...not.
I have a real beef with people who think 9/11 was staged. The fact that it's essentially victimization so they can feel wronged by someone/something (the government is BS and that's why I keep failing P.E.) is only part of my beef (but I'll save that for later).
To be a 9/11 conspiracy theorist one must assume that the government has sufficient resources to orchestrate the attacks, make it look completely like it was done by real terrorists, never have ANYONE defect from the plot (and you know how deep it'd have to go? here's a hint: the President would have to be a pawn), and yet people like Rosie O'Donnell in their infinite wisdom from the desk of The View are able to somehow decipher and outsmart the people who planned it. I'm sure somewhere in the Illumanti headquarters there's an evil mastermind going "we would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for those meddling kids and their YouTube!" When the government tries to cover things up they don't often do well.
Speaking of Rosie.
What do you have to do to be impeached in this country? Well, apparently a lot if this guy wasn't. Also, what's with her "propaganda" line? Yes, we have state run TV Rosie. That's why the government hasn't shut you down.
Seriously. The View is on ABC, which is owned by Disney (which gives a lot of money to the Republican party). I'm sure Disney is laughing all the way to the bank with Rosie's army's generated ad revenue.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Personally, I have certified Rosie O'Donnell as a verifiable nut case, and she should seek counseling from Tom Cruise.
Barbara Walters, please free us from the Rosie O'Donnell hostage crisis. Just build up a military presence on The View to get ready to blow Rosie off the show this summer. Then Rosie can enjoy the view from the comforts of her own home.
www.MyDepressionSpace.com
I would hope to God something like 9/11 wouldn't be staged. I’m trying to sound as non-partisan as I can, because I know if I lean the opposite way, no matter how good a point I make, I will just get raped with comments. But, I will admit that it is a coincidence that Bush 2 wanted to get back to Iraq, and 9/11 really did that for him. But, there is really no proof to say it is anything more than a coincidence other than one thing. This one thing would suggest a pre-planned demolition of the towers, which was that on all the videos I saw of the towers falling. Glass kept bursting out towards the street, and most just think it is due to the compression of the floors piling on top of each other, which in a perfect world, would sound just fine. Except when floors come down, my guess is they do not make a nearly airtight seal with the walls of the tower, so I don't think windows could burst like that. A lot of "witnesses" said they heard "bombs going off." The significance of these statements was never really looked into though.
Another thing I did not like was the surveillance tapes of the Pentagon. What hit the Pentagon, to me, did not look like a plane, but then again, it was caught by a low resolution, low FPS camera. The thing that gets me is why, according to 9/11 loose change (I realize it’s not that credible, but I haven't seen the opposing videos refute it yet), the FBI would confiscate video footage that would accurately identify the object from a hotel roof. I don’t know protocol for something like this, it may have just been proper procedure, but the FBI really doesn’t discuss things like that. So again, this can only be said to be a coincidence.
I saw on NBC and CNN that Bush could get impeached and I don’t know if he deserves to be impeached. He is not good president in my opinion, but to be fair, not all the others who were impeached were great either. I think he is an idiot who can’t speak, and yes, the President should be a good public speaker because that is half of what he does. He is the face of America; he needs to be able to give a speech without everyone laughing at him. But I think Republicans want to impeach because they know the general public is very unhappy with him, and in order to have a chance in the next election, they are trying to say that they are not really with him (they’re saying he’s a “sidler”). This way, when the next election comes, people blame Bush, not the republicans.
You say the President would have to be a pawn for 9/11 to be staged (I would saw at least 40% of the population would believe that), so that is very possible. And you're right, it would have to be very deep, so I only hope we wouldn't kill thousands and kill a lot of civilians in Iraq just to get oil that will run out soon anyway (not to mention global warming), along with any other reason we would go there, what Bush called Iraqi Freedom. So that’s my opinion, kind of neutral, just stating some things I believe to be coincidences or flaws of the facts of 9/11.
first of all-
911 WAS staged. look at the overwhelming evidence.
Bush wants oil. He IS capable of such an eloborate ploy.
second-
Rosie O'donnell is a strong figure that all men & women should look up to.
There is no overwhelming evidence. Fire can melt steel.. that's how they forge it.
The implosion is a result of weakened beams in the structure. The only way the building, in fact, would have EXploded is if there was some sort of massive explosion from within.
Also, why would Bush want oil? He already has more money than he could ever need. Not only that but he's put more money into alternative fuel sources than ANY other preisdent.
Rosie O'Donnell is just trying to stir up trouble. That's what it seems like anyway. She has no basis for half the opinions she spews out of her mouth.
That is exactly what the people who believe it was staged are saying, that there WAS an explosion from within, just like I said in my first comment about people hearing explosions inside the towers.
I think Bush is putting more money into alternative fuel sources than any other president because only recently has global warming even become an issue. The government doesn't just see a problem and automatically know what to do. Some people had to figure out what to do, and courses that involve the rest of the world's help are complex, so it takes time to develop a plan of strategy. Bush just happened to be president at the time when global warming really come out as a major problem, so naturally, he is going to do more about when it is known to be more of a serious problem.
The problem with world trade center 7 is with temperature. There was no jet fuel, there was no plane, and only 2 FLOORS were affected by fire. Fires have never collapsed a building like that. In order to get a building to fall on itself, all of its support beams have to give out simulataneously, but the fire was not severe enough and hot enough to do it. If all the support beams don't give out simulatenously, the building will fall to one side and would look like a tree falling, but that didn't happen here. Even if it could do it, the chances of doing it all AT THE SAME TIME and all coming down perfectly are astronomical because these buildings are designed to withstand fire. Fires have totalled 18 floors and yet the building the fire was in remained in full, with the exception to the damage done to the 18 select floors. Compare WTC7 videos falling to www.controlledimplosion.com videos, they look heart-stoppingly similar.
sorry, wrong website....the website is http://www.implosionworld.com/cinema.htm
It's funny how liberals get off to the idea of our government being this unstoppable force that only cares about power. But every liberal thinks THEY could change the government, through the power of IMAGINATION!
None of you conspiracy theorist understand a damn thing about FIRE SCIENCE. here you go,
chew on that for a while. Even though, you'll probably just ignore it. Like Blair Carman says, "Liberals make the exceptions."
Like you didn't ignore anything about the building not being able to come down because of no damage. Hmmm, one article says there was damage from ruble and the building came down due to structural failures from the ruble and fire, while another source says there was no ruble that caused this damage and fires can't melt a building like that. So, its very unfair of you to say that one side ignores everything while the other always lovingly accepts refutable evidence. What makes one so much better than the other? This is why I'm somewhere in the middle of the two because NO ONE CAN PROVE ANYTHING, everything is refuted with something that looks somewhat legitimate, and intelligent people support both sides of the argument, so WHO DO YOU PICK?
If I had to guess, the one with 99% of the legitimate scientists behind it.
Who decides if a scientist is "legitimate?" If scientist 1 proves something with one scientific fact, and another scientist proves the opposite of scientist 1 with a different fact, who can you believe?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I
Now that you posted a comment with a you tube video of Penn and Teller saying 911 conspiracies are bull shit and that they are credible, go watch their other shit you won't agree with like the one about "The Bible is Bullshit." Penn comes out and says "see what happens when you abandon the faith world and pretend to use science to prove your bullshit myths. There is always a real scientists around to check your facts." Now, if you back and say this is video is not accurate, then your argument for the video about 911 conspiracies being stupid is also not accurate. BTW I picked this one because I'm guessing you guys being conservative that you are Christians of some kind.
And for the record, what I posted above has nothing to do with my beliefs because I am a Christian as well.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=8RV46fsmx6E&mode=related&search=
^That is the link
Post a Comment