Posted on 07/12/2006 8:09:50 PM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
by Mark Finkelstein
July 12, 2006
Are you like me? Have you assumed that Alan Colmes is an essentially harmless, if misguided, liberal? If so, we might all have to rethink things in light of his apparent statement on tonight's Hannity & Colmes that he is 'agnostic' as to who is responsible for the destruction of the World Trade Center.
H&C had wanted to have on as its guest University of Wisconsin instructor Kevin Barrett, who claims that the Bush administration orchestrated the 9/11 attacks and used controlled explosions to bring down the WTC towers.
Barrett is apparently laying low and declined to come on the show. But H&C managed to dig up a substitute conspiracy buff in the person of one Bob Bowman, member of the august Veterans for 9/11 Truth. Oh, and by the way, Bowman also happens to be . . . a Democratic candidate for congress from Florida's 15th District!
In any case, Bowman told Sean "I'm agnostic about these conspiracy theories," adding that Barrett's "conspiracy theory is far more believable than yours," and further: "I don't know who did it and neither do you."
Later, addressing himself to Bowman, Colmes said: "Bob, I'm Alan Colmes. I'm agnostic as well . . . As I understand it this theory while propounded in this class is not central to what he is teaching in this class. As a matter of fact, 400 pages are provided supporting the official government version and 75 pages supporting the alternative [crazy conspiracy] version that we are debating here."
Maybe in all the cross-fire I misread what Colmes was saying. But it sure sounds as if he is willing to entertain the possibilty that the Bush administration might have been responsible for the destruction of the WTC. If that's true, he has written himself out of the 'harmless liberal' category in my book.
Susan Estrich?
Susan Estrich?
Interesting. But Sean would probably go even more crazy. lol.
She seems a bit more civilized than she used to be. I really cannot see her taking the line that she doesn't know whether Bush brought down the Twin Towers (and by the way struck the Pentagon) or not. Not that she would have said those words in the past, but she just seemed more out of control before. LOL
The second article, not Cinnamon's, is even better. Many witnesses saw and have testified to seeing the buildings buckling and compressing minutes prior to the collapse. Explosives don't operate slowly.
Don't hold the name someone's parents gave them against them, just not right, I think.
This is how the left covers for Clinton enabling terrorists just so he could keep himself from being investigated.
Now who is ignoring facts?
Did they see the flashes minutes before the collapse? Do you not realize that a collapsing building, with electricty and massive steel beams, furniture and desks burning and starting to sag would most likely flash as well?
If explosives, witnesses wouldn't have reported seeing the building bowing and such minutes before it finally collapsed.
Like I said, there are just too many holes to believe any of the conspiracy theories when visual and common sense says otherwise.
"Would it be crazy to suggest that al Qaeda had a back-up plan to make sure that the towers fell?"
I often wondered about this. I've read a lot of the "conspiracy" sites and such.
How hard would it have been for the terrorists to a) plant bombs before the strike or b) dress as first responders and plant bombs during the confusion -- it's not like they would be ones worried about getting out. With everyone focused on rescue I think it may have been rather easy with the right "props" to get in there...
Planting the bombs to make sure they fell would also be "good" from the terrorists point of view as they would not only get the civilians, but first responders as well thereby causing more panic, confusion, and pain. It's not like they didn't know what to do in regards to planting bombs in the lower levels of the WTC, as they did it before.
[NOTE: I hate that any divergent thinking is automatically labeled a conspiracy theory. Granted, some are pretty dang far-fetched, but others leave one with serious questions and I don't think it does anyone any good to dismiss some of the research that's been done as pure BS just because it's not EXACTLY what the authorities think happened.]
LOL, I guess I haven't seen ALL the sites. Thanks for that link Dakota. I have to admit from my vantage point that day (TV) it looked an awful lot like a "controlled demolition" as far as the angle I saw -- but I was thinking the terrorists were just assuring maximum damage. But, I will readily admit I wasn't there and TV cameras can distort a lot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.