Seems to me that the number of scientists, professors and such who have explicitlly expressed doubt about the Official Conspiracy Theory is much greater than those who have explicitly expressed belief in that fantasy.

by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1367 comments [407 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Sunday, Jun 1, 2008 at 7:13:08 AM

  (0+)

I don't like to give credit to terrorist, but the 9/11 attack was well planned and well executed.  When has this Administration ever done anything well?  If Bush had done this, it would have looked more like the response to Katrina or Valarie Plame.  I am not really taking up for Bush, but his MO is generally to attack people by sneaking around and destroying or neglecting the programs or agencies that keep the playing field level. In a word, a technique that is petty and lazy rather than diabolically clever.   We have the goods on Bush and company for a lot treasonable acts already.  If there were justice in this country, he and his cabinet would be wearing stripes right now. 

by vidiot (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 300 comments [10 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Jun 1, 2008 at 9:59:11 AM

  (0+)

Let's see, Bush and his guys are so incompetent that they have managed to steal scores of elections, turn the corporate media into Pravda West almost, invade two countries and give themselves carte blanche to attack any number of countries, so long as they are not too big and powerful that they can bite back. They can bully and coerce most of Europe, NATO and the rest of the West into going along with their agendas, have disrupted fruitful actions on global warming for years (yeaa Exxon!), allowed all of their buddies into the Gulf Coast to rip off the peoples of Louisiana and Mississippi, and on and on. Who are you trying to kid that they can't execute their agendas. Some of the chaos they have let happen they actually wanted to see happen. It's called Disaster Capitalism.

by Mac McKinney (53 articles, 115 quicklinks, 242 diaries, 1426 comments [37 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Jun 1, 2008 at 10:09:41 AM

  (0+)

Roark is, of course, spouting his usual drivel.

Vidiot is repeating the now very hackneyed conflating of Bush with the Neocon agenda and machinations. As you point out, Mac, they have been very effective; indeed apallingly so.

In any case, it was 'Bush' who 'Did' 9/11. At the most, he endorsed it. Elements of our 'secret government' and perhaps a couple of other national intelligence services were involved.  

by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1367 comments [407 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Sunday, Jun 1, 2008 at 11:02:16 AM

  (0+)

Should have typed: 'It was NOT Bush who did 9/11. He is, as they say, merely the 'useful idiot'. He can play the buffoon. The real work is done behind the scenes by the COG folks.... we know who leads them. And he cannot be characterized as a fool. Evil Incarnate, perhaps, but not a fool.

by richard (0 articles, 5 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 1367 comments [407 recommended, 8 rejected]) on Sunday, Jun 1, 2008 at 11:05:25 AM

  (0+)

Continuity of Government maybe? Who leads them?

by Brett Paatsch (0 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 1308 comments) on Sunday, Jun 1, 2008 at 10:59:03 PM

  (0+)

Do you really mean Bush "plays" the buffoon?  Back in 2002 when he was in Okla City trying to 'splain why he was a'fixin to cluster-bomb freedom around the world...

"See, we love -- we love freedom.  That's what they don't understand.  They hate things.  We love things.  They act out of hatred.  We don't seek revenge.  We seek justice -- out of love."

If this sumbitch was "playing the buffoon," he deserves an Oscar...

by Sheila Samples (54 articles, 6195 quicklinks, 44 diaries, 605 comments [28 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jun 2, 2008 at 9:54:53 AM

  (0+)

Bush's 9/11 flights across the US in a mindless panic indicate to me that he was not involved in the planning or execution, as does the transimission to AF1 from the White House of the message reading "Angel is Next"... a clear warning using his internal code name.  The stunned and haunted expression on his face during his 7-minute paralysis in that Florida classroom indicate his disbelief, and fear for his own safety.

 I believe also that Bush could not be trusted with 9/11 information prior to the attack, as he's apt to blurt out state secrets in order to make a snide joke.  His repeated references to 9/11 as "winning the Trifecta" are indicative of this, as are his references to a "shadow government."

by JonmarkP (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 111 comments [13 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Jun 1, 2008 at 1:05:22 PM

  (0+)

Bull's eye but Bush's whole hearted approval of what has happened ever since 9/11, in Afghanistan & in Iraq, proves Bush being in bed with the same CONSPIRATORS all along. He must have known what would trigger the latter events. The way he reacted to the 9/11 news on camera showed a man waiting for the news to come through to him at about the time it did! 

by syed mahdi (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 156 comments [17 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Jun 1, 2008 at 1:21:34 PM

  (0+)

As I pointed out, that article was written 20 months ago. 

Certainly someone would have followed up on it by now.  Why this would be the biggest story of the century!  The reporter who breaks the story would be famous and rich.  Think about it, you could sell the story to Hollywood and get a Charlie Sheen to play you.   You would win the Pulitzer prize hands down and maybe even have a shot at the Nobel prize!

Like Marvin the Martian said: “Where’s the Earth shattering KABOOM?”

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Sunday, Jun 1, 2008 at 2:35:57 PM

  (0+)

People like MR. howard above should be asking why the government doesn't release the videos of the pentagon attack. If he believes that 911 had nothing to do with Washington insiders then he also believes that such hidden evidence shows no conspiracy, so why not come clean? That's my main question? Personally I tend to believe gross negligence by government officials who in fact were warned that something big was on its way but did nothing to stop it. That in itself is enough reason to thwart a real investigation. Or what if a rogue group out of the pentagon did the dirty deed without civilian government knowledge? That also is good reason not to proceed with a real investigation. Something is not right with the formal explanation and until the questions are answered we will all wonder.

by Archie (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1767 comments [113 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Jun 1, 2008 at 2:41:57 PM

  (0+)

Co-author of this article in the Swiss newspaper was Daniel Ganser, the political scientist who wrote Nato's Secret Armies - Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe, which is a terrific book showing how MI6 and CIA armed and trained lots of 'stay behind' networks after WW2 - supposedly in case of Russia over-runing the place. These effectively became right-wing terrorist cells which carried out terrorist attacks and assassinations at the behest of Nato, with top level cover in the defence ministries and armed forces and police of numerous European countries, most of which cover this supra-national infiltration up to this day, and which ofter arranged for the Reds to get the blame - e.g. Red Brigade blamed for the Bologna railway station massacre [cf Madrid??]. False-Flag Terrorism as state policy - see also Rumsfeld doctrine of P2OG.

Ganser's book is a huge eye-opener which desrves to be much b etter known.  

by Keith Mothersson (6 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 74 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Jun 1, 2008 at 2:58:44 PM

  (0+)

I've long thought the most likely explanation of 9/11 was that an attack was coming, the Bush Administration knew it was coming and either ignored it and let it happen, or possibly helped it along in some ways. Bush himself may have ignored it and others (e.g., Cheney) may have helped events along.

Is it possible that the whole event was a false flag operation planned in Washington? Sure, its possible.

Is it possible that 19 hijackers armed with utility knives and almost no flying experience planned and executed this under orders from a diabetic living in Afghanistan? Sure, although it does seem a bit far-fetched and a little like a bad television script.

No matter which of these is closer to the truth, the thing that still amazes me is that, while 9/11 happened on Bush's watch he seems to receive none of the blame for it. Is it not the President who, like the captain of a ship, is ultimately responsible for a botched defense operation?

Under previous administration, similar attempts were stopped (I recall something along these lines was foiled during the millennium celebrations). However, Bush was never held to account for allowing this tragedy to happen on his watch.  Remarkably, I still hear Bush supporters praising him for keeping it from happening again.

by PrMaine (13 articles, 13 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 512 comments [22 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Sunday, Jun 1, 2008 at 4:11:42 PM

  (0+)

The forces behind 9/11 were spawned and stewarded by many of the same players as Iran/Contra and the October Surprise.  It has never bothered this force to break the law of this or any other country.  It is not solely an American entity in fact its controlling Heirarchy is most probably foreign.  It is not the first time that this government has attempted to hide the truth from its people even when U.S. people were killed (U.S.S. Liberty or the Beirut Barracks Bombing).  However, its players make concious choices rather to engage in illegal activity.

Aircraft did hit the towers, but it was other forces that brought the building down and was responsible for the majority of the deaths on that day.  The fact that our government will not pursue or admit truth on these matters indicates knowledge that is illegal, embarrassing, or Treacherous.

by Sleeper (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 313 comments [6 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Jun 1, 2008 at 5:36:27 PM

  (0+)

Personally, I don't feel like I know enough to pass judgement on what happened on 9/11, but I do feel that something this momentus deserves more investigation than a stain on a blue dress. 

Let's hope that the Obama administration will order a thorough and honest investigation.  In fact, once he is in office let's do more than just hope for this.

by PrMaine (13 articles, 13 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 512 comments [22 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Monday, Jun 2, 2008 at 4:28:12 PM

  (0+)

While the most plausible scenario from the average person's point of view is that the government merely allowed a group of determined terrorists from outside the US to attack, because they are too incompetent to pull it off themselves, this does not account for the implosion and collapse of the three towers at free-fall or near-free-fall speeds and other matters involving physical impossibility that have convinced the scientific community of a conspiracy. Are we to believe that terrorists got inside the buildings and set up explosives with thermite without being detected? There are trails all over the places leading straight to the government.

by Oh (7 articles, 5 quicklinks, 3 diaries, 321 comments [41 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Jun 1, 2008 at 5:32:14 PM

  (0+)

You state: 

this does not account for the implosion and collapse of the three towers at free-fall or near-free-fall speeds

None of the towers collapsed at free fall speed.  Please stop repeating this misinformation.  The speed of the collapse of the towers was entirely consistant with strucutral engineering and physics.   

and other matters involving physical impossibility that have convinced the scientific community of a conspiracy.

no, ther are no matters of physical impossibility.  The scientific community does not consider there to be anything unusual about the building collapses.  (real scientists, that is) 

Are we to believe that terrorists got inside the buildings and set up explosives with thermite without being detected?

 There were no explosives and no thermite in the buildings.  There is no proof, of any thermite and explosives in the buildings.  In fact, the evidence pretty much rules out the presense of thermite or explosves in the buildings.

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Sunday, Jun 1, 2008 at 6:52:13 PM

  (0+)

You claim:

The speed of the collapse of the towers was entirely consistant with strucutral engineering and physics.

Just what do you know about structural engineering and physics? Don't be shy.  Tell us what you have your degrees in and what you have accomplished in either of these fields.

You say:

The scientific community does not consider there to be anything unusual about the building collapses.  (real scientists, that is)

Well, I'm a real physicist, and I say Patricia has got it right.  At the link below I explain why one Manuel Garcia got it wrong.  You'll also find my credentials here:

by David Griscom (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 51 comments [28 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Jun 1, 2008 at 9:37:39 PM

  (0+)

Just what do you know about structural engineering and physics? Don't be shy.  Tell us what you have your degrees in and what you have accomplished in either of these fields.  

Well David, I guess you got me there.  I ma not a licensed structural engineer.  But then again, neither are you.  So that puts us on an equal footing on that topic.  In addition, engineering is the key topic here, not physics. 

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Monday, Jun 2, 2008 at 10:57:19 AM

  (0+)

Well, I'm a real physicist, and I say Patricia has got it right. 

Well, what would Judy Wood say?  She has a PhD in engineering and she has some of the strangest ideas on 9/11 that have been proposed so far.  Would she agree with you?  Do you agree with her?  You are attempting to make an appeal to authority without and substance to your argument.

At the link below I explain why one Manuel Garcia got it wrong.  You'll also find my credentials here: ---Your paper is funny.  On one hand you accuse Manuel Garcia of “proof by intimidation,” yet you open the paper with a long paragraph on your background.  To me this is nothing more than a blatant appeal to authority.   

I could critique the flaws in your argument presented in that link, if you want, but let’s sick with the topic at hand.  The key to the whole Physics based argument for the 9/11 conspiracy related collapse theory is the so called “free fall” collapse times.  The argument goes thus:  “the buildings collapsed at near free fall speed (some people have even argued that they collapsed faster than free fall. ).  This would have been impossible because (insert reason here).  Therefore, the explosive / incendiary of your choice had to have been used to “assist” the collapse. 

Now there are some major problems with this argument.  What is meant by “near free fall?”  The records of the day indicate that the total collapse time for all portions of the buildings were significantly longer than free fall.  Even the most conservative estimate of 15 seconds for the total collapse of one of the towers puts the collapse time at 30 percent longer than free fall. 

Is this significant?  I think so.  I think that the collapse speed of the buildings is what should reasonably be expected based on the effect the structural and fire damage that they incurred on the specific building designs.  You may not agree, but since we have previously determined that your opinion is the same as mine in regard to the structural performance of those buildings, then in order for you to prove your point, you need to provide some substantive calculations for proof.  Calculations that take into account the engineering designs of the building.  I have yet to see those types of calculations from the truther camp. 

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Monday, Jun 2, 2008 at 11:00:59 AM

  (0+)

David, It is my understanding that Mark Roberts, and several others in fact, have challenged you to defend your position in a debate.  So far you have declined to do so. 

Why?

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Monday, Jun 2, 2008 at 11:03:27 AM

  (0+)

Unmitigated drivel. You wonder why these people carry on like this. Perhaps, like Bush, they can't do any different. Then the question becomes how can a psychology become so volatilised. You expect it in a Bush and other "great men", who go round and round, losing their bones along the way, but not in an ordinary person. This is not normal.

Sydney, Australia 

by Robert Hoogenboom (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 234 comments [14 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Jun 1, 2008 at 10:19:29 PM

  (0+)

The Dr Judy Wood scientific peer review of observations and scientific data about the trade towers going down. http://www.drjudywood.com/

I read it here first.  So,

Until you use engineering quotes as to free fall and other concepts related to demolition, your argument is moot.  The thing I learned from this work of Dr. Wood, is that nuclear blasts create an effect like the nine/eleven events we watched unfold on our idiot boxes, yet couldn't fathom...because we can't perceive what we don't know, and to argue about it is even worse.  Check these links out, then quote the scientists who, yes, are on the case.

http://www.911scholarsreview.org/

(The July - September, Volume 1, Number 1 (2007)

Kurt King / WTC Dust Cloud Energetics and Implications

by karmacounselor (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 106 comments [7 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jun 2, 2008 at 6:54:14 AM

  (0+)

bat crap crazy.

Sorry, but that is a fact.  Look at her website and at her "theories" and you will see someone who has lost all touch with reality. 

I mean seriously.  Beam weapons from outer space?  What, is the moon really the death star?  LOL

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Monday, Jun 2, 2008 at 11:06:42 AM

  (0+)

In the same vein as Sleeper posted, let's conider an historical precedent.  The burning of the Reichtag propelled the Nazis into power, and an earlier article exposed an unsettling idea.  Could it be that Bin Laden was a bumbling van der Lubbe who opened an oportunity for the Goerings of our counrty to spring into action?

"From Goring's Reichstag President's Palace an underground passage, built to carry the central heating system, ran to the Reichstag building. Through this tunnel Karl Ernst, a former hotel bellhop who had become the Berlin S.A. leader, led a small detachment of storm troopers on the night of February 27 to the Reichstag, where they quickly scattered gasoline and self-igniting chemicals and then made their way quickly back to the palace the way they had come. At the same time a half-witted Dutch Communist with a passion for arson, Marinus van der Lubbe, had made his way into the huge, darkened and to him unfamiliar building and set some small fires of his own. This feeble-minded pyromaniac was a godsend to the Nazis. He had been picked up by the S.A. a few days before after having been overheard in a bar boasting that he had attempted to set fire to several public buildings and that he was going to try the Reichstag next."

by Bob Jones (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 14 comments) on Sunday, Jun 1, 2008 at 5:55:55 PM

  (0+)

The article was written 20 months ago, surely someone would have followed up on it by now?

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Sunday, Jun 1, 2008 at 6:53:50 PM

  (0+)

The two most compelling commonalities among those still managing to cling to the "official government" 911 conspiracy theory, are:

 1) a stunning inability, (or outright refusal), to apply only the most basic critical thinking while making a cursory review of the known, verifiable facts before, during and after the attacks.

No rocket science required - just basic cognitive reasoning.

2) an ignorance, (or outright denial), of vigorously secreted, esoteric, yet easily verifiable US government history,  policies and actions that make the 911 attacks an act of evil genius that perfectly advances myriad hidden agendas.

Thinking dictated by either or both of these realities, the attacks of 911 will never sink in.

by Michael McCoy (7 articles, 1 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 489 comments [31 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Jun 1, 2008 at 7:43:15 PM

  (0+)

That article came out in September 2006.  It refrences the movie "Loose Change."

I wonder what version it is refering to.  There were several, you know.  The film maker kept editing it as various claims were debunked. 

The final version is pretty watered down and no one even talks about it any more. 

So, since September 2006, who has written about the "9/11 truth" in any paper?

If the "truth" is so self evident, then why aren't reporters all over the world falling over themselves to become the next Woodward and Bernstein?

Why oh Why Indeed?

Is it perhaps because there is nothing to this conspiracy nonsense?

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Sunday, Jun 1, 2008 at 8:18:15 PM

  (0+)

Actually, the documentary 'Loose Change' remains quite compelling and addresses myriad holes in the official excuse for the 911 attacks.

The Japanese government, in open, public session, discusses the absurdity of the official US government's version of the events on 911.

The wildly popular Italian ex-president rails publicly against the US government's official excuse and apology.

A former, high-level British official disassembles the US government's version of the events on 911 and reveals countless misrepresentations.

A former Bush economist exposes methods by which key US officials are able to obfuscate one crucial government claim after another regarding the official 911 excuse.

This is reprinted from my response to yet another supporter of the official 911 explaination/conspiracy:

The quest to manufacture consent by the bewildered herd.

Faced with such a grand, hideous event as 911, with consequences that ushered in a new America, with profound, once hidden agendas fulfilled with stunning immediacy and efficiency, with myriad, crucial evidence blatantly obscured and hidden from the commoners, evidence that taken in tandem, would cause any second rate arson investigator or drunken defense attorney to fall over laughing, key government officials with powers to enable a faux investigation, with a clear, verifiable history of US government deception and dark, hidden agendas and presented with a government version of the events that requires an average eigth grader to fully dismiss basic, cognitive reasoning, we continue to encounter those that defend that official version of such a fundamental, important event.

Four airliners were hijacked nearly simultaneously by fanatical Muslims and three were flown into landmark buildings and one crashed into a Pennsylvania field, according to the official story. What could be worth hiding?

Let's look at a few compelling realities regarding the 'official story':

As National Security Advisor, what was Condaleezza Rice's actual excuse for repeatedly ignoring unprecedented warnings of an impending attack on US soil? Bush's excuse? Cheney's excuse?
Why was anti-terrorism funding cut by the Bush administration in the months prior to the 911 attacks considering: 1) that the USS Cole bombing had yet to be addressed 2) The two US embassy bombings in Africa had yet to be addressed, and 3) the entire US intelligence system was 'blinking red' according to CIA chief George Tenet?
Why was chief anti-terrorism expert - under four presidents - Richard Clark, removed from the Bush inner circle only months before the 911 attacks?
Why did Bush and cronies object so strongly to an investigation for 14 months?
Why was the selection process for the ten members of the 911 Commission so contentious?
How can an investigation, with top White House officials as potential defendants, be fully and completely directed by a White House insider with pronounced conflicts of interest and loyalties?

Why was Dick Cheney's appointment to command all US air defenses, an unprecesdented delegation of presidential power only months before 911, ignored by the 911 Commission?
Why was the crucial 911 Commission testimony by Norman Mineta ignored and expunged from the video archive?
Why was Sibel Edmunds gagged by court order, while her critical testimony was ignored by the Commission?
Why did Pentagon officials offer three contradictory stories - the final one to the 911 Commission, and how did they get away with perjury?
Why were numerous FBI investigations into the alleged hijackers before 911 thwarted - and not addressed by the 911 Commission?
Of the litany, (nine to sixteen, depending on what source is to be believed), of war games in progress on 911, (at the center of the failures to respond), why was only one briefly mentioned in a footnote by the 911 Commission?
Why were numerous videotapes of the Pentagon impact immediately seized by the FBI? Why do they remain classified?
Why does the aircaft debris of flights 93 and 77 remain classified, even off limits even to the NTSB and FAA?
Why was the crime scene evidence at the site of the WTC towers removed so quickly and recycled?
Why were 28 pages documenting the ties between the Bush family and the Saudi Royal family omitted form the 911 Commission report?
Why were the long established Bush family ties with the bin Laden family utterly ignored by the 911 Commission?

Why was a verified $100,000 payment to alleged lead hijacker Mohamed Atta by Pakistan's intelligence chief ignored by the Commission?
Of the 11,000 White House documents requested by the 911 Commission, why were only 2,766 received, most heavily redacted? Why is this crucial, pervasive obfuscation not mentioned by the 911 Commission?
Why did Bush and Cheney only agree to 'meet' with the 911 Commission without being under oath, with no transcript recorded or individual notes by the members allowed?

Why was Marvin Bush, the president's brother, a principle in the security company with contracts with the World Trade Center Complex, Dulles International Airport and United Airlines, ignored by the Commission?
How can an 'official investigation' be allowed to carefully and methodically ignore each and every piece of overwhemingly contradictory evidence to reach a preconceived conclusion? And allowed to get away with it?
How can a policy of wars, institutionalized murder and destruction continue when there is no evidence - according to the FBI, the CIA and the NSA - tying al Qaeda or bin Laden to the crimes of 911 to this day?
How can a society, ostensibly founded on honor, and a nation supposedly of laws - and not of men - so profoundly pervert the truth surrounding the largest crime and mass-murder in US history... and absorb the lie into it's culture?

One must constuct an excuse or ignore each of these factors in order to support cognitive dissonance sufficiently - in order to endorse the official government excuse/apology/story of the events surrounding 911.

If you had committed an immense crime to further a hidden agenda, wouldn't you want to be able to 1) carefully chose or approve each member of the investigative team? 2) have a loyal insider to direct the efforts of the investigators, and more importantly, to decide which aspects of the crime to avoid? (see above) 3) testify with a key co-conspirator with no oath, no transcript and no notes allowed?

After all, four airliners were hijacked and three of them were flown into landmark buildings. What could be worth hiding?

Were your ten year old daughter to ask such a question of you, how would you answer her?

by Michael McCoy (7 articles, 1 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 489 comments [31 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jun 2, 2008 at 3:53:54 AM

  (0+)

Actually, the documentary 'Loose Change' remains quite compelling and addresses myriad holes in the official excuse for the 911 attacks.

The first, second, third, or final version.  They are all different.  If it is correct, then why did the film makers have to redo it so many times?

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Monday, Jun 2, 2008 at 5:35:06 AM

  (0+)

I don't know why so many people respond to people like this howard-troll, they just post to interrupt discussion and keep people from more useful activities. You'll never change their minds, because there are no minds to change, their only purpose is to intrude, and logic has as much use on them as it does on asking ants not to interrupt your picnic or something. Just pee on his head like a fountain and they turn to stone like trolls in the daylight. lol (and then for a good read check out Green Island http://www.rudemacedon.ca/greenisland.html to see how adults deal with juvenile capitalists like the gods of this troll.

by siamdave (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 85 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Sunday, Jun 1, 2008 at 10:46:37 PM

  (0+)

Where is the enourmous media response to this article published 20 months ago?

If the truther "evidence" is so compelling and easy to grasp, then why haven't thousands of reporters from real news outlets jumped on this? 

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Monday, Jun 2, 2008 at 5:37:37 AM

  (0+)

How about answering some of Micheal McCoy's excellent questions, Mr Troll?

They're no-brainers for me!

No, I don't think it was Bush Jr., per se ...more like Cheney and the old Poison-farts from Poppy Bush's administration and CIA set-up, with Idiot-Boy just the gleeful, clueless figure-head.

That's why Cheney needs to be impeached FIRST.

Short of Impeachment of Both, we will never get the answers.  

(sure, let them testify holding hands, just make then do it UNDER OATH, in a PUBLIC forum!)

Then, let's see these traitorous criminals swinging from the gallows on the National Mall.  I'll even knit them some socks!

by Bia Winter (6 articles, 2 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 767 comments [121 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jun 2, 2008 at 9:53:48 AM

  (0+)

The “questions” he asks have been dealt with numerous times before.  I’m not getting drawn into a game of spam postsing with the winner being whoever can spew out the most keyboard diarrhea.

I’ll tell you what.

You pick out the one best question that you like and ask it and unlike David, above, I will answer it. 

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Monday, Jun 2, 2008 at 11:18:11 AM

  (0+)

I didn't drop in just to joust with a troll. My purpose is to call folks' attention to my 9/11 research. If you are interested in how insiders could have pulled off the 9/11 attacks, I've worked out a complete scenario that both fits all the facts I'm aware of (including some things others don't seem to have noticed yet) and explains everything. Just check my website:
http://impactglassresearchinternational.com/
and punch the "Political" button...

by David Griscom (11 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 51 comments [28 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jun 2, 2008 at 12:19:38 AM

  (0+)

So, here I extend my “all passengers survived” postulate to all four 9/11 “hijacked” flights on the notion that this small number of passengers might have been considered by conspirators as the minimum number for public credulity, while at the same time not exceeding the maximum number of “true believers in the cause” willing to accept long separations from their loved ones (sweetened by handsome Swiss bank accounts).

You are really reaching here, David. 

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Monday, Jun 2, 2008 at 11:40:23 AM

  (0+)

I would not overlook the collusive role that our "friends" the Israelis more than likely played in the tragedy of 9/11. Israel is the one with the most to gain by an attack that would clearly make "their" enemies "our" enemies.

Like the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon years ago, the Israelis SURELY must have gotten wind of this plan well in advance, and rather than try to foil it in any way possible and "share" their intelligence with us, their "true" friend and benefactor, they did everything in their power to make sure the attack was as successful and deadly as possible.

by Kris Malmquist (9 articles, 0 quicklinks, 40 diaries, 108 comments [3 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jun 2, 2008 at 3:44:04 AM

  (0+)

Filming from the Jersy shore... are we to believe they were just Psychicly Prescient ?

Better get ready for the NEXT Ti-fecta, folks!  Same players, same Modus Operandum; different patsy: Iran this time!

 Sure Mr Roark Troll will have all their excuses neatly lined up already. 

by Bia Winter (6 articles, 2 quicklinks, 14 diaries, 767 comments [121 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jun 2, 2008 at 10:05:10 AM

  (0+)

On all of these threads, someone always tries to claim that "Da joos dit it."

by Roark Howard (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 350 comments) on Monday, Jun 2, 2008 at 11:20:28 AM

  (0+)

by Sleeper (1 articles, 1 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 313 comments [6 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, Jun 3, 2008 at 2:34:49 PM

  (0+)

There is no doubt in my mind that 911 was an inside job. None. Polls now show a majority of Americans want a new investigation.  The 911 Commission Report is full of inconsistances and fails to mention Building #7, which is the smoking gun. The coverup has gone on for 7 long years...its long past time for truth and justice. 911 was an Inside Job! Case Closed.

by ronheri (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 257 comments [47 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Monday, Jun 2, 2008 at 8:43:42 PM

  (0+)