 911 tragedy in order to disarm Americans against future attacks and garner sympathy for the enemy.

You disgust me.

 

KingofCamelot

Golden Member
Aug 20, 2004
1,074
0
0
Originally posted by: bonkers325
if you weren't an engineer that was on-site for the months after 9/11, you really have no clue what happened. there were extensive tests and models developed that discredit all the "bomb" theories.

WTC-7 collapsed because it was allowed to burn until it collapsed. this was a decision made by the administration, whose intent was to find survivors, not fight the hundreds of fires around ground zero. for those who say "this is the first steel building to collapse due to fire", you're absolutely right. the building burned for 2-3 days, no other building has ever burned for that amount of time. steel loses 50% of its strength at around 800 degrees fahrenheit. fires burn at around 3000 degrees. although the steel is fireproofed, the fireproofing is typically rated as 2-hours - that is, once a fire breaks out u are guaranteed 2 hours to gtfo "safely". after the 2 hours are up, the life of the building boils down to how it was designed and how structurally redundant it is.

Er...the fire didn't burn for 2-3 days, it burned for 7 hours.
 

SarcasticDwarf

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2001
9,574
1
76
Originally posted by: KingofCamelot
Originally posted by: bonkers325
if you weren't an engineer that was on-site for the months after 9/11, you really have no clue what happened. there were extensive tests and models developed that discredit all the "bomb" theories.

WTC-7 collapsed because it was allowed to burn until it collapsed. this was a decision made by the administration, whose intent was to find survivors, not fight the hundreds of fires around ground zero. for those who say "this is the first steel building to collapse due to fire", you're absolutely right. the building burned for 2-3 days, no other building has ever burned for that amount of time. steel loses 50% of its strength at around 800 degrees fahrenheit. fires burn at around 3000 degrees. although the steel is fireproofed, the fireproofing is typically rated as 2-hours - that is, once a fire breaks out u are guaranteed 2 hours to gtfo "safely". after the 2 hours are up, the life of the building boils down to how it was designed and how structurally redundant it is.

Er...the fire didn't burn for 2-3 days, it burned for 7 hours.

I think he was referring to accounts that there was "molten steel" at ground zero.
 

Number1

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,881
549
126
I am getting this deja vue feeling reading this thread.

1: 9/11 is mentionned in a thread

2: Conspiracy theorist (like flies being atracted to sh1t) shamelesly promote their lunacy.

2: Idiotic conspiracy theory gets destroyed.

3: Go to 2



 

bonkers325

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
13,076
1
0
Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
Originally posted by: KingofCamelot
Originally posted by: bonkers325
if you weren't an engineer that was on-site for the months after 9/11, you really have no clue what happened. there were extensive tests and models developed that discredit all the "bomb" theories.

WTC-7 collapsed because it was allowed to burn until it collapsed. this was a decision made by the administration, whose intent was to find survivors, not fight the hundreds of fires around ground zero. for those who say "this is the first steel building to collapse due to fire", you're absolutely right. the building burned for 2-3 days, no other building has ever burned for that amount of time. steel loses 50% of its strength at around 800 degrees fahrenheit. fires burn at around 3000 degrees. although the steel is fireproofed, the fireproofing is typically rated as 2-hours - that is, once a fire breaks out u are guaranteed 2 hours to gtfo "safely". after the 2 hours are up, the life of the building boils down to how it was designed and how structurally redundant it is.

Er...the fire didn't burn for 2-3 days, it burned for 7 hours.

I think he was referring to accounts that there was "molten steel" at ground zero.

no, he got me. WTC7 didnt burn for 2-3 days. im recounting a story from one of the presidents of an engineering consultant firm who worked at ground zero in the following months and got my facts mixed up :p
 

noto12ious

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2001
1,131
0
0
Originally posted by: hans030390
Originally posted by: noto12ious
Originally posted by: hans030390
Originally posted by: noto12ious
<3 Rosie. 9/11 Truth in your faces :)

In fact, the USA has been guilty of conspiring against the public in the past. This is no secret.

Operation Northwoods: Proof of US. Government conspiracy.

I'm not one to really care about conspiracies or even believe them, but your logic isn't too solid.

"Because the government is guilty (not saying it is) of conspiring in the PAST, it is conspiring NOW." That is essentially what you are saying.

Truth in my face? No. False logic on your part? Yes.

Wow, someone had the guts to admit the government committed treason in the past :)

Logic has been presented in numerous other threads... oh wait, they were deleted because nobody could refute the facts :)

Short summary again...this is fun:

1) Lead 9/11 Hijacker Atta was wired $100,000 shortly before 9/11. ABC News/ Wall street Journal / India Times reports that transfer came from the head of Pakistani ISI. US government officials were meeting with that head days before 9/11. No mention of this in any US official report. Cover-up. We should be bombing Pakistan.

2) FBI translator Sibel Edmonds believes 9/11 was an inside job. Concidentally, she has the most gag orders placed on her in history :) Why could they possibly be silencing her? I haven't a clue ;)

3) Explosions can be heard + smoke rising up from the streets before any collapse began.
Bombs in the towers

4) Secretary of Transportion Mineta testified that Cheney monitored Flight 77's path into the Pentagon. The 9/11 Commission then changed Cheney's timeline so that Cheney appeared to have arrived in the PEOC bunker after flight 77 was struck. Proof of cover-up / strong concealment of conspiracy charges + negligence charges. Oh yeah, Mineta's devastating testimony was omitted from all official records. What a coincidence.

5) At least 4 different wargames involving US Fighter jets were active and ongoing during the morning of 9/11 (Thank you Cynthia and General Myers ;)). this helps to explain why the first 3 airliners were not intercepted. Talk about luck...those terrorists should've played the lottery!

6) WTC Building 7: Too easy. Looks exactly like a classic Las Vegas styled demolition. The government can't even issue a report explaining why it "collapsed". NIST's report was supposed to be due out in Spring of 2006. Haha.

7) Able Danger: Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer tried to move in on the lead 9/11 hijackers, who were identified at least a year in advance of the 9/11 attacks. However, a US military general told him to back off the 9/11 hijackers. Who gave that general these orders? Why hasn't he been punished or questioned? Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer has been blackballed as a result. No mention of Able Danger in any official report...government continues to deny existance of said data mining program. Cover-up. Too easy.

Former FBI Director Louis Freeh has gone public and said there is a cover-up of 9/11. Again, too easy.

Edit: Truth ftw.

Edit: I haven't even started with the "logic" ;)

I don't know all the answers to these (I'm sure someone on here will or already has started to "attack" them), but you missed my whole point. (Edit: Yeah, someone did point out how they could mean nothing)

You're trying to "convince" people that you are right by *basically* saying "Conspiracies have happened way in the past, therefore they happened during 9/11."

"Lack of logic" wasn't the right way to phrase that so called "technique" to persuade people. I forget the exact term used for it. But if you want to come off as credible, you can't go around saying "It's the truth!" (or more like "truth in your faces") and then using a false technique to try and persuade the people.

Are those logical points that *could* point to a conspiracy? Yes, but they've likely been "disproved". Logic wasn't the right word for me to use in my previous post.

To me this is like the whole "we never went to the moon" deal. People used what seemed to be "good" points, but it's pretty easily able to be disproved.


It seems you're drawing conclusions from something I never said :)

Conspiracies of the past prove what the United States government is capable of. That certainly opens the door to other conspiracies.

I never said conspiracies of the past prove that 9/11 was a conspiracy. You can stop lying :)

Who am I trying to convince or "persuade" exactly? Every doubter who has posted in this thread already came in with their minds made up :) I'm just stating facts that nobody can refute...facts which directly implicate the US government in perpetrating 9/11, or blatantly covering it up. Judging by their non responses / weak responses which conveniently omit incriminating facts, they are still in denial :) Persuading? Hardly. Exposing the truth ftw.

9/11 truth continues to grow, and more people are becoming aware of the facts whether you like it or not...

But you can continue believing the lies being spewed forth by the most corrupt administration in the history of American politics :)

Who refused to testify to the self appointed 911 "independent" Commission under oath?
Who was on Cipro before the Anthrax attacks began? Cmon that's easy.

 

noto12ious

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2001
1,131
0
0
Originally posted by: blackllotus
Originally posted by: noto12ious
1) Lead 9/11 Hijacker Atta was wired $100,000 shortly before 9/11. ABC News/ Wall street Journal / India Times reports that transfer came from the head of Pakistani ISI. US government officials were meeting with that head days before 9/11. No mention of this in any US official report. Cover-up. We should be bombing Pakistan.

The man who wired the money resigned as did the general who knew about the transfer but didn't stop it. Just because there were two people in the Pakistani government involved with the attack does not warrant war with Pakistan.


Wow, classic government apologist. You're the type that allows the government to get away with half arsed investigations which omit anything remotely incriminating. Never ask questions!

1) Tell me why that wire transfer didn't make it into the 911 Commission Report :) They funded the deaths of 3000 Americans, and nothing happened? Anything to protect the big lie, right? Who cares about the money trail!

Originally posted by: blackllotus
Originally posted by: noto12ious
2) FBI translator Sibel Edmonds believes 9/11 was an inside job. Concidentally, she has the most gag orders placed on her in history :) Why could they possibly be silencing her? I haven't a clue ;)

Thats not evidence.

"That's not evidence"? Huh? Wtf are you smoking?

From Sibel Edmonds:
"My translations of the 9/11 intercepts included [terrorist] money laundering, detailed and date-specific information ... if they were to do real investigations, we would see several significant high-level criminal prosecutions in this country [the US] ... and believe me, they will do everything to cover this up.""

Not evidence huh? Shame on you. Stop lying apologist :)


Originally posted by: blackllotus
Originally posted by: noto12ious
3) Explosions can be heard + smoke rising up from the streets before any collapse began.
Bombs in the towers

All that video did was place a little rectangle around the bottom of one of the towers and claim thats where the initial sound came from. It did nothing to prove that claim.

So what are those large explosions? If you're going to blame it on structural failure, then the government is going to have to competely change their collapse model to account for structural failure before the "collapses" began from the top of the buildings. Oh, not to mention they will also need to account for corroborating testimonies of large explosions in the basements before the planes even struck the towers (thank you 9/11 hero william rodriguez and his friends).

So which is it? Maybe you'd be better off just denying explosions were even heard...oh but you can't do that. Too many news reporters / fire fighters reported huge pre collapse explosions :)

So what's your story? Feel free to amuse me.

Originally posted by: blackllotus
Originally posted by: noto12ious
4) Secretary of Transportion Mineta testified that Cheney monitored Flight 77's path into the Pentagon. The 9/11 Commission then changed Cheney's timeline so that Cheney appeared to have arrived in the PEOC bunker after flight 77 was struck. Proof of cover-up / strong concealment of conspiracy charges + negligence charges. Oh yeah, Mineta's devastating testimony was omitted from all official records. What a coincidence.

What basis do you have for believing Mineta over the 9/11 Commission?

The fact that his testimony which implicates Cheney in conspiracy / negligence was omitted from all official records? The fact that video of his testimony was lost in an electronic snafu...even though it was all across the internet? The fact that the 9/11 commission refused to refute his testimony or have Cheney clarify his time frame at the PEOC bunker? Who am I going to believe? I'll believe the credible government official who testified under oath. It's a very simple concept...if you can't even acknowledge this is a cover-up, you're beyond the help of reason. But, do entertain me with your explanation as to why the 9/11 Commission would decide to completely omit such devastating testimony given under oath :) Are you saying Mineta lied? If so, why hasn't he been punished? We drilled Clinton didn't we? If you are saying Mineta lied under oath, he deserves the same. So what's your answer? :)

"During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, "The plane is 50 miles out." "The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to "the plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the Vice President, "Do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"




Originally posted by: blackllotus
Originally posted by: noto12ious
5) At least 4 different wargames involving US Fighter jets were active and ongoing during the morning of 9/11 (Thank you Cynthia and General Myers ;)). this helps to explain why the first 3 airliners were not intercepted. Talk about luck...those terrorists should've played the lottery!

This point makes no sense at all. Not only was it not U.S policy to intercept hijacked airliners but the planes had their transponders turned off anyways.

I suppose that's why the military had been tracking Flight 77's location, right? Not U.S. policy to intercept hijacked airliners? Now you're a liar :)


It is standard operating procedure to scramble jet fighters whenever a jetliner goes off course or radio contact with it is lost. Between September 2000 and June 2001 the Pentagon launched fighters on 67 occasions to escort wayward aircraft. [FAA news release, Aug 9, 2002; Associated Press Aug 13, 2002] In the year 2000 jets were scrambled 129 times :)

Not US policy huh?

The question you should be asking is why there 4+ wargames on the morning of 9/11. Why are there no details of such wargames in the 9/11 Commission report aside from a footnote? Why is it the official "investigation" makes no mention of the false radar blips?

Maybe we should ask Cheney why these wargames were scheduled, since he was in charge, afterall :)

Originally posted by: blackllotus
Originally posted by: noto12ious
6) WTC Building 7: Too easy. Looks exactly like a classic Las Vegas styled demolition. The government can't even issue a report explaining why it "collapsed". NIST's report was supposed to be due out in Spring of 2006. Haha.

The explanation for why it fell makes sense. Furthermore, you haven't actually provided any evidence that it was demolition.

You can't search for a video and see how the penthouse caved in first, along with indenting kinks in the columns, typical of a controlled demolition? Or is it that you don't want to admit numerous witnesses were told that WTC7 was coming down before it actually did, including numerous television networks? Wow, lots of magic happening that day... The theory keeps changing. What is it today? :)

Of course, you're going to explain why the evidence from wtc7's "collapse" was destroyed before being thoroughly examined. Man, those NIST boys sure have it rough.... having to theorize a reason for such a miraculous collapse without any concrete evidence. Hey, what's with the molten steel?!

Edit: Demolition experts around the world are saying WTC 7 was brought down by explosives. Here's one such expert: Jowenko reaffirming what he has stated before: Demolition expert says WTC7 brought down by explosives

According to apologists like blacklotus, demolition experts are crazy! they've been wasting their time and money by planting explosives to bring down buildings! According to blacklotus, all they need to do in the future is light a few fires, use a crane to knock a few dents into the buildings, and then buildings will magically collapse! Demolition experts are useless! :laugh:

Originally posted by: blackllotus
Originally posted by: noto12ious
Former FBI Director Louis Freeh has gone public and said there is a cover-up of 9/11. Again, too easy.

The "cover-up" that Freeh alleges is that the government covered up its incompetance in preventing 9/11, not that the government caused 9/11.

incompetance? or was it intentional to allow the attacks to happen? :) either way, it's a grand coverup. now you have to explain why the government continues to pretend the program never existed, and why the truth is not coming out. then again, maybe that's what you want.



also, do tell why the president and v.p. refused to testify under oath to the 9/11 commission.

also, do tell why the v.p. was on cipro before the anthrax attacks occurred. you know, the attacks that killed hard working americans.
 

91TTZ

Lifer
Jan 31, 2005
14,374
1
0
Originally posted by: noto12ious

It seems you're drawing conclusions from something I never said :)

Conspiracies of the past prove what the United States government is capable of. That certainly opens the door to other conspiracies.

I never said conspiracies of the past prove that 9/11 was a conspiracy. You can stop lying :)

Who am I trying to convince or "persuade" exactly? Every doubter who has posted in this thread already came in with their minds made up :) I'm just stating facts that nobody can refute...facts which directly implicate the US government in perpetrating 9/11, or blatantly covering it up. Judging by their non responses / weak responses which conveniently omit incriminating facts, they are still in denial :) Persuading? Hardly. Exposing the truth ftw.

9/11 truth continues to grow, and more people are becoming aware of the facts whether you like it or not...

But you can continue believing the lies being spewed forth by the most corrupt administration in the history of American politics :)

Who refused to testify to the self appointed 911 "independent" Commission under oath?
Who was on Cipro before the Anthrax attacks began? Cmon that's easy.

Fact: Putting a smiley face at the end of all your statements doesn't make them true, believable, or even agreeable.

BTW, you still haven't answered the question I asked earlier in the thread:

Why would dust/clouds rise up from the streets if it was bombs going off from high up in the building? As you can see from the video, the building didn't collapse from the street down, the collapse began high up (where the fire was).
 

noto12ious

Golden Member
Aug 24, 2001
1,131
0
0
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
Originally posted by: noto12ious

It seems you're drawing conclusions from something I never said :)

Conspiracies of the past prove what the United States government is capable of. That certainly opens the door to other conspiracies.

I never said conspiracies of the past prove that 9/11 was a conspiracy. You can stop lying :)

Who am I trying to convince or "persuade" exactly? Every doubter who has posted in this thread already came in with their minds made up :) I'm just stating facts that nobody can refute...facts which directly implicate the US government in perpetrating 9/11, or blatantly covering it up. Judging by their non responses / weak responses which conveniently omit incriminating facts, they are still in denial :) Persuading? Hardly. Exposing the truth ftw.

9/11 truth continues to grow, and more people are becoming aware of the facts whether you like it or not...

But you can continue believing the lies being spewed forth by the most corrupt administration in the history of American politics :)

Who refused to testify to the self appointed 911 "independent" Commission under oath?
Who was on Cipro before the Anthrax attacks began? Cmon that's easy.

Fact: Putting a smiley face at the end of all your statements doesn't make them true, believable, or even agreeable.

BTW, you still haven't answered the question I asked earlier in the thread:

Why would dust/clouds rise up from the streets if it was bombs going off from high up in the building? As you can see from the video, the building didn't collapse from the street down, the collapse began high up (where the fire was).

I would suggest you study 9/11 Hero William Rodriguez's statements, which are corroborated by numerous other witnesses. Explosions rocked the lower levels of the towers, including the basements.... some which occurred before the planes even struck the towers.

"BTW, you still haven't answered the question I asked earlier in the thread"

More like I skip your posts since you've done nothing but troll in all 9/11 threads. You've offered nothing except apologist remarks and name calling :)

Who said the bombs heard were only located from "high up" in the building? All the evidence suggests bombs were located throughout the building, including the sub levels. William Rodriguez's and other WTC workers' accounts substantiate that.

This is common knowledge and I've stated this in numerous other 9/11 threads...and I know you've seen that before. You're nothing a but an apologist troll :)

All of you apologists cried / whined when major media networks covered Charlie Sheen's remaks that 9/11 was an inside job. What good did that do? Nothing... now he's narrating Loose Change Final Cut which is going to be distributed by Mark Cuban LOL. Slap in your face if anything.

And now Rosie O. GG. 9/11 Truth continues to spread and millions more continue to wake up :)

Patriots Who Question 9/11


Edit: Demolition experts around the world are saying WTC 7 was brought down by explosives. Here's one such expert: Jowenko reaffirming what he has stated before: Demolition expert says WTC7 brought down by explosives

 

Wheezer

Diamond Member
Nov 2, 1999
6,731
1
81
I hate to break this to you, but there were conspiracy theories about the original WTC bombing in '93.

Many people felt the gov't wanted an excuse to invade the middle east at that time also and the CIA assisted in the procurement of the tools necessary to do so. Why isn't this all over the web? Back in '93 there was no internet, at least no where near what it is today.

I heard a new one the other day...some woman who is known widely in my area to be mentally off balance was spouting off to two workers at a local retailer that the Chinese purposefully tainted our pet food so that they could pull us into a war with them. According to her, the hope was that so many people would have their pets die, that we would rise up and demand that the gov't invade China. I laughed my ass off. I feel for her because she is missing a few card to make a full deck, but still, it was funny.

The sad part is that she is not alone in that boat I am sure....there are others who probably think along the same lines.

It is impossible for some people to grasp the concept that the WTC was an act by a single group who were wise enough to see a beloved patriot in our armor and take advantage of it. To be honest I often wondered myself as a child what would happen in a jet crashed into a skyscraper. IF a 12 year old can think of something like that than I am quite sure that a group who wishes to do harm and have nothing better to do than try to find a way to become the ultimate suicide bombers could very well likely come up with the same idea.

I am actually suprised it had not happened sooner.