26
You Are A Right Stinker, DoughBob
DoughBob Loadpants is unhappy with Katie Couric for saying this:
“The whole culture of wearing flags on our lapel and saying ‘we’ when referring to the United States and, even the ‘shock and awe’ of the initial stages, it was just too jubilant and just a little uncomfortable. And I remember feeling, when I was anchoring the ‘Today’ show, this inevitable march towards war and kind of feeling like, ‘Will anybody put the brakes on this?’”
DoughBob comments:
What a fascinating little slip! How deeply disturbing it is when Americans refer to the United States in a time of war as “we”!
Well yes, Dr. Loadpants. Her point was that, in a terrifying rush of patriotic groupthink, we Americans (Look! I said “we!”) got ourselves sucked into one of the greatest foreign policy disasters in our history. And regardless of all the super-happy-sexytime-go-U-S-and-A press releases you get from the White House, Iraq is (in the immortal words of the grumpy old man from the Woodstock documentary) “a damn shitty mess.” The major reason that we (that word again!) are in this mess right now is because of the lumpheaded jingoism encouraged and fueled by wingnut hacks such as Dr. Loadpants and the Ole Perfesser.
Yet despite all this, folks like DoughBob are nostalgic for the days when a majority of their fellow Americans were completely freaked out by 9/11 and would acquiesce to any war plan, no matter how stupid it sounded. For them, our desire to keep our country out of a costly and bloody quagmire that has ruined our country’s reputation is the deepest form of traitorous thinking. Memo to DoughBob: most of us oppose the Iraq war because it is against our (oop! There I go again!) national interests. If you can’t get that through your thick, Twinkee-padded skull by this point, then there really is no hope for you.
roy edroso said,
September 26, 2007 at 22:59
A critic might respond that I’m perhaps overly sensitive to this sort of thing and therefore I probably pick up on it too much and think it’s a bigger deal than it is. That may in fact be true. Indeed, to some extent I’m sure it is.
Does he get paid by the word?
t4toby said,
September 26, 2007 at 23:02
What, you mean like, today?
mikey said,
September 26, 2007 at 23:11
And somewhere in the US, in a Television News studio tonight, a commentator will turn to a pundit on his left, dramatically remove his glasses and ask “Is the American Public ahead of the Democratic Party on Iraq?”.
[Throws odd stack of DVDs against wall in frustration]
AARRRGGGHHHH!!
mikey
D-Chance. said,
September 26, 2007 at 23:13
Goldberg: How deeply disturbing it is when Americans refer to the United States in a time of war as “we”!
Of course, he’s not so overly sensitive that he’d join the armed services and fight in this MOST IMPORTANT BATTLE OF OUR LIFETIME AND THE LIFETIMES OF OUR CHILDREN, a battle FOR THE VERY EXISTENCE OF OUR COUNTRY AND CULTURE, himself…
“What do you mean ‘we’, white man?”
JoshWatermanMN said,
September 26, 2007 at 23:21
How deeply disturbing it is when Americans refer to the United States in a time of war as “we”!
So Tubby Boy thinks it’s “disturbing” that Americans see themselves as part of the United States? What he really finds disturbing is that we don’t fit his preconceived notions.
Really, Jonah, liberals don’t hate the United States. We just hate you.
Heydave said,
September 26, 2007 at 23:31
I’m just offended that the Doughy Load dares to consider himself as a subset of my “we.”
Back off, fucktard.
humbert dinglepencker said,
September 26, 2007 at 23:36
First of all, Dr. Prof. Dorkwad Fucknozzle-Loadpants, we are not at war. War requires two, count ‘em! two participants. We are, however, firmly and implacably at occupation.
Marco said,
September 26, 2007 at 23:36
Didn’t Bill Murray, Dan Akroyd and Harold Ramis destroy this guy in ‘84?
FS said,
September 26, 2007 at 23:39
You misunderstand the Pantload.
What he’s saying is that people like us don’t get to refer to the US as “we.” Only those people in Washington who get to make the decisions get to use “we.”
“You” don’t get any say in the matter. “You” are a DFH.
Notorious P.A.T. said,
September 26, 2007 at 23:41
You are all just a bunch of liberal fascists!
SamFromUtah said,
September 26, 2007 at 23:46
I remember well how Katie showed her horror at the relentless march to war -
“Navy Seals rock!”
BTW, DoughBob can get bent.
Jas said,
September 26, 2007 at 23:46
I can’t believe that even a tone-deaf fool like Couric didn’t know that her words would be taken entirely literally by the buffoons on the right. Of course we, the country, have stupidly gone to war. But we, including, me, Katie, and his doughyness, are not fighting the war, and we really don’t have much right to say we’re fighting a war at all.
But try getting that simple concept through the skulls of the dittoheads and other flag-waving idiots…
J. A. Baker said,
September 26, 2007 at 23:52
DoughBob Loadpants: He said it again!
Non Nato said,
September 27, 2007 at 0:00
Kollektivizm, it is good, da komrade?
L.S./M.F.T. said,
September 27, 2007 at 0:01
I wonder if Doughpants’ Mother is Katie’s agent?
One cries and the other scares to it…
Steve said,
September 27, 2007 at 0:04
Of course “we” are Americans, well, except for those of you who aren’t. But Couric was clearly referring to the MEDIA in this quote, not to random people on the street.
Humor Me said,
September 27, 2007 at 0:04
Strangely unable to read doughload in a linear fashion, after several attempts able to skim to the last paragraph where he seems to grunt out something about his “sensitivities” between forcing more feces into his overflowing slacks. Too much horror to process in one day, with the fucking Lieberman/Kyle amendment and the house standing up to Move-on..
On a slightly brighter note, enjoy G.H.W. Bush’s pool boy describing an America David Broder will never see.
Righteous Bubba said,
September 27, 2007 at 0:11
P.
A critic might respond that I’m perhaps overly sensitive to this sort of thing
Maybe not P.
and therefore I probably pick up on it too much
Less P.
and think it’s a bigger deal than it is.
Less P.
That may in fact be true.
No P at all. Can I watch TV?
Indeed, to some extent I’m sure it is.
I might gotta P later.
But just as my sensitivity to this sort of talk says something about me and my views
I might pretend to P.
doesn’t Couric’s sensitivity say something interesting about her and her views?
Would you P with me?
That she was made uncomfortable by the use of “we” to describe the United States of America during a time of war is really quite revealing
Whoa, almost gotta P!
at least to my ears.
Maybe not P.
mikey said,
September 27, 2007 at 0:19
I don’t know about Doughboy or Katie, but it bothers me no end when oakland raiders fans refer to the team as “we”.
But football fans do tend toward obnoxiousness…
mikey
les said,
September 27, 2007 at 0:31
Did Katie the Fatuous Twat get around to ’splainin’ why she dealt with her…concerns…by enthusiastically joining the cheerleading/demonizing of opponents? What a thoroughly worthless human. Maybe not at Loadpants level, but…
James Cape said,
September 27, 2007 at 0:40
Memo to DoughBob: most of us oppose the Iraq war because it is against our (oop! There I go again!) national interests.
…and the rest of us have some strange problem with crimes against humanity, particularly when committed by people who claim to be acting on our behalf.
John O said,
September 27, 2007 at 0:52
LOL, mikey. The sports analogy came immediately to my mind, too, since it’s “we” when “we’re” winning and “they” when “they’re” not in Sportsland.
Cracks me up every time.
And I have no problem with using either, consistently, but we all know consistenecy is not a Wingnut strong suit
9-11 changed everything, unless you lived in the rest of the world where terrorist attacks were old news. Sure, this one was big, and against us, (sorry, Jonah), but all it changed was our Constitution and balance of power among branches of government.
These people are really something, and getting paid well for it, like loadpants, is very disconcerting.
At least the blogosphere has provided light to those who want it. Proud to be a member.
I sure do like the non-freepers out here. I don’t agree with many of the issues widely supported, since I’m more of an individualist, but I sure have immense respect for the sense of humor and all-around intelligence the proprieters and commenters have at this site.
You make me think, and I appreciate it.
timb said,
September 27, 2007 at 0:57
Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner. I suppose the fact that media is supposed to be an independent institution in this nation. They are not part of the decision making process as a group, so why should they refer to the United States govt as “them”?
Jonah wouldn’t understand that, because he’s a half-wit bully.
we need another 9/11 said,
September 27, 2007 at 1:13
http://tinyurl.com/2loczp
Thinker said,
September 27, 2007 at 2:21
“folks like DoughBob are nostalgic for the days when a majority of their fellow Americans were completely freaked out by 9/11 and would acquiesce to any war plan, no matter how stupid it sounded.”
And to those folks who say “9/11 changed everything” I say: Yes, it did, because it was designed to. Without the false flag 9/11 “terrorist” attack the American public wouldn’t have gone along with the pre-planned invasion of Afghanistan to make it safe for the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan pipeline project, which (plus the enormous amount of heroin the CIA is making billions off of) is the reason for the invasion of Afghanistan in the first place. The Taliban had been demanding terms the U.S. wouldn’t agree to, namely heavy investment in the crippled Afghan infrastructure, and for some of the natural gas to be diverted to local use instead of 100% for export. Cajoling and threatening them didn’t work so the Cheney regime whipped out its hole card, the 9/11 false flag attack, and America has been mindfucked ever since.
Thinker said,
September 27, 2007 at 2:22
While the negotiations were still ongoing, the Cheney regime tried to bribe the Taliban with $43 million in aid, in addition to other aid already earmarked for Afghanistan: “The sum brings U.S. assistance to $124.2 million for this year, making the United States the largest Afghan donor for the second year in a row.” http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/05/17/us.afghanistan.aid/
Christine Rocca was sent in August 2001 to try to get the Taliban to soften its demands, to no avail: “During her stay in Pakistan, Rocca is also expected to meet Taliban officials.” http://iys.cidi.org/humanitarian/irin/casia/01b/ixl4.html
A little earlier that summer the U.S. had threatened the Taliban with war if they refuse to agree to the U.S.’s terms: ”At one moment during the negotiations, the U.S. representatives told the Taliban, ‘either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs’,” Brisard said in an interview in Paris.” http://archive.democrats.com/view.cfm?id=5166
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0201/08/ltm.05.html
The Taliban of course did not back down, so the U.S. resorted to its 9/11 false flag operation to be blamed on “Al Qaeda” to use as a pretext to invade Afghanistan which was widely believed to be harboring “Al Qaeda”. The Taliban is overthrown and a pro-U.S. puppet government is installed with Hamid Karzai at the helm. Karzai, though he denies it, is alleged to be a former consultant for Unocal: “Cool and worldly, Karzai is a former employee of US oil company Unocal – one of two main oil companies that was bidding for the lucrative contract to build an oil pipeline from Uzbekistan through Afghanistan to seaports in Pakistan” http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0610/p01s03e-wosc.html
Whether or not Karzai used to be on Unocal’s payroll or that of one of its subsidiaries, it is indisputable that the real power broker in Afghanistan, the (then-) U.S. ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, used to be a Unocal consultant: “The ambassador once worked as an adviser to oil giant Unocal and his detractors linked his oil industry ties to his appointment to Iraq. They also noted that at the same time that he was working for Unocal, the company was touting for business in Taleban-run Afghanistan.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4736394.stm
The parliament itself, or loya jirga as it is called, is really just a rubber stamp for the U.S.’s policies in Afghanistan, one of the cabinet ministers even being quoted as saying it was a rubber stamp: “Seema Samar, the women’s affairs minister, complained that the loya jirga was “not a democracy; it is a rubber stamp - everything has already been decided by the powerful ones”. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2039665.stm
So Karzai and the other puppets got to work hammering out a deal with the interests of their U.S. puppetmasters in mind, and in May 2002 it was announced that “Afghanistan” was planning a gas pipeline: “Afghanistan hopes to strike a deal later this month to build a $2bn pipeline through the country to take gas from energy-rich Turkmenistan to Pakistan and India. Afghan interim ruler Hamid Karzai is to hold talks with his Pakistani and Turkmenistan counterparts later this month on Afghanistan’s biggest foreign investment project, said Mohammad Alim Razim, minister for Mines and Industries told Reuters. “The work on the project will start after an agreement is expected to be struck at the coming summit,” Mr Razim said. The construction of the 850-kilometre pipeline had been previously discussed between Afghanistan’s former Taliban regime, US oil company Unocal and Bridas of Argentina.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1984459.stm
Later that month at the summit, sure enough, the pipeline plan was given the green light: “The leaders of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Turkmenistan have agreed to construct a $2bn pipeline to bring gas from Central Asia to the sub-continent. The project was abandoned in 1998 when a consortium led by US energy company Unocal withdrew from the project over fears of being seen to support Afghanistan’s then Taliban government… The Pakistani leader said once the project is completed, Central Asia’s hydrocarbon resources would be available to the international market, including East Asian and other far eastern countries. Pakistan has plans to build a liquid-gas plant at the Gwadar port for export purposes… The pipeline could eventually supply gas to India.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2017044.stm
A few months later, in December 2002, the pipeline deal was signed, just a little over a year after 9/11, the event that made it possible: “An agreement has been signed in the Turkmen capital, Ashgabat, paving the way for construction of a gas pipeline from the Central Asian republic through Afghanistan to Pakistan. The building of the trans-Afghanistan pipeline has been under discussion for some years but plans have been held up by Afghanistan’s unstable political situation… With improved regional security after the fall of the Taleban about a year ago, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan and Pakistan have decided to push ahead with plans for the ambitious 1,500-kilometre-long gas pipeline… Turkmenistan has some of the world’s greatest reserves of natural gas, but still relies on tightly controlled Russian pipelines to export it. Ashgabat has long been desperate to find an alternative export route.” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/2608713.stm
In 2006 it was decided to accelerate work on the pipeline project: “Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India, the four partners of a proposed $ 3.3 bn pipeline, have vowed to accelerate work on the four-nation project to bring natural gas from Turkmenistan to India. The declaration was adopted in New Delhi at a two-day regional economic cooperation forum on Afghanistan, which was attended by Afghan President Hamid Karzai. The partners of the so-called TAPI pipeline also committed to help Afghanistan become an energy bridge in the region.” http://www.gasandoil.com/goc/news/ntc65139.htm
As early as late September 2001 some were realizing the potential economic significance of occupying Afghanistan. In an article in the San Francisco Chronicle called “Energy future rides on U.S. war” it says: “the hidden stakes in the war against terrorism can be summed up in a single word: oil. The map of terrorist sanctuaries and targets in the Middle East and Central Asia is also, to an extraordinary degree, a map of the world’s principal energy sources in the 21st century. The defense of these energy resources — rather than a simple confrontation between Islam and the West — will be the primary flash point of global conflict for decades to come, say observers in the region… The terrain of the globe’s energy future ranges along a swath of mountain and desert with resource-poor Afghanistan and Pakistan at its volatile eastern end.” http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/09/26/MN70983.DTL Though this article mentions oil and Central Asia, it fails to mention natural gas, but anyway you get the idea.
Now bear in mind that an American invasion of Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban, install a puppet government and occupy the country would not have been politically possible without a 9/11-type event to use as a pretext; the American people and the world would not have stood for it, even the USA Today admits that in an article called “War not realistic option before 9/11″ in which it states: “In retrospect, it seems obvious: President Clinton or President Bush could have gotten a head start in the war on terror and might even have averted the 9/11 attacks by acting sooner to invade Afghanistan, depose the Taliban regime and hunt down the al-Qaeda terrorists based there. But Democrats and Republicans alike told a bipartisan commission Tuesday that neither U.S. nor world opinion would have stood for such aggression before the fall of 2001. It was only after the Sept. 11 attacks that public opinion here and abroad changed enough to make an invasion politically possible.” http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-03-23-war-analysis_x.htm
With that in mind, here’s an interesting bit of information: The warplans for the invasion of Afghanistan were already drawn up, complete and on Bush’s desk ready for his signature two days BEFORE 9/11. Yes you read that right, two days before: ” President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against al-Qaida two days before Sept. 11 but did not have the chance before the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, U.S. and foreign sources told NBC News. The document, a formal National Security Presidential Directive, amounted to a “game plan to remove al-Qaida from the face of the earth,” one of the sources told NBC News’ Jim Miklaszewski. The plan dealt with all aspects of a war against al-Qaida, ranging from diplomatic initiatives to military operations in Afghanistan, the sources said on condition of anonymity. In many respects, the directive, as described to NBC News, outlined essentially the same war plan that the White House, the CIA and the Pentagon put into action after the Sept. 11 attacks. The administration most likely was able to respond so quickly to the attacks because it simply had to pull the plans “off the shelf,” Miklaszewski said… Officials did not believe that Bush had had the opportunity to closely review the document in the two days between its submission and the Sept. 11 attacks. But it had been submitted to national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, and the officials said Bush knew about it and had been expected to sign it. The couching of the plans as a formal security directive is significant, Miklaszewski reported, because it indicates that the United States intended a full-scale assault on al-Qaida even if the Sept. 11 attacks had not occurred.” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4587368/ Another article mentions the timing also: “After years of delay caused by inadequate intelligence, the U.S. government decided just one day before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks that it would try to overthrow the Taliban rulers of Afghanistan if a diplomatic push to expel Osama bin Laden from the country failed, the independent panel investigating the attacks reported Tuesday. The plans were reported in May 2002 by MSNBC.com and NBC News, but the details and precise timing were revealed for the first time in the new report released Tuesday by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4585010/
So unless the Cheney regime was amazingly clairvoyant, they were approving a plan for an invasion of Afghanistan that would be politically not feasible without the massive “terrorist” (false flag) attack the next day to provide the pretext. It is way too much to be a coincidence and somehow I don’t think they were psychic. 9/11 was an inside job.
The Abyss said,
September 27, 2007 at 2:25
I eats truthers, too!
the_millionaire_lebowski said,
September 27, 2007 at 2:27
On a lighter note, it seems TehEds have forgotten to pay the intertube bill again.
J— said,
September 27, 2007 at 2:33
The Editors said at one point they were going to go back to Blogger.
mikey said,
September 27, 2007 at 2:44
Oh jesus. Where the FUCK do these people come from?
And why do they keep showing up here?
Do you guys hand out complimentary tinfoil hat-liners?
mikey
mikey said,
September 27, 2007 at 2:51
Y’know, I’m not sure which I find more offensively stupid:
a.) Those muslim mud people are too stupid to plan a successful attack on America, it must have been an American operation, ’cause our white people could actually pull it off.
or
b.) There was really no grievance a muslim extremist organization might hold against the kind and honorable American Government. Of course they wouldn’t attack us, they LOVE us. We just did it ourselves and pinned it on them, ’cause you know, they’re pretty stupid and won’t be able to defend themselves.
Jeezus. Pisses me off more than wingnuts. Why do these idiots hang out over here in Left Blogistan?
mikey
Pere Ubu said,
September 27, 2007 at 3:12
Jeezus. Pisses me off more than wingnuts. Why do these idiots hang out over here in Left Blogistan?
Don’t read the comments threads over at Common Dreams, whatever you do. I swear, the articles there are invaluable, but the commenters… JESUS! Just mention the words “Israel” or “9/11″ and the batshit insane descend on it like pudgy chickenhawks at a Sizzler’s buffet table.
John O said,
September 27, 2007 at 3:14
It’s a serious nut-cruncher, mikey.
All I can say is stupidity had no boundaries.
In many realms of life and some math, “0″ is the bottom of the potential outcomes.
In Wingnuttia, negative numbers are in play.
John O said,
September 27, 2007 at 3:17
And, mikey, just to be clear, those you describe are by my definition winguttia.
As in, wingnuttia does not require a right wing bias.
John O said,
September 27, 2007 at 3:19
OT, but I don’t believe I can survive without The Editors, NE Pats wingnuts though they may be.
Like this site, they make me laugh hard and consistently, which is a gift too precious for words.
a different brad said,
September 27, 2007 at 3:23
Dear Thinker,
Please try harder to live up to your name.
Signed,
A Longtime NYC resident who buys into neither the official line nor the less credible “truther” line
Btw, there’s a new documentary called Zeitgeist that tries to tie 9/11 theories in with new world order theories. As in bankers controlling the world.
Which is not to tar all truthers with implicit anti-semitism, but to suggest they really need to take a long look in the mirror.
John O said,
September 27, 2007 at 3:28
“Stupidity HAS no boundaries.”
Jesus, work is sucking the very life right out of me.
I’ve become everything I despise. An inarticulate, uninformed, bad editor.
Right between the eyes. Trust me, give me that shot and you’ll still find me with a smile on my face.
HRC ain’t the answer. Though she may represent progress towards the answer. But I doubt it, since Wingnuttia (traditional definition) will make her seem and smell like “Satan himself is taking a shit.”
mikey said,
September 27, 2007 at 3:30
What the so-called “truthers” need to do is plan a fairly complex op with intel, operational assets, funding and management. Doesn’t have to be a terrorist attack. Could be a neighborhood fair.
They will very quickly discover the meaning of the phrase “herding cats”. And they will begin to understand that there is NO WAY that Americans planned or executed 9/11. Too many people would have “a better idea”. Hell, you can’t even get a squad to focus on taking a bunker unless the sergeant is explaining he’ll kick their asses if they don’t do what they’re told. They’re like, “but sarge, can’t we get some arty?” It’s just crazy. I mean, really, the certifiable kind. And you can learn in this real genuine world…
mikey
Svlad Jelly said,
September 27, 2007 at 3:37
James Cape beat me to it, but since I’m here, I’ll add my own similar response.
“[M]ost of us oppose the Iraq war because it is against our…national interests.”
Or because, you know, it is so utterly, fabulously and horribly wrong in so many ways both moral and legal. In fact, on the list of the the 100 ways this war is UFHW, “against our national interests” is at number 99, just above “Iraqis exploited for cheap rugs.” Look for that rank to fall when Graham starts building sweatshops run by KBR slavers.
objectivelypro said,
September 27, 2007 at 3:45
Which is not to tar all truthers with implicit anti-semitism, but to suggest they really need to take a long look in the mirror.
If this is the same “Thinker” I’ve read elsewhere, it’s actually quite explicit with its anti-semitism, as in not just opposed to current Israeli govt. policy but full-on ‘jew that’ and ‘hook-nosed this’. There isn’t a mirror in the world that will shame it.
My alternate conspiracy theory (folding Alcan wrap): Assholes like Thinker get planted over here in Lefty ’stan to make us look like deranged bigots.
John O said,
September 27, 2007 at 3:46
Only the wingnuttia of the left believes the U.S. had anything to do with 9-11.
mikey is right; they (The Man, Dem or GOP) isn’t competent enough to pull it off.
Which is not to say right-winguttia didn’t do everything they could to take advantage, just for the record.
Rudy “9-11!” G. is a perfect example.
Shorter Rudy: Health care? “9-11!!” Taxes? “9-11!” Security? 9-11 PLUS!!!!”
The man is an idiot.
g said,
September 27, 2007 at 4:01
Indeed, to some extent I’m sure it is.
See? The new buzz-phrase! proof positive that Gary and Doughboy are getting the same talking points from the Republican leadership!
Some Guy said,
September 27, 2007 at 4:07
Wingnuts attack Katie Couric? Wow. I just… can we just watch the carnage? I can’t say I would feel to bad for her.
Interestingly enough,before the Civil War, the US del A was commonly referred to as “we” in the sense of “we United Sates”, with the emphasis on the plurality of the states. After the war, it became more fashionable to call it “the United States” stressing the Union and central federalization.
Thinker said,
September 27, 2007 at 4:40
Hey Mikey: Believing in the official story if you know the details of it requires believing that the laws of physics were suspended for a particular day and somehow allowed the uppermost part of buildings to “fall” into and through the solid majority of the building as quickly, meaning as effortlessly, as falling through air; that fuck-ups who couldn’t fly small, single-engine propellor planes worth a damn were suddenly able to fly Boeing 757s and -767s as the official myth has it, like they were experts, and were complete hedonists yet were supposedly so devoted to their religion which they seemed to regularly disregard, that they would be willing to sacrifice their own lives to take some Americans with them; that the world’s most expensive air force was completely useless on the most important day of its existence, with an inexperienced officer in charge of the north-east sector of NORAD because his commander asked him the day before to fill in for him that morning (like something from out of a bad movie); that all the several theaters in the so-called “war on terror” just coincidentally revolve around oil and/or natural gas exploration, extraction and transport to market; that it’s just a coincidence that the Project for a New American Century has had a hard-on for America having a belligerent foreign policy that would seize control of oil fields in Iraq and establish an alternate route for gas and oil to come out of the Caspian Sea basin without going through Russia, which was the reason behind the U.S. backing of the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline in the Caucasus and is the reason behind the U.S. war in Afghanistan as it is common sense that it would be more advantageous to the U.S. to have more routes that bypass Russia, especially considering the proximity of the volatile South Ossetia situation to the pipeline route through Georgia; and that it was just a coincidence that a year before 9/11 the Project for a New American Century’s thesis paper called “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” stated that any major increases in defense spending and a more aggressive foreign policy would be slow in coming if at all without some kind of large catalyzing event like “a new Pearl Harbor”. And that it’s just a coincidence that the key players of this right-wing think tank are the key players of the Cheney (”Bush”) regime; that the mountain of other “coincidences” about 9/11, like the four or more separate exercises the Air Force was carrying out on the morning of 9/11, the NRO exercise for that morning that involved the premise of a plane flying into a building (their headquarters), FEMA being ready in Manhattan for a mass-casualty exercise, but the joint FBI-CIA counter-terrorism task force just so happens to be on the west coast for yet another “exercise”, the insider trading on stocks in the week before 9/11 on United Airlines, American Airlines, and Morgan Stanley-Dean Witter and other stocks affected by 9/11, which made millions for the holders of the “put” options they purchased, because “put” options are basically betting that a particular stock is going to go down in value; and many, many more “coincidences” of that day; so are you a coincidence theorist Mikey? How much do you really know about 9/11? Just what you’ve seen on the news? Have you ever watched the video footage of the “collapses” of the Twin Towers and WTC # 7 building? Don’t just take 9/11 at face value, get curious; look into the details and you will see what I mean.
islmfaoscist said,
September 27, 2007 at 4:49
Laws of physics? Isn’t one called gravity?
J— said,
September 27, 2007 at 4:55
I believer I mentioned earlier today that I really like Richard Hofstadter’s “The Paranoid Style in American Politics.”
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,
September 27, 2007 at 4:57
J—,
Is one of the major style points U can haz no paragraph breaks?
Thinker said,
September 27, 2007 at 4:57
to ObjectiveLipro: No, I am not anti-Semitic in the least and have never heard of this other individual who says racial slurs, however it’s a very tired tactic when you can’t argue a point to resort to trying to paint someone as anti-Semitic; Where did I mention about Jewish people? You are the one bringing that into it, which as I said is a very shopworn tactic and a smokescreen; try actually debating things on a point instead of assuming something about someone and making ad-hominem attacks. Nobody who is genuinely trying to advance a point about 9/11 or about anything else is going to use racial slurs in it, that’s crazy. But why don’t you try having an open mind and looking into the details of 9/11 instead of trying to sidetrack the issue with false ad-hominem attacks? Not much confidence in the official myth?
a different brad said,
September 27, 2007 at 5:02
Thinker, I brought it up because there’s a truther documentary that is quite obviously implicitly anti-semitic. It’s called Zeitgeist, I’m sure you’re familiar with it.
And get your own damn blog. Some of your posts are wayyyyyyyyyy too long, I doubt anyone here is reading them.
John O is quite right, you’re essentially a wingnut, only not of their tribe. Thinking is what you’re not doing. You’re merely accepting the worst you can find about your declared enemy.
lobbey said,
September 27, 2007 at 5:04
…………Century has had a hard-on for America having a belligerent foreign policy that would seize control of oil fields in Iraq and establish an alternate route for gas and oil to come out of the Caspian Sea basin without going through Russia, which was the reason behind the U.S. backing of the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline in the Caucasus and is the reason behind the U.S. war in Afghanistan as it is common sense that it would be more advantageous to the U.S. to have more routes that bypass Russia, especially considering the proximity of the volatile South Ossetia situation to the pipeline route through Georgia; and…………………. continued, page 94
Hells bells, man, I’m not going to address the rest of your points (Mikey dealt with it well enough), but wrt the pipeline deal, have you ever looked at a map? The oil reserves you are talking about (mainly in Kazakhstan and the neighbouring ’stans) and its a long way, and two mountain passes to even get through Afghanistan, and you still have southern Pakistan to get through.
So according to you, the Taliban were asking too much money for pipeline transit fees, therefore the US pulled off 9-11. I’m sorry, that doesn’t even make sense on a base level, how unreasonable were the fees, US$10/bbr, lets say, triple the normal. That then explains the 9-11 attacks and the billions and billions of $’s the US has spent?
As for the rest of your garbage, most, if not all of the points have been awnsered or explained. My particular favorite, though, is the building collapse b’shit. I have watched the video, and guess what, it collapses just very large building would collapse.
But why the hell am I explaining this to you, you are like religious zealots and wouldn’t believe the truth, even if it came up and smacked you in the face (which ain’t a bad idea).
lobbey said,
September 27, 2007 at 5:05
oh, and try using comma’s,
J— said,
September 27, 2007 at 5:06
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®©: That would certainly appear to characterize one early 21st-century internet variation on the theme. The LOLcons have faded off; maybe we can get some LOLnoids. Following your lead: I can haz faifhundrd werd kweshtun?
John O said,
September 27, 2007 at 5:07
I have a colleague at work who works in the single paragraph style.
She’s really smart, otherwise. But I know that from 20 years of working with her, not the monologuic paragraphs.
Ah, what the heck, “Thinker,” I’ll go back and try to understand it. Just because I try to be fair.
Thinker said,
September 27, 2007 at 5:09
Hey Islmfaoscist: You are missing the point; this isn’t very complicated, try to stay with it here. OK, let’s just say for the sake of argument that the “collapses” were possible to have started in the first place (which they weren’t, but that’s another matter); how on earth is the uppermost portion of the building going to be able to fall THROUGH the remaining vast majority of the SOLID building as quickly, meaning as effortlessly, as falling through air? Do you realize that it means that something had to have reduced the remaining majority of solid building to such a state that it offered no more resistance to the falling upper part than as if it was falling through air? Do you realize that, let’s say from floor 80 if each floor offered even a half-second of resistance apiece that it would increase the “collapse” time from the 10 seconds that it was to 40 seconds? What about this is so hard to grasp? It is literally COMMON SENSE. Solid things don’t pass through other solid things as easily as passing through air. This is something that an elementary school graduate should know. So what reduced the solid majority of the Twin Towers and WTC # 7 to a state of offering less resistance than if they were butter or margarine? Can you understand the impossibility of solid objects passing through other solid objects as easily as through air, without something reducing the vast majority of the buildings to such a state? Reread this if you have to. You can get it.
John O said,
September 27, 2007 at 5:10
Holy shit! “Thinker,” I will not in the least rule out your theory 100%, since I’m so distrustful of Power, but I gotta go with about 99.99% on this one.
That is some crazy shit.
No doubt 9-11 was manipulated into electing Bush The Lesser twice, but that was just good fortune for him.
Now, of course, if you accept the Cheney-as-POTUS theory of American politics…
LOL.
g said,
September 27, 2007 at 5:11
Is one of the major style points U can haz no paragraph breaks?
Apparently so.
to ObjectiveLipro: No, I am not anti-Semitic in the least and have never heard of this other individual who says racial slurs, however it’s a very tired tactic when you can’t argue a point to resort to trying to paint someone as anti-Semitic; Where did I mention about Jewish people?
“Please excuse Billy from school yesterday. I had a cold in the nose.”
John O said,
September 27, 2007 at 5:13
Jesus, “Thinker,” (and I love putting that in quotes now), have you ever watched a building go down? Are you an engineer?
That would help.
Again, I wouldn’t put it past President Cheney. But even *I* don’t think they’re THAT crazy. Odds are low.
Hilarious theory, however.
mikey said,
September 27, 2007 at 5:13
Thanks thunder. Is there a “I’m crazy” style guide?
Now that I think about it, it’s probably written on a brown paper bag, but I’m sure there is. And it recommends no paragraph breaks, poor capitalization and punctuation, and believe me, run on sentences are NOT considered bad form…
mikey
Righteous Bubba said,
September 27, 2007 at 5:14
As of my last refresh Thinker contributed about 30% of all of our uses of the word “and” in this post.
g said,
September 27, 2007 at 5:15
Well, the “I’m crazy” style guide also includes the debating technique of personally insulting your listeners to try to convince them to believe your argument!
Wonder what the success rate is?
John O said,
September 27, 2007 at 5:18
Hmmm….solid objects through solid objects…let me think about this for a second.
Time’s up!
I’m no structural engineer myself, but it seems to me that the weight of each succeeding floor collapsing may increase the odds of the next one going quicker.
But I’m just a moron about that stuff.
No doubt it was a lovely collapse. And Katrina worked some fantastic magic, too. As do most natural or unnatural disasters.
Here’s what I think: OJ’s defense. Plausible, yes. Likely? Only if you’re a moron.
objectivelypro said,
September 27, 2007 at 5:19
OK, Thinker, if its not you, then I apologize.
I was remembering Political Animal and a few other places around July of 2006 when Israel was bombing the shit out of Lebanon. Someone was using the Thinker handle. A lot of vile crap was being posted.
My ad-hominem was directed at Jew-haters. I’m glad to hear you’re not one of them. Please excuse my rashness.
mikey said,
September 27, 2007 at 5:20
Well, it’s like the telco telemarketers that call you at work to try to get you to switch carriers, and you don’t know who your company uses now, and you really couldn’t care any less, and you tell them exactly that, and they argue with you.
Sure. Bet they close lotsa deals that way…
mikey
SamFromUtah said,
September 27, 2007 at 5:20
I have a hard time swallowing the inside-job 9/11 nuttery just because of the target. Bushco would never have targeted the WTC - they’d have gone after something more symbolic and less financially disastrous, like the Statue of Liberty. Everything they do has to be the most mawkish possible political theater.
So, sign me up for the “exploited it, but too stupid to have done it themselves” crew.
John O said,
September 27, 2007 at 5:26
SamFromUtah,
Exactly. If it was planned, they would’ve gone for Yankee Stadium, or the U.N.
Or maybe ACLU HQ.
*thoughtful reflection* Uh-oh! What if they were too stupid to pick a good target?
Certainly that possibility must be considered by now.
Thinker said,
September 27, 2007 at 5:27
Hey Lobbey: It’s amazing the capacity some people have for overlooking the obvious when it is right in front of them. You seem to be comfortable believing that it is merely a coincidence that every theater in the “war on terror” revolves around natural gas (if you had actually READ my posts above you would have noted that the main reason regarding Afghanistan I mentioned was building a NATURAL GAS pipeline; natural gas is very different than oil whether you realize this or not, and obviously you don’t realize that Turkmenistan has massive natural gas fields. The optimal plan was to build an oil pipeline next to the gas pipeline, but the gas line was the paramount reason, which you would know if you read my posts. Gas line from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Pakistan, with India signing onto the idea later). I posted many references to this pipeline(s) matter from articles in the mainstream media if you’ll care to look. So you think it’s a coincidence that Iraq is sitting on a lake of oil? And a coincidence that the U.S. is fighting the “Abu Sayyaf” on Jolo and Basilan in the Philippines? And Jolo and Basilan are where the oil is? And that the U.S. provided some air support and other assistance to the Ethiopians in overthrowing the Islamic Courts government in Somalia, so a puppet government could be set up that would sign oil exploration contracts, as Somalia is sitting on an undetermined but thought sizeable amount of completely untapped crude oil and natural gas? Just a bunch of coincidences? I have a nice bridge I’d like to sell you.
mikey said,
September 27, 2007 at 5:27
Not to utterly tenderize the deceased equine, but why do we NEED an “inside job” construct?
They had real grievances. They’d hit the WTC before, along with the Cole, the Embassies, Khobar towers, on and on. They had to figure out how to turn everyday shit into weapons. All they had was money and anger. Why, based upon the way it went down, would anyone assume they needed anything more?
mikey
John O said,
September 27, 2007 at 5:30
mikey, that Occam’s Razor shit just isn’t going to fly here. C’mon.
SamFromUtah said,
September 27, 2007 at 5:31
Mikey - you’re right, there is that, too.
Must just be some need to fit everything into the big Illuminati Trilateral Commission what-have-ye narrative.
Righteous Bubba said,
September 27, 2007 at 5:31
Why, based upon the way it went down, would anyone assume they needed anything more?
It makes you feel smart when you can pretend you know best. It’s purely an emotional and psychological construct and has nothing to do with reality.
Who knows, maybe someone will turn up some actual interesting evidence that changes the way we look at this. It’s unlikely to come from these people.
Thinker said,
September 27, 2007 at 5:31
The “war on terror” is a very poorly-disguised quest for as much control as possible over as much of the world’s remaining oil and natural gas resources as possible. Do some research and you will see it very plainly as it’s pretty hard to avoid that each theater is about energy resources.
to ObjectiveLipro: Apology accepted.
John O said,
September 27, 2007 at 5:35
Now that’s a whole different construct, “Thinker.” At least for me.
The “War on Terrror,” just like all our other wars, is mostly about control of something. But, sadly, no!, it has jack to do with 9-11. (Probably. LOL.)
SamFromUtah said,
September 27, 2007 at 5:37
The “war on terror” is a very poorly-disguised quest for as much control as possible over as much of the world’s remaining oil and natural gas resources as possible.
That I can believe.
Thinker said,
September 27, 2007 at 5:37
Mikey said: “Why, based on the way it went down would anyone assume they needed anything more?”
Mikey, read my above posts. If I have to say this one more time beyond this I am going to tear my hair out. SOLID MAJORITY OF BUILDING. Uppermost part of building falling into and THROUGH the solid majority of building. This cannot happen unless SOMETHING reduces the said majority of the building to a state of offering no more resistance than air. Can you get your mind around that Mikey? What’s the problem here?
And that’s not even mentioning the puffs of dust shooting out; the pyroclastic cloud that a second before was concrete; the hot spots under the rubble weeks later; the symmetrical “collapses” meaning though it was supposedly weaker on one side none of them fell in the direction it was weaker but came straight down the path of most resistance, (or what SHOULD have been the path of most resistance had it not been reduced to its nonresisting state by demolitions).
g said,
September 27, 2007 at 5:38
if you had actually READ my posts
Thinker, do you get it? Your posts are impossible to read. Really. Go take a class or something.
g said,
September 27, 2007 at 5:40
If I have to say this one more time beyond this I am going to tear my hair out. SOLID MAJORITY OF BUILDING.
Dang. Snatch that boy bald-headed.
Righteous Bubba said,
September 27, 2007 at 5:40
Mikey, read my above posts. If I have to say this one more time beyond this I am going to tear my hair out.
No, come on, really. The buildings were built in such a way that it was pretty easy for each floor to smack down on to the next at speed. So why assume explosives?
Some Guy said,
September 27, 2007 at 5:41
“Believing in the official story if you know the details of it requires believing that the laws of physics were suspended for a particular day and somehow allowed the uppermost part of buildings to “fall” into and through the solid majority of the building as quickly, meaning as effortlessly, as falling through air;”
Try this experiment. Take a 30 pound weight. Pick it up in your hands. No problem, right?
Have a friend get on a ladder, and drop that same weight into your hands from 10 feet up. Let me know how that goes.
“and were complete hedonists yet were supposedly so devoted to their religion which they seemed to regularly disregard, that they would be willing to sacrifice their own lives to take some Americans with them;”
Wow. Yeah. That would never ever happen.
“that the world’s most expensive air force was completely useless on the most important day of its existence, ”
AAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAHA!! Really? Pearl Harbor? Doolittle Raid? Bombing Raids in Axis-held territory? MIdway? Total air superiority over Europe and Asia? Any given day in Korea, or Vietnam, when immediate air-support was needed to stem enemy fire and advances? The entire cold war, where there was a command plane in the skies, somewhere, 24/7 for years? Gulf War, Kosovo, any place like that where total air domination and control saved countless Allied lives? None of those compare to a few passenger jets going off their flight paths?
“with an inexperienced officer in charge of the north-east sector of NORAD because his commander asked him the day before to fill in for him that morning”
You really have no clue how the military works, do you? It’s all a Tom Clancy novel, staring John Wayne, right?
“blah blah blah oil”
A: Nothing to do with 9/11/01. B: No shit, sherlock; you guys just sussed that out?
“that the mountain of other “coincidences” about 9/11, like the four or more separate exercises the Air Force was carrying out on the morning of 9/11,”
ZOMG!!11 Air Force does TRAINING?!!
Find me a day when the Air Force ISN’T conducting exercises somewhere.
“the insider trading on stocks in the week before 9/11 on United Airlines, American Airlines, and Morgan Stanley-Dean Witter and other stocks affected by 9/11, which made millions for the holders of the “put” options they purchased, because “put” options are basically betting that a particular stock is going to go down in value;”
Corporations are douchebags? OMG! My faith in the system! How could it possibly happen that there is high-level insider trading UNLESS they knew that the planes were going to crash? You know, Enron started to go belly-up before 9/11. Do you suppose THEY were connected, too?
Dude, get your head out of your ass; 9/11 was an inside job by the NFL and the New England Patriots, to drum-up support and nationalism, and pave the way for the New New England Patriots Empire.
g said,
September 27, 2007 at 5:42
The “war on terror” is a very poorly-disguised quest for as much control as possible over as much of the world’s remaining oil and natural gas resources as possible.
Actually, you’re probably right about that, but they didn’t have to cause it, all they had to do was exploit it. Which I’m sure they did.
I also think they “covered up” the fact that they were caught totally with their pants down when it happen.
I think the main reason for irregularities was the Bushies trying to spin themselves into heroes when instead they were incompetent fools.
mikey said,
September 27, 2007 at 5:42
Hey Thinker. Two options.
1. Many engineering degrees, multi-million dollar funded research, peer reviewed papers.
Or.
2. Shut up and go away. You have NO idea what you’re talking about…
mikey
g said,
September 27, 2007 at 5:43
9/11 was an inside job by the NFL and the New England Patriots, to drum-up support and nationalism, and pave the way for the New New England Patriots Empire.
Shit! I think there’s something to this!
John O said,
September 27, 2007 at 5:45
‘Night, all. It’s been hilarious as usual.
Good luck with “Thinker.” I’ll go to be picturing him in the “Thinker” sculpture pose, because I had a bad day at work, and tomorrow promises to be no better.
Thinker's Mom said,
September 27, 2007 at 5:46
Oh, now, see here, you people. You’re just getting Thinker all wound up, and it’s almost his bed time.
I’ll never get him to settle down now. He’ll be up all night on that computer of his, and it’s going to be impossible to get him dressed and on the school bus on time tomorrow.
Just stop encouraging him.
Righteous Bubba said,
September 27, 2007 at 5:46
I don’t buy that Afghanistan was about oil or gas. The US has been trying to abandon that hellhole and let other countries hold the bag for quite a while, although naturally there are folks who will use any opportunity to try to make a buck.
Iraq about oil? Sure.
J— said,
September 27, 2007 at 5:47
And that’s not even mentioning the puffs of dust shooting out; the pyroclastic cloud that a second before was concrete; the hot spots under the rubble weeks later…
[Behold the ellipsis, Insuffrable Grammarian.]
I can haz subducshun zoan under Manhaton?
Some Guy said,
September 27, 2007 at 5:48
Well, that was fun, but my food is nuked, and my druid won’t level up itself. *back to WoW*
ts said,
September 27, 2007 at 5:49
Thinker, that’s totally fortuitous! Where is this bridge and what’s the cost, monetarily-speaking?
You best not be fucking with me, pal. I want that goddamn bridge.
Righteous Bubba said,
September 27, 2007 at 5:51
A cranky old history prof
Would mumble and mutter and cough
His students all failed
‘Cause his lectures all trailed
Off…
mikey said,
September 27, 2007 at 5:51
Dammit, now that pisses me off.
My druid is prancing around out on the deck in spandex toreador pants and a black satin halter top, with six inch spike heels, a cigarette holder and a scary complicated beehive hairdo.
How do you get your druid to behave?
mikey
ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said,
September 27, 2007 at 5:54
d00d, druids suxxorz.
Haven’t you heard about global warming? All your treez r belong to us.
Thinker's Mom said,
September 27, 2007 at 5:59
Geez. mikey, where does your druid shop? Mine just wears some old purple robe and hangs around the bottom of one of the Coast Live Oak trees, looking up at the mistletoe and waving this gold sickle around.
g said,
September 27, 2007 at 6:00
oops. Busted.
g's mom said,
September 27, 2007 at 6:03
Aha!
Thinker said,
September 27, 2007 at 6:09
to Mikey (and anyone else too simple or too brainwashed to use common sense): You have no problem with the vast majority of solid building, forty-seven massive box columns in the core and over a hundred perimeter columns, and each concrete floor plan all providing no more resistance to the falling mass than air?? Seriously, you believe this? Try this experiment Mikey: Try walking through your front door with it closed and see if it’s as easy as walking through it when it’s open. Bet you’ll notice a difference. Why is this so difficult for some people to understand? I feel like I am talking to a bunch of 5-year-olds, really. The Twin Towers were very sturdy, well-built skyscrapers. But even if they were made of plastic do you honestly think that they wouldn’t provide more resistance than air to the uppermost floors? Try the door experiment and get back to me.
mikey said,
September 27, 2007 at 6:13
Just tried it. Walked right through. Now I’ve gotta wait for the carpenter and the locksmith. Thanks alot, thinker.
NOW will you go away?
mikey
Thinker said,
September 27, 2007 at 6:15
Try to picture this in your minds: A hypothetical giant crane holding the uppermost stories of a skyscraper suspended above the remainder (remember I said a hypothetical crane, this is just a mental exercise). And another one holding an identical segment of uppermost stories above nothing but air. Both are dropped at the same time, the first crashing into the solid remainder of its building and the second falling through air. Do they both reach the ground at the same time? The official myth of 9/11 would have that to be the case; common sense would have it otherwise.
Thinker said,
September 27, 2007 at 6:17
to Mikey: Try using your head for something besides a hatrack. This is a very simple matter that the vast majority of a skyscraper is going to provide a hell of a lot more resistance than air. Think about it for a little while, you’ll figure it out.
mikey said,
September 27, 2007 at 6:21
Already did, asshat. I figured out you’re a crackpot loony who needs better medication. I don’t want you in my life, in my world, in the blogosphere. You’re an idiot, but that’s not unusual.
The problem is, just like this, you come bustin in and get people talking to you instead of each other. So I’m through talking to you.
But I’ll leave you with this. Go to your local college. Talk to a couple of structural engineers. Not about 9/11 (yeah, like you could manage that), but just about the understanding of mathematics required to make judgments you are making with your dick. Get some kind of a clue, ’cause you really look stupid.
See ya…
mikey
J— said,
September 27, 2007 at 6:22
Try walking through your front door with it closed and see if it’s as easy as walking through it when it’s open.
Okay, I tried it. There was no difference. The screen door caused a bit of a problem though. Now what?
Principal Blackman said,
September 27, 2007 at 6:23
Thinker is getting such a raging clue right now….
mikey said,
September 27, 2007 at 6:24
The official myth of 9/11 would have that to be the case; common sense would have it otherwise.
Somebody introduce this idiot to Schroedinger’s cat. Please?
mikey
Righteous Bubba said,
September 27, 2007 at 6:26
Why don’t you talk to the guy who built the building? He watched it fall, poor bastard, and he’s given interviews about it.
stringonastick said,
September 27, 2007 at 6:26
Hell, I was buying put options on Enron and the airline stocks before 9-11; not because I had inside information, but because it was obvious to myself as a serious market watcher that (1) Enron was starting to smell a bit, and (2) the airlines were in a world of hurt because of overcapacity, vicious competition, and the recession that was just past being nascent right BEFORE 9-11 happened. If anything, the $ spigot the Fed turned on after the stock market reopened ENDED that recession.
The way some truly wounded stocks rebounded in the weeks and months that followed was highly suspicious in my opinion, and much more suspicious than higher volumes of airline puts pre 9-11. It was suspicious in a “corporate insider” way, not a “smart jihadi with an etrade account” way, like usual. Go back and read some REAL market commentary from before 9-11 (you know, the kind that costs a big chunk each year, made Bloomberg a rich guy, and isn’t a tinfoil gold bug libertard rag, the WSJ fishwrapper/capitalist/plutocrat blowjob, or worse yet, that abomination of a stock market TeeVee channel); the stock market was overvalued and still working on dealing with the seriously nasty hangover from the hard partying of the 1990’s. Hell, it still is.
Over 50% the corporate bond trading capacity of the entire US financial system was in the upper floors of the first tower; if the plane had hit 40 minutes later after the bond markets had opened for the day, the economic underpinnings of ALL US national and multinational corporations would have been impossible to reconstruct. The bond market for all those nasty, conspiratorial corporations would have had 30 lbs of sand to go with the few drops of oil left on the gears; instead of the 10 pounds they ended up with. After 9-11, all the major financial corporations quietly started heavy work on building redundant data centers outside of NYC. If they’d known it was coming, I’m thinking that would have gotten those data centers up before the attack, doncha think?
Of course Thinker is going to tell me that it was planned to happen before the bond markets opened, just so it looked like a “real” attack but there would be no real damage to the economy. To which I say bullshit; the economy has been barely treading water ever since and has only done so because of intervention by the Federal Reserve and all the crap we’ve put on the national visa (better known as China). The Fed is rapidly running out of bullets, and the ones they’ve got left are about as potent as all that 40 year old crap that pussy who threatened Mikey was boasting about.
Point being, you don’t need a conspiracy to totally fuck the economy and all us people in the middle of the class-defining Bell curve, you just need a bunch of greedy neocon assholes in charge to trash what was already a weakened system. Unfettered capitalism just can’t seem to do anything but make it turn out this way; welcome to the machine.
g said,
September 27, 2007 at 6:31
Try using your head for something besides a hatrack.
Oh, this makes me go all squiggly inside!! This is yet another wonderful example of debating technique devised to subtley, deftly bring your listener around to thinking that maybe there’s something worth thinking about in your argument. Thinker, you must have knocked the socks off the other school’s Debate Team. Seriously!!!
Snorghagen said,
September 27, 2007 at 6:32
Thinker still needs to work on it. He’s got the run-on paragraphs mastered and the sustained high level of excitment is excellent, but he needs to use a lot more exclamation points.
Here’s my favorite 9/11 theory.
g said,
September 27, 2007 at 6:38
God, what is that Snorhagen? Sounds like outtakes from “Men in Black IV”
Rufus said,
September 27, 2007 at 6:38
How about try this: try to measure the speed of the collapse of a 1,000-plus-foot building by watching a video of it. Also, try to determine the exact moment it is done collapsing while the lower 400-or-so feet of it is completely obscured by a debris cloud. Do you suppose your margin of error might be somewhat north of zero?
Thinker said,
September 27, 2007 at 6:39
to Stringonastick: Point being, how on earth do you explain record amounts of “put” options being placed on specific stocks that would be most affected by 9/11, the two airlines purportedly involved and companies based in the WTC complex? Within days of 9/11? This doesn’t strike you as being way too much to be a coincidence? Record amounts? Days before 9/11? Can you see that whoever placed them would have to know in advance what was going to happen or are your olifactory glands not working?
to J: You can pass through your closed front door as easily as when the door is open and you are passing through air? You could make lots of money on t.v. if you can do that.
G said: “Actually, you’re probably right about that, but they didn’t have to cause it, all they had to do was exploit it.”
So how again does that explain complete warplans for the invasion of Afghanistan being on Bush’s desk two days before 9/11?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4587368/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4585010/
Mikey said: “Get some kind of a clue, ’cause you really look stupid.”
Bwaahahahahahahahahahahaa. This from a shitbrain who thinks that the solid vast majority of a skyscraper is going to provide no more resistance than air to the falling uppermost portion. Get some common sense douchebag.
Thinker said,
September 27, 2007 at 6:40
To Rufus: Even your 9/11 whitewash commission admitted the “collapse” time of 10 seconds. Even N.I.S.T. admitted they came down at freefall rate. Try reading.
stringonastick said,
September 27, 2007 at 6:41
Dude, I’m going to bed. You just keep on screaming into the abyss, eventually it will talk back to you but you might not like what it has to say.
Thinker's Debating Team Coach said,
September 27, 2007 at 6:42
This from a shitbrain….
Sigh. Goddammit, kid. We’re not going to make it out of the regionals, and it’ll be all your fault.
g said,
September 27, 2007 at 6:43
I’m outa here too. Vinnie and Beth were far more fun than this.
Thinker said,
September 27, 2007 at 6:45
to Stringonastick: Then go to bed. Maybe when you wake up you will realize that a mountain of coincidences is quite a bit too much to be coincidental and that solid buildings offer vastly more resistance than air. But I’m not holding my breath.
Thinker said,
September 27, 2007 at 6:48
to G: Leaving already? Maybe you should stay and help Mikey try to explain away freefall-rate “collapses”. While you’re at it, why don’t you check out the video footage of the painfully obvious controlled demolition of WTC # 7 building? Tell me what you think of the two parallel rows of puffs going up the face of the building just before “collapse” and during.
http://www.wtc7.net/videos.html
http://www.911blogger.com/node/2807
g said,
September 27, 2007 at 6:51
Yeah, and maybe you should…..
Thinker, I think you’re a little worked up, you got a little bit of white froth there, right at the corner of your mouth. No, on the right. Yeah. There.
you want to sit down? I could get you some water….
No? Well…. take care.
The Abyss said,
September 27, 2007 at 6:52
It’s just the two of us now, Thinker.
Thinker said,
September 27, 2007 at 6:55
to G: Don’t need any water at the moment, but thanks for the offer. You take care too.
Thinker said,
September 27, 2007 at 6:57
just the two of us? Did you swallow up Mikey already? I was wondering where he went.
marc page said,
September 27, 2007 at 7:46
I’m sorry; were you saying something important ?
Thinker said,
September 27, 2007 at 7:58
To Marc Page: If you read over the above discussion and still can’t tell that this is an important matter then go back to your Britney Spears gossip and American Idol, or if you prefer, wrasslin’ and Nascar. Go back to sleep.
"Oh Stewardess, I Speak 'Nut" said,
September 27, 2007 at 8:07
Quoth the DoughBob: “The ‘in this country’ thing makes it sound like some sort of accident or mistake that the speaker was born here. Woops got off the bus one country too early on the Northbound express!”
It was no accident, bub. I was smart enough to be born a rich (relatively speaking) citizen of the New Rome. As opposed to the lesser multitudes who asked to be born impoverished or, worse, in some hell hole like the one DoughBob refuses to volunteer to serve in, though he urges its ongoing destruction and carnage.
jcricket said,
September 27, 2007 at 8:22
Pantload.
Kind of says it all, doncha think?
Righteous Bubba said,
September 27, 2007 at 8:25
If you read over the above discussion and still can’t tell that this is an important matter
It just isn’t. You’re nobody making no difference peddling nothing that hasn’t been explained.
Thinker said,
September 27, 2007 at 8:30
To Righteous Bubba: Then why are you having such trouble being able to explain that solid buildings offer vastly more resistance than air?
Posted elsewhere by Realist:
Now let’s turn to the “collapses” of the Twin Towers and the usually-forgotten WTC # 7 building. Let’s start with the Towers. This matter is explored in great detail by among others, Prof. Steven Jones, Prof. Kevin Ryan and Prof. David Griffin who do an excellent job of debunking the official story’s prostituted junk science. http://web.archive.org/web/20060105101348/http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html Something important to consider is, as Dr. David Griffin mentions, “the simple fact that fire has never—prior to or after 9/11—caused steel-frame high-rise buildings to collapse. Defenders of the official story seldom if ever mention this simple fact.” http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html#noprior
First of all, the impact damage combined with the fires present would not have been sufficient to have initiated a collapse in either of them. For one thing, the NIST greatly overemphasizes the significance of the impact damage. Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories who has thoroughly debunked the NIST theories mentions comments by the design engineer of the Twin Towers’ construction, John Skilling and the construction manager Frank DeMartini: “The real question here is, since the WTC tower’s design engineer, John Skilling, said that he took airliner crashes and jet fuel fires in to account and then stated clearly that “the building structure would still be there”, why was NIST so sure from the start that fires brought down the buildings? Then, when NIST started to use Mr. Skilling’s words in their later presentations, why did they suggest this was only an anonymous view? Finally, in what places did NIST look for Skilling’s aircraft impact analysis? For Mr. Skilling’s comments, see Glanz and Lipton, City in the Sky, p138. Also seen in an article in the Seattle Times which has the whole quote: “Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling’s people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707. “Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed,” he said. “The building structure would still be there.” http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=1687698&date=19930227 As Professor Fetzer notes, the WTC’s Construction manager, Frank DeMartini, was the last person known to have made the comments about the building’s potential to withstand multiple impacts and he said the effect would have been similar to “sticking a pencil through mosquito netting”. But NIST fails to recognize Mr. Martini’s remarks at all.” http://stj911.org/ryan/NIST_Responses.html Wow, I wonder why? The quote was from an interview with DeMartini in 1993 in which he said “The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. 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 jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting.” http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html#ref6 Bear in mind a FULLY (fuel) LOADED Boeing 707, not the half-empty 767s accused of crashing into them on 9/11. In fact, the Towers were each designed to withstand the impact of at least one Boeing 707, with Chicago engineer Joseph Burns saying “I designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it.” http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/analysis/medserv_collapseshocks.html Before anyone says “But they were hit by -767s” it must be mentioned that the -707 is only slightly smaller than a -767, and travels considerably faster, the length being 153 feet versus 159 and the wingspan being 146 feet instead of 156. The speed of the -707 is 607 mph versus the slower -767 at 530 mph. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html (The information there was lifted directly from FEMA’s report at): http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch1.pdf So common sense tells you that a 707 going 607 mph is going to do somewhat more damage than a 767 going 530 mph. If it would have easily withstood fully-loaded 707s then it would have easily withstood 767s with half-empty tanks. The Towers were highly redundant structures and an MIT scientist even is quoted as saying: “the World Trade Center was probably one of the more resistant tall building structures,” McNamara said, adding that “nowadays, they just don’t build them as tough as the World Trade Center.” http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/ The Engineering News Record stated in 1964 that: “A design procedure that will be used for structural framing of the 1,350-ft high twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City gives the exterior columns tremendous reserve strength. Live loads on these columns can be increased more than 2,000% before failure occurs.” http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/eng-news-record.htm So it’s safe to say they were highly redundant. They had 240 perimeter columns and 47 massive core columns; the NIST Final Report claims (based on its computer modelling) that the damage to the North Tower from the impact was 35 perimeter columns severed, 2 heavily damaged; 6 core columns severed, 3 heavily damaged; 43 core columns allegedly “stripped of insulation”. So out of 47 core columns 41 were intact and out of 240 perimeter columns 205 were intact. For the South Tower, which was struck almost at the corner of the building, avoiding all or almost all of the building’s core, they make the astounding claim that 33 perimeter columns were severed, 1 heavily damaged; 10 core columns severed, 1 heavily damaged; 39 core columns allegedly “stripped of insulation”. So they claim out of 47 core columns 37 were intact; out of 240 perimeter columns, 201 were still intact. Now how exactly did an airplane hitting almost the corner of the South Tower allegedly sever MORE core columns than the one hitting the North Tower which hit it squarely in the center? Of course, since their “estimates” are based entirely upon their computer model, they could say it severed however many they want and it’s not independently verifiable. In fact, they state that in coming up with their damage estimates, they would start with “a ‘base case’ based on the best estimate of all input parameters”. Then they would choose the most severe estimates because they were the ones that produced the desired outcome. http://wtc.nist.gov/reports_october05.htm But just in looking at the video footage of the South Tower crash one can easily see that it hit almost the corner and at such a trajectory as to carry it through without much interference with the core area, perhaps removing one core column at most. Regardless, even if their specious claims were true this is not the “massive damage” the NIST makes it out to be when considering what it was designed to withstand and how redundant it was. Their claims regarding the “fireproofing” being knocked off core columns are even more speculative. The method they claim to have used was to shoot a total of fifteen rounds from a shotgun at flat steel plates (instead of column samples) covered in fireproofing, in a plywood box. That they weren’t proud of this method is evident by them slipping its description into the appendix to the Final Report. http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-6A.pdf
Then, the NIST decided that if the debris from the aircraft damaged any room furnishings on a given floor, it assumed that the fireproofing for all columns and trusses in the entire floor was dislodged. http://wtc.nist.gov/WTC_Conf_Sep13-15/session6/6McAllister.pdf And the “fireproofing” matter is supposed to be the critical new angle to their “investigation” that so much hinges upon? Please. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28318-2005Apr5.html
So much for the relatively insignificant impact damage. Now let’s turn to the fires themselves. One prevalent myth is that the “jet fuel fires” raged on and on until “collapse” of the Towers, but even the official story apologists at NIST admit that the jet fuel burned out in a matter of a few minutes: “Dr. Frank Gayle, Metals Expert: “Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that’s what melted the steel. Indeed it didn’t, the steel did not melt.” Dr. Shyam Sunder, [NIST] Lead Investigator: “The jet fuel probably burned out in less than 10 minutes. And what did burn over the next hour, or hour and a half, was much of the contents of the buildings.” http://cms.firehouse.com/content/article/article.jsp?sectionId=46&id=25807
Something interesting to note is that there is video footage and still photos from the footage, used in FEMA’s own report on 9/11, showing a woman standing and waving in the impact hole in the North Tower. Needless to say, she isn’t on fire, or smoking or anything of that nature. Granted, this is at an undetermined time obviously sometime between impact and “collapse” of the North Tower, but it shows that at least at some time people were able to stand in the impact hole itself without being burned. She has been tentatively identified as Edna Cintron who worked in that Tower. A copy of the relevant video can be downloaded about four-fifths of the way down this web page: http://911review.org/Wget/members.fortunecity.com/911/wtc/tower-explosions.htm