If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Elementary student threatened with psychiatric evaluation after visiting 9/11 websites   (jonesreport.com) divider line 173
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

9240 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Nov 2006 at 3:53 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



173 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-11-11 05:26:25 PM
untrustworthy: NIST? You mean the National Institute of Standards and Technology? They support the official theory that the planes weakened the structures and caused the collapses.

Of course they do.
As I said, they answer directly to this administration.
 
2006-11-11 05:28:28 PM
HowlingFrog

So, does that mean that Popular Mechanics answers to "this administration" as well.....?
 
2006-11-11 05:28:34 PM
Albino Wino: on 9/11 of course there are unanswered questions that need to be addressed. but use the Socratic method, not the George Orwell one.

Hemlock? Does not want. :(
 
2006-11-11 05:29:44 PM
HowlingFrog: As I said, they answer directly to this administration.

So? That doesn't mean they've lied or otherwise falsified information. You're going to have to do better than that.
 
2006-11-11 05:33:23 PM
Nightjars: So, does that mean that Popular Mechanics answers to "this administration" as well.....?

A Hearst "yellow journalism" publication? Of course not.
 
2006-11-11 05:33:38 PM
artman: three cheers, guy! this beer's for you! right on.

howling frog: hemlock makes a pretty good mixer with whisky. try it, you'll like it.

czarangeles: if you keep using those 50 cent wiords, i may have to go back to Elementary school and get another degree.

(wtf? Dialectic is not better than rhetoric, they just have different purposes.)

//stirs the grape koolaid...
 
2006-11-11 05:35:36 PM
How come all those people keep saying explosives brought down the twin towers and say it is just like a controlled demolition, when controlled demolitions start from the bottom and go up, when the twin towers did the opposite.
 
2006-11-11 05:36:37 PM
If you are reading 9/11 conspiracy sites you NEED a psychiatric evaluation.
 
2006-11-11 05:39:09 PM
HowlingFrog: A Hearst "yellow journalism" publication? Of course not.

After a cursory skim through that link, I've never seen so much sidestepping of issues in my life. I've heard many claim the exact theories that PM refutes. And now they're claiming that's not what they said or meant? Come on.
 
2006-11-11 05:39:37 PM
also, how come conspiracy people never ever link to a "main stream" source?
 
2006-11-11 05:41:14 PM
Thanks to elchip and Rolling Stone for this one.

BUSH: So, what's the plan again?

CHENEY: Well, we need to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. So what we've decided to do is crash a whole bunch of remote-controlled planes into Wall Street and the Pentagon, say they're real hijacked commercial planes, and blame it on the towelheads; then we'll just blow up the buildings ourselves to make sure they actually fall down.

RUMSFELD: Right! And we'll make sure that some of the hijackers are agents of Saddam Hussein! That way we'll have no problem getting the public to buy the invasion.

CHENEY: No, Dick, we won't.

RUMSFELD: We won't?

CHENEY: No, that's too obvious. We'll make the hijackers Al Qaeda and then just imply a connection to Iraq.

RUMSFELD: But if we're just making up the whole thing, why not just put Saddam's fingerprints on the attack?

CHENEY: (sighing) It just has to be this way, Dick. Ups the ante, as it were. This way, we're not insulated if things go wrong in Iraq. Gives us incentive to get the invasion right the first time around.

BUSH: I'm a total idiot who can barely read, so I'll buy that. But I've got a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the Towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists already tried to blow up that building complex from the ground up once, why don't we just blow it up like we plan to anyway, and blame the bombs on the terrorists?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, you don't understand. It's much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves in the days before the attacks, plant the bombs and then make it look like it was exploding planes that brought the buildings down. That way, we involve more people in the plot, stand a much greater chance of being exposed and needlessly complicate everything!

CHENEY: Of course, just toppling the Twin Towers will never be enough. No one would give us the war mandate we need if we just blow up the Towers. Clearly, we also need to shoot a missile at a small corner of the Pentagon to create a mightily underpublicized additional symbol of international terrorism -- and then, obviously, we need to fake a plane crash in the middle of farking nowhere in rural Pennsylvania.

RUMSFELD: Yeah, it goes without saying that the level of public outrage will not be sufficient without that crash in the middle of farking nowhere.

CHENEY: And the Pentagon crash -- we'll have to do it in broad daylight and say it was a plane, even though it'll really be a cruise missile.

BUSH: Wait, why do we have to use a missile?

CHENEY: Because it's much easier to shoot a missile and say it was a plane. It's not easy to steer a real passenger plane into the Pentagon. Planes are hard to come by.

BUSH: But aren't we using two planes for the Twin Towers?

CHENEY: Mr. President, you're missing the point. With the Pentagon, we use a missile, and say it was a plane.

BUSH: Right, but I'm saying, why don't we just use a plane and say it was a plane? We'll be doing that with the Twin Towers, right?

CHENEY: Right, but in this case, we use a missile. (Throws hands up in frustration) Don, can you help me out here?

RUMSFELD: Mr. President, in Washington, we use a missile because it's sneakier that way. Using an actual plane would be too obvious, even though we'll be doing just that in New York.

BUSH: Oh, OK.

RUMSFELD: The other good thing about saying that it was a passenger jet is that that way, we have to invent a few hundred fictional victims and account for a nonexistent missing crew and plane. It's always better when you leave more cover story to invent, more legwork to do and more possible holes to investigate. Doubt, legwork and possible exposure -- you can't pull off any good conspiracy without them.

BUSH: You guys are brilliant! Because if there's one thing about Americans -- they won't let a president go to war without a damn good reason. How could we ever get the media, the corporate world and our military to endorse an invasion of a secular Iraqi state unless we faked an attack against New York at the hands of a bunch of Saudi religious radicals? Why, they'd never buy it. Look at how hard it was to get us into Vietnam, Iraq the last time, Kosovo?

CHENEY: Like pulling teeth!

RUMSFELD: Well, I'm sold on the idea. Let's call the Joint Chiefs, the FAA, the New York and Washington, D.C., fire departments, Rudy Giuliani, all three networks, the families of a thousand fictional airline victims, MI5, the FBI, FEMA, the NYPD, Larry Eagleburger, Osama bin Laden, Noam Chomsky and the fifty thousand other people we'll need to pull this off. There isn't a moment to lose!

BUSH: Don't forget to call all of those Wall Street hotshots who donated $100 million to our last campaign. They'll be thrilled to know that we'll be targeting them for execution as part of our thousand-tentacled modern-day bonehead Reichstag scheme! After all, if we're going to make martyrs -- why not make them out of our campaign paymasters? shiat, didn't the Merrill Lynch guys say they needed a refurbishing in their New York offices?

RUMSFELD: Oh, they'll get a refurbishing, all right. Just in time for the "Big Wedding"!

ALL THREE: (cackling) Mwah-hah-hah!
 
2006-11-11 05:41:39 PM
log_jammin: also, how come conspiracy people never ever link to a "main stream" source?

*blinks* The answer to this question isn't blindingly obvious? If a conspiracy were to exist, ipso facto it wouldn't be a matter of public knowledge...
 
2006-11-11 05:42:22 PM
I read the kids write up - and it appears he's been problematic before. The issue is that the kid 'won't stay on task' - little was mentioned in the write up of the appropriateness of the material. The kid got busted surfing when the teacher was trying to herd the little dweebs into using whitehouse.gov. That's an excellent starting place, btw - for anyone looking up gov info. When I first started on the net in 96 or so - it was priceless.

The issue I have with this is that I am not seeing where the teachers are qualified to intercede as shrinks. I have heard about stuff like this - and I am curious as to what defense they have for it. It's one thing to state that your pet kid has issues staying on task, is a pain in the ass - it's another to make the jump into clinical diagnosis, especially concerning a form of testing. Tests aren't worth shiat unless they are interpreted by a person who specializes in interpreting the results. So far as I know psyche training is not required for a teaching certificate.

So I am with the dad on this one - I would not allow a kid to take a test like that unless it was specifically with a person who was qualified to interpret the results, and explain the procedure in detail. I don't give a fark if that test was concocted by Dr. Phil himself (or insert your face celebrity shrink). It's not worth shiat unless Dr. Phil explains what the fark is going on, and I am sorry, but an answer key is not going to cut it.
 
2006-11-11 05:43:39 PM
This is a great idea.

In fact it doesn't go far enough.

Commit all conspiracy theorists to a mental institution.
 
2006-11-11 05:44:34 PM
outback_rebel: controlled demolitions start from the bottom and go up, when the twin towers did the opposite.

And Building 7?
The 47 story building that wasn't hit by a plane?
 
2006-11-11 05:45:16 PM
czarangelus If a conspiracy were to exist, ipso facto it wouldn't be a matter of public knowledge...

Yet the "conspiracy" is always figured out by the public....
 
2006-11-11 05:45:30 PM
HowlingFrog: And Building 7?
The 47 story building that wasn't hit by a plane?


Seismic shock from the other towers falling?
 
2006-11-11 05:46:16 PM
HowlingFrog: The 47 story building that wasn't hit by a plane?

*sigh*

You know it was hit by a shiatload of debris. You know that it was on fire. And you know that the firefighters were told not to risk anymore and to just let the building burn. Nobody was surprised when it ultimately collapsed.
 
2006-11-11 05:46:22 PM
czarangelus

And I meant for their so called facts.
 
2006-11-11 05:48:34 PM
outback_rebel: controlled demolitions start from the bottom and go up, when the twin towers did the opposite.

And Building 7?


And what he said? what does that have to do with building 7?
 
2006-11-11 05:48:38 PM
HOWLING FROG:

you haven't watched TV in 11 years? you're killing me, guy. i work in TV in LA.

a few of the highlights you missed:

JR shot himself.

Dan Rather was "Deep Throat".

Ross Perot was revealed to be an escaped Keebler elf

And the Berlin Wall never actually came down! It was extended all the way around the USA by a secret cabal of Erisian Lesbians led by Pamela Anderson.

Now that's a conspiracy I can get on top of!

//types in this message with one hand...
 
2006-11-11 06:00:32 PM
If it was the combination of the impact of the planes and burning jet fuel that weakened the steel in towers 1 and 2 causing both to collapse; then how did building 7, which wasn't hit by a plane, and wasn't filled with the jet fuel (most of which burned up in the fireballs outside the towers) collapse?
 
2006-11-11 06:01:26 PM
Ok. I've made a text file on my computer now for these occasions. This is ONLY concerning the 9|11 attacks *:

Here. Copy/paste this link and turn up the volume. If this doesn't prove that fully fueled jet airliners flying at 500 mph could not cause structural damage, then you might need some professional help.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0Qu6eyyr4c

No tickers, no slow motion, no announcers and no seismographs. Just pure, real, unedited and raw footage. REAL. As in REALITY. Something you and others here severely lack in your lives.

Now about WTC 7 and the term "pull". Listen carefully to the firemen in the video speaking to each other. One says, "It's hotter than Hell in there -" and the other fireman replies, "That's why HE PULLED EVERYBODY OUT OF THERE.". Then another fireman says, "That's definitely 50 stories, it could definitely reach us from here.". What he means is the debris from the eventual collapse of the building. The firemen and Silverstein realized it was going to collapse and "pulled" the operation ("it").

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYlVmTHjHe8

Need evidence from a professional group? How about the Purdue Civil Engineering and Science Professors simulating jets colliding with Pentagon & World Trade Center.

Link to article...

http://www.physorg.com/news77212675.html

Links to the research material, images and simulation videos of the WTC and the Pentagon attacks...

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/

And for 9|11 reading, here are some PDFs online and a new book:

"Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories, Volume 1, Issue 1"
http://www.jod911.com/

/do you need any more proof?
/let. it. go.

* As for political/corporate world domination, that's a whole other ball of shiat.
 
2006-11-11 06:02:03 PM
czarangelus: Seismic shock from the other towers falling?

A relatively minor shock, according to the seismic charts. And it only affected one building?

untrustworthy: You know it was hit by a shiatload of debris.

The buildings directly underneath the towers were practically buried in it. But they did not collapse. Speaking of debris, how do steel beams weighing many tons get shot out horizontally 500 feet and more? They were sticking out of buildings. I thought gravity made things fall straight down?

You know that it was on fire.

Yeah. And the only "proof" of that the extent of those fires was anything more than a few relatively small fires burning on two floors is a photograph showing mostly smoke. Look at any of the available video clips of the building collapsing. They don't show anything even vaguely resembling a "towering inferno".

Nobody was surprised when it ultimately collapsed.

Weren't they? Then why was FEMA unable to answer the question of why it collapsed? Why did the Kean Commission have no answers? Why was the NIST photo which seems to show structural damage to the building unknown to them?
 
2006-11-11 06:02:52 PM
czarangelus
"Right, that's exactly what the government, big corporations et al want you to do. Channel your energy into mundane, materialistic pursuits so you don't see the rotten superstructure holding it all together."

You do have a point there Mr. Durdin...

/no seriously, you do
//still wont stop me from watching 'the office'
 
2006-11-11 06:04:31 PM
Question: Why do people still bother using facts and logic when talking to the likes of HowlingFrog? Why not just dismiss him as the crackpot he is and move on?

/Insert him accusing me of being a shill
//Full time college student at CPSU - wouldn't mind being a shill
///More money for more slashies?
 
2006-11-11 06:06:31 PM
You guys know that Tesla had a box he could use to bring down buildings, right? It was portable and hand-cranked and all.

I could imagine that being slightly more powerful and easier to target at todays modern skyscrapers, considering its had 100 years worth of improvement time ..
 
2006-11-11 06:07:44 PM
HowlingFrog: And Building 7?
The 47 story building that wasn't hit by a plane?



WTC7? That plane wasn't hit by debris, not at all. Why, it was in perfect condition, and it just fell down. Conspiracy I tell ya, conspiracy! Why, the government just snuck in a team of demolitionists, did the world's fastest wiring job ever, snuck back out without anybody---

I'm sorry, I just couldn't do it anymore.

img9.imagepile.net
img9.imagepile.net

If you wanna be a retard, that's your business, but don't bullshiat about stuff you know nothing about.
 
2006-11-11 06:12:34 PM
HowlingFrog: The buildings directly underneath the towers were practically buried in it. But they did not collapse. Speaking of debris, how do steel beams weighing many tons get shot out horizontally 500 feet and more? They were sticking out of buildings. I thought gravity made things fall straight down?

If buildings fell straight down, even in actual controlled collapses, there would be no reason to clear the area surrounding them. And to your point about the debris field:

home.comcast.net

Look at the damage to those other buildings. They were considered to be extremely damaged and on the verge of collapse.

Yeah. And the only "proof" of that the extent of those fires was anything more than a few relatively small fires burning on two floors is a photograph showing mostly smoke. Look at any of the available video clips of the building collapsing. They don't show anything even vaguely resembling a "towering inferno".

A building structured like WTC 7 doesn't need to be a towering inferno to collapse. All it needs is to compromise some critical support structures and it can come down like a house of cards.

Weren't they? Then why was FEMA unable to answer the question of why it collapsed? Why did the Kean Commission have no answers? Why was the NIST photo which seems to show structural damage to the building unknown to them?

Because FEMA was run by a bunch of morons? Haven't we realized this by now?
 
2006-11-11 06:13:51 PM

"Proof" that burning kerosene can't bring down a steel building...

img168.imageshack.us


This is all you need to see to know what you are dealing with when dealing with CT's in general.
 
2006-11-11 06:17:42 PM
The American high school system has become a place of indoctrination, not education.

Who's really surprised by this bullshiat?
 
2006-11-11 06:18:08 PM
OMG CONSIPRAZY

Student was assigned to reasearch the whitehouse, instead researches conspiracy theories. Not an aggregious offense, but when a conservative Texas administrator catches him he decides to be a dick about it.

A teacher being an asshole? Someone call Alex Jones!
 
2006-11-11 06:19:16 PM
TheCid: The American high school system has become a place of indoctrination, not education.

Who's really surprised by this bullshiat?


A 10-year-old in high school?
 
2006-11-11 06:19:47 PM
nesler: I'm sorry, I just couldn't do it anymore.

I see smoke. Not a towering inferno, with flames leaping from the windows. Look at a video clip of the actual collapse some time.

If you wanna be a retard, that's your business, but don't bullshiat about stuff you know nothing about.

Likewise.

Off to do some fishing; be back later this PM.
 
2006-11-11 06:21:48 PM
HowlingFrog: I see smoke. Not a towering inferno, with flames leaping from the windows. Look at a video clip of the actual collapse some time.

Why would you skip my response which addressed this?
 
2006-11-11 06:22:16 PM
Radioactive Ass: This is all you need to see to know what you are dealing with when dealing with CT's in general.

That's all you need to see to know what you are dealing with when dealing with idiots in general. That dumbass isn't representative of all theorists.
 
2006-11-11 06:22:49 PM
HowlingFrog: Look at a video clip of the actual collapse some time.

Show me one shot from the severely damaged (south) side.
 
2006-11-11 06:26:54 PM
img360.imageshack.us


The building that was not hit by an airplane. I wonder where that big gouged out section came from?
 
2006-11-11 06:33:48 PM
HowlingFrog: I see smoke. Not a towering inferno, with flames leaping from the windows.

When you have a lot of dust, office materials, etc, you're going to get a lot of smoke, but not necessarily huge flames. That definitely doesn't preclude the generation of a lot of heat.

img9.imagepile.net

Also having major damage to the very bottom floors doesn't help either.
 
2006-11-11 06:54:45 PM
Wow, all these people who know so much!

So, ummm, where's Osama?

How come we keep forgetting about him.
 
2006-11-11 07:05:29 PM
Mrs. Manson - Now, Dora, let's see if you can make up a story as vivid as your sister's.
Daria - It's Daria.
Mrs. Manson - I'm sorry... Daria. What do you see in the picture, Dara?
Daria - Um... a herd of beautiful wild ponies running free across the plains.
Mrs. Manson - Uh, there aren't any ponies. It's two people.
Daria - Last time I took one of these tests they told me they were clouds. They said they could be whatever I wanted.
Mrs. Manson - That's a different test, dear. In this test, they're people and you tell me what they're discussing.
Daria - Oh... I see. All right, then. It's a guy and a girl and they're discussing... a herd of beautiful wild ponies running free across the plains.

la la la la la...
 
2006-11-11 07:08:51 PM
machoprogrammer: Thanks to elchip and Rolling Stone for this one.

That's hilarious.
 
2006-11-11 07:25:14 PM
Was it this kid?


img99.imageshack.us

/DRTFA
 
2006-11-11 07:26:10 PM
9/11 never happened. it was just a deleted scene from the new Denzel Washington movie.

//what were Gavrilo Princip's last words?

"Archduke sucks"...

///mixes more koolaid...
 
2006-11-11 07:28:24 PM
www.123pichosting.com

That's where building 7 was in the red circle. And those are standing buildings all around it.
 
2006-11-11 07:34:30 PM
one thing we can agree on. 9/11 DID happen. and it changed our world forever. score one for the Neo-Caliphate. next the Neo-Cons had their chance, but couldn't deliver on their promises, hence last Tuesday. Now the Dems gotta prove they can lead, while the neo-cons lick their wounds muttering, "just wait til they hit us again, you'll be begging for us!"

so it goes

//drinks koolaid. "minty fresh!"
 
2006-11-11 07:39:26 PM
knucklepopper:

makes the best point. still gotta get the main puppy Osama boy. none of this is over until he's either dead or in custody.

//not a pro-war guy, but, hey, shiat happens.

///hemlock leaving a bitter aftertaste...
 
2006-11-11 07:52:43 PM
Osama? I thought he was still dead.
 
2006-11-11 07:53:16 PM
look, you conspiracy nut-jobs, it's like my man K-Rove says:

you've got your facts, and i've got mine.

/found mine in bottom of beer glass
 
2006-11-11 08:21:08 PM
Odd that this story appears nowhere in the mainstream media, but only on a website offering "The History of Government-Sponsored Terrorism"

Why do I think there's either a lot more or a lot less to this story than the article is telling us?
 
Displayed 50 of 173 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report