Even Bill Clinton Owns the 9/11 Troofers
Wow Bill and I actually have a common bond - we both think these people are idiots...who knew?
Comment(s) »
» Leave a comment
- Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
- Since there already are over 25 comments to this post, your eventual comment will no longer trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
- The line and paragraph breaks automatically
Check this out, if you don't mind a little language. It's worth it.
Comment by Brooke— 2008/02/01 @ 05:27 AM — (Reply)
Ya, the language is spicey....I'm just trying to picture giving that information without being SO ticked off I wouldn't use the same...right? What kind of people can even allow themselves to think there's that kind of corporate, despicable evil in America? And that anybody in this country could keep it quiet.... for five minutes?
And then, to suggest that the very source of bending and forming steel isn't hot enough to bend/destroy it? Yikes. Rosie O'Donnell logic. A big tip off. Thanks for the link, Brooke.
Comment by z— 2008/02/02 @ 07:10 PM — (Reply)
psst, you forgot to put the "=" after "youtube."
Comment by Burns— 2008/02/01 @ 03:00 PM — (Reply)
yeah I agree with you a little skepticism is good but the way some of these idiots are there aren't anyone left who isn't "in on it"
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/01 @ 03:24 PM — (Reply)
Yeah, I've NEVER seen fire melt steel before! I don't know what those silly cutting torches and welders are for?!
Comment by The Frank Family— 2008/02/02 @ 03:49 PM — (Reply)
I don't buy that for one second. When it happened I thought terrorists must have had bombs planted in the building - and said out loud then that it looked like a controlled razing. When the second building fell there was no doubt in my mind - and when the third tower 7 fell -- well, I wanted some answers.
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/02 @ 05:52 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/02 @ 05:55 PM — (Reply)
Dugg -- you must truly be the dumbest person on the planet! I suppose that the jet fuel was burning entirely by itself and nothing else in the building was burning with it. I suppose you know the burning rates and temperatures of everything inside the building. I also suppose you know the melting point of the exact steel used in the building. I wondered how you didn't notice the building fall from the top down and not from the bottom up. It has nothing to do with believing Clinton it has to do with recognizing fact and fiction. This is a process that has clearly escaped your tiny mind.
Comment by The Frank Family— 2008/02/02 @ 06:32 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/03 @ 03:20 AM — (Reply)
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=911+inside&hl=en&sitesearch=
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&q=911&total=118081&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=2
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=911&hl=en&sitesearch=
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/03 @ 03:25 AM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2008/02/03 @ 04:00 AM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2008/02/03 @ 04:01 AM — (Reply)
Sad that an ex president would tell anybody to 'shut up' with that nasty look on his face (imagine when his rumored temper REALLY gets heated up?!) and the audience would cheer, no matter what the topic is. What happened to class and dignity? Not to be an old stick-in-the mud, but that's ugly and says a lot.
Comment by z— 2008/02/02 @ 07:13 PM — (Reply)
Ed
Comment by Ed— 2008/02/03 @ 02:21 AM — (Reply)
"Squatting at the White House" is hilarious...sure felt that way. Imagine her squatting on the THRONE?
So, whose temper do you think is probably worse; Hillary's or McCain's!?
Comment by Z— 2008/02/03 @ 02:38 AM — (Reply)
ED!! You know, that line I just wrote "squatting on the throne" comes off as something slightly different than I meant (Smile!) ARGH! sorry...ha!! boy, emails can get one in trouble! (they have that EFFECT...RIGHT?) !
Comment by Z— 2008/02/03 @ 02:47 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/03 @ 04:32 AM — (Reply)
Where do they hatch these 9/11 nuts?
Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel. It is scientifically impossible.
It doesn't have to melt steel. Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength — and that required exposure to much less heat. "Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent.
Comment by Farmer John— 2008/02/03 @ 08:34 AM — (Reply)
You don't have to be threatened to the point of attack just because i disagree with you. That's very childish and unintelligent.
FACT: No steel structure building ever fell from fire EVER before 911 - when different steel frame buildings collapsed after only burning for a relatively short time.
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/03 @ 09:08 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/03 @ 09:09 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/03 @ 09:10 AM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2008/02/03 @ 12:39 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/03 @ 11:10 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Ed— 2008/02/03 @ 11:54 AM — (Reply)
Ed
Comment by Ed— 2008/02/03 @ 12:41 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2008/02/03 @ 01:16 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/03 @ 01:33 PM — (Reply)
when you see a steel frame house with 80 floors above it full of heavy furniture and building materials, plus a jet liner and tons of people, walls, metal, marble, porcelain in the bathrooms, metal file cabinets, NOT burn down from the cigarette's flames, you let US know.
Comment by Z— 2008/02/03 @ 01:44 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2008/02/03 @ 01:51 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2008/02/03 @ 02:00 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/03 @ 02:00 PM — (Reply)
Dugg, you're anything but a fool, I'm sure.
The thing is, you make it look like WE haven't at least had a begrudging interest in the veracity of a conspiracy, too...and most of us have checked into it a bit and have decided it's nuts!
Conspiracies like THIS don't stay quiet! There are many scientists/engineers who agree that jets COULD and DID take the buildings down. Re: the Pentagon, that nut on the Penn and TEller video suggests those American Airline people are alive! It can't be sane to think Barbara Olsen chose to live away from the husband she loved madly for some bizarre conspiracy!! Where ARE those people this nut says didn't die?? Witness protection? that's INSANE, Dugg.
What kind of heart thinks our government would do this? Just to hit Iraq? For Cheney to be even richer than he is? For Bush to get his father's commuppence on Saddam? WHY WHY WHY? Check out the 'outright lies' with experts from the other side, from the nonconspiracy side.
Comment by Z— 2008/02/03 @ 02:12 PM — (Reply)
As far as a lot of the debunking - much of it needs to be scrutinized too - like the Popular Mechanics peice that convinced many that all the conspiracy claims were nuts. Most didn't know that the article was penned by Chertoff's cousin. It's objectivity is more than in question.
Believe me, I didn't want to believe in this. The reasons become clear the more you look into it. I admit it all sounds crazy - but it's like Hitler said - the bigger the lie - the more people who will fall for it. There are just too many coincedences and outright falsehoods involved.
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/03 @ 04:29 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2008/02/03 @ 03:03 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2008/02/03 @ 03:04 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2008/02/03 @ 03:07 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2008/02/03 @ 03:13 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2008/02/03 @ 03:16 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2008/02/03 @ 03:20 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2008/02/03 @ 03:24 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Ed— 2008/02/03 @ 03:27 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2008/02/03 @ 03:30 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2008/02/03 @ 04:33 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2008/02/03 @ 04:34 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2008/02/03 @ 04:35 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2008/02/03 @ 04:36 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/03 @ 04:37 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2008/02/03 @ 04:37 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Barry G.— 2008/02/03 @ 04:43 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/03 @ 05:00 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2008/02/03 @ 04:44 PM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2008/02/03 @ 04:52 PM — (Reply)
I'm not going to check the veracity of that statement, but taking it at it's word still involves overlooking an enourmous flaw in logic:
No other building on fire ever had a JET PLANE slam into it at HIGH SPEEDS before, causing a massive hole that would somehow support the weight of the floors above it while what structure IS left is being significantly weakened by fire.
Comment by Brooke— 2008/02/04 @ 04:04 AM — (Reply)
Comment by aza spade— 2008/02/04 @ 04:24 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Brooke— 2008/02/04 @ 04:06 AM — (Reply)
http://revolutioncallingyou.bloghi.com/2008/02/03/hey-the-frank-family-farmer-john-911-was-a-controlled-demolition.html
you'd see that there are many valid unanswered questions - as well as maybe some valid answers to the questions you just posed.
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/04 @ 04:24 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/04 @ 04:26 AM — (Reply)
more debunking here
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/04 @ 04:47 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/04 @ 05:03 AM — (Reply)
FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom — approximately 10 stories — about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.
NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.
According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."
There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.
Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."
WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors — along with the building's unusual construction — were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse
WTC 7 damaged by falling debris, the building then endures a fire that rages for hours. Experts say this combination, not a demolition-style implosion, led to the roofline "kink" that signals WTC 7's progressive collapse.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion," the great Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan of New York was fond of saying. "He is not entitled to his own facts."
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/04 @ 06:12 AM — (Reply)
FACT: No steel structure building ever fell from fire EVER before 911 - when different steel frame buildings collapsed after only burning for a relatively short time.
FACT: As brooke noted, no other steel structure ever had a fully loaded and fueled commercial aircraft fly into it before... and so far they're 2 for 2 in taking down tall buildings.
Besides, you know what makes a blast-furnace work to melt steel? You inject a high velocity wind through a hole in it... and a venturi helps add speed to the wind. Meteorological data on wind velocity and atmospheric temperatures were provided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) based on reports from the Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System (ACARS). The information used weather monitoring instruments onboard three aircraft that departed from LaGuardia and Newark airports between 7:15 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. on September 11, 2001. The wind speed at heights equal to the upper stories of the towers was in the range of 10-20 mph. Inside the building it was probably much greater.
Why did WTC 7 fall. Gee, a short building that just had debris from the two tallest building in the world fall down on it also fell. Duh!
Are you retarded, dugg? There either has to be an excuse for your stupidity... or it's deliberate. I think it's the latter. Are you a Marxist, dugg?
Comment by Farmer John— 2008/02/04 @ 06:52 AM — (Reply)
I dare say I am much more of a patriot than yourself, FJohn. I don't think blindly following your government is the mark of a patriot. Thomas Jefferson would back me up on that. You see, a real patriot stands up and protests when the government that is supposed to be by and for the people steps out of line. To disagree with you only makes me someone who loves his country and wants justice - not your enemy.
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/04 @ 06:59 AM — (Reply)
http://revolutioncallingyou.bloghi.com/2008/02/03/hey-the-frank-family-farmer-john-911-was-a-controlled-demolition.html
that is - if you can.
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/04 @ 07:01 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/04 @ 09:59 AM — (Reply)
Everyone I've talked to about it who's under 70 in the last 3 years has at least expressed doubts about the official story.
You didn't answer any of the questions in the video, Farmer John - you just started talking about foam and the shuttle. That was a different story and really has no bearing whatsoever.
Comment by Dugg— 2008/02/04 @ 03:23 PM — (Reply)
I'm convinced!!! A long video asking multiple questions and offering NO answers has given me great insight as to how the Towers fell. And it was right there in front of me the whole time. Who is the idiot who made this video? Is it a brother of michael moore? Oh no, I think that idiot actually made hypothesies.
Unlike the previous poster, I am not an expert on building demolition. I was however watching the live story on the first buildings explosion when they were still trying to figure out what happened and they were still not believing a plane could/would hit the Towers. Somehow your conspiracy videos aren't showing the footage of the second plane hitting the second tower with such force that a flaming impression of the airliner exploded out the windows on the opposite side of the building. I was glued to the TV nearly all day and saw the eventual footage of the towers falling. your "proof" video talked of explosions, but didn't say they were coming from the basement. They 'heard' explosions. Does your thinking also come from your basement? Are those really just brain farts and not digestive disorders??
I think conspiracy theoryists on national news are actually paid by the government to come up with such rediculous stories to keep us all confused with their real agenda: The mobilization of Elvis' CIA crew.
There is even a project in the making for a new TV show:
American Conspericist. The judges will be michael moore, hanoi jane, and a wild card they will draw from a web search for the best video posters on you-tube.
Comment by Kermit— 2008/02/14 @ 08:55 AM — (Reply)
Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/14 @ 12:18 PM — (Reply)
I sound angry don't I. Must need more therapy.
Comment by Kermit— 2008/02/15 @ 05:35 AM — (Reply)
It was barely on fire, was not hit by anything and came down at free fall speed
You sound like one of those foam engineer's at NASA. Who'd have thunk a 5# chunk of foam could down the shuttle?
Dugg, I don't know what brought down WTC7. But when you're looking for REAL reasons... only a fool or a complete idiot would overlook the obvious and pimp a theory that would baffle even William of Ockham's harshest critic.
Comment by Farmer John— 2008/02/04 @ 03:17 PM — (Reply)
Oh, and here's a piece of personal advice, duggy. I wouldn't spend so much time with YouTube sciolists, if I were you. And anybody posting at a web address with "revolution calling you" in it's title, is not open to learning answers... he's already committed to one.
Comment by Farmer John— 2008/02/04 @ 03:25 PM — (Reply)