I was watching some of those crazy conspiracy theory movies about 9/11 over the weekend and it made me wonder. This one movie claimed that the planes that hit the WTC had missiles on the bottom of them that fired just before impact. This same movie also said that the plane that hit the Pentagon was an unmanned military aircraft loaded with explosives. Are we to believe that these crazy conspiracy people became experts overnight in the field of passenger jets loaded with jet fuel that crash into buildings? In order to explain this, the movie presented these incredibly complicated theories that would have involved a super genius level of planning. Now how in the world can they say this stuff when they also claim that George Bush is a complete moron? You can’t have it both ways dicks! Even that “fake news” program, The Daily Show does not go that far. But it comes close.
Ahhh, The Daily Show. Some people say that it is the only real news on TV. I will never understand how people can possibly believe that, especially that way the show is pitched just before it comes on. Comedy Central Announcer: “Coming up next its news that way it was meant to be … fake! The Daily Show w/ Jon Stewart is next!”
Even if they tried to say it was not a fake news show it would be stupid because Jon Stewart is not a news man, he is a fucking comedian!! Holy shit man, do you expect him to give hard news analysis on his fake news show? A comedian’s job is to make people laugh, period. He doesn’t even have to work hard because he is preaching to the choir. I bet this is how a typical exchange goes down when you try to get tickets…. Daily Show: Okay sir I see that you need two tickets for our show. DS: Now we just have to ask you one survey question. Customer: Okay, shoot. DS: Do you think that George Bush is a big dunderhead? Customer: Well not really, I like to keep an open mind about things and give people a fair shake. DS: GET THE FUCK OFF THIS LINE SIR!! DS: Obviously you have never watched this show, as we don’t care about being fair. Now the other side of the coin. Daily Show: Do you think that George Bush is a big dunderhead? Stupid Customer: I can’t hear you, let me turn down this Greenday song. SC: Uh, duh yeah he is dumb and stuff. That’s what all my high school friends think so that’s what I think too. DS: Excellent sir, your tickets are confirmed. SC: BTW, isn’t it true that the Big Mac went up $0.20 because of George Bush? DS: Probably sir, everything is his fault no matter what. DS: You sound like a very intelligent person, would you like to meet Jon Stewart backstage? SC: Fuck yeah dude, Rawk!!!
I am going to go out on a limb and assume that if you think The Daily Show is a real news show, you are a lost cause.
#1 by Evan on May 20th, 2006
Quote
Man, I signed onto aim… and the news ticker comes on. It says.. “E3 is over, now we have to wait for the sick games to begin.” …and there is a picture of Mario and Master Cheif… I don’t see any Sony masscott. Don’t they have sick games too? Oh, gee, I guess not. can’t wait for the next blog.
#2 by morganfreebase on June 1st, 2006
Quote
Jon Stewart = gay lord.
#3 by Jonathan Cereal on June 3rd, 2006
Quote
Haha that shit is too funny. Kerry is such an ass hat, always bashing bush. After he lost his election there hasn’t been one interview where he hasn’t failed to bad mouth our administration. You name it, Meet the Press, Salon, CNN w/ W. Blitzer, and yes that waste of a time slot, The Daily Show. Here is something funny, while I lived in Japan I watch on sat TV CNN international which played The Daily Show at 11pm. They had a disclaimer on it that read, “The show you are about to watch is a news parody. Its stories are not fact checked. Its reporters are not journalists. And it’s opinions are not fully thought through.” So basically, The Daily Show can flip a switch whenever it wants from sketch comedy show to hard hitting investigative cable TV news show.
#4 by Jack on June 11th, 2006
Quote
I sympathize with your scepticism of the 911 truth movement, but I would suggest that the official government theory is more full of holes than many people imagine. If you only look at one part of this post, look at the information concerning WTC building 7.
Dr. Stephen E. Jones’ paper (Physics Professor BYU) presents evidence for the controlled-demolition hypothesis, which is suggested by the available data, testable and falsifiable, and yet has not been analyzed in any of the reports funded by the US government. To read the entire paper (its fairly easy to read) cut and paste this site in your address bar: http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
Over the past two years, scores of highly regarded individuals have gone public to express their serious doubts about 9/11. These include the father of Reaganomics and former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury Paul Craig Roberts, former presidential advisor and CIA analyst Ray McGovern, BYU physics Professor Steven Jones, German defense minister of over 25 years Andreas von Buelow, former MI5 officer David Shayler, NIST Engineer Kevin Ryan, former Blair cabinet member Michael Meacher and many more experts in the field of political science and physics.
Hundereds of the top experts in the fields of Government Studies, Physics and Engineering belong to the group below:
Scholars for 911 Truth website -
http://www.st911.org
Building 7
***Answer this question ***: Why was WTC building 7 (a steel reinforced building not hit by an aircraft) conveneintly rigged for controlled demolition on the morning of 911, given that it takes weeks if not months to plan for the demolition of such a structurally sound building?
The evidence provided in this 18 minute film (combined with papers like the one above) verifiably proves that building seven (not hit by an aircraft) came down from controlled demolition:
Paste this link into your address bar.
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=651781192&n=2
More Building 7 related info (bombs going off like crazy inside the twin towers)
And of course, all of the people (including firefighters) at the scene of the collapse were reporting exactly what we already know about the controlled demolition:
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&n=2&videoid=562603746&Mytoken=F18973BE-FE43-63AB-66C283B0DCD14D3E1795309
#5 by Wow on June 12th, 2006
Quote
Are you serious? Ragging the daily show for being comedic and making fun of the news…..THATS WHAT ITS MEANT TO DO ASSHOLE. ITS FUCKING ON COMEDY CENTRAL!!! THATS C-O-M-E-D-Y DO YOU FUCKING KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS?!?!?! They make fun of ppl and things in the news they arent meaning to deliver the total story and all the facts, the give you the ironic and COMEDIC ones. Jesus are you that much of a fucking tight ass you cant even relize that. PULL THE FUCKING STICK OUT OF YOUR ASS!!!
#6 by ZeroStar on June 12th, 2006
Quote
Hey genius, apparently you can’t read too well because if you could you would realize that you just made my point for me. I know that it’s a comedy show and I clearly stated that. The overall point I made was that some people still take the Daily Show as fact. If you have been near a college campus lately you would understand this, but I doubt *YOU* would.
#7 by Sofocleto on June 13th, 2006
Quote
About 9/11 I don’t know. What do you think about this:
Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and “Consciously Failed” To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York’s Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855
#8 by ZeroStar on June 13th, 2006
Quote
I’ll tell you what I think about “opinion” polls. The fact that they are based on people’s opinion makes them invalid in my eyes. A lot of people are smart enough to give a valid opinion, but just as many if not more are just too stupid. They watch things like the Daily Show or any Michael Moore movie and take it as fact. Too many opinion poll questions are skewed to give the answers that the pollster wants to hear, especially when the groups sponsoring the polls are extremist groups and in this case far left extremist. Did you happen to notice this?
#9 by Jack on June 14th, 2006
Quote
With regard to information concerning the lie that is 911, I specifically stay away from polls while making my point. Polls are great to look at in order to monitor progress, but they do little on an argumentative basis (becuase they make no argument).
When it comes to 911, the smoking gun of the lie is the controlled demolition of building 7. – (See previous post). We know that Building 7 was demolished by controlled demolition on that day, which is directly opposed to the official government theory. We also know that the most well respected experts in the fields of physics and engineering believe that the twin towers were also brought down by controlled demolition.
Never… Ever…In the history of the world, has any steel framed building collapsed due to fire. But on 911, three collapsed (in one city) in a matter of hours, including one building that wasn’t even hit by an airplane. (see first video link posted above) – even if the fires had the help of jet fuel, the fires would have needed to be at nearly double their maximum possible tempurature under optimum conditions to even begin to weaken those steel columns (which then would have only led to a partial failure of the building)
Of course, the physics mentioned above very nicely (independently) compliments the fact that hundreds of eyewitnesses (including firefighters) are on record as saying that bombs were exploding all around them well before the buildings collapsed on levels as low as the lobby. (see last video posted above and/or do a search for the official fire-fighting tapes)
The conspiracy theories you here all the time about “unnmanned planes” and “pods” and other chinanery are merely distractions to the truth – the controlled demoltion of those buildings.
#10 by ZeroStar on June 14th, 2006
Quote
Okay…. Never….Ever…In the history of the world have two jets loaded with fuel crashed into buildings. Most of these “experts” subscribe to all types of crazy theories and are definitely not independent thinkers. You have to consider the source. Everything I have seen seems to reject your idea that this would not bring down the towers, but I have not been trolling myspace pages for my information. Even leftist channels like CNN, NBC, MSNBC, and CNBC don’t subscribe to this theory. If they thought this was true don’t you think they would jump all over this? They have a blind hatred for Bush just as much as most of the conspiracy theorists. I guess that is a conspiracy too. As for the eyewitness accounts, some people have claimed to seen Bigfoot and The Loch Ness Monster. In order to believe anything that you say you have to suspend reality. Did you miss the part where Bin Laden claimed responsibility for the attacks? I guess Bush is so super smart that he could pull this off yet at the same time be a giant mongoloid as the conspiracy crowd claims. I know don’t tell me, it’s a conspiracy. It’s really sad that you believe in this stuff but it is good for a laugh!
#11 by Jack on June 19th, 2006
Quote
OK… I am getting three important pieces of information from your logic (although there are more in your post that I did recognize):
First, and perhaps most importantly, your are not acknowledging that WTC Building 7 verifiably collapsed (at the rate of free fall) without any plane hitting it. In fact, WTC 7 had only two small fires in it.
***Answer this question ***: Why was WTC building 7 (a steel reinforced building not hit by an aircraft) conveniently rigged for controlled demolition on the morning of 911, given that it takes weeks if not months to plan for the demolition of such a structurally sound building:
18 Minute video that exposes the controlled demolition of WTC 7
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=651781192&n=2
Secondly, you are apparently more qualified to comment on structural engineering than the hundreds of physics and engineering experts who have proven that the official government theory is wrong.
Thirdly, and perhaps your strongest point, is that you don’t put a lot of stock into eyewitness reports. This may be a valid point if it was not for the massive numbers of people who are all saying the same thing, including firefighters, some of whom were even injured by the explosions 40 minutes before the buildings collapsed. – and yes, many of those firefighters are mad as hell about the cover-up and have went on the record with several film makers/media outlets. In fact, it was so obvious that the lobby of WTC 1 was blown to shreds almost 40 minutes before the towers collapsed that the official FEMA report even mentioned it. They didn’t explain why the lobby was blown, but they mentioned it. – Too many people saw what happened in the lobby for them not to include that information
#12 by charles on August 20th, 2006
Quote
Jason,
Your website is awesome! I run a political t-shirt shop and want to help promote your site. I was wondering if you would be interested in a banner or link exchange?
I think our customers would enjoy your site. Check us out at http://www.politees.net. We are a new shop but I’m optomistic that we will grow. Thanks. charles@politees.net
#13 by ZeroStar on August 22nd, 2006
Quote
You crazy people still crack me up! I almost forgot about you moonbats.
Check this out.
http://thatsjuststupid.com/911.htm
http://www.911myths.com/
You can shut up now with your “I hate America” theories.
#14 by jasonTAMU on September 21st, 2006
Quote
o….so the planes we saw flying into the building must have missed right? and those explosiions couldnt have been gas mains blowing? and the jet fuel (even though not hot enough to melt the steal) coulnt have weekened the main struts running up the building? and the crashing down of the top stories couldnt possibly have caused a weakened infrastucture (from the attack in the 90s, and the high winds on the morning of 9/11) to collapse on itself as each layer made it heavier and heavier? Nice theory, goes well with global warming, why dont you move to Russia? or Cambodia? they dont bother with cover-ups, so you dont have to sit in your moms basement all day hoping to come up with something that will make your pathetic life worth something.
#15 by plaiche on October 7th, 2006
Quote
Idiot.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061004-7908.html
#16 by Jack on October 7th, 2006
Quote
Despite your attempt to bolster the government’s conspiracy theory, here’s what we do know:
1) Building seven was not hit by a plane and had only moderate asymmetrical damage with two small fires. Yet it fell completely to the ground at the rate of free-fall onto its own footprint. – even NIST has event explained this one yet under the government’s official story.
2) Neither office fires nor jet fuel fires can melt steel… yet the steel did melt in all three buildings! Interesting??? In fact, molten iron was found flowing in pools in the wreckage at ground zero more than six weeks after the collapse.
The official story cannot account for this scenario.
The only explanation that has stood the test of time for this phenomenon is thermite usage – an incendiary used in controlled demolition. More specifically, we know that the specific form of thermite used was actually thermate (thermite + sulfur). This explains FEMA’s conundrum of recognizing massive amounts of sulfur residue on the steel columns, as well as the molten metal steel found in all three of the collapsed buildings – a trademark characteristic of thermite. This would also explain the white flash molten metal steel flowing from the buildings well below where the planes crashed.
3) We also know that Bush’s Secretary of Transportation (Norman Mineta) testified under oath to the 9/11 commission that Dick Cheney was in an underground bunker on 9/11 monitoring the flights of the planes as they were reaching their targets. And, despite the fact that Dick Cheney was in control of NORAD on that day, and had full knowledge of the location of the planes, NORAD stood down. For the first time in the history of that Trillion Dollar agency, NORAD failed to intercept a plane – something it has done hundreds of times with commercial flights – always reacting in a matter of about a couple minutes.
#17 by jasonTAMU on October 7th, 2006
Quote
see final comment above moron
#18 by Jack on October 7th, 2006
Quote
thanks for your thoughtful response to my three comments in post 10.1
You have taught me a great deal: I’ll keep “moron” in my arsenal of words so that Ill be sure to use it when I don’t have anything intellegent to say.
#19 by jasonTAMU on October 7th, 2006
Quote
Dont worry about it, I think you have already proved you have nothing intellegent to say.
#20 by Jack on October 8th, 2006
Quote
I usually don’t get to resort to name calling when I’m making my points… I think it has something to do with the fact that I like to be substantive.
But I guess if I was threatened by a point of view that I felt like I could not legitimately counter, I could possibly see the the value of name calling in order to make myself feel better. But then again, that’s just not my style. I hope it works out well for you.
#21 by Anonymous on October 8th, 2006
Quote
Interesting philosophy. If I could simply contain myself I suppose then that would make me less idiotic in turn making you more so.
#22 by Jack on October 8th, 2006
Quote
Or better yet… If you could simply adress the issues (like in post 10.1) instead of name calling, you would command more respect.
It is much easier, and requires much less intellegence, to resort to name calling than to adress issues in a substantive manner.
#23 by Anonymous on October 8th, 2006
Quote
Your points in post 10.1 require less intelligence than I am willing to give; ergo, I was forced to state the obvious.
#24 by Jack on October 8th, 2006
Quote
Exactly what is faulty about those three points. Its really easy to make claims, but it requires some intellegence to back them up.
To this point, the only intellegent dialog you have contributed exists in post 10. Once I responded in Post 10.1, it seems like you are afraid to address the issues directly.
Rather, you chose to hide behind the veil of name-calling and nonsubstantive claims.
Until you provide substance to your claims, they are meaningless.
And, until you are able to subatantively address my points, your criticism of my point of view will lack the intellegable fortitude of a second grade book report.
#25 by Nice on October 22nd, 2006
Quote
Nice
#26 by Anonymous on October 22nd, 2006
Quote
then why do you insist on carrying on a coversation weeks old? if im so stupid dont lower yourself to my level (or past as you have done already). Thanks for the hypocricy. Like most liberals you prove why they think we evolved from lesser beings.
#27 by Jack on October 23rd, 2006
Quote
Im always amused (and intellectually curious) by people who criticize the 9/11 truth movement, yet have found no way to substantive address the issues when they do so. You when first prize in that category!
Frankly, the most difficult problem the 9/11 Truth Movement has to overcome, is not the volumes of hard evidence controdicting the government’s story. Rather, its the *Cognative* *Dissonance* (you should look up the term) experienced by people like yourself.
I would be more than happy for you to engage in intellegent dialog about the facts. However, If this is something you are incabable of doing, I completely inderstand, as the government’s account of 9/11 is impossible to defend. But remember, if you continue to insist on not addressing the evidence of government complicity, then we would have to assume that your theory is based on little or no evidence.
From your lack of substance, we can clearly see which version of events is supported by logic… Or do you consider name-calling valid points in an argument? If this is the case, then I think we both can safely say, that you are pursuing a lost cause.
I also find it amusing that you call me a liberal! lol … as if that is what I am?/?
OK… OK… If it makes you feel better, I won’t post again on this topic until you address my points in post 10.1 – or say something that actually has _some_ substance about the facts of 9/11.
I won’t be holding my breath.
#28 by Anonymous on October 23rd, 2006
Quote
Whats the point in trying to dispove you? With your syntax the answer is apparent and there IS NO OTHER EXPLENATION. Ididots like you say that what happened cannot be correct, and your way is the only way. I dont know what happened, but I do know that nothing that is said will agree with you or your paranormal crowd. Its always a conspiracy. So again, whats the point, whatever I say will be another CONSPIRICAL response in your view. People like you are the reason why this world cant get anything done and is always second guessing itself. I mean im in college, ive barely got time to post here – what do you do where you have time to come up with crackpot crap and respond 10 times to an unintellegent person?
#29 by Candle on October 23rd, 2006
Quote
Excuse me, but did you watch the offical 9/11 report or did you just watch that Candian Idiot’s video?
First off when the plane hit the towers the force of the impact, blew in the insalation off the support beams. Second it was not made of Iron and if you actully belive that you should be flogged, modern skyscarpers are made of a Steel you moron and a fire, even a house fire will soften steel. So the raging fire caused the internal support beams to to soften and fall. The floors kept falling on top of each other in this manner. Now if one floor buckles and falls onto another getting ready to buckle the floor below buckles, and guess what gravity and physics take over. Once about 3-4 floors started to fall it was over, to much weight than the floors could hold even at full strength and they started falling as the weight was added.
If you think anyone would use thermite your really dump, one thermite leaves traces, they would of found the traces also, because that much thermite is going to be very obvious. Have you ever seen thermite burn? Thermite burns white, very white, now the flames that where seen inside where not white, so explain that way. The offical 9/11 report explains everything rather clearly. Also tower 7 fell because of damage, so a plane didnt hit it, alot of debrie did hit Tower 7. The super structure was weakend and the tower fell. IF you paid attetion in school you would know how physics acts upong objects and that the debris where moving sevral hundred miles per hour when they hit Tower 7, at that speed a Pencil would punch a hole in your skull. So dont you think a desk or large chuck of I-Beam would do alot worse? Honestly come back when you have taken Science.
#30 by Jack on October 23rd, 2006
Quote
Molten iron is actually exactly what you would expect to find if thermate (thermite + sulfer) was used to cut steel. Either way, Iron is a product of a thermate or thermite reaction.
Furhtermore, even FEMA recognized the unnusual sulfer residue all over the steel columns after collapse. Sulfer residue, of course, is exactly what you would expect to find after thermate usage. But this wasn’t just a normal sulfer residue… according to FEMA (and recent independent Scientific Studies) this was an example of high temperasture sulfidation.
Both FEMA and NIST recognize that steel melted in all three of those buildings, but until recently have failed to provided only faulty explainations. They insisted for 5 years that jet fuel melted the steel. Now NIST is under huge pressure, because its very clear that Jet fuel could not have created such an energy source to create molten iron and high temperature sulfer oxidized steel.
Its interesting that you note that Thermite (or thermate) burns at very bright color. Because, sections of the building well below where the plane hit had molten metal flowing out of it in a very sharply bright yellow-white color with a very distinctive white ash rising from the liqued metal. Which, again, is entirely consistent with thermate usage.
Retired BYU Physics Professor recognizes these facts:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4884818450327382904
Also, these molten metal pools were found at all three locations. Remember building 7 wasn’t even hit by a plane.
At this point both FEMA and NIST have not explained why buidling 7 collapsed, even though NIST has workrd very hard to do so. There is no other example of a complete collapse of a building onto its own footprint at the rate of free-fall other than building 7. The damage shown by FEMA and NIST is minor and would only _potentially_ suggest that perhaps partial sections of two columns received any stress from debris. – which of course woul causee only a partial asymetrical failure even in the wildly unlikely scenerio that all of the other steel columns would fail.
Beyond the scientific evidence we also know this:
We also know that Bush’s Secretary of Transportation (Norman Mineta) testified under oath to the 9/11 commission that Dick Cheney was in an underground bunker on 9/11 monitoring the flights of the planes as they were reaching their targets. And, despite the fact that Dick Cheney was in control of NORAD on that day, and had full knowledge of the location of the planes, NORAD stood down. For the first time in the history of that Trillion Dollar agency, NORAD failed to intercept a plane – something it has done hundreds of times with commercial flights – always reacting in a matter of about a couple minutes.
#31 by Candle on October 23rd, 2006
Quote
wait a minute, your micheal moore arnt you. Look i watched Ferinhiet 9/11 and if you have to recit the scropt back to me, thats really sad. Further more you ignore the 9/11 report or the laws of physics, or the fact that no legitmate source stated molten iron anywhere, not even molten steel. A few ppl running out of the building, but not one professional besides moore as said that. Now please go read facts and get an understanding of physics and come back.
Furthermore unless you can say something that wasnt in ferinheit 9/11 do not bother replying as it only proves you are a typical american that belives anything the TV tells them,
#32 by Jack on October 23rd, 2006
Quote
Ok… None of my points were used in Moore’s film.
***Even NIST and FEMA recognize the molten metal iron and and sulfer oxidized steel***.
- As is explained thouroughly in FEMA’s report in their 9/11 in appendix C.
But what they do not/cannot explain, is why the steel melted. Jet fuel fires could not have melted the steel.
However, Thermate could have melted the steel.
Also, Thermate produces the exact characteristics that FEMA found and discussed in appendix C.
Additionally, neither FEMA or NIST pretend that they can explain why building 7 fell. FEMA looked at building 7 once and remarked that their “best hypothosis has only a low probability of occurance.”
#33 by Emma on October 31st, 2006
Quote
Weird enough for government work.
#34 by Madison on November 6th, 2006
Quote
The best things in life are free, but the
expensive ones are still worth a look.
#35 by Stephen Carmichael on January 7th, 2007
Quote
Jason,
I’ve been trying to find a way to get in touch with you for nearly a year, but was beginning to give up. Luckily, I found the link on your old blog and I’m REALLY hoping you get emails notifying you of responses. Give me a buzz at my email address above.
Later!
SC