Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Yahoo)   Rosie O'Donnell thinks 9/11 was an inside job, which means she thinks the Holocaust didn't happen, which means she weighs as much as a duck, and therefore is made of wood and is a witch. Burn her   ( news.yahoo.com) divider line
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

22272 clicks; posted to Main » on 11 Apr 2007 at 1:07 PM (10 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1133 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Newest

 
2007-04-11 11:53:46 AM  
i now are you going to continue to flame me for having the nerve to question something that doesnt necessarily fit with the explanation

again, i'm not criticizing you for "questioning" the official version. i'm criticizing you for making crazy claims and not subsequently backing them up with evidence.

a person does not don the mantle of "freethinker" or "hero" because he "questions" the official story. every 9/11 truther uses that same argumentas a retort. it holds no water and does not advance the debate.
 
2007-04-11 11:54:02 AM  
albo i dont claim to have answers, i claim to believe that the full situation doesnt add up with the official explanation when you look at acouple of factors scientifically.

you want to tell me i'm not providing proof, my apologies i am not going to look for the accelleration for gravity through air, vs. the accelleration of gravity through concrete...

I'm not trying to argue its an inside job, i'm not trying to argue conspiracy theory, all i am saying is scientifically the event witnessed doesnt add up to the official explanation...

/hey lets go ride bikes
//ice cream!!
 
2007-04-11 11:58:29 AM  
i claim to believe that the full situation doesnt add up with the official explanation when you look at acouple of factors scientifically.

The people who actually work in the scientific fields of metallurgy, building demolition, engineering, physics and other related fields disagree with you. The criticism of their (peer reviewed) papers almost always boils down to ad hominem attacks (eg: 2007-04-11 11:29:52 AM) rather than attacking the science.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
 
2007-04-11 11:59:44 AM  
person does not don the mantle of "freethinker" or "hero" because he "questions" the official story. every 9/11 truther uses that same argumentas a retort. it holds no water and does not advance the debate.

how does it hold no water, have you done scale tests?

can you without a doubt and scientifically say that the official story covers everything?

can you cite specific examples where buildings have accellerated on collapse without the aide of explosives, thermite?

I can sit here and say two things, I may not have every right answer, i may not have the proof that you are asking for in every post, rather than just a discussion. I am sorry. I dont have any explanation for wtc 7, i dont have any idea if it was a conspiracy or not.. .but wtc 1&2, should not have collapsed. there are skyscrapers around the world that have burnt from 1-20 hours and the buildings didnt collapse, the frame was still left.. at the very least, if official story is true than the frame of the wtc buildings should have been left...


do i have evidence to back this up, no. do i have supporting links or witnesses, no. I dont have the time and resources too. But that doesnt make you telling me the official version is right, and w/o evidence i cant question it...

so if this is going to be a constant back and forth where your only reply is "i want proof" than you will be sadly disappointed. but if you cant discuss the possibility at the very least, then i know that talking to you isnt going to further anything...
 
2007-04-11 11:59:47 AM  
I can't wait to see the "confidential" documents when they finally come to light. If they ever come to light. I'm sitting on the fence, because I don't believe everything that is purported to have "officially occurred."

Am I crazy? Maybe. I tend to think we're all just a little crazy, united by one crazy website where we can offer our crazy, differing opinions.

I just want the truth. The whole truth. I don't think I'm asking for much.

/Cue all the Fark Structural Engineers telling me exactly how crazy I am for not believing the official story hook, line, and sinker.
 
2007-04-11 12:00:56 PM  
elchip

mathmatix: cite a photo and provide convincing evidence of thes extraordinary claim.

Umm, they were cutting down beams in the debris removal process.


Begone with you, and take your infernal "facts" and "logic" with you.

/what do we burn apart from witches?
//MORE WITCHES!!111!!!!!1!
 
2007-04-11 12:01:29 PM  
mathmatix: The tallest building ever imploded was less than half as tall as WTC7, and it took 12 people working over 24 days to install the explosives. You can't just strap a couple bombs on a few support beams and run off.
 
2007-04-11 12:03:40 PM  
well again, bill wick's friend thanks for providing that, i'll read up on it later...I dont claim to have the answers, i just claim that the official version doesnt cover it all. am i wrong, theres always a possibility i am always willing ot admit when i am wrong. is there a chance i am right, i honestly dont know or care. its what i think, and I am sure there are examples all across the world where a plane has hit a building, or a bomb went off or other, and the building collapsed in under two hours from initial impact(and under ten seconds from top to bottom)

dj4aces welcome to the last few posts directed at me...
 
2007-04-11 12:03:54 PM  
I dont have any explanation for wtc 7, i dont have any idea if it was a conspiracy or not.. .but wtc 1&2, should not have collapsed. there are skyscrapers around the world that have burnt from 1-20 hours and the buildings didnt collapse, the frame was still left.. at the very least, if official story is true than the frame of the wtc buildings should have been left...


Over and over and over these questions have been answered in various journals. I just posted a link to one which answers the questions of why WTC 1 and 2 collapsed.

Will you read it? Probably not. If you do you'll convince yourself that this (peer reviewed, dry, scientific) paper is wrong or that they're "in on it" or that they have missed the critical evidence that only "Loose Change"* and Alex Jones have been able to obtain.

Bra. Vo.

(*that'd be "Loose Change III", not to be confused with the first two releases which had to be re-cut to correct all the mistakes and blatant lies. And THEY are the more credible party in your opinion!??!?)
 
2007-04-11 12:04:56 PM  
mathmatix: wtc 1&2, should not have collapsed. there are skyscrapers around the world that have burnt from 1-20 hours and the buildings didnt collapse

Were the buildings constructed in the same way, with the same materials? Were they hit by Boeing 767s traveling at 500 miles per hour?

Furthermore, controlled demolitions cause the building to nicely implode, bottom on up, into its own footprint...

sunsite.utk.edu

This is neither bottom on up, nor is it nicely into its own footprint.
 
2007-04-11 12:06:11 PM  
2007-04-11 12:03:40 PM mathmatix


You posted a nice post like that 20 seconds before I posted snark and you make me look like a (bigger than i already am) jerk!??

It's a CONSPIRACY, I tells ya! Drew is in on it.
 
2007-04-11 12:06:18 PM  
TheConvincingSavant: Therein lies the true backwash of American society.

Given what you've said in the past on fark... if the democrats were in power when it happened, you'd probably been one of those in the backwash thinking it was an inside job by them.

/Not taking a point of view of the issue myself, just that statement.
 
2007-04-11 12:06:48 PM  
bill wick's friend

frankly that was uncalled for, i posted to you saying i would read it...

Will you read it? Probably not. If you do you'll convince yourself that this (peer reviewed, dry, scientific) paper is wrong or that they're "in on it" or that they have missed the critical evidence that only "Loose Change"* and Alex Jones have been able to obtain.



and for the record, alex jones is a farking nutball... and i've never seen loose change.
 
2007-04-11 12:08:31 PM  
bill wick's friend

thats the last time i show any compassion if you were lost in the tsunami or not....

/joking
//glad you were safe...
 
2007-04-11 12:08:39 PM  
but if you cant discuss the possibility at the very least, then i know that talking to you isnt going to further anything...

nobody will ever have all the answers. there are things about what happened that no one will know. but you keep bringing up issues and questions that have been studied and explained to the best scientific evidence and sources available. that these don't satisfy you, i guess we'll have to live with it.
 
2007-04-11 12:09:07 PM  
DNA Prototype
You are seriously gonna slap yourself when all of this finally comes to light.

mathmatix
I am not trying to be a tinfoil hatter, but the science does not equal to the event we witnessed.

Sure, as long as you totally avoid the concept of momentum and inertia. And of course, you have to have that hypothetical otherspace continuum where your explosives people could do a job that would require a VERY invasive placing of explosive with nobody noticing. The problem with the idiot theories out there, is that it would be amazingly harder to do it that way than to simply believe the science that tells you that weakened steel loses structural support, and that when umpteen zillion tons of crap hits something, it's going to move right now, not in a couple of seconds. The engineering has repeatedly been done showing that the buildings would have come down exactly as they did. But the one thing about arguing with the wackos, they've already decided what caused it, so minor details like science and fact aren't really going to change their opinion. They do serve the reassuring purpose of letting me know that no matter how insane I may be, there are people out there leagues beyond me.

mathmatix
provide convincing evidence of thes extraordinary claim.

Um, an out of focus picture of something, with absolutely no evidence to back up that it was a support beam, yeah, that's proof alright. Looking at it, it appears more to possibly be a secondary support (i.e. adding additional support to a structural feature) than any sort of main support, and possibly not a support structure at all, and the angle appears perfect for a beveled join to another beam forming a right angle. Take a look at your doorjams for examples of something like this.
 
2007-04-11 12:09:30 PM  
elchip

I admire your diligence. But as far as 9/11 moonbats are concerned: desire to believe it was a conspiracy > facts, science and logic. It's like that "whack-a-mole" photoshop that always appears when a certain Farker shows up for these threads. Smack down one of their theories, another one pops up.

/it's a streetlight
 
2007-04-11 12:10:36 PM  
idiot theories

thats fine, i didnt expect a respectful reply....
 
2007-04-11 12:11:43 PM  
Smack down one of their theories, another one pops up.

i miss the "no plane hit the pentagon" theory. i loved debating that. it seems to have been replaced with "wtc 7 was a controlled implosion" theory.

truthers are so fickle.
 
2007-04-11 12:17:12 PM  
elchip
Were the buildings constructed in the same way, with the same materials? Were they hit by Boeing 767s traveling at 500 miles per hour?

Damnit, are we on one of those "agree with each other" days again? I can never keep track....
 
2007-04-11 12:19:22 PM  
Wraithbane: when umpteen zillion tons of crap hits something, it's going to move right now

To clarify, there were 1.8 million tons of debris removed from the site. Assuming that just 1% of that weight was above the impact zone in a given tower, that's 18,000 tons ... or 36 million pounds of stuff slamming down all at once.
 
2007-04-11 12:20:55 PM  
Wraithbane: Damnit, are we on one of those "agree with each other" days again? I can never keep track....

Hey, batshiat crazy right-wingers and drooling drug-addled libtards can agree from time to time...
 
2007-04-11 12:35:06 PM  
albo: truthers are so fickle.

The evidence does not support a plane hitting the building, airplane grade steel would not vaporize from a crash (there are many crashed on public file and it never has).

The moon Landing was fakes, they lacked the technology to protect the astronauts from the radiation between the Earht and the moon. Also, the rockets on the lander would not be powerful enough to lift it off the moon (see the size of the moon lander's rockets vs. those of the Apollo rockets, compare to earths gravity vs. the moon's.), even if you add in the total mass difference, you're still under powered to leave the moon.
Also, how did they get the moon buggy there (I don't see any room for it on the lander)?

/Adjusts aluminium foil hat.
//You happy now?
 
2007-04-11 12:36:46 PM  
*were fakes
*was a fake
/whichever you prefer

*Earth
//Damn Hang over
 
2007-04-11 12:38:12 PM  
I don't buy into any of the 9/11 conspiracies but the one thing that gave me pause for a few seconds was the BBC video where they're talking about the collapse of WTC 7, going into pretty in depth detail about the building, while it's still standing in the background. Has there ever been an explanation for that?
 
2007-04-11 12:39:50 PM  
BackAssward: how did they get the moon buggy there

yeah, how did they get that damed thing up there?

googling now
 
2007-04-11 12:40:36 PM  
TikieAmdTorch

File footage. . . duh. I can make a video now showing WTC 1&2 standing tall, that doesn't mean they have secretly come back. . .
 
2007-04-11 12:44:51 PM  
Boojum2k: File footage. . . duh. I can make a video now showing WTC 1&2 standing tall, that doesn't mean they have secretly come back. . .


But it wasn't file footage. It's a woman in a live shot with the building behind her.
 
2007-04-11 12:48:18 PM  
i miss the "no plane hit the pentagon" theory.

I prefer the "no planes hit the WTC. it was all done with CGI and greenscreens" theory. For batshiat kookiness, you just can't beat denying what thousands of people in NYC witnessed live and which tens of millions more saw on live TV.
 
2007-04-11 12:49:49 PM  
TikiAndTorch: I don't buy into any of the 9/11 conspiracies but the one thing that gave me pause for a few seconds was the BBC video where they're talking about the collapse of WTC 7, going into pretty in depth detail about the building, while it's still standing in the background. Has there ever been an explanation for that?

The building was expected to collapse as nothing was being done to stop the fires or prevent further structural failings. It's like how people talk about a person who is in a coma and expected to die at any time. It's like they are already dead.
 
2007-04-11 12:51:49 PM  
TikiAndTorch
Possibilities, in order of probability:

1) You remember incorrectly
2) Someone mispoke
3) Not a live shot, and file footage
A(g_64, g_64) They were in on a conspiracy
 
2007-04-11 12:55:42 PM  
untrustworthy: The building was expected to collapse as nothing was being done to stop the fires or prevent further structural failings. It's like how people talk about a person who is in a coma and expected to die at any time. It's like they are already dead.


That's what I figured. I truly don't buy into any of the conspiracy theories and find a lot of them to be insulting not only to people's intelligence but to the people that died that day, especially the rescue workers. But the fact that this particular theory gave me pause for a few seconds made me realize how easy it could be for someone to get caught up in all the nonsense.
 
2007-04-11 12:56:02 PM  
TikiAndTorch: I don't buy into any of the 9/11 conspiracies but the one thing that gave me pause for a few seconds was the BBC video where they're talking about the collapse of WTC 7, going into pretty in depth detail about the building, while it's still standing in the background. Has there ever been an explanation for that?

Don't ask me, ask the BBC.
 
2007-04-11 12:56:56 PM  
Dasboot: yeah, how did they get that damed thing up there?

After this thought occurred to me, I was actually quite interested... (since I hadn't seen it mentioned in any tinfoil-hatter article). Since it hasn't been mentioned, I assumed the method was beyond reproach, however, I was unable to locate an answer using google.

The argument about the lander's thrusters being able to lift it off the moon hasn't been something I've seen mentioned either, but I cannot find a google on it one way or the other.


BTW everyone: It is possible to simply question something and expect a response, and not be a nut-job. At least (as you say) there have been responses to the WTC questions, but NASA's standing point to the moon landing is completely different. They say that anyone who questions that is a nutjob, period.
Answer the questions about how a layer of tin foil in the suits could stop the radiation that would be present on the moon (not atmosphere to stop it)?... no way, we will not answer you with science just dismiss you as a nutjob.

/Whenever people simply refuse to answer a non-nut-job inquiry and dismiss the question outright, it sets of my "something is farked up here" meter.
 
2007-04-11 01:00:46 PM  
TikiAndTorch: I truly don't buy into any of the conspiracy theories and find a lot of them to be insulting not only to people's intelligence but to the people that died that day, especially the rescue workers.

The fact that conspiracies are "insulting" shouldn't prevent people from looking for the truth. But the fact that the conspiracies are repeatedly proven wrong should clue some people in...
 
2007-04-11 01:03:22 PM  
BackAssward: /Whenever people simply refuse to answer a non-nut-job inquiry and dismiss the question outright, it sets of my "something is farked up here" meter.

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23feb_2.htm

They've been responding for forty years.
 
2007-04-11 01:03:40 PM  
TikiAndTorch: But the fact that this particular theory gave me pause for a few seconds made me realize how easy it could be for someone to get caught up in all the nonsense.

Virtually every time we have a traumatic event, particularly one caused by people, there are conspiracy theories. Think of the Kennedy assassination, Pearl Harbor, or even as far back as Lincoln's assassination. I think it's easier for people to deal with an event if they can believe that there are more sinister forces at work than the ones that actually caused the event.
 
2007-04-11 01:05:19 PM  
elchip: The fact that conspiracies are "insulting" shouldn't prevent people from looking for the truth. But the fact that the conspiracies are repeatedly proven wrong should clue some people in...

Certainly don't make the generalization though that all conspiracy theories are nutjob in nature. Conspiracies must exist to some degree (otherwise there wouldn't be a word for it nor people convicted of it in court... which there is and has been).

Theories that conspiracies exist cannot be refuted as a whole since conspiracies do exist. The number of them, their scope and subject matter involved is in question, but people do actually conspire to some degree in the reality we exist in. Just the other day I conspired with a co worker to perform a practical joke on another... a fourth co-worker looked in my eye and having recognized the look on my face said "I know what you are up to". His theory of my conspiracy was entirely correct.
 
2007-04-11 01:06:06 PM  
elchip: Don't ask me, ask the BBC.


Thanks! Good for them for putting out an explanation. It would have been very easy to just dismiss it.
 
2007-04-11 01:07:22 PM  
/Whenever people simply refuse to answer a non-nut-job inquiry and dismiss the question outright, it sets of my "something is farked up here" meter

a line can legitimately be drawn between a question and an idiotically stupid question. you can't expect us to treat every truther question as worthy of more than summary dismissal.

so many of them have already been proved false or misleading or based on wrong facts--and they'd know that if they simply did some basic research before they entered a thread and started throwing off opinions. don't we expect a least a little bit of that from posters here?
 
2007-04-11 01:07:40 PM  
BackAssward: Certainly don't make the generalization though that all conspiracy theories are nutjob in nature. Conspiracies must exist to some degree (otherwise there wouldn't be a word for it nor people convicted of it in court... which there is and has been).

Sorry, by "conspiracies" I was referring to 9/11 conspiracies that have been debunked.

TikiAndTorch: Thanks! Good for them for putting out an explanation. It would have been very easy to just dismiss it.

Yeah, I just noticed the forum at the bottom of that news article. Wow... lots of nutbars out there.
 
2007-04-11 01:08:57 PM  
Conspiracies must exist to some degree

9/11 was indeed a conspiracy. a conspiracy of 19 hijackers, OBl and his backers and lieutenants.
 
2007-04-11 01:08:58 PM  
jsnbase: They've been responding for forty years.

I've seen some response but surely not to all valid questions... they also don't respond to valid criticism of their response (valid questions stating that certain answers aren't scientifically valid just pandering to people who don't know better).

I have some criticisms of certain answers in the article, but this is hardly the forum for it (and I will likely be dismissed outright without consideration, that and you are not NASA).
 
2007-04-11 01:09:12 PM  
TikiAndTorch: That's what I figured. I truly don't buy into any of the conspiracy theories and find a lot of them to be insulting not only to people's intelligence but to the people that died that day, especially the rescue workers. But the fact that this particular theory gave me pause for a few seconds made me realize how easy it could be for someone to get caught up in all the nonsense.

Was it actually from 2001? Cause they did rebuild it already. But that was only so they had a pretense for removing all the evidence.
 
2007-04-11 01:10:27 PM  
BackAssward: Dasboot: yeah, how did they get that damed thing up there?

After this thought occurred to me, I was actually quite interested... (since I hadn't seen it mentioned in any tinfoil-hatter article).


I did some GIS and could not find any pics of the buggy mounted to the lunar lander, but apparently it was mounted to the outside and the astronauts detached it when they landed. I am sure there are pics or drawings somewhere.
 
2007-04-11 01:10:49 PM  
And now...lets take a moment...to reflect on a nugget of wisdom from Rosie O'Donnell's blog.

This clever little poem is titled "First Responders"

so many r dying
why doesnt bill o report on that
craig bartmer for one
 
2007-04-11 01:11:54 PM  
Subby, +1
 
2007-04-11 01:12:15 PM  
z.about.com

"Excuse me, white people? Can I have your attention for a minute? Ahem. Jesus was black, Ronald Reagan was the devil, and the Government is lying to you about 9/11."
 
2007-04-11 01:12:25 PM  
conspiring to cover up your colossal incompetence in preventing a terrorist attack is still a conspiracy...
 
2007-04-11 01:12:40 PM  
can I just say it already....

I blame it on her eating Bush!
 
Displayed 50 of 1133 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Newest



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report