Thursday, November 16, 2006

How Retarded Are These People?

Politically, apparently profoundly retarded. Check out this absurd post over at 9-11 Blogger:

Who do 9/11 truthers want to be President in 08

My nomination is Ray McGovern and Paul Craig Roberts VP. It appears that our votes will decide the next president since there are more 9/11 truthers than those that chose the last two presidents combined. Whomever we nominate will win. Isn't that exciting?


Of course, somehow despite all that popularity, not one 9-11 Denier managed to get elected last Tuesday. If anything the comments are even more loopy, with somebody suggesting a Cynthia McKinney/Ron Paul ticket.

17 Comments:

At 16 November, 2006 22:10, Blogger Nyke said...

Seriously, were they even in the country on election day? Didn't they see all the revisionists didn't get elected?

Guys, stop drinking the Thermaid.

 
At 17 November, 2006 02:38, Blogger JPSlovjanski said...

How retarded? Are there enough words in the English language to describe the extent to which they are retarded?

 
At 17 November, 2006 07:29, Blogger 911coverup said...

ASBESTOS & 9/11 The WTC was a $15 billion HALLIBURTON liability. There's more. You see, the World Trade Towers were not the real estate plum we are led to believe. From an economic standpoint, the trade center -- subsidized since its inception by the NY Port Authority -- has never functioned, nor was it intended to function, unprotected in the rough-and-tumble real estate marketplace. How could Silverstein Group have been ignorant of this? The towers required some $200 million in renovations and improvements, most of which related to removal and replacement of building materials declared to be health hazards in the years since the towers were built. It was well-known by the city of New York that the WTC was an asbestos bombshell. For years, the Port Authority treated the building like an aging dinosaur, attempting on several occasions to get permits to demolish the building for liability reasons, but being turned down due the known asbestos problem. Further, it was well-known the only reason the building was still standing until 9/11 was because it was too costly to disassemble the twin towers floor by floor since the Port Authority was prohibited legally from demolishing the buildings. The projected cost to disassemble the towers: $15 Billion. Just the scaffolding for the operation was estimated at $2.4 Billion! In other words, the Twin Towers were condemned structures. How convenient that an unexpected "terrorist" attack demolished the buildings completely. WTC Building 7 was a part of the WTC complex, and covered under the same insurance policy. This 47-story steel-framed structure, which was NOT struck by an aircraft, mysteriously collapsed 8 hours later that same day into its own footprint at near freefall speed - exactly in the manner of the Twin Towers.

 
At 17 November, 2006 07:49, Blogger PhilBiker said...

There's your answer to the original question.

 
At 17 November, 2006 07:59, Blogger 911coverup said...

It's true you know. The south tower was insulated from bottom to top with asbestos and the north towere was insulated from 1st floor to 64th floor.

 
At 17 November, 2006 08:17, Blogger James B. said...

What the hell does Halliburton have to do with anything? I guess that is the stock CT answer to everything. Halliburton was also behind the Spanish inquisition and the Norman Conquest.

 
At 17 November, 2006 08:46, Blogger Dog Town said...

Just the scaffolding for the operation was estimated at $2.4 Billion!

The asbestos was on the inside of the towers. WTF is the scaffolding for? Lay off, the CTnutter sites!
You fucking RETARD!

 
At 17 November, 2006 08:59, Blogger ScottSl said...

911coverup, could I see some links on the asbestos?

 
At 17 November, 2006 09:56, Blogger Jujigatami said...

What's really sad is that even if by some miracle they were able to garner enough signatures to get on to a ballot somewhere, when they were totally oblterated by a margin of a million to one, all they'd do is scream "DIEBOLD DIEBOLD"!!!!

Retards.

 
At 17 November, 2006 10:54, Blogger pomeroo said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 17 November, 2006 10:55, Blogger pomeroo said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 17 November, 2006 10:56, Blogger pomeroo said...

I'm one of the people who started asking, several months ago, just what the hell was the point of knocking down the buildings. Obviously, the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy started its war (you remember--the invasion of Afghanistan that the Taliban could have PREVENTED by simply handing over Osama) when planes flew into buildings. The collapse of the Twin Towers, as far as anybody can tell, merely midwifed a recession that Bush, predictably, got blamed for.
Some lunatic is trying to make the inevitable connection to Halliburton. It's amazing how these lying morons think that by invoking their demon figures they can end all debate. Halliburton doesn't have a role in the 9/11 narrative, but, hey, what's the difference? Now, they have decided that the WTC had to be knocked down because of asbestos problems. Yeah, we'll buy that. Wasn't it yesterday that "they" knocked down the Empire State Building and the Chrysler Building?

 
At 17 November, 2006 11:27, Blogger The Artistic Macrophage said...

If they had to knock down every building in the USA with asbestos in it, the word "skyscraper" would represent a mythological structure.

9/11, faced with 95% of the "truth" theories rendered debunked and silly, now digs deeper, bringing up things like "asbestos removal" plots and "Pakistani Connection" Shaite.

Notice how rearely we hear "No Plane hit the Pentagon" anymore....lol

Keep trying

TAM

 
At 17 November, 2006 11:48, Blogger Manny said...

911coverup, could I see some links on the asbestos?

You won't be surprised to learn that he cut and pasted that whole thing from other sources. here's some of it in a google cache (I've decided that these retards aren't going to get more direct hits from me than absolutely necessary).

There was asbestos in the towers. No one seems exactly sure how much, but the most common figures are 40ish floors in tower two and up to 60 floors in tower one. Basically, they were designed with asbestos insulation in mind and the Port Authority changed materials when it became clear an asbestos ban was in the cards (we'll leave aside for now the question of whether the buildings would have collapsed had the PA been able to use asbestos on the higher floors).

Asbestos removal from skyscrapers is, as one might expect, a well-developed and managable task in cities with lots of high rises. Basically, one encapsulates it (covers it up) when one can and hires contractors to remove it when it can't be encapsulated. No, it was never contemplated to dismantle the buildings. Asbestos was removed from each floor as tenants moved out and new tenants rebuilt the interiors to their specifications. It's expensive and kind of a pain in the ass, but it gets built into rents. And, of course, it was built into the price Silverstein and the other bidders submitted when they were trying to win control of the buildings. Asbestos is seen as a huge economic issue because of the companies bankrupted by legal exposure, but the liability of end-users (in particular, buildings and landlords) is minimal, unlike with producers and intermediate users of the stuff. It's asbestos, not plutonium.

The answer to the question "How could Silverstein Group have been ignorant of this?" about asbestos and the other things which allegedly made the World Trade Center economically uncompetitive is "They were, and it was built into the bid."

 
At 17 November, 2006 12:27, Blogger ScottSl said...

Honestly I think I have a decent idea, its in the NIST report. NIST NCSTAR 1-6A

http://www.debunking911.com/fires.htm

Asbestos in the towers was limited to floors only up to the 38th floor of WTC 1 and it was encapsulated. There was no asbestos in WTC2 .

 
At 17 November, 2006 14:41, Blogger default.xbe said...

what ive always wondered is why did silverstein even buy the lease on the towers if they were goignt o blow them up? why not blow them up first, then buy the land dirt cheap

 
At 17 November, 2006 18:29, Blogger Alex said...

Because Bush didn't tell him until after he already bought them. You know how dumb that guy is, right?

One day Silverstein went for his usual round of drinks in the oval office, and right around beer #12, he said "so, how do you like that WTC complex I just bought....".

Long story short, he ended up having to go get a bunch of insurance for it. Don't you hate it when that happens? You buy yourself a nice multi-billion dollar property, and then the very next day you find out that your buddy is planning to blow it up. It really ruins your day.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home