Monday, August 21, 2006

Yes, Joe, Bush Is An Idiot, And If You Have To Ask, You Might Be An Idiot, Too

Better build another wing at Guantanemo. It looks like we have another shipment of Bush-hating traitors to send down there. Hey, why not house them with the New York Times people? That would really drive them nuts. What? These are former Bush supporters? They've lost their resolve and have even begun asking if President Bush is an idiot? What happened to the old line that he's a lot smarter than he appears? What? You can be a lot smarter than Bush appears and still be an idiot? Let's be fair. President Bush is providing a great service for his administration. By being such a moron himself, he's allowing Cheney and Rumsfeld to get away with their twisted plans. Without President Bush there taking the heat, we'd be talking about what idiots the rest of them are, and that would be bad for national security.
Pundits Renounce The President

12 Comments:

At 8:48 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please view these two videos and check out the website that follows. Even if you do not agree with all of it, we all need to have a better grasp of what truly happened on 9/11/01 in the US, 3/11/04 in Spain, and 7/7/05 in the UK. We are looming closer and closer to being pulled into an even more disastrous war in the Middle East. Another terrorist attack in which the government is involved could easily be framed in such a way that rallies the people around a new war. However, the government could be deterred from faciliting a terrorist attack or could fail in their attempt to rally the people, if enough people at least suspect government involvement in recent terrorist acts. So please share this with others if you feel compelled, as I do.

documentary on 9/11

documentary on western government terror

www.scholarsfor911truth.org

Please remember this core fact in all of the debate over the events of 911. The total disintegration of the twin towers into dust and rubble within seconds is a mark of a controlled demolition, not a building pancaking.

 
At 10:12 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Great links! It is sad so many people would rather watch the evening news instead of the truth in these videos! I am glad to see more people are discovering the truth. This regime should be imprisoned! Thanks for the great links!

 
At 10:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is a good site too.
http://www.rense.com/

 
At 10:46 PM, Blogger Bill McDonald said...

Great interaction. This is what blogs are for.

 
At 12:36 AM, Blogger darrelplant said...

You know, I just watched Court TV's piece on the 9/11 commission. I don't kbnow what you folks are smoking, but I sure didn't see "total disintegration" of the towers within seconds. I saw a building collapsing under its own immense weight.

In fact, in one of the angles they showed of the Building One collapse, girders from one of the walls are visible sticking several hundred feet into the sky after the bulk of the building has dropped, until they, too, fall.

 
At 8:10 AM, Anonymous butch said...

darrelplant....SHHHHHHH! Don't you know that pointing out such things is tantamount to telling your eight year old that there's no Santa?

 
At 8:16 AM, Blogger Bill McDonald said...

Darrelplant, What do you make of the video of the owner of Building 7 discussing pulling the building and then watching it fall? I know you believe the building failed because of the shock from the other towers falling, but what about that specific conversation?

 
At 12:08 AM, Blogger darrelplant said...

Bill, which video is that? Loose Change? TerrorStorm? One of the videos linked on the Scholars site? (Please God, don't let it be the guy with the "Top 10 Reasons..." for the first 30 seconds of his schtick was truly unbearable.) I don't see it right off the bat. Perhaps there's a conspiracy to hide it from me? :)

Things that made me skeptical are things like the list of items to notice about the video of the Bldg. 7 collapse on the Scholars page:

The roofs dips inward
[it'll do that if the center portion of the building collapses first]

Explosions are visible running up on the right side
Explosions are visible in the front
[yeah, explosions of air and dust as the collapse of the building compresses the air inside and knocks the windows out; in a controlled demolition the explosions come before the collapse]

Simultaneous symmetrical collapse (all joints fail at the same time)
[I thought the center collapsed first?]

Falls at free-fall speed
[see Galileo about this one]

Falls into its own footprint without damaging surrounding buildings
[that's how big, heavy things fall: down. buildings rarely tip over (again, see Galileo re Pisa) they don't have the structural cohesiveness to stay together once they begin to collapse. What you don't see in the video is whether the rubble pile slid beyond the footprint, or whether it collapsed toward the towers]

If someone wants to convince me that someone managed to pull off a controlled demolition under the noses of the workers in the office, or that Iraq had nukes ready to ship on radio controlled planes to the US, their evidence had better be able to get past my smattering of physics and 3D modeling animation. And that's just their home page.

 
At 7:06 AM, Blogger Bill McDonald said...

Search for Larry Silverstein Building 7.
Here's one site and a transcript
"Larry Silverstein, the controller of the destroyed WTC complex, stated plainly in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY decided jointly to demolish the Solomon Bros. building, or WTC 7, late in the afternoon of Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001.
In the documentary "America Rebuilds", aired September 2002, Silverstein makes the following statement;

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse.""

Of course, he could have just been saying that as misinformation to stir up the anti-Bush forces and draw them in.

 
At 10:52 AM, Blogger darrelplant said...

That sounds to me like he was talking about ending (i.e. "pulling") firefighters out of the effort to save the building because it was a lost cause. As in "pull the plug" and "pull out", not "pull the detonator cord". Maybe I'm just naive.

 
At 11:08 AM, Blogger Bill McDonald said...

"Pull it" doesn't sound like "Pull the firefighters out" especially since I've read there were no firefighters in the building. In the same documentary a worker says, later in December, 2001, that they were getting ready to pull building 6 - meaning demolish it. Buildings 6 and 5 were actually between 7 and the towers and burned much harder without collapsing. In fact, I've read that if this happened because of the fires, building 7 would have been the third steel-framed building in the history of the world to collapse due to fire. The only other 2? The Twin Towers.
Check on Larry Silverstein's rather recent acquisition of these buildings just before 9/11. Find out who was running the security for them. Who would be in a position to allow the wiring of these buildings in the weeks prior to 9/11? One hint: It's the President's brother.

 
At 2:02 PM, Blogger darrelplant said...

Well, the quote from Silverstein said that he'd been talking to the "fire department commander" about being able to contain the fire. If there weren't any firefighters in place, how else were they attempting to contain the fire? Firefighters don't have to be inside a building to fight a fire in a building.

Fire alone didn't bring down the towers, either. When each plane hit, there was a fairly significant explosion. Just watch the videos of the second impact and look at the side of the fireball. An explosion creates a compression wave that weakens solid objects, even structural steel. Combined with the impact itself, the fire was simply the straw that broke the building's back. People who focus on the fire are ignoring those other factors.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home