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 | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | Newest

 
2007-04-11 02:42:50 PM  
indros

Sir Charles
why did you have to say that? look what you made me do.


I was had the compulsion to do the same exact thing. Luckily, you beat me to it.


Damn you, both.
 
2007-04-11 02:43:30 PM  
Rosie O'Donnell is fat, ugly and stupid. While I cannot confidently assert that the "truthers" are fat and ugly, I can postulate without hesitation that they are stupid! Also, the reason they are stupid might be attributable to the fact that their brains are easily swayed and manipulated. They are vulnerable because they lack confidence. They likely lack confidence because they are fat and ugly. So indeed, like Rosie, they may be not only stupid, but fat and ugly.
 
2007-04-11 02:43:41 PM  
Look at how many Americans started to think that the Kennedy assassination was a conspiracy after the movie JFK came out. That movie, much like Loose Change, contained too many factual errors to be taken seriously. Nonetheless many Americans called for the files to be opened up.

It was a farking MOVIE. One that was full of BS. The JFK assassination wasn't a cover-up. One man shot the president. Period.
 
2007-04-11 02:43:41 PM  
2007-04-11 02:32:21 PM mikaloyd
Are you in the right thread?


I tend to come in at the tail end of contentious threads and make snarky and sometimes non-sequitur observations, as a means of accentuating the entropic silliness and hastening the thread's devolution. It's sort of my modus operandi.

So yeah, I guess I am. But not for long, if you catch my drift.
 
2007-04-11 02:44:11 PM  
Have you ever heard of anyone putting so much lighter fluid on the charcoal that the fire burned right through the steel grill? Of course not, it doesn't work that way. The excess lighter fluid burns off with a huge whoosh. The fluid-soaked charcoal continues to burn slowly at a much lower temperature. And the steel grill remains intact. So it should have been with the Towers, if jet fuel were the only accelerant involved in their demise.

Excuse me, but jet fuel burns a whole hell of a lot hotter than lighter fluid in your BBQ grill. And there was a lot more in those office buildings than charcoal.

But other than that, good analogy!

/laff
 
2007-04-11 02:46:07 PM  
2007-04-11 02:40:48 PM epoc_tnac

well get ready too cope, since you had the nerve to try and logically and civilally(sp) lay it out like that someone will jump on it...

but good post, thats more or less where i am at right now. how can anyone just assume the official story is the truth? when we've had nothing but lies given to us for whatever the scandal du jour is ...
 
2007-04-11 02:46:26 PM  
untrustworthy: Sometimes our planning protects us, and sometimes they get through our safeguards anyway.

except there was little planning and the threats and warning were ignored and that is really why alot of people believe the government was involved...
 
2007-04-11 02:46:36 PM  
untrustworthy: You're full of shiat. The responding fighters didn't know the location of a single one of the hijacked planes until after they crashed.

Flight 93 wasn't dropping. It stood out. And that's when we shot it.
 
2007-04-11 02:46:43 PM  
2007-04-11 02:24:07 PM untrustworthy


Headso: it would seem using military radar one could easily locate the only jumbo jet in the sky without a transponder running?

At that point in history, the military didn't track civilian aircraft. They had to rely on the airline companies to relay information about their flights. Tracking one plane among thousands isn't easy at all, particularly when you are getting conflicting and confusing information from the people who are trying to figure out what is going on.
================================================

That point in history?? It was SIX YEARS AGO. You're saying that the military could not track planes in the airspace above Washington and New York 6 years ago??
 
2007-04-11 02:46:48 PM  
epoc_tnac: Most truthers don't claim to have the truth, they just wonder what was really behind the largest single attack of modern times. From the fall of the buildings, to the fact that the attack was carried off at all (difficult flight paths, the fact that they were allowed on the planes at all, the failiure to intercept the planes) and not forgetting the incredible coincidence that the guy we hold responsible for the attacks is a member of a family that has a close financial relationship with the family of the President, the consequences of the attacks and the people who stood to benefit most from them (security and heh, "defence" companies not to mention oil companies thanks to the 'failing' war in Iraq), something doesn't seem to add up.

There is so much stupid in this statement I don't even know where to start.
 
2007-04-11 02:46:56 PM  
Seriously, she needs to watch South Park. Matt & Trey cleared up the 9/11 conspiracy theory months ago. If you can't believe Matt & Trey, who can you believe?
 
2007-04-11 02:47:13 PM  
You know, thanks to Picador, I've suddenly realized several important things:

-Metal can't be smelted. Steel itself is a lie, because there's no known fuel that burns hot enough to melt it.

-Kilns are a lie. Enclosed spaces with forced-directional airflows absolutely do NOT result in increased internal heat.

-Fire itself is a lie. Since you can't increase the temperature of ANYTHING past it's own ambient radiational rest-state, there's no way to actually light a match. After all, you can test this yourself: Pick up a match. Is it on fire? I thought not. Thus, fire is a lie.

I really don't know how much of a dumbass a person would have to be to NOT realize that tons of burning jet-fuel pouring down the inside of a giant metal and glass box is going to result in a Kiln effect.
 
2007-04-11 02:47:20 PM  
Most truthers don't claim to have the truth, they just wonder what was really behind the largest single attack of modern times.

That's a bunch of horseshiat and you know it. It's the same goddamned thing on both sides: the "truthers" won't hear it about the official story, and people who buy the official story won't hear it about conspiracy theories.

Except people who don't buy into the conspiracy theories have science on their side.

Why is it so hard to believe the government didn't plan this but decided to capitalize on it? Why the hell wouldn't they admit the "purest truth" if it aided them in pushing their agenda in every conceivable way?
 
2007-04-11 02:47:42 PM  
jet fuel burns a whole hell of a lot hotter than lighter fluid in your BBQ grill.

It also has a much lower flash point than lighter fluid, which is what produces the "whoosh" when you light the bbq. The vapors are cooking off.
 
2007-04-11 02:48:02 PM  
Rev. Skarekroe:
Ooh, that sounds like a fun read!
Links, please.



http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html

google of WTC CGI or WTC "no plane" gave me some serious krackpots.

..although they also come up with OTHER "truthers" who feel that the "no plane at the WTC" proponents are either misguided or, more likely, are disinformation "plants" by the government who are putting outlandish theories out on the internet in order to discredit the "legitimate" truth movement.

http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html

So there ya have it. The crackpots are upset because the kooks and the crazies are making them all look like a pack of lunatics.
 
2007-04-11 02:48:19 PM  
So, spewing forh hatred is OK if it is Rosie on The View, but not if you're Imus in the Morning? If one has opinions "protected by the first amendment", then both do. However, as has been pointed out, first amendment freedoms are guarantees from government censorship, not a blanket under which one can hide and suffer no consequenses for their own actions, opinions, or thoughts. We have a right to speak, but no right to be heard, believed, respected or agreed with. Our employers have no obligation to tolerate any speech or opinion that is demonstrably detrimental to them, or with which they do not agree, especially if that speech or opinion is given within the context of employment and could be construed as being the opinion of the employer.
 
2007-04-11 02:49:08 PM  
Mr_Fabulous

I tend to come in at the tail end of contentious threads and make snarky and sometimes non-sequitur observations, as a means of accentuating the entropic silliness and hastening the thread's devolution. It's sort of my modus operandi.

This saddens me deeply. Not the trolling bit but your assertion that we are near the tail end of this lovely outing for tinfoil hat zaniness.
 
2007-04-11 02:49:21 PM  
how can anyone just assume the official story is the truth? when we've had nothing but lies given to us for whatever the scandal du jour is ...

that is not an argument. if karl rove raised his eyebrows and said in an evil voice, "the sun rises in the east," that doesn't mean it rises in the west or north or south. science and facts and evidence are, in this case, non-partisan.
 
2007-04-11 02:49:42 PM  
It wasn't an inside job. But, the government knew about it and let it happen, because it furthered their agenda. FDR did exactly the same thing with Pearl Harbour. He knew it was coming, and let it happen to the country would be ok with getting into WWII. So, they did it again with 9/11. PNAC said they needed another "Pearl Harbour" to get the populace to be ok with us invading the Middle East.
 
2007-04-11 02:49:44 PM  
vernercomp: So, spewing forh hatred is OK if it is Rosie on The View, but not if you're Imus in the Morning?

One network is upset about one thing, one network is not upset about the other thing.

Yup.
 
2007-04-11 02:50:41 PM  
Is it possible that those posing conspiracy theories about 9/11 are actually in league, physically or philosophically, with Al Qaeda, and attempting to sow disinformation in order to sow distrust in the U.S.?

Not saying it's true, but its as worth looking into as Loose Change tinfoil fodder.

/snark
 
2007-04-11 02:50:51 PM  
Headso: except there was little planning and the threats and warning were ignored and that is really why alot of people believe the government was involved...

The threats and warnings were vague and were unbelievable. All you have to do is look at the supposed warnings to realize that there wasn't much to act on. We get tons of warnings about potential threats that never amount to anything. It's easy to miss the real threats.

fireclown: Flight 93 wasn't dropping. It stood out. And that's when we shot it.

And you expect me to believe this because you say so? How about providing some evidence? Oh, that's right, there is none. Nevermind.

DROxINxTHExWIND: That point in history?? It was SIX YEARS AGO. You're saying that the military could not track planes in the airspace above Washington and New York 6 years ago??

I can't help it if you haven't done any research. But if you had, you'd realize that the military was dependant upon civilian tracking systems to find passenger aircraft within the US. All of the government radar systems were pointed outward from our country as that is where attacks were being anticipated to come from.
 
2007-04-11 02:51:39 PM  
albo: there was molten metal, not necessarily steel. the towers were covered with aluminum, for example.

So were the planes.

Why is there diagonally cut steel beams at the base of the towers?

Because no one heard them being cut.

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

Try Barnes and Nobles. They have a starbucks inside,and everything.
 
2007-04-11 02:51:54 PM  
Hey untrustworthy

Give it up dude. Trying to argue with common sense and intelligence just won't cut it with these people.
 
2007-04-11 02:52:36 PM  
vernercomp
Yes you just can't say nappy headed...haven't we learned that...you can say pretty much anything as long it does not in any way shape or form offend Al Sharpton then its ok
imgred.com

Jeez that was easy-Former Sponsor of the Imus SHow
 
2007-04-11 02:53:31 PM  
stonicus: It wasn't an inside job. But, the government knew about it and let it happen, because it furthered their agenda. FDR did exactly the same thing with Pearl Harbour. He knew it was coming, and let it happen to the country would be ok with getting into WWII. So, they did it again with 9/11. PNAC said they needed another "Pearl Harbour" to get the populace to be ok with us invading the Middle East.

It was the aliens. Seriously. I read it in a book. You can look it up.
 
2007-04-11 02:53:40 PM  
Bill_Wick's_Friend:

Um the government doesnt need to put misinformation out there to make the truthers sound stupid...they do a pretty good job at that all by themselves.
 
2007-04-11 02:53:59 PM  
I came in here to see if Gunt was used in connection with rosie. It was. Thank you fark for not letting me down.

Oh the biatch is crazy and we know that.
 
2007-04-11 02:54:27 PM  
AladinSane


You know, thanks to Picador, I've suddenly realized several important things:

-Metal can't be smelted. Steel itself is a lie, because there's no known fuel that burns hot enough to melt it.


Not that I'm trying to help the truthers side, but yer basic steel nowadays generally comes from arc furnaces rather than fuel fired furnaces.
 
2007-04-11 02:54:29 PM  
Dogperson: Give it up dude. Trying to argue with common sense and intelligence just won't cut it with these people.

It's ok. I enjoy mocking their stupidity.
 
2007-04-11 02:54:46 PM  
There's no need for a conspiracy, dumbasses. Our government will do whatever it wants.
 
2007-04-11 02:55:08 PM  
DROxINxTHExWIND: That point in history?? It was SIX YEARS AGO. You're saying that the military could not track planes in the airspace above Washington and New York 6 years ago??

You don't see a conflict in interest there? That WAS prior to the patriot act, you know - when you have to volunteer shiat, or say no? Privacy issues, lawsuits?

It amazes me that so many people think the military always had the right to pretty much do whatever the fark it wanted inside civilian airspace. They aren't even allowed to farking FLY in civilian airspaces with out first getting clearence from the state and municipality.
 
2007-04-11 02:55:42 PM  
mikaloyd: Not that I'm trying to help the truthers side, but yer basic steel nowadays generally comes from arc furnaces rather than fuel fired furnaces.

Shiat, you mean the governmenet installed arc furnaces in the WTC? Those crafty bastards.
 
2007-04-11 02:55:52 PM  
But, the government knew about it and let it happen, because it furthered their agenda.

for this to be true, it assumes that everybody in the US government who knew about the plan were willing to let terrorists possibly kill 50,000+ of their fellow citizens and wreck the US economy. just to justify an invasion of afghanistan. and no one had an attack of conscience and blabbed.

total nonsense
 
2007-04-11 02:56:09 PM  
This is Rosie O'Donnell's opinion, why exactly should we care? I can't believe I am actually now siding with the FAUX news pundits/shills about removing her from the air. Although it does say a lot, despite Rosie being a nutjob and all, she still makes that nappy headed Hasselback ho look like a bigger ignoramus.
 
2007-04-11 02:56:19 PM  
2007-04-11 02:49:08 PM mikaloyd
This saddens me deeply. Not the trolling bit but your assertion that we are near the tail end of this lovely outing for tinfoil hat zaniness.


Fear not...Faethe just showed up. This thread might perk right back up now!
 
2007-04-11 02:56:24 PM  
Now, I'm gonna go out on a limb here and postulate the same people that support Rosie O'Donnell and her position on this issue also hate President Bush and, probably, Jesus too. To actually believe that President Bush or his Administration conspired the 911 Attacks, seriously damages your credibility on myriad other issues.
 
2007-04-11 02:56:53 PM  
Rosie O'Donnell cannot be compared to Imus, because he's not fat.
 
2007-04-11 02:57:02 PM  
2007-04-11 02:48:19 PM vernercomp


So, spewing forh hatred is OK if it is Rosie on The View, but not if you're Imus in the Morning? If one has opinions "protected by the first amendment", then both do.
=========================================

It's now 'hatred' to say that you don't believe what the government said?

/terrorist, you have won.
 
2007-04-11 02:57:23 PM  
Diagonally "cut" beam conspiracy theorists:

45 degrees is the natural angle of failure in metal beams under compression. In other words: that is exactly how you would expect a beam to break if it were under sufficient compression.
 
2007-04-11 02:57:33 PM  
halfof33: "Even nasty people are supposed to get trials in this country, dave2198. Perhaps you'd be more happy in China?"

He wasn't in this Country.

I thought you had to go back to work?"


Back for 5 seconds to page Manuel Noriega, Manuel Noriega to the curtesy phone. Halfof33 wants a word with you about trying foreign nationals....
 
2007-04-11 02:58:12 PM  
mathmatix

Let's just say this... what happened was a shocking event. The way it was covered, with 2 long weeks of seeing the towers falling over and over again, seeing people jumping from buildings, seeing thousands of lives ended and being constantly reminded of it; that will have an impact on the people seeing it. Now, couple that with the terms "Al Qaeda" and "terrorist" being repeated over and over again during this footage and you have yourself a very strong message.

Again, regardless of who did it, who benefits from it? The clues point to the benefactors being the people who most desire you to be scared of the "terrorists" who are brown people and "Al Qaeda" who are apparently connected to everything, even though just a few years before sept. 11th they were just a scruffy band of arabs with little to show. According to the BBC documentary "The power of nightmares" the term "Al Qaeda" was created by the American government in 2000 (to allow prosecution of Bin Laden for the embassy bombings in Kenya, since they couldn't pin them directly on him, but they could try him as the head of the organisation.) And now we are supposed to believe that nearly every terrorist attack in the world is carried out by "militants connected to Al Qaeda", the worlds first terrorist organisation with no aims apart from "taking away our freedom". Meanwhile, the western governments are making a free sprint towards a totally surveilled nanny state society which dare not think for itself for fear of being shouted down.

Again, follow the motives, follow the money; who stands to gain? Who stands to lose?

Oh I remember... our gubmint will protect us from tha scary brown boogiemen....
 
2007-04-11 02:58:17 PM  
This one always amuses me:

attention CTers...what evidence, specifically, would it take to convince you there was no conspiracy?
 
2007-04-11 02:58:29 PM  
I have a great idea Rosie and all of her supporters can get back on that big rainbow cruise ship and sail around the world till they find a country willing to take them in
 
2007-04-11 02:58:39 PM  
untrustworthy: The threats and warnings were vague and were unbelievable. All you have to do is look at the supposed warnings to realize that there wasn't much to act on. We get tons of warnings about potential threats that never amount to anything. It's easy to miss the real threats.

that isn't really true, the warnings reached unprecedented levels in the summer of 2001, there were specific warnings of imminent terrorist attacks...
 
2007-04-11 02:58:51 PM  
DROxINxTHExWIND: terrorist, you have won.

Wait, I thought it was our government? You have me so confused.
 
2007-04-11 02:58:52 PM  
Mr_Fabulous: Fear not...Faethe just showed up. This thread might perk right back up now!

LOL has anyone brought up the zionist yet?
 
2007-04-11 02:59:58 PM  
Mr_Fabulous

Fear not...Faethe just showed up. This thread might perk right back up now!


!ALL HAIL FAETHE!
 
2007-04-11 03:00:29 PM  
One thing I've learned in this thread: steel really sucks as a building material.
 
2007-04-11 03:01:30 PM  
Headso

What the hell? Specific? You mean there was intell that said that bat SHiat fanatics were going to fly planes in to the WTC on (/11 cause that right there is "specific"

If you mean some bad people want to hurt us and they're planning something Here's you complimentary subscription to Vague Magazine
 
Displayed 50 of 1133 comments


Oldest | « | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | » | 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