Slog
News & ArtsFriday, September 9, 2011
History A Video of a Plane Passing Safely in Front of the World Trade Center, and a Video of the World Trade Center that Will Make You Sick
Posted by Christopher Frizzelle on Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 12:32 PM
Since 9/11 is my birthday, two friends gave me the above gift last year. It's a lighted box they found in the International District, a scrolling view of New York City's sights.
While writing this piece about the shakeout since 9/11 in my military family, I soaked my brain in all kinds of World Trade Center-related movies, none of which ended up in the piece. I watched Oliver Stone's very boring World Trade Center (Nicolas Cage mutters to himself while trapped under rubble for two hours), I rewatched the never boring Working Girl (did you realize Melanie Griffith works in the World Trade Center?), I rewatched Man on Wire...
But the video that really stood out—and will make you sickest to your stomach—is the History Channel's documentary about the World Trade Center filmed in early 2001, nine months before the attacks.
It's all about how neat the World Trade Center is: how the buildings are cooled by water pumped in from the Hudson River, how the complex contains 71 escalators and 254 elevators, how its subway station was the first subway station to be air conditioned in the United States, how the architect Minoru Yamasaki was afraid of heights.
Nauseatingly, since the documentary was made while the buildings were still standing but aired on TV after the towers were gone, in the upper corner of the screen during interviews are two superimposed dates: The date of the interview and the date the interviewee has been missing since. One of the interviews is with Frank A. De Martini, a construction manager, who talks excitedly about the exterior skeleton on the buildings. There were no columns in the middle of the building; the exterior walls carried all vertical loads.
A smiling De Martini tells the camera that because of the way the buildings were designed, you could fly airplanes into them and they'd still stand. "I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door—this intense grid. And the jetplane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.” Up in the corner of the screen while he's talking, it says, "Recorded 1/25/01, Missing since 9/11/01."
Both he and his wife were in his office when the first plane hit. He sent her downstairs and out to safety while he stayed back to help others. He hasn't been seen since.
4
Also sickening because it reminds us of a lost time when the History Channel produced shows containing factual information.
5
Technically, he was correct. They readily withstood the impacts themselves, but not the following fuel fire, which weakened the floor supports.
6
The buildings (incl. WTC 7) were imploded by pre-placed charges. WTC Leaseholder Larry Silverstein admitted it:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLE…
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLE…
7
@6: If you ask him really nicely, maybe Sgt. Doom will let you borrow his tinfoil hat for a while.
8
With all due respect, I don't know if picking at this scab is so healthy.
I don't mean you, Christopher. I mean Americans in general. If you weren't directly touched by it, if you have the option of not mourning... then please find some joy on Sept. 11, or just make it an ordinary day. Stop terrorizing yourselves with these awful reminiscences.
I don't mean you, Christopher. I mean Americans in general. If you weren't directly touched by it, if you have the option of not mourning... then please find some joy on Sept. 11, or just make it an ordinary day. Stop terrorizing yourselves with these awful reminiscences.
10
I'm pretty fed up with hearing about 9/11 now. Is this really what we will have to put up with for the rest of our lives??? Think about that... the rest of our lives!
Ugh.
Ugh.
11
@7, doom is unavailable today - he's at a secret location (Tacoma) for a special intensive workshop for Illuminati/Trilateral Commission/Rothschilds/Nineleveners. He or she will be back on the twelfth to tell us how naive we are about, oh, everything.
12
@7, @9, @11 ---
Dealing with documented facts really sucks sometimes. Does it hurt to be so close to reality yet unwilling to grasp it? Well don't read this or you'll go blind:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis…
Larry Silverstein is on tape making his "pull it" statement; nobody forced him to say it. Thermite (an explosive used in building demolitions) was found in the wreckage of buildings 1, 2, and 7. Building 7 fell down all by itself! The wreckage of 1, 2, and 7, --- the evidence of the largest crime in US history --- was quickly shipped to a steel mill in Bangladesh where it was melted-down and sold worldwide on the open market.
One day you'll stop believing everything government tells you to believe and start thinking for yourself. Your first thoughts will be that you have only token freedoms and funny money in your government-approved megabank account. You'll conclude that thinking for yourself is too hard and painful, so you'll stop.
Dealing with documented facts really sucks sometimes. Does it hurt to be so close to reality yet unwilling to grasp it? Well don't read this or you'll go blind:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis…
Larry Silverstein is on tape making his "pull it" statement; nobody forced him to say it. Thermite (an explosive used in building demolitions) was found in the wreckage of buildings 1, 2, and 7. Building 7 fell down all by itself! The wreckage of 1, 2, and 7, --- the evidence of the largest crime in US history --- was quickly shipped to a steel mill in Bangladesh where it was melted-down and sold worldwide on the open market.
One day you'll stop believing everything government tells you to believe and start thinking for yourself. Your first thoughts will be that you have only token freedoms and funny money in your government-approved megabank account. You'll conclude that thinking for yourself is too hard and painful, so you'll stop.
14
@12: so we should stop listening to the government, but instead, listen to some random person on the internet? got it.
18
Buildings, buildings, buildings. Were the buildings brought down in a controlled demolition!!!? Shut up, that shouldn't even be on the top 100 9/11 inconsistencies. You really want to go down the rabbit hole, here's something fer your eye holes:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/KU…
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/KU…
19
@12: Sweet. Now excuse me while I go for a walk on that giant soundstage they used to fake the moon landings for a while.
I'll say hello to Elvis for you. He's usually there at about this time of day.
I'll say hello to Elvis for you. He's usually there at about this time of day.
20
@12, you are a moron. You are laughably wrong on the facts. The "pull" comment meant "pull out your men, it's coming down". It had nothing whatever to do with pulling the building down, which you can't do on a building anywhere near that size.
The suggestion that the steel was magically, "quickly" transported to Bangladesh is equally dimwitted. Every gram of rubble at the site was transported, slowly, in a convoy of many thousands of dump trucks over many months to the site in Staten Island where it was meticulously combed for evidence and human remains. This process was extensively covered in the media.
You are full of shit. You are entirely made of shit.
On one point, Christopher, you, or the guy in the film, are wrong -- the skin did not bear most of the gravity load of the buildings. It shared this load with a central column, which also contained elevators, utilities, stairs, and whatnot. The main function of the skin was supporting lateral loads, wind, earthquakes, etc.
The suggestion that the steel was magically, "quickly" transported to Bangladesh is equally dimwitted. Every gram of rubble at the site was transported, slowly, in a convoy of many thousands of dump trucks over many months to the site in Staten Island where it was meticulously combed for evidence and human remains. This process was extensively covered in the media.
You are full of shit. You are entirely made of shit.
On one point, Christopher, you, or the guy in the film, are wrong -- the skin did not bear most of the gravity load of the buildings. It shared this load with a central column, which also contained elevators, utilities, stairs, and whatnot. The main function of the skin was supporting lateral loads, wind, earthquakes, etc.
21
I can post a convincing article found on the internet that you won't read too:
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-09-07…
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-09-07…
22
@12: thermite is finely ground metal and metal oxide using such materials as iron or aluminum. The statement "thermite was found in the wreckage" means absolutely nothing when thermite is literally fine flakes of metal and rust. I'd be surprised if you didn't find those two things. Let me know when you find some RDX.
The more you read shit on the internet, the more convinced you are that it was an inside job. The more you know about reality, the more convinced you are of the official story.
The more you read shit on the internet, the more convinced you are that it was an inside job. The more you know about reality, the more convinced you are of the official story.
23
I've always thought that the collapse of WTC # 7 really did look like a controlled implosion. But, shit, all the truther theories as to WHY, and bringing in the twin towers as proof of WHY, are so painfully contorted and ridiculous that there's no point in even thinking about it. Just the epitome of absurdity.
24
My father was an aeronautical engineer with a working knowledge of jet fuel.
According to him, the building might have withstood earlier planes, but with the amount of jet fuel being carried on those planes and the heat at which that jet fuel burned would buckle steel. As simple as that.
I was an English lit major, so I may not have replicated his explanation with complete accuracy, but I find my father's commonsense more likely than conspiracy theories.
According to him, the building might have withstood earlier planes, but with the amount of jet fuel being carried on those planes and the heat at which that jet fuel burned would buckle steel. As simple as that.
I was an English lit major, so I may not have replicated his explanation with complete accuracy, but I find my father's commonsense more likely than conspiracy theories.
26
I have vowed to not turn the TV on or look at any news online this Sunday. One of the worst days of my life, and I have no need to relive it thank you very much. Ask me again on the 50th anniversary.
27
@23 There's a pretty concise explanation of why WTC 7 collpased over at Skeptoid, Matt. http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4085
28
Between September 6 and 7, the Chicago Board Options Exchange saw purchases of 4,744 put options on United Airlines, but only 396 call options. Assuming that 4,000 of the options were bought by people with advance knowledge of the imminent attacks, these "insiders" would have profited by almost $5 million.
On September 10, 4,516 put options on American Airlines were bought on the Chicago exchange, compared to only 748 calls. Again, there was no news at that point to justify this imbalance; Again, assuming that 4,000 of these options trades represent "insiders," they would represent a gain of about $4 million.
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., which occupied 22 floors of the World Trade Center, saw 2,157 of its October $45 put options bought in the three trading days before Black Tuesday.
Merrill Lynch & Co., with headquarters near the Twin Towers, saw 12,215 October $45 put options bought in the four trading days before the attacks; the previous average volume in those shares had been 252 contracts per day [a 1200% increase].
In the case of at least one of these trades -- which has left a $2.5 million prize unclaimed -- the firm used to place the "put options" on United Airlines stock was, until 1998, managed by the man who was the number three Executive Director position at the Central Intelligence Agency Buzzy" Krongard.
Follow the money.
A surprisingly strongly-worded report from ABC News about the nature and significance of the 9/11 insider trades.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYBwp_nEZ…
All of the entries on Insider Trading from the indispensable 9/11 Timeline.
http://www.historycommons.org/searchResu…
A 2006 scholarly article concluding that the unusual put option activity in the run-up to 9/11 is consistent with inside trading based on foreknowledge of the attacks.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/5036…
An excellent overview of the insider trading story and its significance.
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011…
More...
On September 10, 4,516 put options on American Airlines were bought on the Chicago exchange, compared to only 748 calls. Again, there was no news at that point to justify this imbalance; Again, assuming that 4,000 of these options trades represent "insiders," they would represent a gain of about $4 million.
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., which occupied 22 floors of the World Trade Center, saw 2,157 of its October $45 put options bought in the three trading days before Black Tuesday.
Merrill Lynch & Co., with headquarters near the Twin Towers, saw 12,215 October $45 put options bought in the four trading days before the attacks; the previous average volume in those shares had been 252 contracts per day [a 1200% increase].
In the case of at least one of these trades -- which has left a $2.5 million prize unclaimed -- the firm used to place the "put options" on United Airlines stock was, until 1998, managed by the man who was the number three Executive Director position at the Central Intelligence Agency Buzzy" Krongard.
Follow the money.
A surprisingly strongly-worded report from ABC News about the nature and significance of the 9/11 insider trades.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vYBwp_nEZ…
All of the entries on Insider Trading from the indispensable 9/11 Timeline.
http://www.historycommons.org/searchResu…
A 2006 scholarly article concluding that the unusual put option activity in the run-up to 9/11 is consistent with inside trading based on foreknowledge of the attacks.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/5036…
An excellent overview of the insider trading story and its significance.
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011…
31
There's an interesting article at the Chicago Reader about the WTC. Reiterated that it was the fire, not the impact, that brought the towers down. And that the reason as many people survived as they did is because the towers stood for a whole hour after the impact. An engineer interviewed compared WTC to the Sears Tower, which likely would've been sliced in half and the collapse would've immediately followed, making the theoretical death toll even higher than WTC.
http://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleader/arc…
http://www.chicagoreader.com/Bleader/arc…
32
@28 I am sure there were people with foreknowledge of the attacks as they were planned for years. That is not terribly remarkable. But really a few millions in gains? That is chump change.
My favorite 9/11 tradition is getting a chuckle out of the fact that 10 years later and the troofers are still going strong undeterred by evidence and data.
My favorite 9/11 tradition is getting a chuckle out of the fact that 10 years later and the troofers are still going strong undeterred by evidence and data.
33
@30: your inability to distinguish a sheep from a rabbit is a nice metaphor for all of your commentary.
34
Oh good...we're still talking about 9-11. That's good because I thought we would have all forgotten what happened.
35
I like how the truthers constantly call us reality-based folks "sheep" and attack our credulity, when the amount of credulity needed to sustain belief in the ever-shifting sands of conspiracy is just unbelievable. The stories you hear, like the ones about WTC 7, don't even pass the sniff test, and have all been debunked many times, yet still they persevere. Belief is a funny thing.
The real story is of course that I myself brought down the WTC with my enormous whooziwhatsit. Plap plap plap and down she went. Just like your mom.
The real story is of course that I myself brought down the WTC with my enormous whooziwhatsit. Plap plap plap and down she went. Just like your mom.
37
Oh, truthers.
It's such a nice day! You should be out on an overpass somewhere enjoying the sunshine.
It's such a nice day! You should be out on an overpass somewhere enjoying the sunshine.
39
The Trufers all coming out of their holes and having a tinfoil-hat parade is the thing I am looking forward to the least about this coming weekend.
My mom's birthday is the thing I am looking forward to the most.
My mom's birthday is the thing I am looking forward to the most.
40
What you really have to do is figure out who benefited from the 9/11 attacks. Who is had the most to gain? Just look at DC. Who is in power? Who rose from obscurity to the highest office in the land in just ten years?
So clearly, the hijackings were all just a distraction, and the real target was WTC 7, which was packed with thermite to destroy all evidence of Obama's Kenyan birth.
So clearly, the hijackings were all just a distraction, and the real target was WTC 7, which was packed with thermite to destroy all evidence of Obama's Kenyan birth.
41
@22- Doceb, you don't know shit about thermite. It INSTANTLY melts metal without causing much of an explosion. That's E-X-A-C-T-L-Y what you'd want to bring down a metal frame building without being noticed on the outside.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite
Nice attempt at lying, though. Not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite
Nice attempt at lying, though. Not.
42
@27 - Outercow, I read that article and it's bullshit.
They cite "a single frame of ABC video" but they don't show the frame, cite the exact source, provide a timecode or anything. It exists in your mind because they suggest it does.
Then they say there were PRESSURIZED diesel tanks in WTC7! There were diesel tanks in WTC7, but you can't pressurize a liquid (liquids can be UNDER pressure, but not pressurized) and there would be absolutely no reason for thousands of gallons of diesel to be stored under pressure since diesel fuel is only needed to be under pressure at the fuel injectors. Less than a liter/quart of diesel is under pressure on a 10- or 12-cylinder generator.
That article was written by uninformed "fictioneers" who don't understand simple physical science.
They cite "a single frame of ABC video" but they don't show the frame, cite the exact source, provide a timecode or anything. It exists in your mind because they suggest it does.
Then they say there were PRESSURIZED diesel tanks in WTC7! There were diesel tanks in WTC7, but you can't pressurize a liquid (liquids can be UNDER pressure, but not pressurized) and there would be absolutely no reason for thousands of gallons of diesel to be stored under pressure since diesel fuel is only needed to be under pressure at the fuel injectors. Less than a liter/quart of diesel is under pressure on a 10- or 12-cylinder generator.
That article was written by uninformed "fictioneers" who don't understand simple physical science.
43
Oh boo fucking hoo 9.11. I'll go cry now because a fucking video shows a plan FLYING IN FRONT OF A ARTISTIC REPRESENTATION OF THE WTC. Get over it.
46
"So there!" What are you, 6? Did you stick out your tongue as well?
Well 9/11 is our Pearl Harbor so it's hard to dismiss it. It did change the way we think about safety in this country.
If you grew up in the '70s/'80s, hijacking a plane was for other purposes (some benign - to get home to Cuba, others for terrorism). 9/11 took hijacking a plane to a whole new place.
That top leadership in this country at the time KNEW this was a possibility and did nothing is criminal.
But while you shouldn't forget about it (and really how can we) yes, find some happiness on that day. We're alive and our country still exists.
One last thing - I understand, to some degree, why 9/11 families felt they should be given money by the government for their loss. What I fail to understand is why we did not do that for the families at Oklahoma City. I guess foreign terrorism is different from home-grown terrorism.
Well 9/11 is our Pearl Harbor so it's hard to dismiss it. It did change the way we think about safety in this country.
If you grew up in the '70s/'80s, hijacking a plane was for other purposes (some benign - to get home to Cuba, others for terrorism). 9/11 took hijacking a plane to a whole new place.
That top leadership in this country at the time KNEW this was a possibility and did nothing is criminal.
But while you shouldn't forget about it (and really how can we) yes, find some happiness on that day. We're alive and our country still exists.
One last thing - I understand, to some degree, why 9/11 families felt they should be given money by the government for their loss. What I fail to understand is why we did not do that for the families at Oklahoma City. I guess foreign terrorism is different from home-grown terrorism.
47
@45, you have posted here numerous gross errors of fact and even more gross errors of understanding. Everything you've said here is laughably untrue; a lot of it is now repudiated even by truthers, after the exposure of their idiocies become too great to ignore, even for them. What's your threshold?
"You can't pressurize a liquid" is one of the inadvertently funniest things I've ever read.
"You can't pressurize a liquid" is one of the inadvertently funniest things I've ever read.
48
@45: I think, at the end of the day, that's what's so annoying about you and your ilk. You have consumed enough of this garbage that you will be able to spit out facts and figures all day long, in much greater detail than non-truthers (after all, we have no reason to care about the minutiae of 9/11). What you won't be able to do, ever, is apply basic logic and reasonableness to the situation. If one of us gets close to pinning you down on one of your absurd claims, you will blithely move to the next one. (For instance, there's this claim that "pull it" must be a reference to explosives. But so, is Silverstein supposed to be a moron or something? Why would he add a detail like that to a public interview if it is inculpatory? Basic logic. But once someone makes this point, then it's on to the thermite or the options trading or whatever, and so on. By the way, while we're at it, there's no law that says that long options need to balance short options, and since people are generically long stocks, put options are the more natural hedge to be buying. I would need to see evidence of unique short interest in the cited stocks before I even considered engaging with the idea of "insider trading.")
And so this is what truthers have done, they have devoted vast energy to a project that accomplishes nothing but riling people up. So yes, congratulations, you have mastered more trivia about 9/11 than anyone who will care to debate you on the Slog comment threads. You could have been learning Chinese or planting a garden or just taking a walk, but no. (And so could I, so you win again.)
You are basically taking advantage of the fact that time is scarce to "win" arguments with whatever commenters get pissed off enough to engage with your rants. And the fact that humans do that to themselves, the creationists and birthers and truthers and Larouchies, is a strange and disgusting pathology that makes me feel a little dirty and depressed.
But I think the thing is that everyone recognizes this dynamic. No one is impressed that you know what thermite is (even if you started out calling it an "explosive" and now say that it melts metal without causing much of an explosion). No one is impressed that you can regurgitate crap from some website. We are probably hardwired to think that abundant evidence is an indicator of truth, but we are also adults who can see how this "evidence" was assembled and twisted into your fevered logic. We aren't confused by the fact that your argument takes the same form as a real, persuasive argument, because the substance is so obviously empty.
I guess the one consolation is that the most you can achieve is to irritate the mourners, like the Westboro Baptist Church. The really dangerous ones are the climate change deniers and the creationists. But anyway, still plenty obnoxious.
More...
And so this is what truthers have done, they have devoted vast energy to a project that accomplishes nothing but riling people up. So yes, congratulations, you have mastered more trivia about 9/11 than anyone who will care to debate you on the Slog comment threads. You could have been learning Chinese or planting a garden or just taking a walk, but no. (And so could I, so you win again.)
You are basically taking advantage of the fact that time is scarce to "win" arguments with whatever commenters get pissed off enough to engage with your rants. And the fact that humans do that to themselves, the creationists and birthers and truthers and Larouchies, is a strange and disgusting pathology that makes me feel a little dirty and depressed.
But I think the thing is that everyone recognizes this dynamic. No one is impressed that you know what thermite is (even if you started out calling it an "explosive" and now say that it melts metal without causing much of an explosion). No one is impressed that you can regurgitate crap from some website. We are probably hardwired to think that abundant evidence is an indicator of truth, but we are also adults who can see how this "evidence" was assembled and twisted into your fevered logic. We aren't confused by the fact that your argument takes the same form as a real, persuasive argument, because the substance is so obviously empty.
I guess the one consolation is that the most you can achieve is to irritate the mourners, like the Westboro Baptist Church. The really dangerous ones are the climate change deniers and the creationists. But anyway, still plenty obnoxious.
49
@ 47 --- You can not pressurize a liquid. A liquid can be UNDER PRESSURE (such as from the gravity head of a water tower, an actively running pump, or a hydraulic accumulator), but that is not the same as a "pressurized liquid", which does not exist. No fair substituting the word "fluid" for "liquid", because gasses, which can be pressurized, are also technically fluids (anything not a solid is a fluid, but not all fluids are liquids).
Go ask your 7th grade science teacher.
Go ask your 7th grade science teacher.
50
@46 -- I was responding to @44 on equal terms to ridicule his/her/its lack of supporting evidence.
Please pay attention if you're going to play; otherwise, you're just getting in the way and making a fool of yourself.
So there! <--- you earned it.
Please pay attention if you're going to play; otherwise, you're just getting in the way and making a fool of yourself.
So there! <--- you earned it.
51
@ 48 --- so your problem is with facts and figures. Got it.
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
--- John Adams, 'Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,' December 1770
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
--- John Adams, 'Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,' December 1770
52
we all know that truthers are too smart by half.
but therein lies the rub with them, they are quote "smart"
but...obviously not smart enough to dig themselves out of the muck of the half assed conspiracy theories they so often find their skinny white asses are too often in.
if you can respond with a bish pleaz to a truther, that means their basic premise is pretty weak.
but therein lies the rub with them, they are quote "smart"
but...obviously not smart enough to dig themselves out of the muck of the half assed conspiracy theories they so often find their skinny white asses are too often in.
if you can respond with a bish pleaz to a truther, that means their basic premise is pretty weak.
55
@ 54: that you may have some insightful perspective, on some things, but on this, umm. probably not so much...
that shouldn't be such a stretch for someone so incisive as yourself to figure out, right?
that shouldn't be such a stretch for someone so incisive as yourself to figure out, right?
56
I have tapes of the US government planning the terrorist attacks. Some snippets:
Colin Powell: "Well, the buildings are all rigged with explosives and ready for destruction. We're all set to blame Al Qaeda for blowing them up."
George W. Bush: "But wait - who the heck will be angered by Al Qaeda merely blowing up the WTC? No one! We should fly jets into them and pretend the Jets took them down instead."
CP: "Well, that's pretty complicated: If they miss, we're screwed, whereas simply blowing it up and blaming Al Qaeda is a slam dunk. I really don't see much of a difference, outrage-wise."
GWB: "Planes!"
CP: "Okay, well, speaking of planes, we're also ready to crash Flight 93 into the ground in Pennsylvania."
GWB: "No! No No! Instead, we should PRETEND it crashed. We'll stage it!"
CP: "Ummm. Isn't that a lot more complicated than ACTUALLY crashing the plane? I mean, we're already crashing two planes into the towers - we're not faking those, right?"
GWB: "Come on! Crashing planes into buildings is a cinch. But crashing them into the GROUND? No, no, no. Let's not take any chances."
CP: "Okay, but what do I do with the passengers? I mean, we'll have to kill them for sure or someone will talk. But if we really crash the plane..."
GWB: "Way too risky. Do it my way. Hey, how's that missile attack on the Pentagon going?"
CP: "All set. The missile should do some real damage. We'll plant evidence of Al Qaeda all over that wreckage.
GBW: "Hmmm. Don't you think we should pretend it's a plane instead?"
CP: *Sigh*
Colin Powell: "Well, the buildings are all rigged with explosives and ready for destruction. We're all set to blame Al Qaeda for blowing them up."
George W. Bush: "But wait - who the heck will be angered by Al Qaeda merely blowing up the WTC? No one! We should fly jets into them and pretend the Jets took them down instead."
CP: "Well, that's pretty complicated: If they miss, we're screwed, whereas simply blowing it up and blaming Al Qaeda is a slam dunk. I really don't see much of a difference, outrage-wise."
GWB: "Planes!"
CP: "Okay, well, speaking of planes, we're also ready to crash Flight 93 into the ground in Pennsylvania."
GWB: "No! No No! Instead, we should PRETEND it crashed. We'll stage it!"
CP: "Ummm. Isn't that a lot more complicated than ACTUALLY crashing the plane? I mean, we're already crashing two planes into the towers - we're not faking those, right?"
GWB: "Come on! Crashing planes into buildings is a cinch. But crashing them into the GROUND? No, no, no. Let's not take any chances."
CP: "Okay, but what do I do with the passengers? I mean, we'll have to kill them for sure or someone will talk. But if we really crash the plane..."
GWB: "Way too risky. Do it my way. Hey, how's that missile attack on the Pentagon going?"
CP: "All set. The missile should do some real damage. We'll plant evidence of Al Qaeda all over that wreckage.
GBW: "Hmmm. Don't you think we should pretend it's a plane instead?"
CP: *Sigh*
59
@ 48
"there's no law that says that long options need to balance short options"
Um, the SEC's duty is in-part to investigate massive, highly suspicious fluctuations in the market. The ratio of put's to calls placed on United and American airlines days before the attacks are so unprecedented they absolutely prove someone had foreknowledge. Do you want to know just how the SEC handle their investigation? I don't want to ruin it. It's in here: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011…
Were the trades actually statistically suspicious in the first place? Well, yes: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/5036…
"there's no law that says that long options need to balance short options"
Um, the SEC's duty is in-part to investigate massive, highly suspicious fluctuations in the market. The ratio of put's to calls placed on United and American airlines days before the attacks are so unprecedented they absolutely prove someone had foreknowledge. Do you want to know just how the SEC handle their investigation? I don't want to ruin it. It's in here: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011…
Were the trades actually statistically suspicious in the first place? Well, yes: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/5036…
60
@49, my seventh grade science teacher would have said "how anyone could interpret the phrase 'pressurized diesel tanks' to mean that the diesel was pressurized instead of the tanks not only doesn't understand anything about science, they don't understand anything about the English language".
The diesel tanks were on the ground floor (illegally, thanks to Giuliani); the generators were on the fifth. I have no doubt that you are confused about how gravity works, but no one else is.
And the diesel may not have been that important to the fires. The fires are what brought the building down, in conjunction with the peculiar load bearing of the building and the gigantic bite taken out of the front -- where those peculiar structures were located -- by the collapse of two of the largest buildings in the world next door.
You have not even attempted to address your other idiotic statements, like the one about Larry Silverstein "admitting it" (which is completely stupid in every way) or the bit about secretly hauling all the steel to Bangladesh from a place that was being shown live 24/7 on every TV channel in the world.
These stories you tell are not just wrong but laughably wrong. No rational person anywhere gives any of them so much as a glint of credence. You have NOTHING. Your so-called argument is worthless. Your rhetorical abilities are nil as well. You don't even understand what you're saying.
My seventh grade science teacher would also say "this idiot was never in my class, I hope".
John Adams would have called you a cunt as well.
The diesel tanks were on the ground floor (illegally, thanks to Giuliani); the generators were on the fifth. I have no doubt that you are confused about how gravity works, but no one else is.
And the diesel may not have been that important to the fires. The fires are what brought the building down, in conjunction with the peculiar load bearing of the building and the gigantic bite taken out of the front -- where those peculiar structures were located -- by the collapse of two of the largest buildings in the world next door.
You have not even attempted to address your other idiotic statements, like the one about Larry Silverstein "admitting it" (which is completely stupid in every way) or the bit about secretly hauling all the steel to Bangladesh from a place that was being shown live 24/7 on every TV channel in the world.
These stories you tell are not just wrong but laughably wrong. No rational person anywhere gives any of them so much as a glint of credence. You have NOTHING. Your so-called argument is worthless. Your rhetorical abilities are nil as well. You don't even understand what you're saying.
My seventh grade science teacher would also say "this idiot was never in my class, I hope".
John Adams would have called you a cunt as well.
61
@51 - it's a fool's errand, but look. The point is that you can cite facts and figures. Under normal circumstances, someone's ability to marshal evidence in favor of his argument lends credibility to that argument. But the problem is that the facts and figures you cite don't add up to anything persuasive - they are not logically connected in a way that leads to the conclusions you want us to draw from them. So it's misleading, because the discussions inevitably get bogged down in questions like "how unprecedented is it to have 5,000 put options on an airline stock?" or "what is thermite made of?" And as Fnarf and I have both pointed out, once we do refute an argument, then it's on to the next.
So you're able to generate something that superficially resembles a reasonable argument, with evidence being adduced on both sides, but in fact it's a farce. Taking my comment about facts and figures out of context is just another example to add to the pile.
So you're able to generate something that superficially resembles a reasonable argument, with evidence being adduced on both sides, but in fact it's a farce. Taking my comment about facts and figures out of context is just another example to add to the pile.
62
Wait, wait, wait. Spindles. You're telling me that someone(s) out there bought some options in Airline stock running up to 9/11, and one of those options remains unclaimed? Well, who could that POSSIBLY be? Definitely some government big-wig who knew about the inside job. Nope, could NEVER be a terrorist. After all, so many of them are rich from oil and blood money, why would they invest? And the unclaimed money, that guy thought the attacks were happening on the 12th, and was making sure the charges to bring down the buildings were in place...OOPSIE! JUST COULD NOT BE a terrorist who was captured or killed in the wake of the attack, or had to go into SERIOUS hiding. Or even lots of people buying puts because the U.S. had just experienced a period of massive economic expansion and was starting to see the weakening of that growth. Tell me what United and AA's options traffic looked like for the 6 months preceding 9/11. How did other airlines do during that same period. This is how an intelligent, educated, and sane person seeks to answer a question. You, on the other hand, take a few random, isolated facts as the gospel truth. Please, proceed to your root cellar and don't come back out...
Terrorism = conspiracy to kill people. The U.S. government = smashing incompetence regarding 9/11. Clinton's people were practically yelling the threat at the Bush team, and they decided to check out what was up in the USSR...ARGH, RUSSIA - why did they change the name again? - instead.
Terrorism = conspiracy to kill people. The U.S. government = smashing incompetence regarding 9/11. Clinton's people were practically yelling the threat at the Bush team, and they decided to check out what was up in the USSR...ARGH, RUSSIA - why did they change the name again? - instead.
63
@41: "nice attempt at lying?" The link you provided does nothing but back me up:
"Thermite is a pyrotechnic composition of a metal powder and a metal oxide that produces an exothermic oxidation-reduction reaction known as a thermite reaction."
So... small flakes of aluminum and rusted iron were found in the wreckage.
You really have four options at this point:
1. Accuse me of lying again, even though I am entirely without motive.
2. Accuse me of lying because I'm "in" on some conspiracy. If that were the case, I should be making a lot more than I do.
3. Accept that sane people don't think the way you do. (not likely to happen)
4. Call me "sheeple" or some equally asinine term and continue with your insane rants. (most likely)
"Thermite is a pyrotechnic composition of a metal powder and a metal oxide that produces an exothermic oxidation-reduction reaction known as a thermite reaction."
So... small flakes of aluminum and rusted iron were found in the wreckage.
You really have four options at this point:
1. Accuse me of lying again, even though I am entirely without motive.
2. Accuse me of lying because I'm "in" on some conspiracy. If that were the case, I should be making a lot more than I do.
3. Accept that sane people don't think the way you do. (not likely to happen)
4. Call me "sheeple" or some equally asinine term and continue with your insane rants. (most likely)
64
Something to lighten the mood:
*knock-knock*
"Who's there?"
"9-11."
"9-11 who?"
"I thought you said you'd never forget."
It's been 10 years for eff's sake, can we all PLEASE just chill out?
*knock-knock*
"Who's there?"
"9-11."
"9-11 who?"
"I thought you said you'd never forget."
It's been 10 years for eff's sake, can we all PLEASE just chill out?
65
@ 61 yes. The most insanely infuriating thing about the Truthers is every molecule of energy they waste with their "Silverstein's" "Thermites" "put options" "missles not planes" "Beamer's made phone calls after the crash (imagine the grotesquerie of that)" and "missing gold bars" is energy and time wasted, from the very real threat of more religious fascists unleashing more horror and death in the service of their "god" and whatever cause they are convinced he has given his full blessing to.
66
@60 --- Oh, now you're retreating from your claims about the pseudoscience "article" you referenced because I've shot it full of holes. The diesel is what you were saying caused building 7 to fall and now you're saying the tanks Probably weren't on fire at all. So what...the mere PRESENCE of non-burning diesel fuel causes buildings to fall? That's all you're left with from your original argument. DEAL WITH IT.
Larry Silverstein said what he said. "Pull it" is controlled-demolition talk for "bring down the building". The "pull" references the lateral cables that are often installed to pull the walls in on the collapsing core of the building so the debris doesn't fall outside the building's footprint. I'm not saying they prepped building 7 in that way, but the term "pull" is one Silversein would know (being a lifelong property developer he's had many buildings demolished) and would use to fit in as "one of the guys". I didn't invent Larry Silverstein or tape recording. Larry Silverstein is on tape as saying "pull it". DEAL WITH IT.
The debris was trucked to New Jersey. Nobody outside of government was allowed to examine it; the claim was it was "sacred". No samples could be taken. Then the "sacred" scrap metal was loaded on a ships and sent to Bangladesh for recycling. The evidence was disappeared. That's a fact...DEAL WITH IT.
And I repeat my challenge...ask your 7th grade science teacher if diesel fuel can be PRESSURIZED, because that is the claim you took ownership of when you linked to the nonscientific article written by non-journalists. They wrote the words "pressurized diesel fuel tanks" to try to cause people like you to think that's why WTC 7 fell down all by itself. Not me. DEAL WITH IT.
Larry Silverstein said what he said. "Pull it" is controlled-demolition talk for "bring down the building". The "pull" references the lateral cables that are often installed to pull the walls in on the collapsing core of the building so the debris doesn't fall outside the building's footprint. I'm not saying they prepped building 7 in that way, but the term "pull" is one Silversein would know (being a lifelong property developer he's had many buildings demolished) and would use to fit in as "one of the guys". I didn't invent Larry Silverstein or tape recording. Larry Silverstein is on tape as saying "pull it". DEAL WITH IT.
The debris was trucked to New Jersey. Nobody outside of government was allowed to examine it; the claim was it was "sacred". No samples could be taken. Then the "sacred" scrap metal was loaded on a ships and sent to Bangladesh for recycling. The evidence was disappeared. That's a fact...DEAL WITH IT.
And I repeat my challenge...ask your 7th grade science teacher if diesel fuel can be PRESSURIZED, because that is the claim you took ownership of when you linked to the nonscientific article written by non-journalists. They wrote the words "pressurized diesel fuel tanks" to try to cause people like you to think that's why WTC 7 fell down all by itself. Not me. DEAL WITH IT.
67
@61 --- Just face it: you don't wish to know anything outside your comfort zone. You were raised by television and your mind can't handle complexity. Go back to sleep.
68
@63 --- Do you know what "pyrotechnic composition" means? That's something you might use to... oh.... bring down a steel-frame building. Backed into a corner you concede the point, hoping nobody will notice. I'll take option #5: attack until your noise stops, or until this story scrolls off into the summary items at the bottom of slog (I don't bother writing it if nobody will read it).
Come back with your best stuff or just give up now.
Come back with your best stuff or just give up now.
69
THe trouble with conspiracy theories is they are based on the idea that thousands of people can be managed and work secretly to pull off extraordinary events without any leaks. Anyone who has managed an office of more than 2 people knows that that is fucking impossible with human beings.
Ergo: most conspiracy theorists work at Kinkos, but think they're really smart and should be in management.
Ergo: most conspiracy theorists work at Kinkos, but think they're really smart and should be in management.
70
@69 -- I've stated facts and have never mentioned "thousands of people" doing anything secretly or otherwise. Your statement of opinion is conveniently fact-free. I'll stick with my facts over your opinion.
71
@68: I am aware of what that term means. My assertion is that no thermite was placed in the WTC in the first place - not that it's a harmless substance.
The discovery of residual metal and rust (the two components of thermite) does not mean that thermite was placed there - these could very reasonably be byproducts of the building collapse. Honestly, I'd be surprised if those *weren't* found in the remains of a steel-framed structure that had been getting water poured on it for weeks prior to removal.
Again, if you find RDX or some other compound that a reasonable person wouldn't expect to see in the debris, we'll be talking.
The discovery of residual metal and rust (the two components of thermite) does not mean that thermite was placed there - these could very reasonably be byproducts of the building collapse. Honestly, I'd be surprised if those *weren't* found in the remains of a steel-framed structure that had been getting water poured on it for weeks prior to removal.
Again, if you find RDX or some other compound that a reasonable person wouldn't expect to see in the debris, we'll be talking.
72
A smiling De Martini tells the camera that because of the way the buildings were designed, you could fly airplanes into them and they'd still stand."
Unfortunately, a comment like that just makes the so-called (and, of course, wrongly-named) "truthers" believe even more that the airplanes couldn't have brought down the towers.
But what Liembo @ 5 said is right: De Martini was correct about the impact of the planes. The impact did not knock the buildings down immediately and because of that, many (probably most) people below the crash zones were, thankfully, able to make it down safely. Other skyscrapers, built without that kind of "mosquito netting" design, likely would not have withstood the initial impact. But what the towers could not withstand was the horrendous heat from the fires accompanying the impacts.
What I remain puzzled by is why, with skyscrapers in every large city in the U.S., there is apparently no provision to be able to rescue people (even if only some) from the floors above a fire or some other catastrophic event.
What I didn't know until watching a special on TV last night was that six fireman from Ladder Company 6 were helping an elderly woman named Josephine down the stairs of tower #1. When they got to floor 2 she stopped and said she couldn't go any further, telling them to go on but they said they weren't going to leave her. Then the tower collapsed above them but they all ended up surviving in a "pocket" of the stairwell from the 2nd to the 4th floors that, somehow remained intact. Amazing.
Unfortunately, a comment like that just makes the so-called (and, of course, wrongly-named) "truthers" believe even more that the airplanes couldn't have brought down the towers.
But what Liembo @ 5 said is right: De Martini was correct about the impact of the planes. The impact did not knock the buildings down immediately and because of that, many (probably most) people below the crash zones were, thankfully, able to make it down safely. Other skyscrapers, built without that kind of "mosquito netting" design, likely would not have withstood the initial impact. But what the towers could not withstand was the horrendous heat from the fires accompanying the impacts.
What I remain puzzled by is why, with skyscrapers in every large city in the U.S., there is apparently no provision to be able to rescue people (even if only some) from the floors above a fire or some other catastrophic event.
What I didn't know until watching a special on TV last night was that six fireman from Ladder Company 6 were helping an elderly woman named Josephine down the stairs of tower #1. When they got to floor 2 she stopped and said she couldn't go any further, telling them to go on but they said they weren't going to leave her. Then the tower collapsed above them but they all ended up surviving in a "pocket" of the stairwell from the 2nd to the 4th floors that, somehow remained intact. Amazing.
73
Are you guys getting anything out of feeding the troll? It won't stop, won't listen to reason, and won't quit resorting to name-calling. Just leave the stupid creature alone. You can't help it now.
74
Here are two far more appropriate (as in non-literary minded, just keeping to the facts) vids on those events of 9/11.
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-09-07/ne…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla…
Please note in the first vid by an outstanding German investigative crew, the menion of Raytheon's JPALS system, a remote-piloting system developed quite a few years ago. That is of interest to me as during the '80s I briefly worked in aviation/avionics programming, and a brilliant fellow I met at that time, from a job a Bell Labs, then went on to work on that project at Ratheon --- I was next, years later, to see his name on the pax list of one of those airliners involved in 9/11/01.
Also please note that Raytheon Aerospace, during the time of 9/11, was owned by Veritas Capital, which detailed pattern analysis and forensic economics analyses idicate were one of the five players involved in using Saudi cutouts that day to perpetrate those events (the other players: Blackstone Group, A.I.G., office of SecDef [Rumsfeld], office of VP [Cheney]).
Now I realize many of the commenters here probably have NO MILITARY experience, and certainly have never been stationed at a USAF global command post, and aren't familiar with ATCC's and the command-control-communication systems, etc., but the first vid is sooooo on target.
Thank you.
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-09-07/ne…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pla…
Please note in the first vid by an outstanding German investigative crew, the menion of Raytheon's JPALS system, a remote-piloting system developed quite a few years ago. That is of interest to me as during the '80s I briefly worked in aviation/avionics programming, and a brilliant fellow I met at that time, from a job a Bell Labs, then went on to work on that project at Ratheon --- I was next, years later, to see his name on the pax list of one of those airliners involved in 9/11/01.
Also please note that Raytheon Aerospace, during the time of 9/11, was owned by Veritas Capital, which detailed pattern analysis and forensic economics analyses idicate were one of the five players involved in using Saudi cutouts that day to perpetrate those events (the other players: Blackstone Group, A.I.G., office of SecDef [Rumsfeld], office of VP [Cheney]).
Now I realize many of the commenters here probably have NO MILITARY experience, and certainly have never been stationed at a USAF global command post, and aren't familiar with ATCC's and the command-control-communication systems, etc., but the first vid is sooooo on target.
Thank you.
76
@24, judybrowni, that jet fuel scenario was originally publised by NIST in a congressional report, laughed at widely around the planet, and they later RECANTED THAT REPORT and stated it was in error and inconclusive.
Knowing this requires paying attention to the facts --- truly bothersome to many of the commenters here today.
The jet fuel, according to their theory, was evenly distributed throughout the building, then later -- after buring at the same exact consistency throughout the build (according to that now-renounced theory) caused the building to collapse all at the same time.
Unfortunately, physics doesn't really occur like that in the real world. More to the point, it was physically impossible, in anything other than some form of controlled demolition, for the building to collapse in a steady-state manner (probably the top 20 floors or so were wired with pressure charges and that weight was enough to cause the collapse that occurred that day).
It would, of course, pancake down in that manner given its structural design.
An aside: the structural engineer, a Seattle native, was Jon Magnusson, who almost immediately came out and said everything occurred just as the Bush/Cheney conspiracy theory had it.
Now, a deep research into Magnusson's background reveals some interesting stuff: his brother holds the record for most real estate arson damage in Seattle; his father had a most dubious record as an elected official (House of Representatives), including interdicting on behalf of his other arsonist son who had once been charged in an alleged sexual assualt on several female children, and Magnusson had misrepresented (lied) publicly in the Seattle Times about a meeting, or meetings, with regards to the Seattle Monorail Project (his firm is involved in the Deepbore tunnel about to begin construction on).
While this isn't directly pertinent, it does indicate that all aspects are of a highly suspicious nature.
More...
Knowing this requires paying attention to the facts --- truly bothersome to many of the commenters here today.
The jet fuel, according to their theory, was evenly distributed throughout the building, then later -- after buring at the same exact consistency throughout the build (according to that now-renounced theory) caused the building to collapse all at the same time.
Unfortunately, physics doesn't really occur like that in the real world. More to the point, it was physically impossible, in anything other than some form of controlled demolition, for the building to collapse in a steady-state manner (probably the top 20 floors or so were wired with pressure charges and that weight was enough to cause the collapse that occurred that day).
It would, of course, pancake down in that manner given its structural design.
An aside: the structural engineer, a Seattle native, was Jon Magnusson, who almost immediately came out and said everything occurred just as the Bush/Cheney conspiracy theory had it.
Now, a deep research into Magnusson's background reveals some interesting stuff: his brother holds the record for most real estate arson damage in Seattle; his father had a most dubious record as an elected official (House of Representatives), including interdicting on behalf of his other arsonist son who had once been charged in an alleged sexual assualt on several female children, and Magnusson had misrepresented (lied) publicly in the Seattle Times about a meeting, or meetings, with regards to the Seattle Monorail Project (his firm is involved in the Deepbore tunnel about to begin construction on).
While this isn't directly pertinent, it does indicate that all aspects are of a highly suspicious nature.
77
@28, spindles, makes some excellent points and I would not criticize them, but merely expand upon them, in an attempt to elucidate the feeble-minded @32, giffy.
The millions made in investments were truly chump change when considering the three principal revenue sources: (1) trillions in embezzled funds offshored that day under the watchful seniors' eyes, with the resulting destruction of unwitting parties and data comm systems involved in the WTC towers, (2) highly technical investments and trades made based upon the destruction of the WTC and strike on the Pentagon that day, and (3) the immediate removal of 10,000,000 square feet of commercial (and some slight residential) space fromt he NYC market.
The chump change spindles refers to ended up in the Alex Brown investment firm's accounts, but what wasn't publicized then, was the investment firm of Alex Brown was then owned by the Deutsche Bank, one of those three parties which had a dramatic increase in data communications in the 12 hours preceding the 9/11 attack (the other two were Marsh, an AIG subsidiary, and Cantor Fitzgerald's TradeSpark operation ---- Cantor Fitzgerald would later attain the vaunted position of one of the Fed's primary dealers, a position of extraordinary financial power and access). This activity was probably some stooges trying to earn a little on the side, and not supposed to be part of the overall operation --- those unclaimed funds would naturally bounce to Deutsche Bank.
It wasn't until 2004, when the Internet/Web hit critical mass usage, that those cached pages of dramatically increased data communications going overseas could be accessed.
The millions made in investments were truly chump change when considering the three principal revenue sources: (1) trillions in embezzled funds offshored that day under the watchful seniors' eyes, with the resulting destruction of unwitting parties and data comm systems involved in the WTC towers, (2) highly technical investments and trades made based upon the destruction of the WTC and strike on the Pentagon that day, and (3) the immediate removal of 10,000,000 square feet of commercial (and some slight residential) space fromt he NYC market.
The chump change spindles refers to ended up in the Alex Brown investment firm's accounts, but what wasn't publicized then, was the investment firm of Alex Brown was then owned by the Deutsche Bank, one of those three parties which had a dramatic increase in data communications in the 12 hours preceding the 9/11 attack (the other two were Marsh, an AIG subsidiary, and Cantor Fitzgerald's TradeSpark operation ---- Cantor Fitzgerald would later attain the vaunted position of one of the Fed's primary dealers, a position of extraordinary financial power and access). This activity was probably some stooges trying to earn a little on the side, and not supposed to be part of the overall operation --- those unclaimed funds would naturally bounce to Deutsche Bank.
It wasn't until 2004, when the Internet/Web hit critical mass usage, that those cached pages of dramatically increased data communications going overseas could be accessed.
78
@74 Nice! And let's not forget the multiple war games on the morning of 9/11 simulating hijackings over the continental United States that included (at least) one "live-fly" exercise as well as simulations that placed "false blips" on FAA radar screens. Or the additional war games on 9/11 including Northern Vigilance, an exercise that pulled Air Force fighters from the east coast of the United States up into Canada and Alaska simulating an attack out of Russia. No wonder NEADS was effectively paralyzed on 9/11, allowing the planes to fly loop de loops over the most heavily protected airspace in the world.
79
@Fnarf, and the other lowbrows out there,
You fellows are in "good" company, as Jonathan Kay, author of Among the Truthers, is in full agreement with youse guys.
Published by Rupert Murdoch's company, HarperCollins, and financed by the foundation which Kay the author is a fellow at, the Foundation in Defense of Democracies, or by a close perusal of the foundation's members, Project for a New American Century, Version 2.0.
Like you, ultra-neocon and Zionist Kay believes facts are nasty things, and nasty people avoid the facts. No doubt, your kind of people:
http://www.defenddemocracy.org/about-fdd…
You fellows are in "good" company, as Jonathan Kay, author of Among the Truthers, is in full agreement with youse guys.
Published by Rupert Murdoch's company, HarperCollins, and financed by the foundation which Kay the author is a fellow at, the Foundation in Defense of Democracies, or by a close perusal of the foundation's members, Project for a New American Century, Version 2.0.
Like you, ultra-neocon and Zionist Kay believes facts are nasty things, and nasty people avoid the facts. No doubt, your kind of people:
http://www.defenddemocracy.org/about-fdd…
81
@71 --- You keep changing your story as I present additional support for my facts. You dismissed thermite as harmless when you wrote @ 22 "thermite is literally fine flakes of metal and rust". Now you agree it's a "pyrotechnic composition". The kind of stuff that brings down buildings.
Keep evolving.
Keep evolving.
82
70/sgt doom: "@Fnarf, and the other lowbrows out there,"
I've read that one of the primary things that drives conspiracy folks is ego, the feeling that they are intellectually superior to others. They, and they alone, are smart enough to understand "the truth" while those who don't see things as they do are dumb or ignorant (or in on the conspiracy.)
I've read that one of the primary things that drives conspiracy folks is ego, the feeling that they are intellectually superior to others. They, and they alone, are smart enough to understand "the truth" while those who don't see things as they do are dumb or ignorant (or in on the conspiracy.)
85
@66:
No it's not.
And even if it was, why would Larry Silverstein, who is not a demolitions contractor, be using their slang?
And even if he was, why would he jeopardize this vast conspiracy, not one hairline crack in which has appeared in a decade, by shouting it into a TV camera? It's nonsense.
It's also not true.
As for your other hysterical semantic (and immaterial) rubbish about whether the diesel was pressurized or not, you've gotten several different things mixed up. Which isn't surprising given your laughable "science" understanding. The jet fuel was in the buildings that got hit by jets. The diesel was in WTC 7. Tanks on the ground floor, generators on the fifth. How you think the diesel got from the ground floor to the fifth without pressurization I can't imagine and don't want to know. But the diesel wasn't necessary; the fire was strong enough, and the pre-existing damage serious enough (a giant hole carved out right where the funky cantilevered support structure of the building was based) that it fell anyways. It's not a mystery.
I strongly suggest that you go away and don't come back until you've had your meds adjusted, and stop believing everything you hear from kook websites. Literally every single statement you've made in this thread is laughably wrong.
"Pull it" is controlled-demolition talk for "bring down the building".
No it's not.
And even if it was, why would Larry Silverstein, who is not a demolitions contractor, be using their slang?
And even if he was, why would he jeopardize this vast conspiracy, not one hairline crack in which has appeared in a decade, by shouting it into a TV camera? It's nonsense.
It's also not true.
As for your other hysterical semantic (and immaterial) rubbish about whether the diesel was pressurized or not, you've gotten several different things mixed up. Which isn't surprising given your laughable "science" understanding. The jet fuel was in the buildings that got hit by jets. The diesel was in WTC 7. Tanks on the ground floor, generators on the fifth. How you think the diesel got from the ground floor to the fifth without pressurization I can't imagine and don't want to know. But the diesel wasn't necessary; the fire was strong enough, and the pre-existing damage serious enough (a giant hole carved out right where the funky cantilevered support structure of the building was based) that it fell anyways. It's not a mystery.
I strongly suggest that you go away and don't come back until you've had your meds adjusted, and stop believing everything you hear from kook websites. Literally every single statement you've made in this thread is laughably wrong.
86
@74 - 81: what a lovely troll circle jerk you all are. Really. You guys should really get together for a good wank sometime. Preferably not on slog.
87
@75: That article goes directly from describing the spheres to making the following claim: "The microspheres must have been formed at extremely high temperatures during the World Trade Center’s destruction – temperatures exceeding the melting point of iron (~2,700° F)."
That is not true, though. There's no reason cited to rule out the original construction (ie, welding) as the process that generated molten iron microspheres. There are known points in time where there was molten metal present in the WTC prior to 9/11, so finding evidence of it in the wreckage isn't particularly compelling. It's like holding up a welded joint and claiming that as evidence.
@81: Those two things aren't mutually exclusive, as the article that was linked by a fellow truther mentions in its first sentence. It's a pyrotechnic composition of metal dust and rust. Note that "pyrotechnic composition" doesn't mean that it must have been created by people. Magnesium probably also falls into that category, for example.
That is not true, though. There's no reason cited to rule out the original construction (ie, welding) as the process that generated molten iron microspheres. There are known points in time where there was molten metal present in the WTC prior to 9/11, so finding evidence of it in the wreckage isn't particularly compelling. It's like holding up a welded joint and claiming that as evidence.
@81: Those two things aren't mutually exclusive, as the article that was linked by a fellow truther mentions in its first sentence. It's a pyrotechnic composition of metal dust and rust. Note that "pyrotechnic composition" doesn't mean that it must have been created by people. Magnesium probably also falls into that category, for example.
88
Not a single whistle-blower among all of the "conspirators" theoretically involved with placing explosives? Where are these guys? Only a few people knew about Monica Lewinski, and that was not to remain a secret -- how on earth has this (impossibly large) conspiracy remained under wraps?
In order to be credible, a scientific theory needs to be based on a body of data, rather than starting with a theory, then cherry-picking "evidence".
The reason that the world dismisses the truther movement's ramblings is that they are bullshit. Meanwhile, there's plenty of actual conspiracies ON THE RECORD, that you all should be much more angry about.
In order to be credible, a scientific theory needs to be based on a body of data, rather than starting with a theory, then cherry-picking "evidence".
The reason that the world dismisses the truther movement's ramblings is that they are bullshit. Meanwhile, there's plenty of actual conspiracies ON THE RECORD, that you all should be much more angry about.
89
@88, Nope, no whistle blowers at all. Well, except for:
Sibel Edmonds-FBI translator
Coleen Rowley-Minneapolis field office Chief Counsel
J. Michael Springmann-head of the visa section at the U.S. consulate in Jeddah
Robert Wright-of the FBI's Chicago field office
Indira Singh-risk management consultant for J.P. Morgan in 2001
Barry Jennings-Deputy Director of Emergency Services for the New York City Housing Department
(to name just a few)
Let's not forget:
Richard Andrew Grove
William Bergman
Michael C. Ruppert
architects and engineers for 9 11 truth
6 out of 10 9/11 commision members, some of whom have questioned the commission and its conclusions personally (namely Kean and Hamilton, Kerrey, Roemer, Lehman and Cleland). Commission co-chairman Thomas Kean once famously remarked that the Commission was "set up to fail." Commission members considered bringing criminal charges against Pentagon officials who had deliberately lied to them about the military's complete lack of response on that day. One of the commissioners, Max Cleland, even resigned because the commission had been "deliberately compromised by the president of the United States."
Sibel Edmonds-FBI translator
Coleen Rowley-Minneapolis field office Chief Counsel
J. Michael Springmann-head of the visa section at the U.S. consulate in Jeddah
Robert Wright-of the FBI's Chicago field office
Indira Singh-risk management consultant for J.P. Morgan in 2001
Barry Jennings-Deputy Director of Emergency Services for the New York City Housing Department
(to name just a few)
Let's not forget:
Richard Andrew Grove
William Bergman
Michael C. Ruppert
architects and engineers for 9 11 truth
6 out of 10 9/11 commision members, some of whom have questioned the commission and its conclusions personally (namely Kean and Hamilton, Kerrey, Roemer, Lehman and Cleland). Commission co-chairman Thomas Kean once famously remarked that the Commission was "set up to fail." Commission members considered bringing criminal charges against Pentagon officials who had deliberately lied to them about the military's complete lack of response on that day. One of the commissioners, Max Cleland, even resigned because the commission had been "deliberately compromised by the president of the United States."
90
@88 Easpike, thanks for the usual talking points, dood! Yup, out of 23 people in a compartmentalized operation (do some research into the backgrounds of the passengers aboard those four airliners, douchebagger, god knows I've elaborated enough on that subject over the past 7 years!!!!) --- but you cleverly forget (assuming the capacity even exists among your minimal neurons) about the dean of students, a Lt. Col. who committed career suicide when he mentioned that he recalled several of the hijackers from the Defense Languages Institute at Monterey (where one must either be government, or military, to attend).
Plus there was another career office at some USAF air base --- I believe it was either Florida or thereabouts --- who mentioned other hijackers having been trained there.
BTW, an officer stationed at Monterey, Ca., Defense Language Institute has normally been fast-tracked on the intelligence career track ---- and that guy definitely was a whistle-blower.
Plus there was another career office at some USAF air base --- I believe it was either Florida or thereabouts --- who mentioned other hijackers having been trained there.
BTW, an officer stationed at Monterey, Ca., Defense Language Institute has normally been fast-tracked on the intelligence career track ---- and that guy definitely was a whistle-blower.
91
@85 --
"Pull it" is absolutely controlled-demolition talk for "bring down the building". It's a fact, and I have already explained this to you. Please read before you comment.
Larry Silverstein, would use the slang of demolition contracts because he's an old boring businessman who would want to sound "like one of the guys" when there's a bit of excitement in his life. That's why.
It is true. It is a fact. Deal with it.
You are the one who based your entire argument on a web page (YOU provided the link) that was obviously written by people who don't know shit about shit. I pointed this out by using their absurd idea of "Pressurized diesel tanks" (maybe they were thinking propane or CNG?). It is very material because it impeaches your ridiculous source. I never claimed there was jet fuel in building 7 and you're lying now by trying to say that I did.
The fire was NOT "strong enough", as you put it, to structurally damage the building and you obviously did not read the link I posted which give many examples of buildings that burned much more than WTC 7 without ANY structural damage whatsoever. You can try to hide from the truth, but it's still there.
You are a frightened child who keeps repeating a favorite fairy tale because it makes you feel safe. Outside of your fair tale (in that scary place we call reality) you would be unable to function --- with the possible exception of involuntary bowel evacuations.
"Pull it" is absolutely controlled-demolition talk for "bring down the building". It's a fact, and I have already explained this to you. Please read before you comment.
Larry Silverstein, would use the slang of demolition contracts because he's an old boring businessman who would want to sound "like one of the guys" when there's a bit of excitement in his life. That's why.
It is true. It is a fact. Deal with it.
You are the one who based your entire argument on a web page (YOU provided the link) that was obviously written by people who don't know shit about shit. I pointed this out by using their absurd idea of "Pressurized diesel tanks" (maybe they were thinking propane or CNG?). It is very material because it impeaches your ridiculous source. I never claimed there was jet fuel in building 7 and you're lying now by trying to say that I did.
The fire was NOT "strong enough", as you put it, to structurally damage the building and you obviously did not read the link I posted which give many examples of buildings that burned much more than WTC 7 without ANY structural damage whatsoever. You can try to hide from the truth, but it's still there.
You are a frightened child who keeps repeating a favorite fairy tale because it makes you feel safe. Outside of your fair tale (in that scary place we call reality) you would be unable to function --- with the possible exception of involuntary bowel evacuations.
92
@82, Roma,, intelligence isn't a factor in the matter, although indepedent and analytical thinking certainly helps.
In my case, my previous military experience caused the red flags to go up when the faux newsies kept stepping on themselves and reporting inconsistency after inconsistency.
And, experience in the technical area certainly helps as well, but many I know in the past and communicated with on this subject are both far more intelligent than I, or around my inconsequential level --- but be that as it may, I want to see justice for all those who died horribly that day.
And as any professional investigator will tell you, during any homicide investigation it is SOP to look into the background of the homocide victim(s), as the murderer in the majority of cases was known to their victim --- the thrill kill is the exception.
All it takes is to look into the background of those passengers aboard those four airliners that day --- the assured homocide victims --- to realize what was going on.
Why oh why would that be so difficult? It's all out there, dood....
http://soundprint.org:8080/ramgen/docume…
(Such as why all the DIA financial managers --- the majority died that horrible day --- were scheduled suddenly for a last-minute meeting at the time the airliner would crash into the Pentagon --- an airliner which miraculously hit dead center in the West Wall --- as so solidly demonstrated by a commercial satellite photo run in many newspapers, and reprinted in the NY Times Sunday Book Review three and half years ago --- easily understood by the burn marks left on the roof.)
More...
In my case, my previous military experience caused the red flags to go up when the faux newsies kept stepping on themselves and reporting inconsistency after inconsistency.
And, experience in the technical area certainly helps as well, but many I know in the past and communicated with on this subject are both far more intelligent than I, or around my inconsequential level --- but be that as it may, I want to see justice for all those who died horribly that day.
And as any professional investigator will tell you, during any homicide investigation it is SOP to look into the background of the homocide victim(s), as the murderer in the majority of cases was known to their victim --- the thrill kill is the exception.
All it takes is to look into the background of those passengers aboard those four airliners that day --- the assured homocide victims --- to realize what was going on.
Why oh why would that be so difficult? It's all out there, dood....
http://soundprint.org:8080/ramgen/docume…
(Such as why all the DIA financial managers --- the majority died that horrible day --- were scheduled suddenly for a last-minute meeting at the time the airliner would crash into the Pentagon --- an airliner which miraculously hit dead center in the West Wall --- as so solidly demonstrated by a commercial satellite photo run in many newspapers, and reprinted in the NY Times Sunday Book Review three and half years ago --- easily understood by the burn marks left on the roof.)
93
@87 --- Nobody is talking about Magnesium. You're trying to change the subject. Nice try, though.
94
88 --- They're probably dead. More than likely they were ordered to work on the building on 9/11/01 (told that the attack would be a day or two later) and were killed inside the building. The collapse they engineered would hide the evidence of their own murders. How cool is that!?!
95
@Fnarf,
You ever studied anything about economics? Finance? Cui bono??
Chairmen of the Federal Reserve Bank of NY, in the late '90s -- Hank Greenberg of AIG (who claimed before GAO auditors that he fully understood credit derivatives and securitizations, but later under oath testified before congress that he was clueless about them); chair from 2000 - 2004, Peter G. Peterson of the Blackstone Group; 2004 - 2008, Peterson's protege, Timothy Geithner; 2008 until he had to resign, Stephen Friedman (who was a senior principal at Marsh & McLennan during 2000-2001, and was on an extraordinary number of intelligence review boards, including the Jeremiah Panel regarding the future of the National Reconnaissance Office).
$2.3 trillion reported unaccounted for by the Pentagon's comptroller on 9/10/01, and on 9/11/01 the Pentagon's financial systems' area is struck by a "hijacked" commercial airliner, which the blackbox indicates was never hijacked (no door opening to pilot's cabin on that airliner nor one of the two into the WTC towers --- I believe only one of those boxes was ever recovered).
$1.7 trillion missing from a number of federal agencies during the '80s and '90s, $2.3 trillion unaccounted for at the DoD, and magically trillions begin flowing into offshore hedge funds shortly after 9/11/01, making 2002 a banner year for hedge fund investors.
Do the arithmetic, dood.......
You ever studied anything about economics? Finance? Cui bono??
Chairmen of the Federal Reserve Bank of NY, in the late '90s -- Hank Greenberg of AIG (who claimed before GAO auditors that he fully understood credit derivatives and securitizations, but later under oath testified before congress that he was clueless about them); chair from 2000 - 2004, Peter G. Peterson of the Blackstone Group; 2004 - 2008, Peterson's protege, Timothy Geithner; 2008 until he had to resign, Stephen Friedman (who was a senior principal at Marsh & McLennan during 2000-2001, and was on an extraordinary number of intelligence review boards, including the Jeremiah Panel regarding the future of the National Reconnaissance Office).
$2.3 trillion reported unaccounted for by the Pentagon's comptroller on 9/10/01, and on 9/11/01 the Pentagon's financial systems' area is struck by a "hijacked" commercial airliner, which the blackbox indicates was never hijacked (no door opening to pilot's cabin on that airliner nor one of the two into the WTC towers --- I believe only one of those boxes was ever recovered).
$1.7 trillion missing from a number of federal agencies during the '80s and '90s, $2.3 trillion unaccounted for at the DoD, and magically trillions begin flowing into offshore hedge funds shortly after 9/11/01, making 2002 a banner year for hedge fund investors.
Do the arithmetic, dood.......
96
Time is running out, folks. I don't comment on Slog items that roll off the page into those summary links at the bottom (which nobody reads) so post your best remaining lies and bullshit before that happens to this one, K?
Remember, you don't have the last word if nobody ever reads it!
Remember, you don't have the last word if nobody ever reads it!
97
@93: Caught me. Clearly the fact that I am using an example of another naturally-occurring pyrotechnic composition is proof enough that 9/11 was a massive conspiracy.
You've convinced me.
You've convinced me.
98
@89: obstructing justice to cover your ass after the fact is a far cry from orchestrating the attacks. I firmly believe that there was obstruction to the 9/11 report, but that doesn't mean that anyone planned the attacks - simply covering up incompetence is motive enough.
99
@97 --- No, I noticed you trying to steer the discussion in an irrelevant direction. That shows you're doing a "QUICK... LOOK... OVER THERE!" And why would you attempt that, I wonder? Afraid of staying on-topic?
101
@99, What more is there to say on the topic? It was claimed that thermite dust was found at ground zero, and that its presence indicated a controlled demolition of some sort. I said that thermite is just rusty metal dust, something that one would expect to find at the site of a ruined building. The counter-point was that wikipedia calls thermite a "pyrotechnic composition." I wrote that the specific term wikipedia wikipedia uses it is not at all relevant to my point, and I provided an illustration of why. If you'd like to carry on about thermite instead of getting sidetracked, I'm all for it.
(Obvious troll is obvious, btw. I'm just incredibly bored and stuck in an office.)
(Obvious troll is obvious, btw. I'm just incredibly bored and stuck in an office.)
102
101 --- You keep trying to suggest thermite is a low energy (if not inert) substance. Since you cite Wikipedia, let's see what the Wiki article on thermite says:
"...can create short bursts of extremely high temperatures focused on a very small area for a short period of time. The thermite is simply a mixture of metal, often called the 'fuel' and an oxidizer. Its form of action is very similar to other fuel-oxidizer mixtures like black powder."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite
You keep suggesting the Wikipedia entry on thermite reads as:
"Nothing to see here... move along, citizen."
You can ignore the highly-energetic properties of thermite if you want, but the steel holding-up the World Trade Center didn't have the luxury of your denial. Then gravity prevailed.
"...can create short bursts of extremely high temperatures focused on a very small area for a short period of time. The thermite is simply a mixture of metal, often called the 'fuel' and an oxidizer. Its form of action is very similar to other fuel-oxidizer mixtures like black powder."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite
You keep suggesting the Wikipedia entry on thermite reads as:
"Nothing to see here... move along, citizen."
You can ignore the highly-energetic properties of thermite if you want, but the steel holding-up the World Trade Center didn't have the luxury of your denial. Then gravity prevailed.
103
@102: I've explicitly claimed the exact opposite:
71: "My assertion is that no thermite was placed in the WTC in the first place - not that it's a harmless substance."
71: "My assertion is that no thermite was placed in the WTC in the first place - not that it's a harmless substance."
105
103 --- You argue that there was thermite but it's harmless and then when you're debunked on the 'harmless' claim you switch to the 'was not placed there' argument. But thermite residue was found on the wreckage (that's a FACT), so you switch to the 'oh, it must have gotten there when the building was welded together' argument, but the residue included some uncombusted elements that make it able to melt a steel structural member in less than a second but wouldn't be there if it was welding slag or any other construction artifact.
Cue-up your next batch of bullshit, the current batch has just gone stale.
Cue-up your next batch of bullshit, the current batch has just gone stale.
106
@105: when did I write that thermite is harmless?
And you're confusing thermite with the iron microspheres - two entirely different parts of the conspiracy theory. Keep it together!
And you're confusing thermite with the iron microspheres - two entirely different parts of the conspiracy theory. Keep it together!
107
92/sgt doom: @82, Roma,, intelligence isn't a factor in the matter, although indepedent and analytical thinking certainly helps.
It still comes down to ego. Conspiracy folks feel superior to everyone else since they, and they alone, know the "truth."
It still comes down to ego. Conspiracy folks feel superior to everyone else since they, and they alone, know the "truth."
108
105 -- You have REPEATEDLY tried to minimize the definition of thermite and relegate it to a harmless innocuous substance (and I've called bullshit each time). Let's review your comments on thermite:
@63 - "small flakes of aluminum and rusted iron"
@71 - "residual metal and rust"
,,,and the best one of all:
@87 - "Note that 'pyrotechnic composition' doesn't mean that it must have been created by people."
HA! Good one! You even tried the Whole Foods natural-is-good argument with something that has 'technic' in its name! HA! HA! HA!
Also, I have never mentioned iron microspheres. Re-read all of my postings and you'll see I have never mentioned anything of the sort. Just another attempt by you to sidetrack the discussion and the change the subject.
The Jr. Bush Administration thanks your for your valiant efforts at providing disinformation to the serfs.
@63 - "small flakes of aluminum and rusted iron"
@71 - "residual metal and rust"
,,,and the best one of all:
@87 - "Note that 'pyrotechnic composition' doesn't mean that it must have been created by people."
HA! Good one! You even tried the Whole Foods natural-is-good argument with something that has 'technic' in its name! HA! HA! HA!
Also, I have never mentioned iron microspheres. Re-read all of my postings and you'll see I have never mentioned anything of the sort. Just another attempt by you to sidetrack the discussion and the change the subject.
The Jr. Bush Administration thanks your for your valiant efforts at providing disinformation to the serfs.
109
All of my statements about thermite are true and factual, even if you don't like them.
You are correct that you never mentioned the microspheres. I was addressing the link that sgt_doom posted up there, so you can thank him/her for any derailment. I know that conspiracy theorists are ego-driven, but at some level you have to recognize that not everything is about you.
Boring troll is boring. Come up with a new schtick.
You are correct that you never mentioned the microspheres. I was addressing the link that sgt_doom posted up there, so you can thank him/her for any derailment. I know that conspiracy theorists are ego-driven, but at some level you have to recognize that not everything is about you.
Boring troll is boring. Come up with a new schtick.
110
109 --- You have been exposed as providing a misleading partial definition of thermite to dismiss it's role in bringing down the WTC buildings. Thermite is a highly energetic substance that instantly melts steel structural members with relatively little explosive force. That's exactly what one would use to make a building fall down without the people watching from the outside knowing what caused it, so you could then offer your own far-fetched explanation for the collapse.
Response to your babbling: My ego is just fine. It's not about me, it's about justice and freedom. I'm not at all bored. If you don't care for this discussion then why do you continue to participate?
Response to your babbling: My ego is just fine. It's not about me, it's about justice and freedom. I'm not at all bored. If you don't care for this discussion then why do you continue to participate?
111
"Thermite is a highly energetic substance that instantly melts steel structural members with relatively little explosive force."
Show me where I've once posted something that contradicts that. I have not.
I've just said that the components to thermite (metal, rust) are mundane enough that finding them in the wreckage of a building isn't enough to assert that thermite was used to destroy the building.
Have you ever worked in an office? As boring and uninventive as your trolling is, offices can be worse. :)
Show me where I've once posted something that contradicts that. I have not.
I've just said that the components to thermite (metal, rust) are mundane enough that finding them in the wreckage of a building isn't enough to assert that thermite was used to destroy the building.
Have you ever worked in an office? As boring and uninventive as your trolling is, offices can be worse. :)
113
@111 --- You're typing out of both sides of your ass. You claim to have not contradicted my assertion that thermite can bring down a building but you've made numerous posts insisting it's so benign and gentle you could use it on a baby's diaper rash. The thermite residue that was found in the WTC wreckage included the metal component AND THE OXIDIZER, MORON! That makes it capable of destroying a building.
Oh, and I love how you're trying to hurt my feelings! That's so juvenile you couldn't pass Psychology 101 if I spotted you a hundred. You've run out of bullshit so you're trying to dissuade me from continuing to respond to you. Notice I'm still here.
Oh, and I love how you're trying to hurt my feelings! That's so juvenile you couldn't pass Psychology 101 if I spotted you a hundred. You've run out of bullshit so you're trying to dissuade me from continuing to respond to you. Notice I'm still here.
114
@113: " but you've made numerous posts insisting it's so benign and gentle you could use it on a baby's diaper rash."
Again, show me where I've suggested thermite is benign or gentle. I've explicitly stated that it is composed of mundane ingredients, and explicitly stated that my assertion has nothing to do with how hot it burns or how easily it melts steel. See post 71 again if you're still confused.
"AND THE OXIDIZER, MORON!"
Rust? They found rust in the WTC wreckage? I'm shocked.
Again, show me where I've suggested thermite is benign or gentle. I've explicitly stated that it is composed of mundane ingredients, and explicitly stated that my assertion has nothing to do with how hot it burns or how easily it melts steel. See post 71 again if you're still confused.
"AND THE OXIDIZER, MORON!"
Rust? They found rust in the WTC wreckage? I'm shocked.
117
@114 --- We've covered this already. Repeating your already-disproved nonsense does not make it any less nonsensical and does not warrant a re-response. Bring something new to the party (preferably factual for a change).
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
The Sunday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (119) RSS