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 02:06:11 PM  
Just because an event was very tragic does not mean that there aren't conspiracies behind it. It seems like a lot of folks are sayin, "How dare they say that! People died that day!"

I don't really have beliefs either way because (1) I already know the government is ridiculously corrupt and keeping things from us, and (2) I don't think we have much to fear from "the Terrorists".
 
2007-04-11 02:06:15 PM  

A recent poll from the Scripps Research Center found that more than a third of Americans believe that 9/11 was an "inside job."


Half the people in the country are of below average intelligence.
 
2007-04-11 02:06:23 PM  
cryptozoophiliac

You really are a one-trick pony arent you?

No "penetration of our military command and control center" occured, they hijacked civilian planes and turned off the farking transponders.
 
2007-04-11 02:06:32 PM  
better to question our actions in a post 9/11 world.
 
2007-04-11 02:06:34 PM  
Devin172: Let's also consider Occam's Razor for a second:

I'm not saying I don't believe that, nor am I saying I believe in the conspiracies. I am putting forth a platform of healthy skepticism, critical thinking, and investigating for ones self (as opposed to being told and accepting on face value). I put forth this platform on all things and encourzge others to do the same.

If I have questions and don't think the answers are valid, I keep pursuing them till satisfied, regardless of the outcome (my skepticism being validated or the original answer being right).


Not only is this healthy, it is necessary. I'll even ask a ridiculous question if only to engage someone in a debate, so that we can both grow (not instigating someone into a flame (though I do that sometimes with trolls), but encouraging a sharing of ideas).
 
2007-04-11 02:06:54 PM  
cryptozoophiliac: What cracks me up is that not a single person in any of these threads, or indeed anywhere else seems to show the slightest concern that our aeorspace defense was so easily penetrated, to the point of accessing the heart of our military command and control center.

There has been plenty of concern. But our air defense was set up to thwart an attack from outside our borders, not within it.

It's as if 9-11 now exists only to justify aggressive action abroad, rather than a rather shocking notice of how outdated and ineffectual our civilian defense sector was.

I think that conclusion is pretty obvious, and we most certainly do have to take measures to make sure our system is set up to protect us from a similar type of attack in the future. But the chances of it happening again are almost nothing.

Of course its all fixed now, thanks to the same geniuses who brought us the Iraq war, color coded terror warnings and the Kean Commission.

Again, this has absolutely no relevance to the topic at hand.

How'd the relatives of the 9-11 victims like that commission, by the way? I heard some were none too happy...

Another irrelevant point.
 
2007-04-11 02:07:06 PM  
excellent journalism. simply brilliant. pulitzer?
 
2007-04-11 02:07:19 PM  
cryptozoophiliac
How'd the relatives of the 9-11 victims like that commission, by the way? I heard some were none too happy..

some people weren't happy with the warren commission. that's always going to happen, some people like something and some don't. no surprise with this commission.
 
2007-04-11 02:07:21 PM  
DROxINxTHExWIND: But, 19 dunderheads who couldn't pass a flight class WERE able to pull it off, huh?

the flight part of the course is fairly simple...it's landing that they failed.
 
2007-04-11 02:07:37 PM  
Boojum2K: "You actually haven't shown squat this entire time, you've made loony assertions and demand that others accept them as facts. And when others have thoroughly debunked your crap, you switch to a different argument unrelated at all to the topic.

Next time, please wrap your face in tinfoil too. . . it'll make your posts more entertaining."

FACT: The alleged perpetrator of 9-11 confessed after years of confinement without a trial.

FACT: US air defenses were revealed to be pathetic on 9-11.

FACT: We are now at war forever thanks to an event that MUST NEVER BE QUESTIONED OR RE-EXAMINED.
 
2007-04-11 02:07:42 PM  
What cracks me up is that not a single person in any of these threads, or indeed anywhere else seems to show the slightest concern that our aeorspace defense was so easily penetrated, to the point of accessing the heart of our military command and control center.

we haven't had combat air patrols over the continental US or active Nike SAM sites since the early to mid cold war. and you think, even if we did, we could easily pick out which of the thousands of commercial airliners that are in the year over the US are going to be kamikazi attacks?

OBL found a weakness and exploited it. sort of putting up walls along teh coast and intercepting every airliner over the atlantic and pacific, we will have defense weaknesses
 
2007-04-11 02:07:43 PM  
jozzathewick: How did that happen? Did they catch fire in the lobby, or catch fire somewhere else and end up there?

There's testimony from the firefighters that a few elevator shafts had burning jet fuel coming down in such quantities that they were spraying fire from the lobby doors, and in the book "Last Man Down" the firefighter recalls an elevator opening in the lobby and burning people spilling out.
 
2007-04-11 02:08:06 PM  
Then did he raise on high the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, saying, "Bless this, O Lord, that with it thou mayst blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy." And the people did rejoice and did feast upon the lambs and toads and tree-sloths and fruit-bats and orangutans and breakfast cereals ... Now did the Lord say, "First thou pullest the Holy Pin. Then thou must count to three. Three shall be the number of the counting and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither shalt thou count two, excepting that thou then proceedeth to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the number of the counting, be reached, then lobbest thou the Holy Hand Grenade in the direction of thine foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it."
 
2007-04-11 02:08:09 PM  
Steven Zak is a Zionist whack job who will do some amazing mental acrobatics to pin the antisemitic tail on anyone or anything that does not join in on the lets-hate-Iran fiesta. He has a whole "writers portfolio" of impressively retarded material.
Do you have a friend of a friend of a friend that is Iranian? Steven Zak thinks your a Nazi. Thats pretty much it.
 
2007-04-11 02:08:21 PM  
untrustworthy [TotalFark]

durbnpoisn: If the show really does fire her for that, they are violating her right to free speech.

Tell me you're joking. Because otherwise, that is the dumbest statement I've heard all week.



I'm not joking.
The show specifically states that they are not responsible for what the cast on the show says. "The opinions expressed, bla bla bla..." So, legally speaking, they have no right to break her contract and fire her no matter what she says. Even if it is unbelievably stupid.
(Short of saying something that actually causes someone to get hurt, anyway...)

Besides... It's not like the network is going to suffer for it. Rosie is the one being made to look foolish. Not The View, and not the network.

If they fire her, she's got a case. It's a free speech issue.

I don't know why you think that was such a dumb comment.
 
2007-04-11 02:08:23 PM  

I remember reading about that cameraman who avoided filming the person on fire in the lobby of one of the WTC buildings (and I asked about it in that thread, too). How did that happen? Did they catch fire in the lobby, or catch fire somewhere else and end up there?

/don't have an theory, just curious. There's probably a reasonable explanation...


If I recall correctly, burning jet fuel poured down the elevator shafts setting the lobby on fire.
 
2007-04-11 02:08:33 PM  
2007-04-11 01:55:32 PM Mr.Churka

DROxINxTHExWIND

As far as the molten metal in the basement, the World trade center had more gold than Fort Knox. It just happens to melt at a far lower temperature than steel. I understand being suspicious of this government. They've black bagged people including US citizens, they've distorted the truth habitually and they've restored the image of government as fire. Useful tool, but dangerous master. When it comes to destroying the trade centers, to what point and purpose? To rally public support for the invasion of Afghanistan segueing to the invasion of Iraq? That's pretty shaky. We had plenty of reason to hit Iraq without the trade center. Clinton's outgoing intelligence people advised a hit against Afghanistan after the USS Cole anyway. Why hit the US economy?

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

First, I appreciate your tone.

Man, there are so many reasons that I don't know where to start. But, first we can go to the people who stood to benefit immediately:

During the 1990s, New York was suffering from the effects of Black Monday (1987) leading to high vacancy rates at the World Trade Center. George Pataki became governor of New York in 1995 on a campaign of cutting costs including privatizing the World Trade Center. A sale of the property was considered too complex, so it was decided by the Port Authority to open a 99-year lease to competitive bidding. [5]

In January 2001, Silverstein, via Silverstein Properties and Westfield America, made a $3.2 billion bid for the lease to the World Trade Center. Silverstein was outbid by $50 million by Vornado Realty, with Boston Properties and Brookfield Properties also competing for the lease. However, Vornado withdrew and Silverstein's bid for the lease to the World Trade Center was accepted on July 24, 2001, seven weeks before the buildings were destroyed in the September 11, 2001 attacks. This was the first time in the building's 31-year history that the complex had changed management...
Silverstein put up only $14 million of his own money [7]. Silverstein was also given the right to rebuild the structures, should they be destroyed.
Silverstein's lease with the Port Authority for the World Trade Center requires him to continue paying $102 million annually in base rent.[16] He is applying insurance payments toward the redevelopment of the World Trade Center site.


So, after making a $14 million downpayment (his money), he got the 'terrorist' to finance the demolition of buildings that were under code and would have required millions of dollars of refurbishments. Then, he got the insurance companies to pay the balance due for him. In effect, he got the WTC site for the price of his insurance policy.
 
2007-04-11 02:09:02 PM  
albo: Are you arguing with a straight face that the Pentagon had no SAMs?

Seriously?
 
2007-04-11 02:09:06 PM  
cryptozoophiliac: What cracks me up is that not a single person in any of these threads, or indeed anywhere else seems to show the slightest concern that our aeorspace defense was so easily penetrated, to the point of accessing the heart of our military command and control center.

You act as if someone flying a plane into a building in an effort to destroy it is a common occurrence. You don't have to "penetrate a defense" when you're a civilian plane. You act as if a bunch of MiGs flew in and we didn't catch them.

Yes, maybe they could have reacted earlier and taken out the last two planes, but they didn't. Maybe it was a lack of response, or maybe they didn't like the idea of killing American civilians. Either way, it's hardly a terrible failure of defense.
 
2007-04-11 02:09:28 PM  

The show specifically states that they are not responsible for what the cast on the show says. "The opinions expressed, bla bla bla..." So, legally speaking, they have no right to break her contract and fire her no matter what she says. Even if it is unbelievably stupid.


Unless there is a clause in her contract that says they can relieve her if they feel it is in the best interests of the show.

And I bet there is one...
 
2007-04-11 02:09:38 PM  
nashBridges: I didn't say you were a nutjob. I said that it's possible to be lazy about answering your own questions. In your case, I said you were leaning towards lazy because I didn't really have an idea of how much time you spent trying to answer your own questions.

Understood, however, the word leaning implies 'close to'. You perhaps would have made more sense with 'possibly lazy if you only spent 30 seconds doing a search'.

Cheeers, not worries, and all that jazz.
 
2007-04-11 02:09:50 PM  
Meko's Law of Conspiracy Theorists:

The individuals who advocate conspiracy are the individuals who are incapable of figuring things out for themselves.

Corollary:

If everyone knew proper physics and math, almost all conspiracies would cease to exist.
 
2007-04-11 02:10:13 PM  
dang, lost an </i> in there... preview would be my friend, I just never call him anymore.
 
2007-04-11 02:10:27 PM  
cryptozoophiliac


What cracks me up is that not a single person in any of these threads, or indeed anywhere else seems to show the slightest concern that our aeorspace defense was so easily penetrated, to the point of accessing the heart of our military command and control center.


You might want to, you know, educate yourself a little on exactly how the Air Force carries out domestic air defense.

At that time there were 7 Alert sites (meaning that planes are armed, fueled, manned, and warmed up & ready to fly on a moment's notice) each with a pair of fighters in the Continental United States. Of those, only 2 sites, Langley Air Force Base and Otis Air National Guard Base, were within range to deal with the events of 9/11.

NORAD, and the regional wing in question, NEADS, has control of radars sweeping outward. However, domestic radar coverage is provided, maintained, and monitored by the FAA not NORAD. Meaning that, once those planes were within our airspace, NORAD was relying on the various FAA Control Centers to provide tracking information to the Air Controller at NEADS (which would vector the fighters towards the aircraft in question).

Unfortunately, due to the structure of the FAA, the chaotic activity that day, the number of tracks in the sky, they ended up losing the airliners for various reasons. No one realized that American 11 had struck the WTC and instead the computer assigned its tag to another track which had fighters going off on a goose chase. All the while they are trying to seperate the hijacked planes from the thousands of other planes, which they are trying to get to landing zones.

Transcripts are available you know. Try reading them.
 
2007-04-11 02:10:27 PM  
durbnpoisn: If they fire her, she's got a case. It's a free speech issue.

The first amendment protects you from the government silencing you, not your private sector employer.
 
2007-04-11 02:10:36 PM  
Ah... I love it when the 9-11 conspiracy nuts get on. As an evangelical, conservative, creationist, pro-life Christian, I'm more than happy to be on the outside of a flamewar for a couple of minutes.

/Grabs a beer
//Sets up lawnchair
 
2007-04-11 02:10:36 PM  
I guess I'll say what I know everybody is thinking...

How can we blame black people for 9-11?
 
2007-04-11 02:10:41 PM  
"Oh, please shut up and go read the 9/11 report. Your ignorant rant is making you look dumber than you probably really are."

You know what, untrustworthy? "Shut up, dummy" is a weak argument. Please tell us why the government initially DECLINED to investigate 9/11 and only caved in after the victims' families lobbied Congress. Any time a commercial aircraft crashes with catastrophic loss of life, an investigation is launched immediately. Any time except 9/11, that is. Why did they wait 18 months to begin the investigation? And then why did they underfund it and impose a swift deadline? And if the explanation for the collapse of WTC 7 is so cut-and-dried, why did they omit all reference to it from their "Final Report?"
 
2007-04-11 02:10:46 PM  
cryptozoophiliac

FACT: We are now at war forever thanks to an event that MUST NEVER BE QUESTIONED OR RE-EXAMINED.

Hey, nice use of all caps.

No one is saying it can't "BE QUESTIONED OR RE-EXAMINED," it is just that most of the one's doing the questioning are complete basket cases, like you.
 
2007-04-11 02:10:51 PM  
Paedophile_Deluxe: Nice. Having the Pentagon successfully attacked was not a terrible defense failure.

It was a shining success.
 
2007-04-11 02:11:03 PM  

If they fire her, she's got a case. It's a free speech issue.

I don't know why you think that was such a dumb comment.


Because "free speech" protects your speech from the Government, not private entities like NBC.

You should read a book some time.
 
2007-04-11 02:11:06 PM  
There was a conspiracy to hijack airplanes and crash them into the WTC, the pentagon, and either the capital building or white house. Extensive planning helped carry out these attacks.

In a day and age where someone can sign a book deal and make $34 million ratting out silly things like steroids in baseball, do you honestly think that the largest conspiracy in the history of the world could be pulled off without one of the thousands of underpaid government workers who would have had to carry out this asinine plot speaking out?

Are you an idiot?

/sorry, I know it was a runon sentence. stupid people make me forget some aspects of human decency :)
 
2007-04-11 02:11:08 PM  
untrustworthy: There has been plenty of concern. But our air defense was set up to thwart an attack from outside our borders, not within it.

clearly that should give them a pass for not being able to intercept a commercial jetliner for almost an hour...
 
2007-04-11 02:11:14 PM  
So aside from one stupid "go read the 9-11 report", has anyone answered Picador's point yet? I've read the report and I still think it's a good question.

"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 02:11:58 PM  
albo: Are you arguing with a straight face that the Pentagon had no SAMs?

no. i specifically referred to nike sites, which were high-altitude sams focused on continental defense. pentagon probably has them, probably man-portable. but that building is so well built and large it would take a nuke to kill it anyway, and if it gets to that point a stinger ain't gonna help
 
2007-04-11 02:12:15 PM  
durbnpoisn: So, legally speaking, they have no right to break her contract and fire her no matter what she says. Even if it is unbelievably stupid.

If she becomes a liability to the show (which she has, IMO, even with it's pathetic standards) then they have every right to terminate her position.

Your right to free speech does not mean you have a right to have other provide you a platform to express it. If you come into my house and start spouting off some stupid shiat I don't like, I have every right to tell you to get the hell out.
 
2007-04-11 02:12:55 PM  
cryptozoophiliac: FACT: We are now at war forever thanks to an event that MUST NEVER BE QUESTIONED OR RE-EXAMINED.

Only questioned and Re-examined by a commission, various federal agencies, and you intrepid internet detectives, who somehow come to different conclusions than the other two. Of course, basing conclusions on 'questions' and 'assertions' and using the the war as justification after the fact is a rock-solid way to convince anyone.
 
2007-04-11 02:13:12 PM  
I agree that this was an inside job, but you are all missing the point. The WTC disaster was completely and wholly done by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. This is something we brought upon ourselves by not dressing like pirates.

/sarcasm
//nutbags
 
2007-04-11 02:13:14 PM  
Instead of the grand conspiracies that strain credulity, I often wonder if there wasn't a conspiracy of inaction from our government, where the Bush administration was aware that the attacks were going down, but decided to simply ignore the evidence found in the threat reports and just let things happen without interference from the FBI and CIA because an attack on US soil would give them the leeway they needed from the American people to pursue their military action against Iraq. Why engineer a huge complex conspiracy with remote controlled planes and controlled demolitions when all you have to do is just let things happen that are already in motion? It's still treason, but it is the kind of treason that Karl Rove could get behind since it is hard to prove that it wasn't just incompetence.
 
2007-04-11 02:13:49 PM  
A thread full of conspiracy nuts and wannabe demolition experts, metallurgists and firefighters flinging BS at each other based (mostly) on their imaginations and snippets of "facts" they pulled off of various websites. Comedy gold.

They need to greenlight stuff like this more often.
 
2007-04-11 02:14:07 PM  
dallashockey69: 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?

Who would cook the Big Macs?
 
2007-04-11 02:14:14 PM  
2007-04-11 02:04:01 PM elchip


DROxINxTHExWIND: "Pretty farking hot"?? Jesus, the bar gets lower and lower. Now, steel can be compromised when it gets "pretty farking hot".

Here's some numbers.

Steel loses 50% percent of its strength at 1200 degrees. That is well within the burning range of jet fuel, 800-1800 degrees depending on the conditions.

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

I don't know about you, but when I preheat the oven to 450 degrees and open the door, I can't stand it for more than a few seconds.

Those firefighters standing in the impact zone withstood temperatures hovering between 800 and 1800 degrees?
 
2007-04-11 02:14:26 PM  
cryptozoophiliac: Are you arguing with a straight face that the Pentagon had no SAMs?

It didn't have SAMs. The White House did though.

Headso: clearly that should give them a pass for not being able to intercept a commercial jetliner for almost an hour...

You have to know which aircraft is hijacked and where it is before you can intercept it. And they didn't know the location of any of the planes until after they were crashed.
 
2007-04-11 02:14:31 PM  
Well, what have we learned today.

1. Anyone questionind 9-11 is a lunatic moonbat.

2. The government, although caught lying in lots of other instances, did its job properly in investigating 9-11, and the Kean Commission covered it nicely.

3. We can trust that the interrogators of KSM did their job, and his confessions should be accepted in spite of a lack of trial or evidence presented against him publicly.

4. Lots of armchair warriors are now experts in structural engineering.

5. A successful attack on the Pentagon does not represent a natioal security failure.
 
2007-04-11 02:14:39 PM  
clearly that should give them a pass for not being able to intercept a commercial jetliner for almost an hour...

Apparently you think inept and murderous mean the same thing.

Nobody is arguing that everything our government touches is inefficient and lousy. That hardly proves malicious intent.
 
2007-04-11 02:14:40 PM  

Instead of the grand conspiracies that strain credulity, I often wonder if there wasn't a conspiracy of inaction from our government, where the Bush administration was aware that the attacks were going down, but decided to simply ignore the evidence found in the threat reports and just let things happen without interference from the FBI and CIA because an attack on US soil would give them the leeway they needed from the American people to pursue their military action against Iraq. Why engineer a huge complex conspiracy with remote controlled planes and controlled demolitions when all you have to do is just let things happen that are already in motion? It's still treason, but it is the kind of treason that Karl Rove could get behind since it is hard to prove that it wasn't just incompetence.


I am not saying I believe this is what happened, but I could see it.
 
2007-04-11 02:14:52 PM  
Dear Rosie and your kool-aid drinking friends, please die. Soon.
 
2007-04-11 02:14:59 PM  
cryptozoophiliac: What cracks me up is that not a single person in any of these threads, or indeed anywhere else seems to show the slightest concern that our aeorspace defense was so easily penetrated, to the point of accessing the heart of our military command and control center.

Perhaps you missed the whole reworking of civillian air travel post 911. The problem is, that isn't a plane that snuck in from communist russia, which we had planned for. The whole thing was over so fast there wasn't much that could be done. And even if there was, anyplace the plane went down in NYC would have caused a whole passel 'o death.

If I am not mistaken, there is precident. During the clinton years, a small aircraft actually crashed on the white house grounds. I think it came to rest actually touching the very White House itself. It bears mentioning that it was a white guy flying.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Eugene_Corder
 
2007-04-11 02:15:10 PM  
DROxINxTHExWIND


So, after making a $14 million downpayment (his money), he got the 'terrorist' to finance the demolition of buildings that were under code and would have required millions of dollars of refurbishments. Then, he got the insurance companies to pay the balance due for him. In effect, he got the WTC site for the price of his insurance policy.


The Insurance policy wasn't even formalized at the time. All Silverstein had was correspondence from a variety of Insurance & Reinsurance Companies offering their lines, and premium charges, for the WTC Agreement. If it was deliberate plan he would have waited for the ink to dry on the Agreement so it was iron clad, instead of having to launch legal actions to prove that 1) there was coverage (not clear since, at that time, electronic correspondence wasn't really viewed as binding) and 2) how much coverage there was.

Further, if he really wanted to do this on purpose, he would have clarified the "Event" issue...since that had a huge impact on his recovery. He asserted that each plane/tower was a seperate event, whereas the Insurance companies viewed each as part of the same plot/event. The net effect being he could recover twice as much under his interpretation than under theirs.
 
2007-04-11 02:15:16 PM  
untrustworthy: And they didn't know the location of any of the planes until after they were crashed.

why not?
 
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