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 01:44:59 PM  
Coming late to the party.

Any firefighters in the thread?
 
2007-04-11 01:45:40 PM  
THIS cow isdefinitely NOT okay!
 
2007-04-11 01:45:40 PM  
***
They bear resemblance to another particularly virulent conspiracy nut -- the Holocaust denier.
***

Except that with the Holocaust evidence, detailed and numerous, was left behind. With the WTC destruction all possible evidence was, you know, destroyed.

And, hey, the feds KNEW that Iraq had WMDs. They MUST have known about 9/11 in advance, too!

/yeah, they did let it happen
//Downing Street memo says what
 
2007-04-11 01:45:40 PM  
cryptozoophiliac


And this is the crux of the matter. That steel was evidence at a crime scene. A murder case was magically transformed in to a political resurrection for Bush and Giuliani, not to mention an economic resurrection for defense industries, and an excuse to invade whomever.


They were looking for survivors and bodies you schmuck. All that crap, debris & steel, needed to be shifted and moved in order to do that. Chunks of steel, I-Beams and rebar, as well as concrete were cut in order to facilitate removal (into smaller, more manageable, pieces).
 
2007-04-11 01:45:51 PM  
The only conspiracy is the conspiracy theories themselves.

When a newfangled & highly classified spy ballon used to track Russian atomic tests in the 1940's crashed at Roswell, New Mexico the government was more than happy to let people believe it was a UFO. Because the truth was much more damaging.

In this case, the government is more than happy to let a few nutjobs believe it was a conspiracy, because the truth (complete government incompetence) is far more damaging.

And it steers the debate away from real issues, and into the realm of the absurd. And for that, the Bushies are thankful for the "9/11 truthers".
 
2007-04-11 01:46:07 PM  
Bill_Wick's_Friend: 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.

Ooh, that sounds like a fun read!
Links, please.
 
2007-04-11 01:46:12 PM  
Hey! Y'all remember Rosie in "The Flintstones" movie?
Good times
 
2007-04-11 01:46:21 PM  
lots of coincidences surrounding 9/11

over 200 of them
 
2007-04-11 01:46:24 PM  
Doggie McNugget: I'm always a bit confused when people say that the WTC 7 collapsing by controlled demolition is a 'conspiracy theory' when the FREAKING OWNER OF THE BUILDING WAS FILMED SAYING THE FIRE DEPARTMENT PULLED IT.

Oh Jesus Christ.
 
2007-04-11 01:46:25 PM  
Z_since_1516,
Okay, I'm feeling kind of nappy
 
2007-04-11 01:46:35 PM  
I encourage free thought as much as the next guy, but some of these theories are just out there.

Just goes to prove how the Nigerian Money Scams keep working, people like you conspiracy theorists.
 
2007-04-11 01:46:35 PM  
Dasboot: that's been my underlying argument for years aboot various conspiracy theories. the same people that say it's a conspiracy call Bush and the administration idiots. You can't have it both ways. They can't be completely stupid and incompetent, and yet totally capable of pulling off covert operations like a 9/11 without being exposed somehow.

You can have it both ways if you propose that they contracted the job out to people who could do it competently. If the president himself were involved in any way, it would likely be no more than someone coming to him saying, "We want to do this because..." and then W says, "okay, whatever."

Not that I'm proposing that's what happened. Not at all. My view is that there's no doubt in my mind that there are people in high government positions who would be capable, both ethically and in terms of having the necessary connections, to be able to pick up a phone and order attacks like 9/11 launched if they thought it would suit their purposes. I just don't see any reason to think it happened that way.

I do, however, see the administration using the attacks as an excuse for various laws and policies that don't necessarily work to the public's benefit, but I think it's opportunism. They could accomplish the same thing through other, less drastic means if they wanted.
 
2007-04-11 01:46:47 PM  
Dancin_In_Anson


Coming late to the party.

Any firefighters in the thread?


Probably too busy getting a kick out of these replies to respond.
 
2007-04-11 01:46:57 PM  
i would pay $1,000 to see her burned
 
2007-04-11 01:47:02 PM  
OMFG!! There are actually morons who think that this is a conspiracy?? People! This gave GWB a reason to go to war. He was going to wage war with Iraq either way, but just sped things up.

Enough about the conspiracy. It makes you all sound likes idiots.
 
2007-04-11 01:47:13 PM  
I'm always a bit confused when people say that the WTC 7 collapsing by controlled demolition is a 'conspiracy theory' when the FREAKING OWNER OF THE BUILDING WAS FILMED SAYING THE FIRE DEPARTMENT PULLED IT

that statement has been appropriately explained in context so many fricking times you can't help to have heard it if you had been doing any research.

elchip, want to take this one?
 
2007-04-11 01:47:23 PM  
"Again, evidence is no longer necessary, nor is criminal procedure. Haven't you been paying attention?"

Yeah, you're right. Evidence is key. So where is the evicence that our government had anything to do with this?

/sorry, but our government is still more trustworthy than Rosie O'Donnell
 
2007-04-11 01:47:39 PM  
DROxINxTHExWIND: molten metal which burned and smoldered under the building for months after the murder.

Have you ever heard of a blast furnace?

Now, isn't this supposed to be a raging inferno?

No, because you don't need a raging inferno to weaken steel. But we do know it got pretty farking hot because of the 9/11 calls from people above the impact zone and their complaints about the extremely high temperature.
 
2007-04-11 01:47:51 PM  
Doggie McNugget

I'm always a bit confused when people say that the WTC 7 collapsing by controlled demolition is a 'conspiracy theory' when the FREAKING OWNER OF THE BUILDING WAS FILMED SAYING THE FIRE DEPARTMENT PULLED IT.


...because we all know it is a common fire department practice to demolish large buildings that are on fire. I mean, we saw their demolitions equipment brought onto the scene, into the building, and then they 'pulled it' down. It's obvious. Those who claim that the fire department used the term "pull" to imply that all personnel should be "pulled from the building" are the insane kooks, why would they do anything so illogical?
 
2007-04-11 01:47:54 PM  
that must be one big ass duck.
 
2007-04-11 01:48:09 PM  
szmike: Probably too busy getting a kick out of these replies to respond.


Prolly. But I wanted to ask anyway.
 
2007-04-11 01:48:35 PM  
Dancin_In_Anson: Any firefighters in the thread?

looking for sexy pics?
 
2007-04-11 01:48:42 PM  
I would like to mention that she has not been sanctioned by the government for her views. Not by a whit.
 
2007-04-11 01:48:42 PM  
Jesus Christ you people are all completely insane.

Rosie is a tard. As are all you conspiracy nuts IMHO.
 
2007-04-11 01:48:44 PM  
Got that, UNTRUSTWORTHY? Khalid Sheik Mohammed: NO TRIAL. No evidence necessary, just the word of the government will do these days.

So yeah, you're exactly right. The proper authorities looked in to it, look no further here. The same gang that no longer feels that habeas corpus, right to trial etc. are necessary.
 
2007-04-11 01:48:49 PM  
2007-04-11 01:43:40 PM untrustworthy


cryptozoophiliac: Um....I believe FEMA was put in charge of the crime scene, and the steel sold off as scrap to China.

Yeah, after it was analyzed and the debris was investigated. So what's the problem?

======================================================

Investigated?? They barely investigated the act itself. Name another murder scene where the evidence was demolished and thrown onto a truck by volunteers before an investigator looked at it?
 
2007-04-11 01:49:02 PM  
The lunar rover strapped to the side of and folded up against the landing module:

abyss.uoregon.edu
 
2007-04-11 01:49:53 PM  
BackAssward:
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).


I hope you were being sarcastic, but if you were not:

1, Modern airliners have very little steel in them. They use Aircraft grade Aluminum and alloys of aluminum, magnesium and titanium in most cases. These metals are light and provide similar strength to steel, with much greater flexibility (ever seen the wing on a 737 during turbulence? Amazing.).

2, Most airliner crashes occur at very low speeds (less than 120 knots), because they happen during takeoff and landing. The few airliners that crash into mountains usually don't have much structure left. IIRC, Flight 93 was not much more than a smoking crater in the ground. Most of the airframe had burned away. Aluminum tends to burn at high temperatures, like magnesium.

3, The building would have constrained the resulting fireball, allowing more fuel to remain in the area to burn, rather than dispersing into the air.

\feeding the flames of trolldom
\\feeling somewhat ashamed
 
2007-04-11 01:49:53 PM  
Yeah, yeah, the 'pull it' meaning. We'll leave the expert semanticians to fight that one out.
 
2007-04-11 01:50:20 PM  
I'm the guy who works for the government who planned 9/11 and I'm really getting a kick out of these comments.
 
2007-04-11 01:50:25 PM  
And spoons made her fat!
 
2007-04-11 01:50:32 PM  
elchip:
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.

To me this is the biggest argument against implosion. Taking down a building is an engineering feat, an incredible complex engineering feat. You can't do it without anyone noticing. It just can't be done.
 
2007-04-11 01:50:36 PM  
So is anyone bothered by the fact that although the Pentagon billed us trillions of dollars to provide for our defense, they failed utterly to defend us on 9/11? Apparently they were so incompetent that even when the whole world knew that we were under attack via hijacked aircraft, the Air Force couldn't be bothered to defend the airspace over the Capitol and left their own home base wide open to attack. Isn't it just a trifle bothersome that no one was ever held accountable for this egregious failure?

Who the hell planned the training exercises that were apparently so all-encompassing as to leave the entire nation defenseless? What are the odds that such an exercise would take place the very day the hijackers struck and how come the Pentagon couldn't call off the war games within two minutes of the second plane'shiatting the Towers? It would be another half an hour before a third plane struck the Pentagon and yet we're supposed to believe that it was unavoidable because the USAF was caught totally unawares.
 
2007-04-11 01:50:45 PM  
The only thing that was covered up was the fact that this building didn't live up to it's design specs and building code. I believe the building was originally designed for the steel to last at least 30 minutes before failure. It didn't. Someone cut corners to save a buck in it's construction. Those are the people who should have been investigated.

BTW My brother, a structural engineer investigated this.
One of his projects was the Torch Bridge at the Olympics in Atlanta.
 
2007-04-11 01:50:47 PM  
Doggie McNugget
Hobodeluxe


As per my post above, credentials please.
 
2007-04-11 01:50:52 PM  
Headso: looking for sexy pics?

www.thebravest.com
 
2007-04-11 01:50:53 PM  
DROxINxTHExWIND


LOL. No, I did not say that it took the steel to MELT for the buildings to collapse. Those are the words you put in my mouth. The reason that MELTED METAL is even an issue is because of the molten metal which burned and smoldered under the building for months after the murder. STFY with the 'structural integrity' argument. We get it. Now, YOU help me to understand what the fark was burning for weeks.


Ever seen a structural fire that was allowed to burn itself out (the house/building being a lost cause)? Even after the collapse the heat within the rubble is usually fairly instense as the fire smolders, feeding on the last remenants of that which can be burned. Considering the sheer amount of material involved, creating a tremendous debris pile, which would insulate or capture any heat and prevent dissipation, I have no doubt that it would be pretty farking hot at the bottom for a long period of time. Considering the metals involved, such as compromised steel, jet fuel, aluminium from the planes, and various office materials, I can't say that the result is impossible or even unlikely.
 
2007-04-11 01:50:54 PM  
BackAssward: 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.


Maybe not a nut-job, but you are leaning towards lazy. Just because you cannot find something on Google in five seconds doesn't mean you are automatically asking an intelligent question. Maybe in ten years when Google is implanting chips into our brains, but until then, put some more effort into it.

Given their relative size and my understanding of engineering, I cannot see it mounter to the side. The lander is obviously made to be relatively balanced from side to side, the lander would shift it's center of gravity to the extent it would have made landing quite impossible... this is also why it couldn't be mounted underneath (it would obstruct the rocket).

It was folded in half and carried in the quad 1 cargo bay, to be balanced out by equipment mounted on the other side of the lander. Here's how it deployed (from the original Boeing manual): (pops)

farm1.static.flickr.com

If you have other questions, go here first:

Apollo Lunar Surface Journal (pops)

Which will give you video, PDF scans of original documentation, engineering schematics, and pretty much the answer to every question you could probably dream up.
 
2007-04-11 01:50:55 PM  
I was on flight 93.

..told not to talk

gotta go.
 
2007-04-11 01:50:55 PM  
What do you burn apart from witches?
More witches!
 
2007-04-11 01:51:14 PM  
tylerdurden217: Enough about the conspiracy. It makes you all sound likes idiots.

Thread over.

You have humbles us sir with your obvious intellect and superiority in wisdom. Your blanket statements are obviously true to everyone present (thus not requiring proof in spite of the lack of logic in the *conventional* sense). You in no way come off as an idiot nor a douchbag.

Thank you for showing us the way.
 
2007-04-11 01:51:15 PM  
Why would anyone care what that arrogant bull dyke thinks?

What The View fails to realize is that alot of their audience is lower educated, red state, redneck, bible belt conservatives who are not going to have much appetite for her obnoxious drivel.

Ratings tank, she's out, 6 months tops if she keeps going like this.
 
2007-04-11 01:51:56 PM  
DAMN! I always miss the 9/11 conspiracy threads.

My question is...

If there were charges placed in the Twin Towers and WTC 7 to take them down, what proof is there that it wasn't Al Qaeda that planted them?
 
2007-04-11 01:51:59 PM  
Too many people pay way too much attention to television.

/never seen The View
//not a tv hater btw.
 
2007-04-11 01:52:06 PM  
9/11 'inside job' conspiracy theories = Oklahoma Federal Building bombing 'inside job' conspiracy theories

They're all moronic

/Build a bridge out of her.
 
2007-04-11 01:52:13 PM  
Yeah, anyone who thinks the government might just be corrupt enough to allow this type of evil must also believe that the moon landing was fake, Diana was murdered, alien bodies are buried at Roswell, Jesus spawned the ruling classes of Europe, the Masons and Rothschilds rule the planet, and fossils were planted to test faith.

Got it.
 
2007-04-11 01:52:16 PM  
Where are the tin foil hat photos! I scrolled through this thread just to see the tin foil hats!
 
2007-04-11 01:52:24 PM  
9/11 conspiracists are on par with evolution deniers. Sad that both are fairly prevelant in our society.
 
2007-04-11 01:52:25 PM  
static.flickr.com
 
2007-04-11 01:52:33 PM  
anyone who thinks 911 was a conspiracy is a complete idiot. just like we never landed on the moon. why are morons allowed to live?
 
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
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  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