There are a lot of conspiracy theories running through extreme left-wing circles about the attacks on 9/11. One such piece of drivel is an Internet movie called “Loose Change.”
On Thursday’s “O’Reilly Factor,” the host invited a New York City detective named Bo Dietl, and author Gerald Posner to discuss some recent developments surrounding the conspiracy theorists. O’Reilly began (video available here, h/t Hot Air):
The far-left fringe has embraced the conspiracy theory that elements of the U.S. government carried out the attacks on 9/11. It's unbelievable, but that's what they're saying. Now some mainstream individuals are buying into it. Rosie O'Donnell discussed it on her blog. And the owner of the Dallas Mavericks, billionaire Mark Cuban, may distribute a movie called "Loose Change." That piece of propaganda may be narrated by Charlie Sheen. And it says the U.S. government was criminally negligent on 9/11.
Posner chimed in:
What goes through my mind, though, is, I get angry. And, then, when I see mainstream figures, like Rosie O'Donnell -- she essentially did a cut- and-paste. She took it from one site and put it on her blog. You know what? You can't do that. It would be like putting on something that said the Holocaust didn't exist. And she has -- she should be socially responsible to know better.
Dietl was next:
But when I hear this nonsense about these movies that are going to be being made about this, what about the victims? What about the firemen and the cops that died down there, their families, and the people who are down there that lost their husbands, wives, daughters, and sons?
This is complete moron stuff now. I saw the engine of the plane that was down there on the ground that went right through the building. I saw people down there when we got down there, when number seven came down. They said about the building number seven coming down the same way. Yes, because so much heaviness came off the World Trade Center coming down on to seven. Seven came down. The foundation was all out of whack because of them coming down.
O’Reilly put an exclamation point on their statements:
I believe that, if Charlie Sheen puts his voice and name on this, he's through. I think that will -- people won't watch his television program. They will hold it against him.
I quite agree, gentlemen.
What follows is a full transcript of this segment.
O'REILLY: "Impact" segment tonight: The far-left fringe has embraced the conspiracy theory that elements of the U.S. government carried out the attacks on 9/11. It's unbelievable, but that's what they're saying.
Now some mainstream individuals are buying into it. Rosie O'Donnell discussed it on her blog. And the owner of the Dallas Mavericks, billionaire Mark Cuban, may distribute a movie called "Loose Change." That piece of propaganda may be narrated by Charlie Sheen. And it says the U.S. government was criminally negligent on 9/11.
With us now, Bo Dietl, former New York City detective, knows about the local investigation on 9/11, from Miami, Gerald Posner, the author of the book "Why America Slept: The Reasons Behind Our Failure to Prevent 9/11."
All right, Gerald, I will begin with you.
When you hear this conspiratorial stuff, what goes through your mind?
GERALD POSNER, AUTHOR, "WHY AMERICA SLEPT": Well, you know, Bill, it use to surprise me. Now nothing surprises me, what these wackos can come up with.
What goes through my mind, though, is, I get angry. And, then, when I see mainstream figures, like Rosie O'Donnell -- she essentially did a cut- and-paste. She took it from one site and put it on her blog. You know what? You can't do that. It would be like putting on something that said the Holocaust didn't exist. And she has -- she should be socially responsible to know better.
Mark Cuban, he may be great at making money. He is worth over a billion dollars. But this was the guy who said, remember, when Kobe Bryant was arrested, it will be good for the NBA. And he says, on this issue, he is agnostic. He does things that are good about 9/11. He also distributes this, because it's on the other side; we don't have a opinion.
But guess what, Mark? You don't get to be agnostic on this. You have to have an opinion. Either 19 hijackers, Muslim fundamentalists, who wanted to destroy the West flew those planes into the World Trade Center and into the Pentagon, killing 3,000 people on 9/11, or, otherwise, you are right and it's a conspiracy. And you know what? You don't get to straddle both sides of the fence. You have an obligation to come clean on this and not distribute that film -- the same with Charlie Sheen in narrating it. It's disgrace.
O'REILLY: All right.
How do you see it, Bo? You were down here when it happened. You actually worked on the World Trade Center when they were building it.
BO DIETL, CHAIRMAN & CEO, BEAU DIETL AND ASSOCIATES: I was an iron worker back in the late '60s, before I became a cop.
And the whole construction of the World Trade Center was heavy, thick, steel walls around the outside, with six inches of concrete floors. And what happened that day is, when that melted, that went down, and it became like potato chips. And I watched the buildings go down. It looked like they were imploding. They were imploding. The steel hit there. They couldn't hold up the weight, and they came right down. Thank God that they didn't come down any other way.
But when I hear this nonsense about these movies that are going to be being made about this, what about the victims? What about the firemen and the cops that died down there, their families, and the people who are down there that lost their husbands, wives, daughters, and sons?
This is complete moron stuff now. I saw the engine of the plane that was down there on the ground that went right through the building. I saw people down there when we got down there, when number seven came down. They said about the building number seven coming down the same way. Yes, because so much heaviness came off the World Trade Center coming down on to seven. Seven came down. The foundation was all out of whack because of them coming down.
This all -- there could have been more buildings coming down around. Why it happened that way, only architects and only...
(CROSSTALK)
O'REILLY: Well, we went over it with the popular mechanics...
DIETL: Yes. Right.
O'REILLY: ... people who have done exhaustive study.
But I agree with you, that I think that bringing this stuff up, accusing your own country of murdering your own citizens, is painful for people who lost people.
DIETL: You go back with the blind cleric and with Yousef. The connection was right there, when they bombed World Trade Center one and they go to two.
(CROSSTALK)
O'REILLY: Bo, don't confuse anybody with facts.
DIETL: Yes.
O'REILLY: Don't confuse them with facts.
(LAUGHTER)
O'REILLY: But I will tell you this, Gerald. I believe that, if Charlie Sheen puts his voice and name on this, he's through. I think that will -- people won't watch his television program. They will hold it against him.
Now, you said something interesting. You said it makes you angry when these conspiratorialists put the stuff out. They have freedom of speech. I mean, they can say what they want.
POSNER: Oh, no.
CAVUTO: Why does it make you angry?
POSNER: It makes me angry, Bill, because they're making up, in some cases, what they call facts. They're distributing false information. In many cases, they know it.
And the product today is much slicker. You know, in the old days, you use to get a right-wing revisionist who would stand up and say, oh, by the way, the Holocaust is a myth, and they would just deny it, and we all knew they were crazy, and that was the end of it.
But, today, these films that they're putting out are very slick. They tend to show things in a way that, if you watch it, and you are impressionable -- it was like "JFK," that Oliver Stone. Look, it was a good propaganda film.
I view these often as propaganda films, as good as anything that the Third Reich turned out. But they can change impressionable minds. So, the reason I get angry, as a journalist, is the same reason you would as a journalist. You see the historical record here being completely muddied up on a case that should be straightforward. And the Internet allows these theories to explode...
O'REILLY: Yes, sure. There's no question about that.
(CROSSTALK)
POSNER: ... so that they spread fast.
O'REILLY: I just don't understand the hatred for the country. I don't get the hatred for the country, Bo.
And did you ever think about that? Why do they -- I'm not saying Mark Cuban hates America. I don't know what motivates Mark Cuban. He is welcome to come on here and explain.
But most of these people who buy into this, they just hate the country.
DIETL: You know, it's just something that people have to be negative.
Look, we're all not happy, what the president's been doing. I was a Republican. I'm not happy with my president, what's he's been doing and what's been happening. But you want to know something? I'm not going to go against him completely on everything he's doing. There's things that are being done right. The economy's great and everything.
But people are going to be negative. These -- these people that want to develop a film showing that this really never happened, or it happened with a murder, first of all, they had another one, a conspiracy that Israel did it, and wanted to get...
(CROSSTALK)
O'REILLY: Well, that was the Muslims.
DIETL: I mean, it goes on and on and on.
O'REILLY: Yes, the Muslim tried to blame it on Mossad.
(CROSSTALK)
O'REILLY: Right.
DIETL: It's aggravating to me, the one -- the most important thing, Bill, is the people that died there on September 11 and their families.
O'REILLY: You bet.
DIETL: This is a disgrace to them. And Martin Sheen's kid better -- better watch it, as far as people...
O'REILLY: I agree.
(CROSSTALK)
DIETL: I wouldn't watch anything...
(CROSSTALK)
O'REILLY: And this -- we're looking out for you, Charlie Sheen. Don't do this. You're not going to come back from it, if you do. And that's not a threat. I'm just telling you, I know the country. Bo knows the country. Gerald knows the country.
DIETL: We won't watch that two-and-a-half kids thing at all.
O'REILLY: Not going to -- not going to do it any good.
Gentlemen, as always, thanks very much.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters. Follow him at Facebook and Twitter.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
The sad thing is that all t
March 23, 2007 - 13:45 ET by MightyMouthThe sad thing is that all this attention gives the false impression to the asshattery crowd that their view is somehow becoming "main stream".
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Are these the same people who
March 23, 2007 - 13:53 ET by winston smithAre these the same people who were denouncing Clinton's Arkansas and Mena airport scandals as crack-pot theories cooked up by the "evil" Richard Mellon Scaife? I say if the left can relentlessly sell this debunked drivel to a spell-bound public, then let them re-open the Arkansas drug-smuggling scandals and the deaths of Vince Foster and Ron Brown. Those scandals have plenty of red meat that the MSM never seemed that willing to bite on---- and far more validity.
Here is the issue I face:One
March 23, 2007 - 13:59 ET by contraryHere is the issue I face:
One side of me says don't give these wackos a venue to spew their hate and their deranged minds the attention they are seeking. It would be better just to ignore them.
On the other hand... If we as a society do not point out obvious hatred and deranged behavior, will the populace be more likely to eventually be swayed by their slick story telling? Should the media give them a stage to openly show their lunacy?
I am leaning to the first thought as I still have faith that my fellow man is not terminally insane and can distinquish obvious lies with common sense facts. (Obviously hollywood is not part of what I refer to as "my fellow man")
I still have faith that my
March 23, 2007 - 14:15 ET by motherbeltI still have faith that my fellow man is not terminally insane and can distinquish obvious lies with common sense facts. - contrary
Don't be so sure; there are a lot of people out there who think Oliver Stone's "JFK" was a documentary.
......and that An Inconveni
March 23, 2007 - 14:18 ET by winston smith......and that An Inconvenient Truth was a documentary.
And Mikey Moore's "Bowli
March 23, 2007 - 14:29 ET by Del DolemonteAnd Mikey Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" won Best Documentary Oscar, and his later "film" "F-911" won the prestigious Palme D'Or Award at the Cannes Film Festival...
Ignorance is strength; Freedo
March 23, 2007 - 14:05 ET by upcountrywaterIgnorance is strength; Freedom is slavery; Ahhhhh public schooling..
Ignorance is strength........
March 23, 2007 - 14:34 ET by winston smithIgnorance is strength........that sounds strangely familiar to me.
"I believe that, if Char
March 23, 2007 - 14:25 ET by Agnostic front"I believe that, if Charlie Sheen puts his voice and name on this, he's through. I think that will -- people won't watch his television program." O'Reilly's an idiot. People who watch that crap show won't stop watching it because Sheen does the commentary for some basically underground psuedo-documentary. They probably won't even know he did it and if they do, they won't care.
" O'Reilly's an idiot.
March 23, 2007 - 14:29 ET by MightyMouth" O'Reilly's an idiot."
Silly me, I thought you would NEVER post something I could agree with!
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
I'm sure we could agree on lo
March 23, 2007 - 14:39 ET by Agnostic frontI'm sure we could agree on lots of things. Just not politics. I could post about baseball or building furniture or jogging, but i haven't found that thread on this site, yet.
Can you say Dice-K, Cy Young
March 23, 2007 - 20:03 ET by Del DolemonteCan you say Dice-K, Cy Young Award Winner?
Wait a tick, people actuall
March 23, 2007 - 14:32 ET by wiwfWait a tick, people actually BELIEVE that 9/11 was an inside job? I feel sorry for their children...
This conspiracy theory is just as inconsistent as Pearl Harbor.
Unfortunately, I have met people who are devout "truth movement"-ers, and trace this entire conspiracy back to Nazi bank accounts for the Bushes (and Reichstag fires). I'd write them off as whack-jobs, but it's so much fun to turn their conspiracy theory upside down with facts. They get bug-eyed and stuttery, it makes me laugh. They're my own personal Jerry Seinfeld's.
And it's all the same drivel, never anything new with these people. Thermite, the basement explosions, WTC7 was never hit, yadda yadda. Every single argument they turn up, gets "shot down in flames."
Conspiracy theories were so 1990s. Welcome to the 21st century, you goofs.
Urrrr; Pearl Harbour was not
March 23, 2007 - 21:27 ET by M J BUrrrr; Pearl Harbour was not exactly a surprise attack! or so says the US government.
Gee, I would love a credible
March 23, 2007 - 21:37 ET by Del DolemonteGee, I would love a credible cite for your allegation.
There was an article in Fligh
March 23, 2007 - 23:25 ET by M J BThere was an article in Flight Journal magazine some time last year. I will try & find it.
The USA was building bases in China for B17's to attack Japan in December.
Try a Google search!
Taken straight out of the &qu
March 24, 2007 - 06:22 ET by Roger the ShrubberTaken straight out of the "Blame USA" handbook.
The words you are taking as gospel can be found here, and come from the non-biased, non-partisan, pro-American Noam Chomsky.
You are a joke.
What an idiot you are!The rep
March 24, 2007 - 20:18 ET by M J BWhat an idiot you are!
The report I quoted was from an AVIATION MAGAZINE with copies of official Government documents. I was NOT being political & neither was the article.
What Chomsky & Flight Journal have in common I will never know or even guess.
You have to get a life boy!
MJB-I am out iof here, but before I go--
March 24, 2007 - 20:26 ET by misterbillMJB-I am out of here, but before I go--you are one of the worst cases of cranio-rectal inversion that has visited this site. Your head is so far up your butt you are looking through your own eyes.
An ugly American is one who does not support his country.
misterbill; read this!! w
March 24, 2007 - 20:34 ET by M J Bmisterbill; read this!! www.flightjournal.com/articles/prestrike/prestrike1.asp
Hardly Chomsky.
MJB, the article does NOT say US knew of Pearl Harbor
March 24, 2007 - 21:17 ET by RJJeez, MJB, did YOU even read the article? The author does NOT say the U.S. knew about Pearl Harbor. Coulda, shoulda, woulda...that's what the author says.
The title "Preemptive Strike" tells the entire story. The U.S. was making contingency plans to possibly strike Japan first, while "earnestly hoping that Japanese-American negotiations would be a success. (Of course, making such plans always has been, and always will be, Standard Operating Procedure.)
Even the author says it was an "unusual plan", making it less likely that it would be implemented. Apparently, the author is complaining, at this late date, that the U.S. didn't pull it's own preemptive Pearl Harbor against Japan before they struck us. That makes it nothing more than a sleezy ploy to sell his new book.
So, MJB, 1) if you didn't read the article, but are claiming America "knew" about Pearl Harbor, then you are lying. 2) if you read the article and are trying to claim that America "knew" about Pearl Harbor then you are either incapable of comprehending what you are reading or you are lying.
I said " It was hardly a
March 24, 2007 - 22:00 ET by M J BI said " It was hardly a surprise" Not that they knew.
Oh, come off it.
March 24, 2007 - 22:10 ET by RJOh, come off it. You can parse words all you want, but you implied that the government "knew" in advance. You said "...not exactly a surprise attack! or so says the U.S. government." You even mentioned "official government documents" to bolster your allusion.
Did you actually read this ar
March 24, 2007 - 22:43 ET by NL207Did you actually read this article clearly?
China was at war with Japan. Or maybe it could be better said that Japan was warring upon China.
China had asked outside interests for help and had employed numerous foreign mercenaries in its cause. Claire Chennault was just one of these persons. The fact that he was a former US Army Air Corps officer was moot at this time. He was always considered to be a maverick and had been effectively forced out of the service. He was selling his services to China for money.
That Roosevelt was authorizing these actions does not surprise me. Effectively, the United States was allowing companies and private persons within the US to sell military hardware andmercenary services to a foreign government [Nationalist China] which was at war with another country the United States was not at war with. Such sales do need the approval of the government because they could be interpretted as a violation of US neutrality.
It is also clear Roosevelt was making contingency plans for war. This had always been going on and was not restricted to China. the United States Navy had the "Rainbow" contingency plans for war with Japan. This practice was not limited to pre-WWII. How many contingency war plans have been drawn up over the years and never executed involving the Soviet Union, China, N. Korea, Cuba, etc., etc.?
I agree...
March 23, 2007 - 14:34 ET by Guy Arthur ThomasI definitely agree...people that watch C. Sheen on the smallscreen usually don't even know who the he!! Bill O'Reilly is and don't give a crap about C.Sheen's Poli-wood ranting in his off-time. I think this is another case of hyper-microcontrol freak O'Reilly's wishes jumping over to his conclusions.
Shut up and blog! If you claim to be a conservative, please don't disgrace yourself and conservatism by thinking and arguing like a liberal. Go Rudy!
"I definitely agree...
March 23, 2007 - 17:37 ET by ckc1227"I definitely agree...people that watch C. Sheen on the smallscreen usually don't even know who the he!! Bill O'Reilly is and don't give a crap about C.Sheen's Poli-wood ranting in his off-time. I think this is another case of hyper-microcontrol freak O'Reilly's wishes jumping over to his conclusions. "
On the contrary, I think it is BOR doing what he can to encourage people not to watch the show because of what Charlie is doing without directly calling for a boycott.
Everyone who watches BOR aren't staunch conservatives. He has stated on many occasions that his audience consists mostly of independants and dems. I have no doubt some in his audience watch Charlie's show, because I am one of them, or I used to be before I learned last year about his conspiracy theory obsession.
I saw a report yesterday that
March 23, 2007 - 20:02 ET by Del DolemonteI saw a report yesterday that claimed to have some research showing that in fact Fox News had convinced some Democrat and Independent voters in Florida to vote for Bush in 2000. This was based upon an analysis of Florida vote tallies combined with an analysis of how many Florida communities got the Fox News Channel in 2000 as opposed to earlier. If I can find the story I'll pass it along.
FOX News says that O'Reilly i
March 23, 2007 - 21:30 ET by M J BFOX News says that O'Reilly is a Conservative commentator.
Really? Where do they say tha
March 23, 2007 - 21:43 ET by Del DolemonteReally? Where do they say that? Link please.
I just went to the Fox News website, and to their biography of him, and saw no such thing. All they said was that he likes to take a lot of naps. Not that there's anything wrong with that...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,1256,00.html
That is an important point, b
March 24, 2007 - 06:14 ET by Roger the ShrubberThat is an important point, because Fox does call Hannity a Conservative and Colmes a Liberal.
Actually, O'Reilly is slightl
March 23, 2007 - 14:37 ET by Del DolemonteActually, O'Reilly is slightly wrong on this-Sheen is "through" already. Has been for years.
When was his last "good" movie or TV show? Face it, the man's a wacky hack professionally, and his "personal life" is a disaster. He accidentally shot one ex-fiancee (Kelly Preston), was romatically involved (at different times) with two different porn stars, saw his name show up on Madam Heidi Fleiss' customer lists, and last year his current wife, actress Denise Richards, filed for divorce, saying that Sheen's behaviour was increasingly erratic, making their marriage impossible, and that she feared for her safety, and for the safety of their daughters.
That awful "Two and a Ha
March 23, 2007 - 14:47 ET by Agnostic frontThat awful "Two and a Half Turds" gets really good ratings, though. He's one of (if not the) highest paid t.v. actors at $350k per episod. I agree that he's a hack, but he's a well paid hack. Also, you may think his personal life's a wreck, but Denise Richards is smoking hot. If he dumped her, I wonder who he moved on to next. The documentary will have little or no effect on Sheen's career, such as it is.
LOL! Let's dissect these one
March 23, 2007 - 19:54 ET by Del DolemonteLOL! Let's dissect these one by one.
1. Getting "good ratings" in no way equates to "quality" work. After all, tv shows like "Happy Days" and "Walker Texas Ranger" also got good ratings.
2. Being one of the "highest paid tv actors" is irrelevant. All it means is he has a good agent.
3. I've never seen any of Denise Richards' work, but burning cigarettes and cigars are "smoking hot", too. If that's your criteria as to what makes for a good relationship, I would suggest you take a long vacation at Al Gore's mansion.
4. What I reported in my post about his personal life wasn't what I "thought"-I got it straight from Wikipedia. If you think they're lying, change the entry.
1. Getting "good ratin
March 24, 2007 - 07:04 ET by WhichWing1. Getting "good ratings" in no way equates to "quality" work. After
all, tv shows like "Happy Days" and "Walker Texas Ranger" also got good
ratings.
So does Bill O'reilly...
True, but "good ratings&
March 24, 2007 - 07:12 ET by Roger the ShrubberTrue, but "good ratings" is a relative term. BoR may get 2-2.5 million viewers to watch his show, but that would not make a dent on network television. In fact, it would not make the top 10 cable shows.
BoR is such a threat to Liberals. SpongeBob beats it in the ratings, yet you are so afraid.
Yep, smokin' crack will have
March 23, 2007 - 14:48 ET by winston smithYep, smokin' crack will have that effect on ya. It will also make you hallucinate and see things that don't really exist or believe things that really aren't true ---- like the controlled demolition bombing of the WTC.
What these 9/11 conspiracy id
March 23, 2007 - 22:24 ET by Del DolemonteWhat these 9/11 conspiracy idiots fail to realize is that they are basing all of their assumptions and allegations on all sorts of falsehoods and misinformation. 99 percent of them have never been to New York City, either before or after 9/11, and have no idea as to the physics of falling concrete.
The primary fallacy they have is that they are basing the majority of their assumptions on what they "saw" on TV on 9/11 as it happened. I would love to see how many of these 9/11 conspiracy people were actually on-site in New York City, or in a location in another part of the NY metro area, when the attacks happened.
The majority of the live news camera coverage of what happened on 9/11 came from the local New York City affiliates of the major TV networks. Unfortunately for them, most of their camera angles were from places that did not show the whole story. The WTC towers were best visible from the New Jersey side of the Hudson River, as they were built on the west side of Lower Manhattan. However, most of the news coverage film that we have repeatedly seen showing the collapse of said towers came from other angles-primarily from to the north and east in Mahnattan.
Said angles would not show how much debris from the WTC towers fell on the infamous "Building 7" when the towers fell.
In addition, my guess is that 99 percent of the 9/11 conspiracy people have NO idea how densely the skyscrapers in Manhattan are packed together. I lived in the southern part of Manhattan from 1966 til 1969, which means I was there when the work on the WTC towers had started, but not when they were completed.
When I lived in lower Manhattan, I regularly went on shopping expeditions in 1966 and 1967 to what was known as "Radio Row", which was the commercial district which was condemned to make way for the WTC (see the PBS World Trade Center documentary for more on Radio Row). This was a colony of war-surplus radio and electronics stores.
Even then, a relatively uneducated 7th-grader like myself could see that the distance between high rise skyscrapers was only as large as the street-width distance between buildings. In other words, the buildings in Lower Manhattan were packed in as tight as the NYC zoning would allow. After all, the land they stand on is worth more money that any of us can imagine.
Since New York City Streets are between 50 and 75 feet wide at a very minimum, there is NO way a one thousand plus foot building (in fact, the world's tallest buildings at the time they were built) could totally collapse without damaging neighboring buildings. And anyone who "thinks" otherwise is consuming very high quality drugs. Can I have some?
Speaking of WTC7, have yo
March 24, 2007 - 07:19 ET by WhichWingSpeaking of WTC7, have you seen this video? It's apperently a clip of a BBC reporter on 9/11, in New York, reporting that WTC7 has collapsed. Only problem is...its still standing just over the reporters left shoulder. They managed to report the collapse of a building about 20 minutes before it actually collapsed. (Note: WTC7 is referred to as the Salomon Brothers building.)
After the video had gained alot of attention, the BBC posted this response. Oh, and you'll notice in that response they have lost their original 9/11 tapes due to a "cock-up." No biggie though, was just the most important news event in history, the tapes weren't that important.
A couple times a year I dive into the 9/11 conspiracy theories to see what's being said. While I've yet to see anything extremely convincing, I have seen enough to raise questions. And this BBC clip is one of the most damning things I've seen by far.
1.) Could the reporter be m
March 26, 2007 - 10:21 ET by BD1.) Could the reporter be mistaken about which building has collapsed? I personally could not have identified which building was which, and actually cannot to this day.
2.) You insinuate that the BBC was in on the event? Oh, THATS GOOD! Hahahahahaha!
3.) Have you ever seen the steps required to perform a demolition of a standing structure? As someone who has done limited training on the subject, I can tellyou it would have been noticeable to nearly everyone on that block in the weeks leading up to the event.
1. Was there another build
March 27, 2007 - 20:23 ET by WhichWing1. Was there another building that collapsed between the time that the towers did and the time that WTC7 did?
2. I don't recall insinuating that BBC was in on the event, I was telling you who reported it. They must of got their information from somewhere, and that's what you should question. By your logic, they didn't even know which building it was, so who told them it collapsed?
3. I have not seen those steps required, and probably would not recognize the devices needed. (You could also speculate -dirty word there- that they used the 8 hours after the attack, but before the collapse, to set whatever was needed.)
1.) No. Building 6 was pu
March 27, 2007 - 20:50 ET by dahliatravers1.) No. Building 6 was pulled down - literally and deliberately, see link below - but no other building collapsed. It should be noted that the lower floors of Building 7 were on fire for at least six hours.
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
2.) Who told the BBC? CNN. Sort of. BBC may have mis-heard the report below and jumped the gun with an erroneous report:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o
3.) I am not a demo expert. But it strikes me that it would take longer than eight hours to set the charges in such a large building. And with all the people and cameras roaming around, it is impossible that such a project would go unnoticed.
Look, I agree it's suspicious that it went down fairly evenly. (By the way, the first link above says Building 7 did not fully collapse.) But the explanations as to how it could have been done - either before or on 9/11 - are just too much of a stretch.
First, I would like to than
March 27, 2007 - 23:41 ET by WhichWingFirst, I would like to thank you for your logical and rational reply. You didn't feel the need to insult anyone, and I commend you for that.
1.) I only recently heard about building six, and they did indeed mean it literally when they said they pulled it down. I'm not sure of the date of it being pulled down, but it was not on 9/11. So, the point I was making was that the report could not have mistaken WTC7 for another collapse, because there was not another collapse. The fires burning in WTC7 have not been denied that I'm aware of, but the building's reaction to those fires is in question. This page provides examples of other steel framed buildings that had larger fires and, in some cases, fires that lasted longer, but did not collapse.
Also, that link you provided is very interesting and I thank you for it, they make some great points. (Although, I did not see mention of WTC6.)
2.) Your idea that BBC got the report from CNN is plausible, but again questionable. CNN's report was something like an hour before the BBC's report, which provides plenty of time to verify it. (Especially considering the view available to them in the report.) The other strange thing is that CNN only refers to the building as "World Trade Center building 7," while the BBC only refers to is as the "Salomon Brothers Building," which leaves me with the impression that they were not merely repeating what they heard on CNN.
3.) While it certainly would be very difficult to plan such a demolition without drawing attention, I would not say that it would be impossible.
The suspicious nature of the collapse should really have gotten more people's attention. (The pictures I saw at that link looked like a complete enough collapse for me. I have read that WTC7 was not mentioned in the 9/11 commission's report, or only in passing. Why do you think that would be? (Not making an implication, asking for an opinion.) And back to the question of how you could possibly places explosives in the building without detection, I would be curious as to who was in charge of security at the World Trade Center complex.
After this post, I found there was an ongoing discussion on the topic of these videos and WTC7 in the forums. I invite you to join us over there.
Thank you, I'm sure it would
March 28, 2007 - 21:24 ET by dahliatraversThank you, I'm sure it would have been interesting. Afraid I'm usually a morning person!
Building Six is referred to briefly in the fourth, fifth and sixth graphic of that link, fairly close to the top of the page. Here is an excerpt:
Yes, that worker certainly does say they’re getting ready to “pull” building six. Then we have a quote from Luis Mendes, from the NYC Department of Design and Construction:
“We had to be very careful about how we demolished building 6. We were worried about building 6 coming down and damaging the slurry walls, so we wanted that particular building to fall within a certain area.”
However, you are correct, there is no indication as to which day this took place. Upon reflection, it's not real likely they got all the equipment visible in the video there on 9/11 to "pull" Building 6.
Regarding Building 7, the link indicates "testimony" by firefighters that in addition to a portion of the building having been on fire for much of the day, a lower section of the building had been damaged. As to its short shrift in the 9/11 Commission report, please don't ask me to account for the inadequacies of a gov't commissioned report! Possibly they lacked sufficient information to come to any conclusion. However, this is important enough for them to have ordered a follow up investigation for an addendum to the report. Why they did not do so is not clear.
I think we're at a tipping
March 23, 2007 - 16:47 ET by mlongI think we're at a tipping point with the MSM and 9/11...at some point a main stream Dem will make the formal charge that it was a "inside job" and very quickly soon after the MSM led by the likes of Chrissy Matthews and Keith "Murrow" Olbermann will begin to report on the "facts" that prove Bush and company were behide it.
Some of this "inside j
March 23, 2007 - 19:24 ET by radiofitz34Some of this "inside job 9/11" stuff seems to coincide with that 1963 goals for the communist party as seen on Glenn Beck's website. That was a serious eye opener even though I suspected out loud on my radio show almost two years ago that communism was still alive in this country.
So what we have here is being hit by the Islamophashists from the outside and then being hit by communists on the inside. This really sucks.
Unfortunately, Bo Dietl is th
March 23, 2007 - 19:38 ET by mrsimeleUnfortunately, Bo Dietl is the wrong person to comment. He was appointed by Bush senior as Co-Chairman of the National Crime Commission in 1989, and chosen as Security Consultant to the National Republican Party Convention in 1992 and 1996.
Dietl is also CEO of Beau Dietl Associates (BDA), which counts amongst its clients Columbia Pictures, Coca-Cola, Grey Advertising , PaineWebber, Lehman Brothers, Bankers Trust and the Royal Family of Saudi Arabia.
Might be a little biased to take seriously.
So the US gov't is responsibl
March 23, 2007 - 20:20 ET by dahliatraversSo the US gov't is responsible for 9/11?
You're spinning the question.
March 23, 2007 - 20:43 ET by mrsimeleYou're spinning the question. I have no idea what happened on 9/11. My point was that FOX left out the fact that this guy works for the Republican party.
So what? George Stephanopoul
March 23, 2007 - 20:53 ET by gfrrmanSo what? George Stephanopoulous worked for Clinton and he's worked at ABC for how long now? And 90% of "journalists" vote Democrat. Shouldn't THAT point NOT be left out? And they "claim" no bias. LOL!!!
Bust I thought FOX NEWS was
March 23, 2007 - 20:57 ET by mrsimeleBust I thought FOX NEWS was better than the other broadcasts? You're missing the point. Why didn't FOX report that Dietl works for the Republican party? Shouldn't that have been relevant information?
Here's an interesting little tidbit: http://www.nndb.com/...
I see you haven't left as you said mrsimele
March 23, 2007 - 23:48 ET by SportPoliticsI see you haven't left as you said mrsimele. After you thanked aciaguana for being the only polite person here ( after you were insulting and calling names) - you said you were going to leave and never bother anyone here again. I told aciaguana it was a lie and you'd be back.
Now, I was going to give you a break, because you told Airforce you're just a housewife, and you just want the republicans and democrats cooperating and doing everything to make sure 911 never happens again.
BUT - you had to say "I have no idea what happened" - concerning 911. I sure hope you weren't saying what I suspect you were. It certainly makes plenty of sense by the other things I've seen you say.
Leaving that aside. Where are the Bo Deitl's of the democrat party ? That's what you should ask yourself. If half the democrat's think Bush's dark forces did 911, and they just happen to be a bit wacko - and incorrect - do you think the way they prosecute the "war on Bush terror" - will keep all of us safe ?
Now, that last paragraph - is something you ought to think about real carefully. When the communists infiltrated, they used quite often "in place Americans" who had a progressive viewpoint and were empathetic to the communist cause. They "turned" people, or used them. Do you have any doubt, that after 30 years of massive immigration from the Middle East, that - just like the "normal 911 highjackers with families and children" - that there aren't "normal never to be suspected" Muslims all over the American governing system ? If a few of those are inside agents for Al Qaeda, or any other radical M.E. government, will they spare any chance to sit down with an angry democrat and "commisserate" with them over the " Bush terror war" ?
How hard do you think it will be to turn a democrat like that ?
I know exactly what I think. There won't be any turning to it, at all.
And, I would add, Bo Dietl ca
March 23, 2007 - 21:00 ET by dahliatraversAnd, I would add, Bo Dietl can be a real jerk. In this case, it happens he is correct in his remarks.
What is your point about his party affiliation? Are you saying that all Republicans are wrong all the time and all Democratics are right all the time? Or that all the other channels can put Democratics on as commentators without disclosing their party but FOX must always identify Republicans?
dahlia
March 23, 2007 - 21:13 ET by gfrrmanI think your last 2 sentences sums up his position
mrsimele - Bo Deitl SAID HIMSELF " I was a republican".
March 24, 2007 - 00:10 ET by SportPoliticsmrsimele - Bo Deitl SAID HIMSELF " I was a republican". I just went and watched your link, you idiot.
At 5 minutes in, Bo Deitl HIMSELF discloses he has republican ties in his past:
" I was a republican ". He also said, " Look none of us like what President Bush is doing"... and then goes on...
So, he admits he was( was as in is no more) a republican - he himself says it - and then criticizes President Bush, and yet YOU'RE STILL COMPLAINING.
Did you watch your own link ? Did you "pay attention" ?
Gawd, really, I am so sick of checking out left wing whines,and finding they are RIDICULOUSLY INCORRECT.
mrsgetaclue
March 23, 2007 - 20:34 ET by gfrrmanNice cut and paste from Wikipedia. Wikipedia???? LMAO!! Almost verbatem. You are such the hard hitting investigative "journalist". Hang your head in shame. Sooooooooo weak!!!
You mean somebody else is s
March 23, 2007 - 20:41 ET by mrsimeleYou mean somebody else is saying the same thing? That is a real surprise. Show me the link to where I copied it then. Facts are facts. Any research on the clown shows what payroll he is on.
mrsgetaclue
March 23, 2007 - 20:45 ET by gfrrmanCan you c-o-m-p-r-e-h-e-n-d? You even have the names of the businesses in the exact same order. Nice work......
Nice Try. Change the topic t
March 23, 2007 - 20:49 ET by mrsimeleNice Try. Change the topic to ME instead of the facts. Dietle works for the Republican Party. Why don't I change that around to: Dietle works for the "Party-Republican". Better???
mrsimile -why don't you change it---
March 23, 2007 - 20:54 ET by misterbillmrsimile -why don't you change it---to "goodnight everyone"?
Many of us know Bo is a con
March 23, 2007 - 21:02 ET by radiofitz34Many of us know Bo is a conservative mrsimele. I'm not offended by that. Being that you rattled off a few Kapitalist Corporations tells us a lot about you though. Why don't you and Lenin take a time out.
Anyone that is a critical thi
March 23, 2007 - 21:11 ET by mrsimeleAnyone that is a critical thinker can see that you are avoiding the question. FOX has a duty to disclose the bias of their guests. The reason Rosie O'Donnell and "The View" has picked up an extra 600,000 viewers since she started on that show is because America is interested in the comments that she makes. Nobody is saying that the Federal Government caused the drama of 9/11. We just want to know why FOX NEWS gets so defensive anytime 9/11 is discussed. We also want to know why FOX NEWS being so biased.
mrs
March 23, 2007 - 21:20 ET by gfrrmanYou just keep on going off in a different direction. "Anyone that is a critical thinker" would know that ALL networks have a duty to disclose the bias of their guests. ALL of them NOT just FOX news. That includes ALL the alphabet-soup news too. Is that all you got? I repeat, Dietl works for the STATE OF NY and NY is overwhelmingly Democrat. Why are you so offensive anytime 9/11 is discussed? I want to know why all news other than FOX is so left-wing biased
1. Please tell us why Fox New
March 23, 2007 - 22:44 ET by Del Dolemonte1. Please tell us why Fox News, and ONLY Fox News, has a duty to disclose the bias of their guests. By not demanding this of any other news source, you're proving your left wing bias.
It also makes you look like a total idiot. Speaking of which, did you know that ABC News' 2000 exit polling showed Al Gore won over 80 percent of the high school dropout vote?
2. While you're at it, explain to us why repeated polling has shown that the majority of the mainstream media have identified themselves as being favorable to the Democratic Party? 92% of them admitted voting for Bill Clinton in 1992, for example.
3. I would like to see the proof that "The View" has picked up 600,000 additional viewers since Rosie came aboard. Do you have the exact Nielsen cite to prove your allegation?
4. Give us some concrete and credible examples of Fox News being "defensive" about 9/11. After all, in the past month, the only documentaries I have seen on cable TV about that day have been on the Discovery Channel.
yes
March 23, 2007 - 20:56 ET by gfrrmanThe facts are you cut and paste from an unreliable source, genius.....Wiki!!! For Pete's sake. You proved my point!! C-o-m-p-r-e-n-d-e?
Ok this is real intellegent o
March 23, 2007 - 21:00 ET by mrsimeleOk this is real intellegent of you. One last time, why didn't FOX disclose that Dietl worked for the Republican Party? Are you going to answer that or are you going to attack the messenger. Don't you think FOX is supposed to be fair and balanced?
mrsgetaclue
March 23, 2007 - 21:11 ET by gfrrmanI can't answer that question no more than you can answer why ALL the other networks don't do the SAME thing when they have guests on their networks. Don't you think they ALL should be fair and balanced? Again, he works for the State of NY and it is a Democrat state!!!
Thank You. I don't know wh
March 23, 2007 - 21:21 ET by mrsimeleThank You. I don't know why the other networks will lie. However, I expect more from FOX.
mrsgetaclue
March 23, 2007 - 21:32 ET by gfrrmanI expect a hell of a lot more from the alphabet-soups networks more so than FOX mainly because they have been around a LOT longer and should know better. They've been peddling their propaganda for decades. Think of all the lies that have been perpetrated over the course of decades by this irresponsibility of the MSM. As it stands now with the internet and FOX news they no longer have a monopoly and there is at least a diversity of ideas that used to not exist. Think...Dan Rather
I totally agree with you.
March 23, 2007 - 21:44 ET by mrsimeleI totally agree with you. The alphabet-soup networks are like tabloids with agenda's. They have provided misinformation for a long time.
Here is my issue, and you can believe me or not. Forgive the "soapbox" feeling you may get. I lost someone I really loved in the 9-11 catastrophe. I am not blaming the federal government, that seems ludacris. I am not blaming G.W. Bush, that is crazy and unfounded. However, I want to know why nobody talks about it anymore. A lot of us still feel like anytime 9/11 is mentions (albeit moonbats, conservatives, or conspiracy-theorists) they are immediately shut-down. I am not referring to the Hollywood type like Rosie or Sheen, but people that actually were there that day, like firemen and survivors etc. The questions I have deal with the negligence of the security/defense that this country relies on to protect us. That's all. Did an air-traffic controller screw up? Did the military screw up? Did a politician screwup (Democrat OR Republican).
mrs
March 23, 2007 - 21:56 ET by gfrrmanDamn! It took that long to get that out of you about the networks? Geez. I personally have no problem talking about 9/11 and I think waaaaay too many people have completely gone on with their lives and forgotten about it. That is scarey...like "it could never happen to me". We WILL get hit again, and it will be a whole lot worse the next time. People are too complacent in this country. Right now we have "come on in" borders that are getting people killed already, but not in the numbers that are going to happen. Our gov't is negligent on that part. Close the damn border. Not tomorrow, or the next day....RIGHT NOW!!! 9/11 will pale in comparison to what is going to happen next...but politicians on ALL sides are too PC to do a damn thing about. They all are to blame. The 9/11 thugs played the US like fools and we were to fat and happy to do anything about it. It had built up over many ,many years I'm afraid. Their sole purpose is to kill as many Americans/infidels as possible and to convert all others or kill those too. It's all out there in plain sight to see, unfortunately politicains value power more than anything.
Our borders are constantly be
March 23, 2007 - 22:11 ET by Airforce_5_OOur borders are constantly being probed by the enemies of this country. Terrorist are unlike any enemy we have ever faced. Without uniforms and constantly changing tactics.
Will we be completely safe?
Not until the public realizes that the MSM and the Dems could care less about securing the borders. The only want their power back. That thinking will cost the US in lives on its own soil when they (For Gods sake I hope it never happens) power again.
air 5-0...Forgive me for butt
March 23, 2007 - 22:27 ET by Clear thinkerair 5-0...
Forgive me for butting in here, I just want to make a brief comment.
I am convinced (and many others) that we as a nation will only come together and finally decide to do something drastic and meaningful AFTER we get hit again. Sad but true!
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
Thank You. I know I have com
March 23, 2007 - 22:13 ET by mrsimeleThank You. I know I have come across as an angry jerk in the past, but I am angry. I am angry at the liberals because they really DO want America to lose this war with Iraq to prove a point. I am angry because 9/11 occurred but don't know who to direct that at. Sometimes I guess I am just trying to FIND someone to blame so I can make peace. I have bashed Bush around for a long time but only because he is in charge right now; I apologize for that. I know that any other president would be doing the same things he is. I blame god for letting 9/11 occur and we know that is lame and stupid. I am getting better though. 9/11 was a nightmare for me. Hopefully it will be the last time anything happens on American soil.
Mrs. I have lost friends my
March 23, 2007 - 22:29 ET by Airforce_5_OMrs. I have lost friends my whole career. In the Gulf 1 and 2. In Kobar. In OKC. It is not easy to let go but walking around everyday looking for someone to blame will leave you bitter all the time.
Be angry on the people that broght it to our shores. The Terrorist.
Oh I do! Trust Me... :o)
March 23, 2007 - 22:34 ET by mrsimeleOh I do! Trust Me... :o)
The people that brought it to
March 23, 2007 - 23:19 ET by M J BThe people that brought it to US shores were from Saudi Arabia as is Bin Laden. The financing for al Queda is also said to come from Saudi Arabia.
Gee M J B
March 24, 2007 - 00:19 ET by SportPoliticsGee M J B, so when Pakistan was hosting the Taliban, and running their intel all over Afghanistan and selling nuke technology to North Norea- and to other Middle Eastern nations - 12 in all we were told - and are now "in a pinch" hosting reportedly Bin Laden in the " non governable areas" yet denying US forces entrance, that is "Saudi arabian funding" ?
I know a liberal can't help saying it, but do you really think, or are you so naive to believe that Saudi Arabia is the central or only source ? It's every fascist Middle Eastern Muzzie nation over there bud, and most of them in Northern Africa - and them some further south, and over to Indoenesia...
EVERY ONE of them.
If the regimes of the same don't directly support it - there are plenty of fatcats to do it.
Since 4 of the highjackers were from Egypt , and the co-founder of Al Qaeda - the one who got it going - had the ideas - with bin laden - WAS ALSO FROM EGYPT...
HOW COME EGYPT IS NEVER SOMETHING YOU LIBS ARE CERTAIN TO MENTION ?
HUH ? EGYPT- IS THAT A NATION OR NOT ?
If Pakistan is so bad why doe
March 24, 2007 - 20:22 ET by M J BIf Pakistan is so bad why does the USA sell it F15's
Oh & yes I do believe Pakistan is a threat.
I think Saudi Arabia is alw
March 27, 2007 - 06:28 ET by WhichWingI think Saudi Arabia is always brought up because the ties this administration has to them. And how they are unwilling to confront them about their support of terrorists while threatening anything else the resembles terrorism.
No need to reply SportPolitics, I don't have any desire to hear you ramble on off-topic, or hear your colorful phrases like "Middle Eastern Muzzie nation"
And I think your caps lock button may be sticking.
mrs
March 23, 2007 - 22:33 ET by gfrrmanIt WILL happen again and will be far worse than 9/11. These radicals are very shrewed and sneaky and have all the patience in the world. Next time it will be, in my opinion, multiple strikes all over the US in heavily populated areas. I too am past angry..I'm Pi*ed to no end that our politicians don't have the guts to do anything about the borders. That's just got to make the bad guys laugh their asses off. Sorry for your loss from 9/11. Right now the Dems are doing their best to bring the fight to our shores with their stupid House votes on appeasement. God rest the souls of the US.
Thank You. I know I have com
March 23, 2007 - 22:13 ET by mrsimelesorry for the double post..
mrsimele, I'm willing to cu
March 23, 2007 - 21:56 ET by radiofitz34mrsimele, I'm willing to cut you some slack if you really want to get to the bottom of this. I guess it's easy to prejudge someone based on their comments. But what the heck? PM me if you want to. I'll still be on my guard.
You need to look way back Mrs
March 23, 2007 - 22:00 ET by Airforce_5_OYou need to look way back Mrs. The Government knew of Bin Laden. President Clinton had him but passed on him. Clinton and his Cronies through up a wall between the intelligence and law enforcement communities that kept a lot of the information on BL and his bunch away from the people that needed it.
While I was in the military in the 90’s we screamed that the President and company needed to watch these guys and got static. Twin Towers 1; Kobar Towers; USS Cole; The Clintons did nothing.
The MSM has ignored these facts because they don’t want to face the truth about the Man they hold as “The Greatest President”.
Place your blame clearly where it needs to be.
air 50...Don't you mean "
March 23, 2007 - 22:05 ET by Clear thinkerair 50...
Don't you mean "The Greatest First Black President"?
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
Damn I forgot. Thanks clear
March 23, 2007 - 22:17 ET by Airforce_5_ODamn I forgot. Thanks clear.
No prob!The liberal MSM has b
March 23, 2007 - 22:20 ET by Clear thinkerNo prob!
The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.
I do blame Clinton, for a lot
March 23, 2007 - 22:05 ET by mrsimeleI do blame Clinton, for a lot. He seemed to get a little lazy with the security of the country. It's a good thing he is gone and it is the responsibility of the voter not to elect his wife.
OK. so what is your piont?
March 23, 2007 - 22:22 ET by Airforce_5_OOK. so what is your piont? What are you asking for?
???????????????
What I want I don't think a p
March 23, 2007 - 22:33 ET by mrsimeleWhat I want I don't think a possibility. It sounds more like a fairy-tale: I want Democrats and Republicans to put every effort forward to make sure 9/11 never happens on the homeland again. Even if it takes a drastic measure such as extreme immigration reform. Even if it means re-allocating funds for missile-defense systems like Reagan wanted. But I'm just a housewife, what do I know. I guess I am one of those dweebee people that expect the military/politicians to agree what is good. Until 9/11 occurred, I was just raising kids...lol
mrs
March 23, 2007 - 22:43 ET by gfrrmanUnfortunately, it does seem to be a fairy-tale. Democrats are fighting tooth and nail to do the most damage right now. You are correct that both parties need to work together but sad to say Dems only want total power right now. They have no intention of doing anything right now except cut and run, defund the troops and keep power. When the sh*t hits the fan they will point fingers!!!! Guaranteed.
Not going to happen. As lon
March 23, 2007 - 22:43 ET by Airforce_5_ONot going to happen. As long as the Dems are only interested in acquiring their power back and undermining the military in Iraq, you will have to watch and pray.
Genius
March 23, 2007 - 21:07 ET by gfrrman...he works for the State of New York. And last I saw NY is overwhelmingly Democrat NOT Republican.
Thanks for correcting me gf
March 23, 2007 - 21:45 ET by radiofitz34Thanks for correcting me gfrrman. I didn't know he was a democrat. Even so he sounds more sensible than many other democrats. More along the line of Lieberman who is now an independant thanks to the radicals in the donkey party.
radio
March 23, 2007 - 22:03 ET by gfrrmanI'm not saying he's a Democrat. He did work for GHB but now works for the State of NY. He did say he wasn't all happy GW so he's not towing any party line I can see. He appears to "call'em likes he sees'um". Lieberman is the only sane Dem I've heard...concerning the GWOT/Iraq. Otherwise he's just a liberal. But for some reason I like the guy. He's not the typical nasty, thin-skinned, chip on their shoulder liberal Democrat.
gfrrman, I'd wish you'd mak
March 23, 2007 - 22:25 ET by radiofitz34gfrrman, I'd wish you'd make up your mind whether Diedle is a dem or not. In the long run, I'm not that concerned. But I can get confused on my own thank you. LOL
radio
March 23, 2007 - 22:50 ET by gfrrmanIf you check my previous comments I never claimed he was anything. mrsimle was the one complaining about him being a Repub. and I stated that he worked for the State of NY and that NY is predominately Democrat. I can't tell which he is from his statements. His words are his opinions
radiofitz and gfrrman
March 24, 2007 - 00:25 ET by SportPoliticsradiofitz and gfrrman - Bo Deitl said right on the Fox news interview " I USED TO BE A REPUBLICAN"....
I guess mrsimele MISSED THAT ENTIRELY. 5:00 minutes in if you can't watch the whole thing.
Then, he went on to say, " NONE of us like what Goerge Bush is doing...."
So, there you have it. It's not confusion - he USED to be a republican - NOW HE IS NO LONGER.
I guess that leaves a few choices...
Sport
March 24, 2007 - 00:32 ET by gfrrmanI did a little research on the guy and it's rather impressive to say the least. He DID work for Bush 41 at one time, and later retired. He works for the State of NY which I explained to mrsimile is overwhelmingly Democrat. From the interview I heard what he said and surmised that he has his own opinions and they don't seem to sway in either direction. He seems pretty straight with his own facts, which is fine by me. Dem/Repub?...can't tell.
SportsSorry for engaging but
March 24, 2007 - 00:33 ET by Airforce_5_OSports
Sorry for engaging but she was all over the place on this and I was trying to nail her down on an opinion. Well I have never seen her in here before so I don't know her.
But you are right. He did say he use to be repub.
LOL! You joined up last week
March 23, 2007 - 22:26 ET by Del DolemonteLOL! You joined up last week to tell us THIS? Nice try
Del are you referring to me
March 23, 2007 - 22:47 ET by radiofitz34Del are you referring to me or someone else?
Sure.No one who has any con
March 24, 2007 - 10:20 ET by Jack BauerSure.
No one who has any connection (no matter how tangential) to President Bush, advertising or the Republican party, is allowed to comment on the sick f+++ers who make up the truthers-out-to-lunch cabals.
Of course this is classic McCarthyism on your part. Guilt by what you erroneously imagine to be association. But we'll let that little piece of shite pass for the moment.
And here's the thing... 15 of the evil Islamo-fascists who were the tip of the Muslim plot to kill Americans were from Saudi Arabia.
Surely then, as a CEO (sic) of BDA, (one of whose clients is Saudi Arabia)... surely Mr Dielt would have a vested interest in being on the side of the sickos and then mentally ill people in the "liars" movement who claim it wasn't the Saudis wot dun it.
But apparently not.
He's very forceful in pointing out well D'UH, there was a conspiracy.And guess what, the guy who headed up the conspiracy, the Saudi: Bin Laden, has boasted about it. On tape. Repeatedly.
Noel,On Laura Ingraham's prog
March 24, 2007 - 10:04 ET by msh1973Noel,
On Laura Ingraham's program several months ago she played a tape of Sheen (who had called a local talk radio program) talking about his reaction to 9/11 on the actual day. He is a complete loon, as is his father and brother. Did NB ever link to that tape? Crazy!
BTW, I am ashamed to say that Mark Cuban is a huge Indiana University fan (I am an alum as is Cuban) who contributes millions each year to the Foundation. I try not to think about how liberal my Alma Mater has become.
Speaking of WTC7, have you
March 24, 2007 - 10:07 ET by WhichWingSpeaking of WTC7, have you seen this video? It's apperently a clip of a BBC reporter on 9/11, in New York, reporting that WTC7 has collapsed. Only problem is...its still standing just over the reporters left shoulder. They managed to report the collapse of a building about 20 minutes before it actually collapsed. (Note: WTC7 is referred to as the Salomon Brothers building.)
After the video had gained alot of attention, the BBC posted this response. Oh, and you'll notice in that response they have lost their original 9/11 tapes due to a "cock-up." No biggie though, was just the most important news event in history, the tapes weren't that important.
A couple times a year I dive into the 9/11 conspiracy theories to see what's being said. While I've yet to see anything extremely convincing, I have seen enough to raise questions. And this BBC clip is one of the most damning things I've seen by far.
Why would Bushco tell the B
March 24, 2007 - 12:11 ET by mlongWhy would Bushco tell the BBC they were planning on blowing up WTC7 as part of the whole "destroy the Twin Towers,blame it on Arabs so has to go to war in Iraq" plan?..or why would they print US money so if folded you get an image that if you squit right looks like the Towers burning or allow a now cancelled FOX show to use the same plot a few years earlier?...it dosen't make sense dose it?
One more time South Park got it right..."who was behide 9/11?...A bunch of p*ssed off Arabs!"
What Mark Cuban should do is
March 24, 2007 - 12:36 ET by jcrapes4What Mark Cuban should do is this. Market the loose change video with commentary from Popular Mechanics at the end of the video. Which debunks the whole entire theory. That way you have both opposing viewpoints with the viewer making up his/her mind.
Methinks having a balance d
March 24, 2007 - 13:02 ET by mlongMethinks having a balance debate about 9/11 is not in Mr.Cuban's plans..this is just the same "blame everyone but the terrorist" b.s. the left and the MSM is always throwing out there.
So none of you watched the
March 24, 2007 - 17:31 ET by WhichWingSo none of you watched the video of the BBC reporter standing in front of the building that she was reporting had collapsed? Nor did you go read the BBC's statement that they lost the original tapes of their 9/11 broadcasts?
I watched and read..and wha
March 24, 2007 - 21:30 ET by mlongI watched and read..and what happen is like what always happen during a live event things are said that later prove to been wrong and in this case the reporter was given some mis-information about the building collapse..there was a lot of confusion going on you know...they knew it was going to come down because of the damage it took from the falling towers,,when the word came to "pull down' that was a call for the firefighters to get out..nothing else.
Listen just read the popular mechanics report on it..because they use facts to tell what happen...
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5
What she told you in the vide
March 25, 2007 - 02:54 ET by WhichWingWhat she told you in the video, on two seperate occasions, was that the Salomon Brothers had collapsed (which was behind her, still standing) That is also what the anchor said on the lead in. Something to the effect of "and now a report about another collapsed building." They reported, with an anchor beginning the discussion from England, that this building collapsed 20 minutes before it collapsed. And then, if that honestly isn't strange enough for you, look at HOW
it collapsed. You'll notice that's only a 9 second video, and you don't need all 9 to see the collapse. Keep her report in mind, the timing of it (20 minutes early), then watch that collapse video, and come back and tell me you aren't a little skeptical about at least that one particular event.
And I have read the Popular Mechanics article, it was put together very well, but how do you think they would explain this?
I don't care what they woul
March 25, 2007 - 10:10 ET by mlongI don't care what they would say because what ever the "truth" is about the BBC and the story it doesn't prove some stupid tinfoil hat conspiracy...because just ask your self a few things..
For these conspiracy theories to work hundreds of people would have to be involved..including..
The 9/11 families themselves,,(who would have had to be lying about talking to their families on the planes).
Dems like Patty Murray( who was one of the 100 people who saw a Jet liner ,not a cruise missile as claimed by the "truthers" hit the Pentagon).
The Police and Fire fighters who entered the buildings(if the towers were rigged with explosives I think they may have noticed).
Do you really think these people would have been involved in a conspiracy like this?
Also if this was a big plan to led to war in Iraq..then why were no WMD found?..if they were able to put together this big plan to destroy the Towers then why couldn't they have planted some bio or chemical weapons to be "found" in Saddam's palaces or such..it would seem that would of been the easiest part of the conspiracy to pull off.
Also do you really think that after almost 6 years no one would of come clean?..no one could keep a secret this big for that long in Washington.
Well that settles it for me
March 27, 2007 - 06:48 ET by WhichWingWell that settles it for me, your points are too strong to refute. There's no way a government could keep a secret. And if a Democrat said there was a plane, well that's as good as the gospel to me.
Thanks, now I can put my blinders back on and be happy.
WW...I bet you ride with pigs
March 27, 2007 - 07:10 ET by bigtimerWW...
I bet you ride with pigs when they fly too...
LMAO!
You've crushed my spirit ag
March 27, 2007 - 19:56 ET by WhichWingYou've crushed my spirit again bigtimer.
ROFLMABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ!
Which, thata boy, keep trying
March 27, 2007 - 20:03 ET by JABWhich, thata boy, keep trying that GED is on it's way.
"To bad Ignorance isn't painful..."
I don't want to run this th
March 27, 2007 - 20:34 ET by WhichWingI don't want to run this thread way off the mark, but I would like to express my dissappointment in the insults I've seen here lately. It seems you guys are losing steam. They used to be fun and witty, now you can barely put one line together and you've reduced yourself to "GED" jokes. Perhaps you just need a day off from insulting, then come back and see if you feel revitalized. I'm pulling for you.
WW...You might consider takin
March 27, 2007 - 20:38 ET by bigtimerWW...
You might consider taking a day or two off.
Bet some of us won't complain too loudly!
LOL!
Garden Variety Trolls
March 27, 2007 - 20:40 ET by Free StinkerIt seems you guys are losing steam.
Nah, we just don't exert as much energy on Garden Variety Trolls such as yourself. Now, shoo! Back to your bridge!
GED, Troll, bridge, come on
March 27, 2007 - 23:14 ET by WhichWingGED, Troll, bridge, come on. I know you can all do better than that. Really insult me. It's easy, I have an opinion that is different than yours, I am an easy target.
Now it's poor me... pity part
March 27, 2007 - 23:29 ET by bigtimerNow it's poor me... pity party time!
Have a good evening WW!
Hows that?
Got to get...catch ya tomorrow!
I've read everything you've
March 28, 2007 - 01:02 ET by WhichWingI've read everything you've said, yet I've heard nothing. Do you have something to say or not?
. . . . and Atta, the
March 24, 2007 - 17:00 ET by Gat New York. . . . and Atta, the leader, was an Egyptian. With that and the Saudi nationals, exactly how does sending all our troops to Afghanistan (the “real front line for the war”) playing “Where’s Waldo” with bin Laden and ignoring the Middle East solve all our terror problems?
However, an argument can be made that 9/11 was an inside job.
The hijackers were able to live inside the U.S. thanks the Clinton’s tight border security. The hijackers were able to train on jets inside the United States also thanks Clinton’s tight security. The hijackers were able to get inside the airplanes thanks to Clinton’s airport security systems. And the hijackers were able to get inside the cockpits thanks to Clinton’s airline safety measures.
And in case he has any ideas of getting inside the White House let’s not forget Gore’s role in the success of 9/11: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24638
Strategically thinking it sti
March 24, 2007 - 17:57 ET by ucStrategically thinking it still makes sense that if any such conspiracy exists it was started during Clinton years to favor Clintons' Democrats. During Clinton years Clinton women went around Muslim world publicly speaking declaring that all their women deserved equal rights and representation. That Clintons would try to get us into a war/operation towards such and specifically do so under a Republican administration while Hillary a new carpetbagger junior Senator so positioned to monopolize the international air waves is very believable. Such is even more believable with the cuts made by Clinton for intelligence. "How the Clintons got Bush to take the heat for unpopular war stories and pave the road for Bill's Benevolent Dictatorship/bills return to the White House thinking." Under Clintons any such changes in women's rights in such parts of the world would likely have taken centuries without 9/11.
Ditto everything mlong said.
March 25, 2007 - 12:29 ET by dahliatraversDitto everything mlong said. While I agree our gov't is guilty of gross negligence in these attacks on several fronts, participation is an entirely different matter. As mlong stated, the conspiracy would have involved far too many people.
With regards to the BBC early report on the collapse of Building 7, there is a possible explanation. Below is the link to a CNN report that day that says that Building 7 "may have collapsed" or is in danger of collapsing. The BBC may have heard CNN's report just a little wrong and jumped to get on the air with this error. They wouldn't know that their report was wrong because they wouldn't know which building in the background they were talking about (though probably they should have determined that before going on air). I sure don't; I'm not from New York.
If this is the case, they have not helped themselves with the way they handled the aftermath. Lost the tape??? Please. They could have 'fessed up immediately to their mistake but it's too late. If they did so now, it would be viewed as an excuse and part of the cover-up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o
As for the collapse itself of Building 7, certainly it looks like a controlled demolition and is therefore suspicious. But I have a question for the conspiracy theorists. Were the demolition charges put in prior to 9/11 or that day after the two planes hit?
I replied to your other post,
March 27, 2007 - 23:45 ET by WhichWingI replied to your other post, on the previous page. And yes, what the heck was the BBC thinking with that response?