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.

(Daily Kos)   "Bin Laden determined to strike in the US"? Yeah, turns out that was about the least alarming of the series of PDB's Bush ignored before 9/11   (dailykos.com) divider line 350
    More: Followup, George Bush, Osama bin Laden, United States, George Tenet, imminent threat, Health Care, International, Chechnya, Bush administration  
•       •       •

3972 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Sep 2012 at 6:39 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



350 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-09-11 12:54:57 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: Skleenar: But the main problem I see is how would the phones connect to the cell towers? They're 20,000 feet in the air, zooming over farm land in mid-eastern Pennsylvania, with little cell coverage.

This has always given me pause, too.


There are a lot of possible explanations. I saw a great little short doc by the great Errol Morris about the JFK assassination where they discussed the mysterious man with the black umbrella who was standing along the roadway in Dallas when JFK was shot. Really brilliant short video on conspiracy theories -- check it out.

For years conspiracy theorists have claimed the umbrella man was CIA and that the umbrella was a weapon. What other explanation could there have been for a guy on a hot day with a black umbrella - the only person with an umbrella in probably all of Dallas that day - standing right where Kennedy was shot? So they actually found the "umbrella man" and questioned him. Turns out he was protesting Joe Kennedy, JFK's dad, over something he had supported. The umbrella was a symbolic reference to that, so this guy was doing a silent protest with the umbrella when JFK's motorcade passed. The point being, there are infinite explanations for strange things that have nothing sinister to them, but our minds always go to the more salacious possibilities.

From Flight 93, 37 phone calls were made by passengers and crew. 35 of them used Airphones. So only 2 cell phone calls were placed. Flight 93 was below 20k feet for 10-15 minutes; below 10k feet for 5-7 mins. There were 44 passengers and crew on board. Minus 4 hijackers and at least 2 people who were dead or dying at that time, that leaves 38 people with at least 5 minutes to get through via cell phones. When you do that math, it's not hard at all to believe that 2 cell calls made it through. Add in the "fog of war," the unreliability of eye-witnesses, human error, etc. It's a hell of a lot easier to accept than the alternate theory that the calls were all faked, that wives, ...


I'm not claiming that Fl 93 was all made up. I was just wondering how the calls were made. I guess they were mostly made by the airphones, which I assumed. (I'm the one that Skleenar was replying to.)
 
2012-09-11 12:56:20 PM  

cman: But when I actually processed what he said instead of automatic I realized that the movement is full of shiat.



I dedicated several weeks a year or so after 9/11 to debunking the Truther claims. It was like shooting fish in a barrel.
 
2012-09-11 12:56:27 PM  

pontechango: Giltric: We did have teams on the ground with eyes, and crosshiairs, on bin laden (which is how we knew he was there) who were ready to pull the trigger or raid the compound and capture him alive or dead but the Clinton administration said no.

We had "teams on the ground" in Afghanistan with Bin Laden in their crosshairs? Uh no.


Uh yes. We had bin Laden cornered at Tora Bora and a direct order from Bush requested the military stand down. Bin Laden then escaped.
 
2012-09-11 12:58:05 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: Brubold: If you want to blame an ex-president for Osama's attack then blame Clinton. He's the one that wussed out when presented with the chance to take him out.


LOLWUT? So in 2001 bin Laden was such a threat that the Bush Admin COMPLETELY IGNORED HIM, but prior to that he should have been priority #1 on the kill list? How farking convenient. I agree that I wish Clinton had taken him out, but that's hindsight 20/20. When you have evidence that the CIA was pleading with the Clinton Admin for months that an attack from bin Laden's organization was imminent, that they knew terrorist cells were on the ground in the US, and they not just ignored it, but told the CIA they were being duped, because they wanted a war with Iraq instead, please come back and show us. Two of the 9/11 hijackers were flagged in the months leading up to 9/11. One was even kicked out. Kind of would have been nice if the dipshiats in the White House had been paying a little closer attention to that shiat like the CIA wanted them to.


Also, Clinton did try to take out bin Laden. Failed.
 
2012-09-11 12:58:52 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: inner ted: cman: inner ted: sprawl15: inner ted: i'll respond to the more rational response from Dr. Dridel

I'm surprised you're concerned at all about rationality since you're questioning the idea of a plane hitting the Pentagon when the entire ground was littered with airplane parts.

Are you suggesting it was a missile with pieces of engines strapped to it?

first off, congrats on being able to respond without sounding like a complete child.

i'm suggesting that the most - or at least one of the most secure sites in this country if not the world - should have more than a half a second clip of what attacked it.

if you have other video or pics, please offer them up.
eagerly awaiting your response.

1, plane was going 500 mph.
2, if the plane was in the frame, 9/11 conspiracy theorists would still biatch about the security camera being photoshopped because of the camera being slow framed.
3, budget cuts, budget cuts, budget cuts
4, most security cameras are slow frame. It saves money
5, every eyewitness that has come forward has identified it as a plane. They saw a plane, not a missile.
5, the grounds of the pentagon are policed at all times. Why do they need to have awesome spy cameras when there is no point to them because of instant arrival from security?

so that's a "no" then?
your conjecture and opinions are fantastic though, even if completely pulled from your ass thin air. (trying to be adult like)

How many hours of video would it take to convince you?


honestly, just show me something other than the .5 second clip on teh wiki - that's then only that i've ever seen.

/by "other" i mean any other video of whatever struck the pentagon - whether it's other security video - some random persons video camera (there was lots of that from the towers right?)

not just the photos after the incident. that's a whole other ball of wax & i'm desperately trying to stick to just this point.

cheers
 
2012-09-11 01:01:16 PM  
 
2012-09-11 01:02:41 PM  

Rich Cream: July 15, 2004 /i>

cool story bro

 
2012-09-11 01:03:21 PM  

Rich Cream: July 15, 2004 - Qualcomm Incorporated pioneer and world leader of Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) digital wireless technology, and American Airlines, the world's largest carrier, today successfully demonstrated in-cabin voice communications using commercially available CDMA mobile phones on a commercial American Airlines aircraft. Through the use of an in-cabin third-generation (3G) "picocell" network, passengers on the test flight were able to place and receive calls as if they were on the ground.

A small in-cabin CDMA cellular base station on the plane, that uses standard cellular communications, was connected to the worldwide terrestrial phone network by an air-to-ground Globalstar satellite link.



Well, that proves it. Those 35 phone calls made with Airphones couldn't have happened... oh wait.
 
2012-09-11 01:04:30 PM  

cman: inner ted: cman: inner ted: sprawl15: inner ted: i'll respond to the more rational response from Dr. Dridel

I'm surprised you're concerned at all about rationality since you're questioning the idea of a plane hitting the Pentagon when the entire ground was littered with airplane parts.

Are you suggesting it was a missile with pieces of engines strapped to it?

first off, congrats on being able to respond without sounding like a complete child.

i'm suggesting that the most - or at least one of the most secure sites in this country if not the world - should have more than a half a second clip of what attacked it.

if you have other video or pics, please offer them up.
eagerly awaiting your response.

1, plane was going 500 mph.
2, if the plane was in the frame, 9/11 conspiracy theorists would still biatch about the security camera being photoshopped because of the camera being slow framed.
3, budget cuts, budget cuts, budget cuts
4, most security cameras are slow frame. It saves money
5, every eyewitness that has come forward has identified it as a plane. They saw a plane, not a missile.
5, the grounds of the pentagon are policed at all times. Why do they need to have awesome spy cameras when there is no point to them because of instant arrival from security?

so that's a "no" then?
your conjecture and opinions are fantastic though, even if completely pulled from your ass thin air. (trying to be adult like)

I was once a truther. Loved listening to Alex Jones and took everything he said for face value. But when I actually processed what he said instead of automatic I realized that the movement is full of shiat. The 9/11 truth movement is not about truth; it is about fitting whatever they can into their farked up point of view by taking quotes out of context and blatantly ignoring anything that does not further their own idea.

Alex Jones talks about the media using fear to control and condition you, then a minute later he starts screaming at the top of his lungs "T ...


dude i gave up on coast to coast long ago.

let me put this as plainly as i can (i see what i did there)

i don't know what hit the pentagon that day - the only evidence i've ever been offered is a .5 sec video - the same that's linked on the wiki page for the incident. that video is inconclusive at best IMHO.

i don't know who did what and where and to whom. all i know is that video is not enough to convince me that it was a plane.

considering the building we are discussing, it's impossible that there wasn't more video of the incident.

i would like to see it, and don't buy that it's any kind of compromise to national security to show various other angles of the incident. unless they show something else.

hope that helps
 
2012-09-11 01:04:53 PM  

dericwater: pontechango: Giltric: We did have teams on the ground with eyes, and crosshiairs, on bin laden (which is how we knew he was there) who were ready to pull the trigger or raid the compound and capture him alive or dead but the Clinton administration said no.

We had "teams on the ground" in Afghanistan with Bin Laden in their crosshairs? Uh no.

Uh yes. We had bin Laden cornered at Tora Bora and a direct order from Bush requested the military stand down. Bin Laden then escaped.


Reread Giltric's claim. He said that we had teams on the ground and OBL in their crosshairs, and the Clinton admin backed down.
 
2012-09-11 01:06:08 PM  

inner ted: i don't know what hit the pentagon that day


A dump truck full of airplane parts was launched by railgun from Arizona.
 
2012-09-11 01:06:38 PM  

sprawl15: any reasonably considered warning would have had minimal impact on this kind of situation. It would have lowered the possibility very, very slightly.


We would have to disagree on that. But even lowering the possibility very very slightly is worth it. It was negligent not to pass on those warnings.
 
2012-09-11 01:07:27 PM  

inner ted: the only evidence i've ever been offered is a .5 sec video



Well, that and the pieces of airplane scattered all over the crash site, including the plane's nose cone which landed several rings inside the Pentagon, and the charred bodies of the dead passengers. I'm sorry, but it's farking retarded to think it was anything but a plane. Really, really retarded.
 
2012-09-11 01:07:54 PM  

dericwater: pontechango: Giltric: We did have teams on the ground with eyes, and crosshiairs, on bin laden (which is how we knew he was there) who were ready to pull the trigger or raid the compound and capture him alive or dead but the Clinton administration said no.

We had "teams on the ground" in Afghanistan with Bin Laden in their crosshairs? Uh no.

Uh yes. We had bin Laden cornered at Tora Bora and a direct order from Bush requested the military stand down. Bin Laden then escaped.


Well, I think it was more to the effect that Bush had prioritized resources for the invasion of Iraq instead of catching Bin Laden, but I suppose Giltric would blame that on Clinton, too.
 
2012-09-11 01:09:19 PM  

Headso: But even lowering the possibility very very slightly is worth it.


At the time, the political math is very, very different. Hindsight is good to figure out what should have happened, but farking terrible for figuring out what people were thinking of at the time.

Headso: It was negligent not to pass on those warnings.


This implies there was an institutional recognition of a problem.
 
2012-09-11 01:09:22 PM  

inner ted: /by "other" i mean any other video of whatever struck the pentagon - whether it's other security video - some random persons video camera (there was lots of that from the towers right?)


why would 4 planes have been hijacked, 2 we know for sure flew into the wtc and 1 was shot down over Pennsylvania and 1 was switched out for a missile and fired at the pentagon? why would they even do that it makes no sense.
 
2012-09-11 01:10:26 PM  

inner ted: considering the building we are discussing, it's impossible that there wasn't more video of the incident.


It's been explained quite plausibly with speed of the plane and camera frame rates why there isn't much video evidence of the actual flight path and impact. There was literally days of live coverage of the aftermath.
 
2012-09-11 01:10:52 PM  

inner ted: Philip Francis Queeg: inner ted: cman: inner ted: sprawl15: inner ted: i'll respond to the more rational response from Dr. Dridel

I'm surprised you're concerned at all about rationality since you're questioning the idea of a plane hitting the Pentagon when the entire ground was littered with airplane parts.

Are you suggesting it was a missile with pieces of engines strapped to it?

first off, congrats on being able to respond without sounding like a complete child.

i'm suggesting that the most - or at least one of the most secure sites in this country if not the world - should have more than a half a second clip of what attacked it.

if you have other video or pics, please offer them up.
eagerly awaiting your response.

1, plane was going 500 mph.
2, if the plane was in the frame, 9/11 conspiracy theorists would still biatch about the security camera being photoshopped because of the camera being slow framed.
3, budget cuts, budget cuts, budget cuts
4, most security cameras are slow frame. It saves money
5, every eyewitness that has come forward has identified it as a plane. They saw a plane, not a missile.
5, the grounds of the pentagon are policed at all times. Why do they need to have awesome spy cameras when there is no point to them because of instant arrival from security?

so that's a "no" then?
your conjecture and opinions are fantastic though, even if completely pulled from your ass thin air. (trying to be adult like)

How many hours of video would it take to convince you?

honestly, just show me something other than the .5 second clip on teh wiki - that's then only that i've ever seen.

/by "other" i mean any other video of whatever struck the pentagon - whether it's other security video - some random persons video camera (there was lots of that from the towers right?)

not just the photos after the incident. that's a whole other ball of wax & i'm desperately trying to stick to just this point.

cheers


I bet you want video of Obama being born in Hawaii too.

There was one video of the first plan strikng. A documentary film maker happened looked up as the palne flew over because it was lower and faster than normal over Manhattan. One. That's it.

There were tons of video of the second plane because people were filming the first tower burning.

Every inch of the exterior of every major building in America is not being shot from multiple angles by High Def cameras 24/7.
 
2012-09-11 01:12:38 PM  

inner ted: Dr Dreidel: inner ted: i'll respond to the more rational response from Dr. Dridel: if those cameras were of 'sensitive areas' i could agree with your idea, but we are talking about part of the building that is publicly visible - how on earth there is just that one brief moment of a clip is just hard to understand.

The same reason the WH keeps everything it can under the umbrella of National Security or Executive Privilege - because it can. Or because the Pentagon is notoriously paranoid. (CSB: While I've never been inside, I assume it's like the NSA, which I have been in - posters everywhere warning you that Loose Lips Sink Carrier Battle Groups.)

What the cameras are looking at can be important if you want to know where they aren't looking. We assume that the Pentagon has eyes on every part of the exterior, but why even give out a single reference point? If the cameras weren't hi-def, the frame rate may preclude anything useful on the tape anyway - a regular-def video camera shoots 24 frames per second, meaning that a plane traveling 500mph would move 733.3333... feet in every frame. Even for a camera looking at 900 feet of space, you'd get a little over a second of grainy, kind-of-looks-like-a-plane video noise.

And, as many others have said, why should the Pentagon release video of an event thousands of people saw just to appease conspiracist morons who'd likely find a pixel or two out of place and declare the whole thing a forgery of a fraud anyway?

so they just release a half second video that is inconclusive at best and that is supposed to cause less of a stir up?


Explain. Who released the video, what does it show, and what was the source? I think you'll find that it was the media who released relevant portions of a cell-phone vid, which indicates nothing.

this is even more frustrating &/or suspicious considering even the most dated shopping malls have surveillance cameras capable of zooming in on object blocks away

In 2001, before 9/11 changed everything? I think ATMs had cameras, and some colleges had blue-light police phones (some with cameras, as relayed to me by the orientation people at UMD in 2000), but all malls with video? (Also, there are no malls facing the Pentagon. There is a "citywalk" type thing a few blocks away, but the I-395/Route 1 bridges/ramps, as well as a few buildings, block the view.)

we wouldn't even have to have this conversation about pixels and what not, we could just watch the video of it prancing right on down broadway (or whatever street that is) and be done with it.

It's I-395, and the plane crossed OVER it. You assume that there's some NFL-type video replay of a plane barreling toward the Pentagon in full 3d/1080p hi-def where we can do Matrix style bullet time and get the panoramic look. For several obvious reasons, that doesn't exist.

as to "oh noes, someone could triangulate the position of the camera" - sorry, that's just plain silly. again, it's a camera on the outside of the building.. who gives a shiat that anyone knows it's position? how does that compromise anything?

It's one more piece of information your hypothetical enemies have. Have you ever worked on something sensitive? Giving out any info - a name, a location, an asset, even revealing something which is already public, relating it to a sensitive topic - is bad news. Yes, even the location of a single camera watching 10-20 feet of space outside the most secure office building in the world. I'm pretty sure revealing that info (if it is indeed sensitive information) could get you a nice, long view of a Leavenworth cell.
 
2012-09-11 01:12:49 PM  
img406.imageshack.us
 
2012-09-11 01:13:13 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: inner ted: the only evidence i've ever been offered is a .5 sec video


Well, that and the pieces of airplane scattered all over the crash site, including the plane's nose cone which landed several rings inside the Pentagon, and the charred bodies of the dead passengers. I'm sorry, but it's farking retarded to think it was anything but a plane. Really, really retarded.


so that's another "no, inner ted, i don't have any other video or pics to link to support my view."

right on

& stay classy!
 
2012-09-11 01:13:50 PM  

sprawl15: This implies there was an institutional recognition of a problem.


that's where the charges of negligence and conspiracy come from, a dozen foreign intelligence agencies and the CIA all warning about an upcoming attack and yet despite that it was not recognized as a problem.
 
2012-09-11 01:14:01 PM  

Headso: 1 was switched out for a missile and fired at the pentagon



Yeah, this part of the "conspiracy" would have been laughed out of the room during the planning process.

"Let's see, we're going to fly a missile into the Pentagon in BROAD DAYLIGHT and then tell everyone it was a plane. To make it even more believable, we'll have a crew standing by to scatter bits of plane wreckage all of the lawn outside the building -- again, in BROAD DAYLIGHT. We will then have a second team dressed in firesuits who will climb into the burning building carrying tons and tons of plane wreckage like the engines, landing gear, and nose cone, and we will place them in the middle of the fire. Again, this will be done in BROAD DAYLIGHT without anyone noticing. Any questions?"

"Uh, yeah, why don't we just fly a plane into the Pentagon like we're doing with the other targets?"

"Durrrrrrrr..."
 
2012-09-11 01:15:32 PM  

inner ted: so that's another "no, inner ted, i don't have any other video or pics to link to support my view."

right on

& stay classy!



WHERE DID THE PLANE WRECKAGE COME FROM? We have a video. Your turn.
 
2012-09-11 01:16:25 PM  

Dr Dreidel: It's I-395, and the plane crossed OVER it. You assume that there's some NFL-type video replay of a plane barreling toward the Pentagon in full 3d/1080p hi-def where we can do Matrix style bullet time and get the panoramic look. For several obvious reasons, that doesn't exist.


even if it does exist and the refuse to release it, what does that even mean? the conspiracy guys jump from that to it must have been a missile.
 
2012-09-11 01:16:31 PM  

Rich Cream: [img406.imageshack.us image 240x180]


img831.imageshack.us
 
2012-09-11 01:17:02 PM  
 
2012-09-11 01:18:26 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: inner ted: Philip Francis Queeg: inner ted: cman: inner ted: sprawl15: inner ted: i'll respond to the more rational response from Dr. Dridel

I'm surprised you're concerned at all about rationality since you're questioning the idea of a plane hitting the Pentagon when the entire ground was littered with airplane parts.

Are you suggesting it was a missile with pieces of engines strapped to it?

first off, congrats on being able to respond without sounding like a complete child.

i'm suggesting that the most - or at least one of the most secure sites in this country if not the world - should have more than a half a second clip of what attacked it.

if you have other video or pics, please offer them up.
eagerly awaiting your response.

1, plane was going 500 mph.
2, if the plane was in the frame, 9/11 conspiracy theorists would still biatch about the security camera being photoshopped because of the camera being slow framed.
3, budget cuts, budget cuts, budget cuts
4, most security cameras are slow frame. It saves money
5, every eyewitness that has come forward has identified it as a plane. They saw a plane, not a missile.
5, the grounds of the pentagon are policed at all times. Why do they need to have awesome spy cameras when there is no point to them because of instant arrival from security?

so that's a "no" then?
your conjecture and opinions are fantastic though, even if completely pulled from your ass thin air. (trying to be adult like)

How many hours of video would it take to convince you?

honestly, just show me something other than the .5 second clip on teh wiki - that's then only that i've ever seen.

/by "other" i mean any other video of whatever struck the pentagon - whether it's other security video - some random persons video camera (there was lots of that from the towers right?)

not just the photos after the incident. that's a whole other ball of wax & i'm desperately trying to stick to just this point.

cheers

I bet you want video of Obama being bo ...


good to see the consistency of child-like taunts among those who have been questioned on their beliefs.

but you ended with a particularly important point that i've been endeavoring to make this whole time: "Every inch of the exterior of every major building in America is not being shot from multiple angles by High Def cameras 24/7."

very true - good thing that the one we ARE talking about WAS & IS being shot from multiple angles by high def cameras 24/7

so that's weird, right?
 
2012-09-11 01:18:42 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: WHERE DID THE PLANE WRECKAGE COME FROM?


Costco. Those guys have everything.
 
2012-09-11 01:19:11 PM  
farm8.staticflickr.com
 
2012-09-11 01:19:15 PM  

Rich Cream: BBC Reported Building 7 Collapse 20 Minutes Before It Fell



OMG, the Brit media was in on the conspiracy! Where does it end??? This thread is like a timewarp back to 2002. Thanks for the entertainment, guys.
 
2012-09-11 01:20:03 PM  

inner ted: very true - good thing that the one we ARE talking about WAS & IS being shot from multiple angles by high def cameras 24/7


You have video to prove that? Or is that just something that you've been led to believe?
 
2012-09-11 01:20:13 PM  

inner ted: good to see the consistency of child-like taunts among those who have been questioned on their beliefs.

but you ended with a particularly important point that i've been endeavoring to make this whole time: "Every inch of the exterior of every major building in America is not being shot from multiple angles by High Def cameras 24/7."

very true - good thing that the one we ARE talking about WAS & IS being shot from multiple angles by high def cameras 24/7

so that's weird, right?


Citation Needed.
 
2012-09-11 01:20:20 PM  

Rich Cream: [farm8.staticflickr.com image 600x500]



Oh my god, shiat was melted in the biggest building fire in world history! We're all sheeple!
 
2012-09-11 01:20:40 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: inner ted: so that's another "no, inner ted, i don't have any other video or pics to link to support my view."

right on

& stay classy!


WHERE DID THE PLANE WRECKAGE COME FROM? We have a video. Your turn.


you already voted "no i don't have what you are asking"

why are you still commenting?
 
2012-09-11 01:21:52 PM  

inner ted: why are you still commenting?



Good question. Welcome to my ignore list, farking moron.
 
2012-09-11 01:23:53 PM  

inner ted: very true - good thing that the one we ARE talking about WAS & IS being shot from multiple angles by high def cameras 24/7


so again, if they do have that video and won't release it why does that mean anything but they have some video and refuse to release it? why does it mean a missile flew into the building?
 
2012-09-11 01:24:10 PM  
"A plane crashed into the Pentagon, and there's plane wreckage all over the place. Clearly, this was a missile!" -- every 9/11 Truther idiot
 
2012-09-11 01:24:17 PM  

Philip Francis Queeg: inner ted: good to see the consistency of child-like taunts among those who have been questioned on their beliefs.

but you ended with a particularly important point that i've been endeavoring to make this whole time: "Every inch of the exterior of every major building in America is not being shot from multiple angles by High Def cameras 24/7."

very true - good thing that the one we ARE talking about WAS & IS being shot from multiple angles by high def cameras 24/7

so that's weird, right?

Citation Needed.


lol - really ? do you also need a citation that the sun is hot?

and it's funny, in a sad way, that everyone here trying to prove their idea (and poorly) have been citation free - yet you don't feel compelled to ask for links?

gosh... is it only cause they agree with you?

stunning
 
2012-09-11 01:26:41 PM  

inner ted: Philip Francis Queeg: inner ted: good to see the consistency of child-like taunts among those who have been questioned on their beliefs.

but you ended with a particularly important point that i've been endeavoring to make this whole time: "Every inch of the exterior of every major building in America is not being shot from multiple angles by High Def cameras 24/7."

very true - good thing that the one we ARE talking about WAS & IS being shot from multiple angles by high def cameras 24/7

so that's weird, right?

Citation Needed.

lol - really ? do you also need a citation that the sun is hot?

and it's funny, in a sad way, that everyone here trying to prove their idea (and poorly) have been citation free - yet you don't feel compelled to ask for links?

gosh... is it only cause they agree with you?

stunning


so that's "no, Phillip Francis Queeg, i don't have any source to link to support my view."
 
2012-09-11 01:27:49 PM  

inner ted: gosh... is it only cause they agree with you?


Well, that and they agree with reality. If it was a missile, where did the airplane parts come from?
 
2012-09-11 01:28:12 PM  

Rich Cream: BBC Reported Building 7 Collapse 20 Minutes Before It Fell


Yeah, about that, no BBC guys were there. They got all of their news from American partners. It was well known prior to its collapsed that everyone was pulled from the building because of threat of collapse. What BBC reported could have been a miscommunication from their partners in the US. Wen breaking news happens, there are a lot of rumors and one must be careful on getting confirmation before they go on the air. News reports told of a fire at the Washington mall and a car bomb at the state department. That is all. BBC farked up their reporting without getting confirmation reporting a rumor as fact.
 
2012-09-11 01:28:31 PM  

Headso: inner ted: very true - good thing that the one we ARE talking about WAS & IS being shot from multiple angles by high def cameras 24/7

so again, if they do have that video and won't release it why does that mean anything but they have some video and refuse to release it? why does it mean a missile flew into the building?



The funniest thing about this shiat from inner ted is that in 2001, almost NOTHING was being shot in high definition. I was starting out in filmmaking at that time. There were only a few HD cameras even in existence then, and they were all on movie sets. I remember shooting a my first HD film just a few months after the 9/11 attacks, and we were in Phoenix. There wasn't a single HD camera in the whole city -- we had to go to LA to get one, and even then there was a waiting list to get the camera. HD cameras cost 100,000's of dollars, they could only record to tape with a max runtime of about 40 mins, they were big, and they sure as fark weren't being used as security camers. It's just farking laughable how ignorant the Truthers are.
 
2012-09-11 01:29:17 PM  

Headso: inner ted: very true - good thing that the one we ARE talking about WAS & IS being shot from multiple angles by high def cameras 24/7

so again, if they do have that video and won't release it why does that mean anything but they have some video and refuse to release it? why does it mean a missile flew into the building?


will someone please show me where i said i know what hit the pentagon? i'm patient, i can wait.

and really ? what does it mean if they have video and didn't release it?

ok - let's play "what if"

no - fark it -
i don't know what it means, other than they are choosing not to release it.

what does it mean to you? does it make you suspicious? or are you so entrusting of our government that you just KNOW they wouldn't be up to any shenanigans?
 
2012-09-11 01:30:27 PM  

vygramul: Look, I'm not the type to sit around defending Bush - Lord knows there's plenty of reasons not to. But the administration did not want to get hit, would love to have done things differently, and there are an unbelievable number of warnings almost every day.


Pretty much this. The guy was a farking idiot. That theory sums up everything he did--he honestly didn't comprehend what he was doing.

This is also why I pay very, very close attention to politics. A second moron would not be a good thing to elect.
 
2012-09-11 01:31:46 PM  

Hobodeluxe: they wanted to get hit. those PNAC people weren't in his administration by accident or coincidence


Lol. Gotta love truther threads.

truthers -> birthers -> squirrel turds
 
2012-09-11 01:32:23 PM  

inner ted: will someone please show me where i said i know what hit the pentagon? i'm patient, i can wait.


Why don't you consider charred airplane parts and bodies scattered around the wreckage to be evidence that it was an airliner that hit the building?
 
2012-09-11 01:32:47 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: Headso: inner ted: very true - good thing that the one we ARE talking about WAS & IS being shot from multiple angles by high def cameras 24/7

so again, if they do have that video and won't release it why does that mean anything but they have some video and refuse to release it? why does it mean a missile flew into the building?


The funniest thing about this shiat from inner ted is that in 2001, almost NOTHING was being shot in high definition. I was starting out in filmmaking at that time. There were only a few HD cameras even in existence then, and they were all on movie sets. I remember shooting a my first HD film just a few months after the 9/11 attacks, and we were in Phoenix. There wasn't a single HD camera in the whole city -- we had to go to LA to get one, and even then there was a waiting list to get the camera. HD cameras cost 100,000's of dollars, they could only record to tape with a max runtime of about 40 mins, they were big, and they sure as fark weren't being used as security camers. It's just farking laughable how ignorant the Truthers are.


that's what you are running with? freaking lulz

kind of pathetic really.
 
2012-09-11 01:33:47 PM  

robrr2003: Hobodeluxe: they wanted to get hit. those PNAC people weren't in his administration by accident or coincidence

Lol. Gotta love truther threads.

truthers -> birthers -> squirrel turds


At least a squirrel turd is a reminder that something useful has passed through this way.
 
2012-09-11 01:34:15 PM  

robrr2003: Hobodeluxe: they wanted to get hit. those PNAC people weren't in his administration by accident or coincidence

Lol. Gotta love truther threads.

truthers -> birthers -> squirrel turds



In a thread that's all about how much the Bush Admin DIDN'T want Al Qaeda interfering with their Iraq War plans, we have people claiming they WANTED Al Qaeda to interfere with their Iraq War plans. NEWS FLASH: Bush didn't want a farking war in Afghanistan. He was busy getting people rallied to invade Iraq. He didn't want to deal with this Al Qaeda terrorist shiat, and 9/11 seriously farked them -- not helped them. They eventually got the war with Hussein that they wanted, but it took years and a lot more effort to finally get it.
 
Displayed 50 of 350 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






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