This is an excerpt from a show airing tomorrow night (8/31) on the National Geographic channel that examines the conspiracy theories about the Twin Towers and the Pentagon.




  1. bobbo, its so clear to me says:

    #90–ObamaF==silly man. Taking offense when none was given.

    OK, ok, ok==YOU are not expert. Why should I call anyone when I posted I didn’t have any “real” questions?

    Hah, hah. You have participated in this blog and yet evidence no understanding of how it functions. You must have a faulty model in mind.

    Heh, heh. Silly person. You smell like a person from France.

  2. Obamaforever says:

    From: Obamaforever
    To: bobbo the idiot

    per # 91

    I would rather smell like someone from
    France then smell like an idiot, you idiot.

    If you do not like my questions and/or posts
    please do not respond to them-O.K., you
    frigging thumb-sucking idiot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAA!

    P.S. Calling me an “expert” was a slur. If
    you do not know what “slur” means you
    can look it up in your goddamn dictionary.

    bye, you self-serving twit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  3. bobbo, its good to share perspectives says:

    #92–ObamaF==Calling you an expert was a slur? Gosh, I’m glad I didn’t make the error of calling you intelligent and well spoken as well?

    Let’s see, how can this be kept linear and not circular????

    Have you ever heard of “miscommunication” where one person perceives an intent that was not meant by the other???

    There was a convoluted joke/saying that I used to be able to recite to that end, I’ve lost it now.

    Quick google did not turn up my joke, but reading some quotes have motivated me to see if I can find it.

    Perhaps you can find some comfort here:

    http://wisdomquotes.com/cat_communication.html

  4. bobbo, I'll never be able to remember this says:

    “I know you think you heard what I said. But I’m not sure if you know that what you think you heard is not what I meant.”

  5. Obamaforever says:

    From: Obamaforever
    To: bobbo, I have my head up my ass

    per #93 and #94

    Here is what you wrote in #66:

    “But YOU are the expert.”

    Just so that I would not miss the slur you
    used “YOU” and not “you”. In my eyes
    this was to emphasize the point that you
    thought I was no expert, but I certainly
    thought so.

    No more miscommunications on your
    part, idiot. No more “YOU”s, idiot.

    The only comfort I would find from all of
    this is if you would pull your self-serving head
    out of your self-serving goddamn ass.

    bye, witless

  6. RBG says:

    Done that, got the T-shirt. Check out this DU for a good helping of debunking.
    http://tinyurl.com/lpzab6

    46. Gawdmachine: Tower 7 had a massive hole running up it before the collapse. Firemen predicted over public airways (radios) that it would come down, and evacuated it accordingly.

    69 Zybach:
    Marvin Bush was on the board of a security company that had huge contracts globally.

    From The Washington Spectator:
    Marvin Bush was reelected to the Stratesec board of directors annually from 1993 through 1999. His last reelection was on May 25, 1999, for July 1999 to June 2000.
    http://tinyurl.com/mj8ag

    But, don’t despair. Marvin Bush is also connected to the insurance company that insured a lot of WTC. Except…

    Bush left Stratesec after 1999 but currently remains an adviser to HCC Insurance. HCC lost $29 million at 9/11, largely from World Trade Center property losses, medical payouts in New York City, and workers’ compensation reinsurance losses.
    http://tinyurl.com/yxcazv

    Double doh! Do I detect a certain lacking as an inside man?

    RBG

  7. Rabble Rouser says:

    Look Uncle Patso,
    There is no proof of how the towers fell on 9/11. There NEVER will be, because they took the evidence, shipped it to China, and MELTED it!

    I do not trust computer models, whose aim is to prove a fact, without ALL the pertinent evidence. They had a conclusion, and worked backwards. Instead of having all of the evidence there, and working forwards.

    My first question is WHY were all of the beams taken overseas and melted? This tells me that someone had something to hide. Sorry if I don’t trust the status quo.

    Have you ever tried to get kerosene up to its max temp? You can’t in regular atmosphere, because it’s not 100% oxygen. The claims that the temps were enough to weaken steel, are false. Many buildings have had fires burn in them for DAYS, and never was the steel weakened by fire.

    9/11 was a freakin’ inside job. Look at who had the motive, the means, and opportunity. Look at what was trying to be accomplished, and you will see that they made it happen, on purpose. A whole lot of rich white men, who only care about their money, and don’t give a gnat’s testicle about their fellow human beings.

  8. RBG says:

    Follow my link in 96 to a DU that provides all the proof you will need. You don’t have to keep every steel beam if every beam shows the same exact evidence as a sample.

    Jet A-1 fuel burns hot enough to set office burnables alight. You dispute that?

    Office burnables – furniture, carpets, desks, computers, files all burn hot enough to reach temperatures to weaken steel. Go to my links to follow all the publicly available data on office fires.

    The graphs show steel expanding the moment it gets hot and beginning to dramatically weaken starting when it reaches about 500* F. That’s universal physics and you can repeat the same experiments for yourself, but I have included this data in my link already. I take it you are completely baffled as to why they spray fluffy fire retardant insulation on steel beams?

    RBG

  9. Studying the physical evidence here is as pointless as examining Dealey Plaza after JFK was hit. Instead, look at the reactions of the key people in government (not the generally “incompetent” politicians that we all know and love). In both cases, their actions pointed to a coverup. They eschewed a formal investigation with rigorous forensics and instead appointed a “blue ribbon panel” staffed by insiders with conflicts of interest. The complete burying of the “truth” along with complete avoidance of responsibility speaks to the real plot more than the tainted evidence does.

  10. RBG says:

    Yes, go for the “reactions” of these “key people” who wouldn’t simply hide a WMD in the Iraqi desert to justify their war but then easily created a convoluted plot involving bin Laden’s admissions + a 767 weighing 280,000 lbs loaded with 10,000 gallons of fuel flying publicly into a building at 500 miles per hour +, if that wasn’t enough, the necessity for a completely hidden, redundant, simultaneous bombing plan. Uh-huh.

    RBG

  11. @RBG/100

    See, you’re focusing on the evidence again. Tsk, tsk. I never claimed “what happened”, only what the key reactions were. You can fill in the blanks with whatever you want (control over Iraq’s oil development, military bases in Asia, destabilization of Central Asia). Just follow the ball (in this case, money) and you’ll get there eventually.

  12. 888 says:

    US Govt conspirations?! LOL… ROTFL!

    Just look WHO BENEFITED FROM INVOLVING USA IN IRAQ WAR(which was main reason to ALLOW 9/11 to happen) and you’ll know who was behind it:

    Israel of course.

    Saddam was a largest single threat to Israel.
    And now it is Iran (so yeah, you bet sooner or later USA will be “attacked” by Iran, or a new “9/11″ will happen – obviously pointing to Iran’s hand in it…).

  13. 888 says:

    oh and BTW – quit saying it was “Iraq’s oil” why US attacked Iraq.
    If it was because of oil, then where the fuck is this oil?
    Do you see Iraq oil flowing to USA?
    Do you see it flowing at all?
    LOL

  14. @888

    “Control over Iraq’s oil development” does not equal us taking their oil. However, we are effectively keeping others out of the country. This has been the plan in Iraq since WW II.

    Regarding your “Israeli connection”, I think it’s foolish to believe that greedy powerbrokers are nationalistic. They owe allegiance only to money.

  15. Prose / Constitutionalist says:

    Was the destruction of the 9/11 an excuse to start war with the East?[What would happen to the owners of the defense companies, if war was not started, would they not go broke?]
    The planes hit near the top of the two buildings, therefore the explosions should have raised not lovered. I have not heard the name of the insurance company who compensated the owners of the World Trade Center, or the names of the owners. It seems like a lot of money to lose and not wanting to replace the twin towers, therefore someone has a lot of money to throw away, while only wanting to build a memorial. Not replacing the towers,gives the muslims a satisfaction they are depleting our economy. {FOOD FOR THOUGHT]

  16. Elefant says:

    The year 2001 should not be repeated