→ Obama
The Crazies
| Wed Aug. 5, 2009 8:01 AM PDT
James Joyner admits that there are lots of conservative lunatics running around these days:
But here’s the thing: There’s plenty of crazy to go around. Remember Bush Derangement Syndrome? The 9/11 conspiracy theorists who thought Bush and Cheney were in on the whole thing? The Diebold plot to steal the 2004 election? Should we judge the Left by the whackos that show up at the anti-trade rallies? PETA? Greenpeace? Of course not. Almost by definition, the people motivated and available enough
to show up in the middle of the day to express their outrage about something are not like you and me.
Professional intellectuals surround themselves with likeminded folks and get the idea that they and their cohorts are the norm for their group whereas the crazies on TV are the norm for the opposition. It just ain’t so.
Now, obviously there's some truth to this, but there are a couple of things that have struck me about the recent surge in conservative nutballs. First: there's just a whole lot of them. The Diebold folks couldn't even get a hearing at Daily Kos, let alone anywhere more mainstream. The 9/11 truthers have always been a tiny band. And most of the people who believed Bush "knew about 9/11" just thought he had been warned something was coming down the pike. There was never more than a trivial handful who thought he literally knew the details and deliberately let the plot go forward.
Second: the conservative lunatic brigade appeared so goddamn fast. It's true that some precincts on the left went nuts over Bush, but anti-Bush venom didn't really start to steamroll until late 2002 when he was making the case for war against Iraq. Nobody drew BusHitler signs after he signed NCLB or called him a war criminal for signing a tax cut. It took something really big to create a substantial cadre of big league Bush haters.
Conversely, the conservatives who think Obama is a socialist, or think Obama was born in Kenya, or think healthcare reform is going to kill your grandma, or think Obama is going to take all your guns away — well, that stuff started up approximately on January 21st, if not before. And it's not just a weird 1% fringe. There's a lot of conservatives who believe this stuff. And there wasn't any precipitating cause other than the fact of Obama's election in the first place.
Every movement has its loons, but the current crop of conservative loons really isn't the same as the lefties who grew to loathe Bush over the years. These folks were crazy from day one, they've become crazy in scarily large numbers, and their conspiracy theories are entirely untethered from actual events on the ground. ODS is a whole different beast than BDS.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Comments
The MSM has always been
Submitted by g. powell on Wed Aug. 5, 2009 8:17 AM PDT.
The MSM has always been guilty of false equivalency. It's the lazy or timid man's way of appearing to be balanced or objective. But by doing this they fail to pick up the real story: the GOP is now almost completely whacko.
You left off something
Submitted by Thumb on Wed Aug. 5, 2009 8:19 AM PDT.
You forgot to mention that the right's crazies get a full and continuous airing throughout the "liberal" news media, whereas, as you did point out, those who thought it unwise to allow partisan activists to control our electronic vote tallying through proprietary code couldn't even get a hearing at DailyKos.
nutball funnies
Submitted by cld (not verified) on Wed Aug. 5, 2009 8:24 AM PDT.
They appeared fast because they were already there.
Social conservative psychosis has been well organized for decades, Obama just like a new issue of Nutball Funnies in their mailbox, so they are newly enthusiastic.
"Second: the conservative
Submitted by WSP (not verified) on Wed Aug. 5, 2009 8:26 AM PDT.
"Second: the conservative lunatic brigade appeared so goddamn fast. "
Liberals waited to see whether Bush would really be a "compassionate conservative." The fringe on the right knew Obama was Black from the git-go.
It is always relevant when
Submitted by kitsune (not verified) on Wed Aug. 5, 2009 8:29 AM PDT.
It is always relevant when discussing the disaster and disgust that was the Bush administration to note that he lost the 2000 election. He received fewer votes than Gore, and was installed through the subterfuge of the recount process in a state governed by his brother, with the help of manufactured riots, a woeful mainstream media, and a never-to-be-cited-again ruling by the Supreme Court.
All who supported Gore were told to shut up and get behind the new president, and yet Bush made no effort whatsoever to govern from the center or even acknowledge that a clear majority of voters preferred his opponent.
Given every opportunity to succeed, he only failed miserably and in his wake left thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis dead, the Constitution shredded, the American economy in shambles, and all of us worse off than before.
BDS, truthers, and birthers
Submitted by CA Pol Junkie (not verified) on Wed Aug. 5, 2009 8:30 AM PDT.
Actually, I think alot of people hated Bush from day 1 because of the conduct of the Florida election. Unlike with the birthers, there was a legitimate grievance there.
There is a false equivalency between the 9/11 truthers and the birthers. In the latter case, there is no gray area: multiple documentation proves Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. With 9/11, however, there were multiple possibilities with respect to the Bush administration: incompetence (their defense, really), negligence, or the more conspiratorial "let it happen on purpose" or "make it happen on purpose". The administration's initial protestations that they were caught by surprise proved false. Although there is no evidence that the administration knew the details of what was to happen, there is abundant evidence that there was a very high expectation of impending terrorist attack in summer 2001. You don't need to be a conspiracy theorist to think the Bush administration didn't tell the truth about 9/11.
When the choice is between
Submitted by g. powell on Wed Aug. 5, 2009 8:43 AM PDT.
When the choice is between incompetence or conspiracy for the cause of a problem, I usually choose incompetence since most people are idiots. In the case of the Bush Administration, this would be doubly true.
one more important point:
Submitted by apistat (not verified) on Wed Aug. 5, 2009 8:31 AM PDT.
Few, if any, Democrats at the national level ever really believed any of these things, and the party as a whole had absolutely no problem denouncing them. Republicans, on the other hand, are entirely beholden to the crazy fringe of their party.
Don't forget also that some
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed Aug. 5, 2009 8:31 AM PDT.
Don't forget also that some congressional Republicans have also been inflaming the issue instead of putting it to sleep. Even if that's just playing politics, it's not very congresspersonlike, and in any event I don't recall any Democratic congressperson flaring rumors that Bush intentionally caused 9/11, with the possible exception of Dennis Kucinich. And the birthers also have both major and minor conservative media outlets on their side, from Beck and Dobbs to the "legitimate" conservative blogosphere. As you've said, it's widespread in the Republican party and reinforced by both officials and conservative media. In contrast, 9/11 conspiracy theories were immediately shot down by Democratic officials and major liberal media (e.g. Bill Maher).
They simply want to hurt and injure you
Submitted by cld (not verified) on Wed Aug. 5, 2009 8:32 AM PDT.
And the crazier it is the more enthusiastic they are because it denies the obvious and leaves others speechless, so they think it's wit.
Someone should poll the Birthers, and other teabaggers, and ask them if they think torture works.
I think it comes back to that. They simply want to hurt and injure you.
Just a aother issue
Submitted by Big Red (not verified) on Wed Aug. 5, 2009 8:38 AM PDT.
"the conservative lunatic brigade appeared so goddamn fast."
I don't agree. This is the anti-immigration crowd on a new crusade. I remember reading during the anti-immigration frenzy a couple of years ago, that it came to the Right’s forefront after the Iraq War went south. That is, they needed an outlet for their frustrations and the talk radio provided the issue.
After the Birther issue runs its course, they will be on to something else so long as the Democrats stay in power.
Yes, remember Bush's
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed Aug. 5, 2009 8:46 AM PDT.
Yes, remember Bush's approval numbers were in the high 80s right after 9/11. There weren't too many unhinged Bush-loathers at that point.
Crazy
Submitted by PaulP (not verified) on Wed Aug. 5, 2009 8:48 AM PDT.
Read Krugman's take on this same subject:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/23/deminted-republicans/
Conor over at the american
Submitted by Nutty J. Moonbat (not verified) on Wed Aug. 5, 2009 8:50 AM PDT.
Conor over at the american scene seems to be concerned about this too - must be some of this going around among the "serious" conservatives. They're starting to resent being associated with the base. Maybe they should take it up with Karl Rove. I'm deeply concerned myself, especially after eight years of hearing how I, as a liberal, was a america hating deraged triator who wanted to kill the baby jesus. My heart goes out to you, James and Conor.
And there wasn't any
Submitted by firefall on Wed Aug. 5, 2009 9:03 AM PDT.
And there wasn't any precipitating cause other than the fact of Obama's election in the first place.
But there was - a black man dared to STEAL OUR COUNTRY!! Away from US!!! and not only that, he dared to make us look stupid, sullen racist shitbags while doing it.
pitiful attempt at false equivalence
Submitted by junebug on Wed Aug. 5, 2009 9:32 AM PDT.
Show me the liberal equivalent of Lou Dobbs -- someone who got away with that kind of craziness during the Bush administration. Show me the liberal commentator on a decidedly mainstream network or cable news outlet who consistently gave airtime to theories about the Bush administration's role in 9/11, election rigging, or any other conspiracies you can think of, for that matter.
And show me the establishment figures in the Democratic Party who used the words fascism & fascist in order to describe Bush policies. I can't think of a single one, yet mainstream Republican figures -- from Gingrich, to Steele, to Boehner, and on down the line -- are fundamentally incapable of discussing the President & his policies without shrieking about socialism.
But as to your claim that "the conservative lunatic brigade appeared so god damn fast," um, did you sleep through the Clinton administration? Seriously, what's your excuse for such a lazy comment? This has been going on for decades. It didn't all of a sudden come to life when Obama decided to run. Batshit craziness among conservatives has been alive & well for decades, and it isn't limited to fringe groups, like Birchers or LaRouchies. It's hardwired into the DNA of virtually the entire Republican Party, and it's been there since at least McCarthy.
Laziness
Submitted by SecularAnimist (not verified) on Wed Aug. 5, 2009 9:35 AM PDT.
The theft of the 2000 election in Florida and the 2004 election in Ohio through voter intimidation, disenfranchisement and fraud is well-documented fact. It's not a "whacko" conspiracy theory as Joyner suggests.
Similarly, the Bush administration's grotesque negligence towards the terrorist threat from Al Qaeda during throughout 2001 was very clearly instrumental to the success of the 9/11 attack. This is also well-documented fact. Whether that negligence was deliberate or not is another story. To the best of my knowledge, there is evidence that is suggestive of deliberate negligence but none that is conclusive. But it is by no means a "whacko" notion to suspect that principals of the Bush administration acted with intent to allow a major terrorist attack to occur with the expectation that it would generate public support for their foreign policy agenda.
As for PETA and Greenpeace, I don't know what Joyner thinks is particularly "whacko" about animal welfare and environmental protection or about the publicity stunts -- e.g. banner hangings, demonstrations, pie-throwings -- that those organizations and their supporters sometimes use to get media attention.
Joyner strikes me as a rather lazy writer filling up space with lazy, shallow and ill-informed regurgitation of conventional corporate-media "wisdom". There are extremists on both sides blah blah blah ...
Secularanimist, I tend to
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed Aug. 5, 2009 3:05 PM PDT.
Secularanimist,
I tend to agree with you on all points. Joyner is a poor excuse for an incisive lefty writer.
what was the real purpose of invading and occupying Iraq
Submitted by tpx on Wed Aug. 5, 2009 9:40 AM PDT.
Two items highlight the differences between those who accuse W. Bush and B. Obama of conspiracies: corporate backing and unimaginable malfeasance of power.
Conservative conspiracy theorists who accuse Obama have the corporate media repeating their claims, not to mention financing from wealthy backers. Their financial backing is where some of the oil and defense industry profits 'earned' during the W. Bush years is being spent. Those who accused W. Bush of conspiracies received no media or establishment financial backing.
The W. Bush administration's stated intention to invade Iraq immediately after 9/11, the invasion and the lack of WMD, or any other strategic reason for doing so, at the cost of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of lives were concrete acts of excessive use of force, which some people consider criminal acts worthy of the most heinous crimes of the Twentieth Century. The numbers of dead and displaced civilians is their proof. Although Obama has committed crimes against humanity in Afghanistan and Pakistan, he did not start those conflicts under a pretense of an existential threat to the US, nor are Obama's crimes so far equal to the massive loss of life W. Bush is responsible for.
After six years, most Americans still do not know the real purpose of invading and occupying Iraq, except some believe there was a connection between Saddam and al Qeada. Most Americans understand Obama is trying to provide health care to all Americans, even if they disagree with how the plan is to be publicly financed or with the reorganization of health care delivery.
Any journalist or pundit who compares those who opposed W. Bush with those who oppose B. Obama as similar are making a false equivalency. It is another example of how wealth and the media are used to distort political issues in the US.
As is often the case, Kevin
Submitted by Art Shulman (not verified) on Wed Aug. 5, 2009 9:56 AM PDT.
As is often the case, Kevin is right on the money on this one.
As is often the case, Kevin
Submitted by Art Shulman (not verified) on Wed Aug. 5, 2009 9:57 AM PDT.
As is often the case, Kevin is right on the money on this one.
But liberals are judged that way
Submitted by txbubba (not verified) on Wed Aug. 5, 2009 10:02 AM PDT.
Kevin, you missed a key problem in that quote:
"Should we judge the Left by the whackos that show up at the anti-trade rallies? PETA? Greenpeace? Of course not. "
Yet, the left is, in fact, judged based on these and other groups because that is the message that Rush, Drudge, and the rest of the conservative media repeat. "Left" and "far left" are far more interchangeable in the media than the "right" and "far right."
Good point. The only time I
Submitted by g. powell on Wed Aug. 5, 2009 10:15 AM PDT.
Good point. The only time I saw Ward Churchill of blame-America-for-9/11 fame on TV was on the Sean Hannity show where he represented the left point of view.
I asked my conservative "friends" why Fox was providing a soapbox for this guy. They had no answer, but we all knew the reason.
Still, seems to me that the very idea of trusting the tally of our votes to an electronic, hackable system with no paper trail is just plain nuts, whether it actually happened or not. Stupid is as stupid does.
"You signed the papers. You wanted to be here!" -Drill Sgt. Leach, 1971
Diebold Was At Least Based on *Some* Evidence
Submitted by Steve H (not verified) on Wed Aug. 5, 2009 10:51 AM PDT.
I never put much stock in the argument that Diebold threw any elections. But even that theory was based on actual facts: (i) a lot of voting was done on electronic machines with no paper trails, (ii) a lot of these machines were made by Diebold, (iii) Diebold did support the Republicans (I think), and (iv) Diebold (like most big corporations) had a big stake in having Republicans control government.
As far as I know, all four of these points are documented.
To the contrary, there is no evidence that Obama was born anywhere but Hawaii.
Lefties' conspiracies are fact-based (usually)
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed Aug. 5, 2009 11:56 AM PDT.
Add to that list the larger pattern of various barriers to voting in heavily Dem princincts--fewer machines, pruged voting lists, AND statements made by Diebold execs re doing whatever it takes to get GOPers elected, AND the criminal record for a related crime (electronic/credit card fraud) by the head of Diebold, and the lack of transparency by Diebold re how their machines operate, and the connections between GOP and tech folks overseeing the compiling of results, and and and--
--and there are similar multiple points (admittedly, some stronger than others, but NONE seem to get a fair 'hearing' in the MSM) for other 'conspiracy theories' re 9-11, etc.
If someone in the 1970 had said a president would wiretap the opposing political party's HQ and so on, would they have been dismissed as fringe lunatics?
If someone in 1980 said a president would set up a loop of arms deals and the funds from such, that violated a Congressional ban on funding the Contras in Nicaragua, etc. would they have been dismissed as lunies?
Why the more recent theories of plots dismissed?
Birthers fly in the face of evidence. Diebold conspiracy and such call from on top of a body of evidence.
They've been there at least since the early 90s
Submitted by Rick Herrick (not verified) on Wed Aug. 5, 2009 11:44 AM PDT.
I think you can draw a line straight from the early 90s militia movement and the Whitewater/Mena/Vince Foster "murder"/NWO conspiracy theorists to today's Tea Party and Birther nuts. The same motivating infrastructure of talk radio, right-wing fundamentalist organizations, and deep-pocket financiers supports and nourishes them. The interwebz now makes it easier for them to rally and coordinate, so they're even more visible than they were back in the 90s.
That false equivalence you're talking about, you're doing it rig
Submitted by Jane G. (not verified) on Wed Aug. 5, 2009 12:06 PM PDT.
You imply that the correct response to Bush, the sane response, was to gradually grow to loathe him over the years - perhaps only after he'd killed 10s of 1000s of people in Iraq? or just when he announced that he planned to?
Er, why?
People didn't just loathe Bush. They believed, literally, genuinely, and for very good reasons, that he was a borderline sociopath and possibly the worst president in US history - certainly since the 1920s. Yes, in addition to having these perfectly rational opinions, we felt an emotion - we hated him. Neither of these is a *factual error.* They're not equivalent to asserting that Obama was born in Kenya, no matter when we thought/felt them.
I developed an intense hatred for W in the winter of 2000, when he was a candidate. For the first and probably only time in my life (which is probably a little more than half over), I went and voted in the Republican primary (I was living in California at the time) in order to vote against him as early and often as possible. This leaves me in the unfortunate position of having to say that I once voted for McCain. But the point is, I wasn't crazy. I was perceptive. I was right. I got it. It's tragic, not admirable, that so many other liberals didn't see how horrible Bush was until it was too late. When I think about it that way, in terms of the Naderites and "appeasement," I can almost see the otherwise meaningless Bush = Hitler analogy. Anyone who didn't hate Bush enough to try to stop him while there was still time wasn't so much "sane" and "reasonable" as "not paying attention."
What about Murdoch and the moonies?
Submitted by Trippp on Wed Aug. 5, 2009 12:33 PM PDT.
The subject is complicated and no one factor explains everything, but I think Rupert Murdoch and Sun Yung Moon have had a pretty big affect on things.
They both have immense wealth and they both are, to put it diplomatically, out of the mainstream as far as character goes.
Their wealth gives voice to many on the crazies, and unlike a regular corporation they have no interest at all in presenting a good public image. They just don't care. I think that history will show both of these men have had a lot to do with shaping our current society, and not in a good way.
Tripp
41 U.S. Intelligence Agency Veterans Challange 9/11
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed Aug. 5, 2009 2:22 PM PDT.
Official Account of 9/11: "Terribly Flawed," "Laced with Contradictions," "a Joke," "a Cover-up"
http://patriotsquestion911.com/#Articles
Derangement
Submitted by E L (not verified) on Wed Aug. 5, 2009 2:52 PM PDT.
"And there wasn't any precipitating cause other than the fact of Obama's election in the first place." Yes, there is: Race. Palin's "Real America" is white. Period.
You're right,
Submitted by SqueakyRat (not verified) on Sun Aug. 9, 2009 5:38 PM PDT.
except that racism, as a standing condition, can't be what's meant by a "precipitating" cause.
BO looks down his nose at every one of you
Submitted by Baraq U Baw-Maw (not verified) on Wed Aug. 5, 2009 3:42 PM PDT.
As a birther, I do not believe BO's birthplace is inconsequential. In fact it could be the reason for impeachment if the U.S. Constitution or oathes mean anything anymore. But before we move into that more serious discussion, let us consider the human issues. The POTUS works for us, not vice versa. He is not our king nor resembles royalty at all. He should not only be subject to the laws of the land but should resemble us in all of our own obligations. Refusing to release his official records (long birth certificate, not short form and many other school and qualification records) and paying lawyers huge amounts of money to keep those records secret is just not being transparent and suggests that he is positively hiding something. While we underlings have to produce our own records for multiple reasons he can continue evading the masses and maybe even some crazy right wingers who merely want to know the truth, since so many of his book recollections have been in error. If he truly wants to be transparent and be an honest Abe, then answer the billboard or put up with it until he faces the questions fairly and squarely.
I also do not believe Pres.
Submitted by thersites on Wed Aug. 5, 2009 5:03 PM PDT.
I also do not believe Pres. Obama's birthplace is inconsequential.
Since I believe that he's eminently qualified for the job -- even as I disagree with some policy decisions that have been made -- I am quite pleased that he was born in the United States and thus eligible for the office he holds
Racism drives right wingers
Submitted by tpx on Thu Aug. 6, 2009 8:09 AM PDT.
Racism drives right wingers crazy.
Birther, "He should not only
Submitted by Trippp on Wed Aug. 5, 2009 4:16 PM PDT.
Birther,
"He should not only be subject to the laws of the land but should resemble us in all of our own obligations."
I personally have a piece of paper that my mother saved which has a gold seal on it and my foot prints in ink. The paper proclaims my live birth. When I applied for my passport guess what? They didn't want to see that piece of paper. Instead they wanted a notarized copy of my birth certificate from the county of my birth.
Obama has met the same standard that all of us must meet. The laws have been applied equally to Obama the same as to everyone else. The matter is settled. Get over it. You are confused and you are embarrassing yourself by showing your inability to think and reason.
Tripp
Getting closer
Submitted by daCascadian (not verified) on Wed Aug. 5, 2009 4:39 PM PDT.
Trippp >"...Rupert Murdoch and Sun Yung Moon have had a pretty big affect on things...."
Far more than you or almost all others are willing to consider. Someday the details will be public but probably not within my lifetime. On the other hand I could be surprised about how soon the truth would make us free.
We shall see.
(and a friendly wave to the NSA monitors)
"...For the love of money is the root of all evil..." - 1st Timothy 6:10
Obama Derangement Syndrome
Submitted by PaulG on Wed Aug. 5, 2009 6:28 PM PDT.
It looks to me as if the right-wing crazies began coming out of the woodwork long before the election, not just before Obama was sworn in. Likewise, I think progressives and moderates have put too much emphasis on the astro-turf aspect of these groups (which is certainly important, I’ll admit) and not enough effort into understanding the self-organizing nature of these groups and the substantial overlap between them and the older, more organized, right-wing groups. Finally, perhaps the largest single difference between left-wing crazies and right-wing crazies is the existence of conservative talk radio and Fox News.
Still waiting
Submitted by Raul (not verified) on Thu Aug. 6, 2009 7:11 AM PDT.
I still haven't seen George Washington's birth certificate.
Still it wouldn't matter because he was born in British America. NOT the United States of America. Damn Limey!
lol
I hate when people claim
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu Aug. 6, 2009 7:33 PM PDT.
I hate when people claim that PETA and Greenpeace are equal in terms of nuttiness. There's the ELF and the Sea Shepherds... Greenpeace was once called "The Avon Ladies of the environmental movement" by an original founder.
Their is nothing crazy about
Submitted by Sean Mulligan (not verified) on Thu Aug. 6, 2009 9:01 PM PDT.
Their is nothing crazy about the Diebold people, Greenpeace or the people at anti-trade agreement not anti-trade rallies.
2+2=4 Buildings do not
Submitted by fredfarkle (not verified) on Fri Aug. 7, 2009 4:45 PM PDT.
2+2=4
Buildings do not collapse at near free fall speed, into their own footprint, without controlled demolition. There are many conservative people who recognize 9/11 as a false flag operation. "Remember the Maine" and the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, etc.
Knee jerk politics don't stand up to physics. The Pentagon attack required precision maneuvers of a jumbo jet by an amateur pilot. The Pentagon was attacked 34 minutes after the second World Trade Center Tower. The US was in a state of war for 34 minutes, yet the Pentagon could not be defended!
Look at the evidence. Think for yourself.
"There are none so blind as
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun Aug. 9, 2009 7:52 PM PDT.
"There are none so blind as those that will not see"
It's all there. All of the evidence to convict the criminals responsible is in plain sight. And, yes, it is disturbing when you come to the realization that these bastards did 9/11 for their own gain.
How do you explain lower Manhattan blanketed with nanothermite and thermate
(http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/04/14-structural-engineers-hav...)? How do you explain 5000 degree temperatures and molten steel at the bottom of the rubble piles for weeks after the collapses? Under ideal conditions (in a combustion chamber) jet fuel burns at 1800 degrees F. Steel gets soft at 2300 degrees and melts at 2700 degrees. You can't explain the energy deficit without including an additional energy source. And the only logical explaination for these considerable energy deficits is tons of thermite and thermate.
(http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/04/molten-steel-flowed-under-...)
Explain the oral testimony of nearly every firefighter present who said there were numerous explosions heard before the collapses
(http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2007/280907_new_revelation...).
Explain why never before in history has any structural steel building collapsed due to fire and then in one day 3 do precisely that ... and into their own footprint ... exactly like a controlled demolition. Incidentally, building 5 at the WTC burned uncontollably until it was nothing but a frame ... and never collapsed.
Look at the videos of the buildings as they're coming down (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OQWz7xlINA). Explain the fountains of molten
metal spewing out of the building ahead of the collapse. It's prima facie evidence of thermite cutter charges.
Explain how muti-ton structural members were blown horizontally out of the buildings with such force that they became embedded in adjacent buildings? (http://newhampshirefreepress.com/node/5 scroll to "Were there sights and sounds of explosions prior to/during the collapse of the twin towers") Where does all of this energy come from except from high-energy explosives.
Look at the pictures of ground zero several days after 9/11 and explain the 45 degree angle cuts on the exceptionally robust core vertical structural members of the WTC (http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/thermite.htm?q=thermite.htm). This is exactly what you'd expect to see in a controlled demolition.
And, on an a side note, do I need to remind everyone of the anthrax attacks a week later. It's odd how they were only targeted at the Dems who were resisiting the Patriot Act passage. Are you aware that Bush and others, notably columnist Richard Cohen (http://www.slate.com/id/2186766/) were advised before the attacks to take Cipro, the antibiotic of choice for anthrax infections? Why weren't Daschle and Leahy similarly advised?
And, of course, the FBI's disgraceful conduct (complicity?) concerning Hatfill and Ivins and their overwhelming desire to put this all to rest so people would stop asking questions (God bless Glen Greenwald). And let us not forget Brian Ross of ABC News who had 4 inside sources telling him the anthrax was unquestionably from Saddam Hussein's labs in Iraq. What did they know? I think these sources should be questioned and investigated as Hatfill/Ivins were because obviously they knew far more about its origins than they're letting on. Alas, ABC won't give up their prevaricating sources (http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/08/01/anthrax/index.html). I wonder why?
No, I'm sorry, there's nothing 'fringe' or 'nutty' or 'lunatic' about people questioning 9/11. The evidence is all there. The people who have something to hide are the ones who don't want any further investigations.
Rolex Milgauss watches
Submitted by Rolex Milgauss watches (not verified) on Sun Nov. 8, 2009 9:24 AM PST.
Rado watches
Tag Heuer watches
Tudor watches
U-boat watches
Vacheron Constantin watches
Rolex watches
Rolex Air-King watches
Rolex Datejust II watches
Rolex Datejust watches
Rolex Submariner watches
Yachtmaster watches
Rolex Day-Date II watches
Rolex Daytona watches
Rolex Explorer watches
Rolex GMT watches
Rolex Sea-Dweller watches
Rolex Day Date watches
Rolex Masterpiece watches
Rolex Milgauss watches
A.Lange & Sohne watch for
Submitted by Rolex Daytona (watches) replica (not verified) on Sun Nov. 8, 2009 11:14 AM PST.
A.Lange & Sohne watch for sale
Audemars Piguet watch for sale
Bell & Ross watch for sale
a href="http://www.cartierwatches.us/Hermes/">Hermes watch for sale
Hublot watch for sale
IWC watch for sale
Louis Vuitton watch for sale
Omega watch for sale
Panerai watch for sale
Panerai replica Patek
Submitted by Yachtmaster (not verified) on Fri Nov. 13, 2009 7:56 AM PST.
Panerai replica
Patek Philippe replica
Piaget replica
Rado replica
Tag Heuer replica
Tudor replica
U-boat replica
Vacheron Constantin replica
Rolex replica
Rolex Air-King replica
Rolex Datejust II replica
xxx replica
Rolex Submariner replica
Yachtmaster replica
Rolex Day-Date II replica
Rolex Daytona replica
Rolex Explorer replica
replica Rolex
Submitted by DeWitt (not verified) on Fri Nov. 13, 2009 7:57 AM PST.
replica Rolex Daytona
replica Rolex Explorer
replica Rolex GMT
replica Rolex Sea-Dweller
replica Rolex Day Date
replica Rolex Masterpiece
replica Rolex Milgauss
rolex replica
A.Lange & Sohne replica
Audemars Piguet replica
Bell & Ross replica
Breguet replica
Breitling replica
Burberry replica
Concord replica
croum replica
DeWitt replica
ebel replicaFerrari replica
Franck Muller replica
Glashutte replica
Graham replica
replica Louis Vuitton
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Nov. 13, 2009 7:22 PM PST.
replica Louis Vuitton
replica Omega
replica Panerai
replica Patek Philippe
replica Rado
replica Tag Heuer
replica Tudor
replica U-Boat
replica Vacheron Constantin
replica Watch Accessories
replica Rolex Air King
replica Rolex DateJust
replica Rolex Day Date
replica Rolex Daytona
replica Rolex Explorer
replica Rolex GMT
replica Rolex Masterpiece
What this means is if a mac
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri Nov. 13, 2009 10:26 PM PST.
What this means is if a mac g4 power supply Discount Onsale was rated at 500W maximum sustained output at 20C, then it's maximum sustained wattage capability is reduced by 2W for every 2°C it's temperature is increased. So at 50C, the maximum sustained output of this power supply may only be 470W. Another thing to remember is this derating curve only applies to a unit operating within it's recommended operating temperature. Once you go beyond the maximum operating temperature, say 70°C, then the derating curve starts to increase exponentially.
replica Tiffany Rings
replica Tiffany Pendants
replica Tiffany Earrings
replica Tiffany Necklaces
replica Tiffany Heart
replica Tiffany 1837
Rado watches
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon Nov. 16, 2009 11:31 AM PST.
I know that many people had a special liking for Tiffany necklaces. However, when you buy, be sure to keep a clear head, you can buy the best necklace.Now I will introduce five steps following for you to refer.
croum watches
DeWitt watches
ebel watches
Ferrari watches
Franck Muller watches
Glashutte watches
Graham watches
Hermes watches
Hublot watches
Tiffany & Co. jewelry is known for its upscale, high quality jewelry and its designs have long been favorites of the well-to-do. If you love yourself, you will like Tiffany jewelry.
Post new comment
MoJo Comments: Send Us Your Feedback
We changed our spam software to better filter comments. Should you encounter any issues, please let us know.
