commondreams.org — I wrote a column on the anniversary of 9/11 that offhandedly dismissed 9/11 conspiracy theorists as "clinically insane." I expected a little bit of heat in response, but nothing could have prepared me for the deluge of f**k-you mail that I actually got. Apparently every third person in the US thinks George Bush was behind the 9/11 attack.
Oct 1, 2006 View in Crawl 4
Closed AccountOct 1, 2006
I'm with you on this one. I'm a hardcore lefty, but there is no way Bush was behind 9/11. I wonder how many right wing, sleep with you sister types believe this BS as well.
xxx420xxxOct 2, 2006
You don't have much of a knack for reasoning, do you?
jellygraphOct 2, 2006
@ DangerMouse9 :maybe thats why they are passing all sorts of laws to be able to lock you up for no reason, indefinately and unable to defend yourself in court
jellygraphOct 2, 2006
I agree. And I wish some of the obvious questions would be addressed in a public hearing on the Bush adminstration with a full and public investigation, so we can all put this behind us. But it will ever happen... all this administration has to do is say that doing so would help the terrorists and everyone shuts up.But, every single action the administration takes makes me more suspicious. and all the secrecy doesn't help either
jronOct 3, 2006
looks like quite a few people are drawn to these threads... instead of bitching at each other, wouldn't it be easier to simply agree that a NEW investigation should be conducted? there are 1000's of errors in the "official report." here is just one huge one.Transportation Secretary Mineta arrives at the White House bunker containing Vice President Cheney and others. In later testimony, he recalls that Cheney is already there when he arrives. [St. Petersburg Times, 7/4/2004] This supports accounts of Cheney reaching the bunker not long after the second WTC crash, but the 9/11 Commission concludes Cheney doesn’t arrive until a few minutes before 10:00 a.m.. [9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004]I mean, really look at what these people are telling you:<a class="user" href="http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a1000bushcheneyconfer">http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a1000bushcheneyconfer</a>any tard can agree their story and the investigation are total bs.
5blocksfreeOct 3, 2006
@yggdrasil You'll be happy to know that the conspiracy nuts claim that one of the buildings collapsed in a little more than eight seconds, and the other in about 10 seconds. I started reading one of the supposed "mythbuster " sites - and focused specifically on this issue. The "answers" I saw were hardly would I would call any kind of refutation - one, involving the rate of energy transfer, was performed by someone who used his own, untested model. Either way, the times they proposed were only a couple of seconds longer. I've seen other models suggesting that it *should* have taken far longer, because there has to be as least *some* resistance from the lower floors...they don't just magically disintegrate and start falling at the same rate as the debris above it.
cybersphereOct 3, 2006
To understand the history of Government Sponsored Terrorism, you have to watch Terrorstorm. It proves that 9/11 and the London Bombings were both inside jobs.You need to watch this video and tell everyone you know about it.The Biggest Terrorist is sitting in the whitehouse. You've been lied to by Government controlled mass-media. Unplug yourself from the Matrix.<a class="user" href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5948263607579389947">http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5948263607579389947</a>
lebaigeOct 3, 2006
No, it doesn't.
911truthncOct 3, 2006
This first thing to expect from people who can't carry a level-headed debate. Is to be called a "wacko", "nut job", or "loon". Yet, these are the same people who do not understand simple high school physics. The official story of 9/11 does not obey the laws of physics. When are people going to wake up out of their Comas. The neo-cons since 9/11 have lied lied lied lied. Proved. Killing 100,000s of innocent people and torturing 1000s with unimaginable acts of horror. Yet, Bush would not do 9/11. He is to much of a nice person. Wake up, you voted for the EVIL DOERS! Quit supporting the terrorist. Study High School Physics!!
ginnyincoOct 3, 2006
911truthncWhy limit it to those two options? Let's keep minds open to possibilities that have not been brought up. I would love to hear something that does not involve demolition. When I opened my mind to this in March, it was devastating. It still is. This 2 min, 14 sec intro to a seminar on 9/11 is probably the best anyone could say how much this is likely to affect most Americans. His take on Alex Jones fits mine exactly. (Somewhat along the lines of 'a broken clock is right twice a day'). I have not watched Tarpley or Fetzer's sections. Fetzer is another person who can turn off the rational and I have heard the same of Tarpley but not read any of his stuff yet.<a class="user" href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgRTS_6MNng">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgRTS_6MNng</a>Having been around during Vietnam and Watergate, my understanding of forewarnings is:People don't like to hear that something awful maybe going on. They don't even want to pay attention to the obvious if it means they will have to work harder to deal with it. (The most ludicrous example of this was during the years immediately after WWII. The birth rates were clearly skyrocketing, maternity floors and nurseries overflowing. When that first wave of 5 and 6 year olds showed up for school - the school districts had not built in preparation. The school systems were jammed for several years until they got the funding and built more schools.)The people who see signs that suggest something awful has happened or is going on; get mad, panic, etc when no one will take them the least bit seriously. You end up with a wide range of response and argument. The 'kids' who did 'Loose Change' were no experts and make me think of some of the stuff that would surface when I was in college - some truth and a lot of speculation. Others manage to keep their rational minds and sometimes find reasons to be concerened. It's no different than the media. Which leaves out major facts and information, twists what it presents, uses some very good sources and some irreputable ones. The primary goal in any situation of forewarning should be to pay it enough attention to determine if there is reason to pursue it further. That can continue for some time, assessing if further investigation is waranted. (Something that never happened in the Whitewater pursuit)I think we owe it to the structural engineers and firefighters (those that died and those that still go into burning buildings) to honor their pleas for an independent scientific investigation of how/why the buildings failed. Not to mention the survivors, the families and the cleanup workers. That should have been done to begin with.If it turns out there had to be some other hand in the building failures, the Pentagon crash and '93 would need to be rechecked. Even with the Operation Northwoods plan, I have a hard time thinking any of the flights were military drones and the people were not on them. But the Pentagon plane did crash into a remodeled but not yet reopened section, while the one that was targeting the WH was shot down. Maybe the military finally got their exercises and reality sorted out. (IMO,The brilliant idea to schedule so many exercises for the same day has Rummy's c**keyed thinking all over it.)I don't want any fantasy or lies coming out of the new investigation for embeshment. The truth will be enough.
nomojunkscienceOct 4, 2006
I think that we dishonor Jihadists everywhere by thinking they werent' responsible for 911. Now we know those guys are touchy so let's at least pretend that they were the ones.
eckernetOct 9, 2006
I personally know the guy that lead the first team of rescuers into the Pentagon. It was a plane, trust me. I've personally sat with the guy and listen to him describe finding very very small pieces of his friends (or the jewelry they were wearing) amongst the wreckage.Claiming it was anything other than what it was just pisses me off.
eckernetOct 9, 2006
"Therein lies one of many odd circumstances - why were all the videos confiscated (and never released)?"It's called an investigation...and they have since been released."Why do we only get to see five frames that include nothing but a distant fireball (and no plane)?" It's called slow-motion video. Surveillance cameras usually only capture a frame of video every couple seconds or so. That said, if you have a plane speeding towards the Pentagon how many frames were you expecting!??"Why is the actual damage to the building inconsistent with the damage that would have been caused by a plane? "Nowhere has anyone shown it was inconsistent. The few claims I've seen conspiracy theorists make have been roundly debunked over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.....
paco667Jul 29, 2007
Basically the type of slavery that is mostly used those says is mental slavery, and I don't consider that freedom, lol.