The DUmmies are full of conspiracy theories about 9-11, the election of 2000 & 2004.....
Proof? We don't need no steenking proof!
Great article!
"Paging Dr. Dean, oh Dr. Dean! Please report to the psychiatric ward"
That's all I can figure for the bizarre world they live in.
Wait, I thought that W was caught with his pants down, on 9-11. I remember all of the derisive commentary about him reading the story to the kids.
These people really need to find a story and stick to it.
"Michael Moore–wannabe filmmaker"
This guy is to modest. This should read "Michael Moore-Morbidly Obese Retarded Slug"
Whoa now! I thought the lefties were all FOR one world government!
As this article points out, the term "melting point" refers to when a substance begins to liquify. Steel does not remain strong until the moment it liquifies, it softens and bends WELL before then, at a much lower temperature.
As with any nutball conspiracy theorist, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
The majority voices of reason over there subscribe to the LIHOP (let it happen on purpose) theory.
That is the level of intellect we are up against. We are blessed with complete morons for ideological enemies.
Yea they are nuts, I never got why they had to link Enron though.
As for the Pentagon, I met some of these folks who swore that they don't think a plane hit it.
When I note that Ted Olson (the Bush lawyer for the 2000 election) talked to his wife who was on that plane, by cell phone, they usually argue that he was in on it too.
There is no point debating with losers.
So, where are all the tapes of the Pentagon strike?
Why did the feebs immediately confiscate them all?
Just show us the tapes of the plane, and end this goofy discussion.
But you won't; you can't...because it would expose the entire scam.
And people you ironic, insensitive jerk!
I wonder if this is actually more of a "mother" than the Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories that have grown and mutated since the '60s. Actually, the only time I believed in the assassination conspiracy theories is when Dan Rather did a special on CBS to debunk them.
Anyone know if Oliver Stone is planning a 9-11 movie?
They reported no evidence of any plane hitting the pentagon.
I was in Washington the day it happend and saw the pentagon just after the attack.
There is no way an airplane could have hit the pentagon as we were told.
We were told the aircraft...a Boeing jet flying 2 feet above the ground would have hit automobiles on the freeway just a few hundred yards from the pentagon.It would have made massive damage of the grass just in front of the pentagon.....guess what...no damage at all.
There would have been more damage (at least in 150 feet of the center of the impact zone) because of the wings hittig the building.Also the wings would have sheared right off and would have been left outside the pentagon.
If you look at the photographs of the pentagon after the impact, you will see reels of cable that were undamaged by the supposed impact of the Boeing Jet.THey would have been destroyed by an aircraft hitting the pentagon as we were told.
I don't know what happend to flight 77, but it did not hit the pentagon.
And don't bother trying to change my mind on this. There is nothing you can say or type that that will change my mind on this.
I was there shortly after and no way was this an aircraft hit.
If it was, have the government release the tapes of the cameras that video taped the whole incident.
They haven't and won't.
This is the problem I have with most conspiracy theories. You need so many people to pull them off properly and people love to talk. I believe it was Ben Franklin who wrote that three can keep a secret if two are dead.
Pretty close. The more people you have involved the more chance you have that someone will talk. And even if you can keep them from going to the media they have spouses and lovers that they will talk to. A conspiracy with more then ten people hasn't got a prayer of staying under wraps.
One that involves thousand would be on the front page inside a week.
Isn't it a neat trick how the author casually links together creationism and Holocaust denial? Also, isn't he being a bit cavalier in his broad-brush dismissal of the importance of unexplained anomalies? Isn't the history of the advancement of science littered with unexplained anomalies undermining well-established theories? If the author is supposed to be a "skeptic", he should be sued for malpractice. This is just more of the same, uninformed, but politically-correct trash talking that Scientific American has descended into in recent years.
Interesting that this statement should appear in Scientific American, since the entire history of science is full of examples of a handful of unexplained anomalies undermining well-established theory, and leading to new and better theories.
It's called the "Scientific Method".
Building 7 sure came down perfectly, didn't it?
And it did not even get hit by a plane.
PBS had an interview with LARRY SILVERSTEIN (The World Trade Center was leased by Westfield America and Larry Silverstein, on April 26th, 2001)where he was quoted as saying : "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it (WTC7)." And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
That building was brought down by a controlled demolition.