The Official Goatse Thread

Bush's response to 9/11 actually gave him the highest presidential rating ever in American history (~90%) until the Iraq War.

That's exactly right.  We supported him while he was trying to do something and turned on him when he practically abandoned that effort in favor of a meaningless war in a part of the world we'd be wiser to just stay out of over imaginary weapons of mass destruction.  And that's on top of all the other awful things he's done during his administration.  We hadn't gotten much of a taste of his presidency before 9/11.

Even if the U.S. government didn't orchestrate 9/11, it was definitely still Bush's negligence which let it happen.  August 11th, 2001.  Bush receives his daily briefing: "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S."  At the time, Bush was taking the entire month of August off on his ranch in Crawford, Texas.  So how does Bush leap in action?  He does nothing.

He also received warnings from the European countries that Bin Laden will strike the U.S. some time in September, based on the information gathered through their intelligence network. Again, Bush thinks, "who gives a shit, America has the most advanced communication network ever. We will know they will strike us before they even start planning it!"

On Sept 11, 2001, something went wrong. Communications between NORAD and the military were lagging. The plane crews, notably Betty Ong, reported to back to the controllers, which took at least ~10 minutes for NORAD to respond each of them, which then took at least ~20 minutes for the military to respond to NORAD's call. Of course, the F-16s (the best they have during that time) of the nearest air base needed to take at least ~15 minutes to reach and shoot down the hijacked planes. These precious minutes are more than enough for the terrorists to carry out most of their attacks. The four dangerous planes flew above the sky of the world's remaining superpower for almost 2 hours (8:19 am-10:03:11 a.m, all four planes crashed within that time). Nope, no military respond.

Guess what? Bush was at Florida reading the Pet Goat with little kids after the first tower was hit.

Quote from: E.Jack on September 13, 2008, 12:02:21 PM

Bush's response to 9/11 actually gave him the highest presidential rating ever in American history (~90%) until the Iraq War.

That's exactly right.  We supported him while he was trying to do something and turned on him when he practically abandoned that effort in favor of a meaningless war in a part of the world we'd be wiser to just stay out of over imaginary weapons of mass destruction.  And that's on top of all the other awful things he's done during his administration.  We hadn't gotten much of a taste of his presidency before 9/11.

Exactly, we trusted the govt to do the right thing.  We (most of us) supported Bush because we didn't know he was a self-serving asshole. Some of the most seemingly trustworthy govt officials were on TV telling us there were WMDs in Iraq.  I still remember Colin Powell holding that little vile of white powder!  Since then Bush's administration has done everything it can to take our basic freedoms away.  I hope like hell the next president, whether it's McCain or Obama, does his best to restore confidence in our govt. 

Also, this was written just months prior to the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Also, this was written just months prior to the September 11 terrorist attacks.

You made me smile, that really is the best page in the universe.

Quote from: Althalus on September 13, 2008, 10:43:57 AM

Some nations are not civilized. Like I said before, the Taliban were horrible leaders.

Then it should be up to the people of Afghanistan to revolt, and not for another country to decide what is best for them.

-You said you would fight for your own freedom.

-The Taliban suppressed the people of Afghanistan in many ways.

-Many Afghan citizens fought against the Taliban during the Afghanistan civil war.

-Most Afghans don't want foreign troops to withdraw from the country, and are glad the Taliban is no longer in power, so the majority agree with the invasion.

Quote from: sokarul on September 12, 2008, 11:44:40 PM

If you don't start anything there won't be anything. 

Can you not badly quote "Bad Boys"?

It was a saying long before Bad Boys. 

Yea, just ask Youngbloodz.

-Most Afghans don't want foreign troops to withdraw from the country, and are glad the Taliban is no longer in power, so the majority agree with the invasion.

Based on what? Afghans are notoriously resistant to foreign occupation. Spetsnaz veterans will tell you. To say that the majority of them agree with the US invasion of their land disregards their tribal heritage. They believe in blood retribution and do not take shot-up weddings and bombed villages lightly. Even though there is considerable internecine strife, when faced with a common enemy they tend to unite. And a fierce opponent he is when 70 virgins await him in heaven.

Quote from: Althalus on September 13, 2008, 07:12:07 PM

-Most Afghans don't want foreign troops to withdraw from the country, and are glad the Taliban is no longer in power, so the majority agree with the invasion.

Based on what? Afghans are notoriously resistant to foreign occupation. Spetsnaz veterans will tell you. To say that the majority of them agree with the US invasion of their land disregards their tribal heritage. They believe in blood retribution and do not take shot-up weddings and bombed villages lightly. Even though there is considerable internecine strife, when faced with a common enemy they tend to unite. And a fierce opponent he is when 70 virgins await him in heaven.

This is very wrong.

Prior to 9/11 there was an uprising in Afghanistan. When the Taliban had taken control of about 90% of the country a group led by Ahmad Massoud (The Northern Alliance) formed in opposition. Massoud, and his followers, fought against the real oppressors (Taliban) and gathered hundreds of new followers every day. Massoud was assassinated by Al-Queda on 9/9/01 and is now viewed as a national hero.

Therefore, when the American arrived to overthrow the Taliban tens of thousands of Afghans, including Massouds army, joined to fight and took to the streets in joy. The Taliban was a brutal regime and the vast Afghan population were unhappy under their control. When the Americans arrived the Afghan people finally knew that the Talibans days were numbered.

If you feel that the 9/11 attacks were wrong, then why did you do them?

Osama didn't destroy the buildings! He was employed by the CIA (for a second time) to hijack the planes! The US did the dirty work by planting demo charges!

the evidence:

-the wtc was built to withstand the impact of large passenger planes
-70 years earlier, a large military transport plane crashed into the empire state building...and nothing happened to the building
-there are secondary and tertiary explosions after the effect
-the fuel wasn't hot enough to melt the supports
-a few weeks earlier the wtc was evacuated so some "engineers" could access the building
-a few policemen were censored for inferring that there was a bomb
-the building fell exactly the same way as every professionally demolished multi-story building

someone said that they could disprove this, I invite you to please try

Quote from: Saddam Hussein on September 12, 2008, 04:57:45 PM

If you feel that the 9/11 attacks were wrong, then why did you do them?

Osama didn't destroy the buildings! He was employed by the CIA (for a second time) to hijack the planes! The US did the dirty work by planting demo charges!

the evidence:

-the wtc was built to withstand the impact of large passenger planes
-70 years earlier, a large military transport plane crashed into the empire state building...and nothing happened to the building
-there are secondary and tertiary explosions after the effect
-the fuel wasn't hot enough to melt the supports
-a few weeks earlier the wtc was evacuated so some "engineers" could access the building
-a few policemen were censored for inferring that there was a bomb
-the building fell exactly the same way as every professionally demolished multi-story building

someone said that they could disprove this, I invite you to please try

Oh goody.

1. The buildings were to withstand a 707 sized jet, low on fuel, lost in the fog, and slow, looking for a place to land.  Both aircraft were 757s with large amounts of fuel, flying at close to Vmo speeds. 

2. What does this prove?

3. After what effect?

4. No but the fire was

5. Again, this proves what?

6. Yes, to dispell rumors.

7. The building fell exactly how it should if floors were dropping straight down upon each other adding its weight to the current floor weight and so on and so on until complete collapse.


Try again.

Gullibility seems to be popular around here.

Wardogg, that's the most impressive bias I've ever seen.

-Can you redirect me to a site that lists the WTC archetectural integrity specifications?
-You would think 70 years later buildings would be stronger.
-The effect of the plane crashing?
-Well there are secondary supports.
-It only "hints"
-Ok.
-No if the plane crashed like it did on tv the building would have toppled over not have fallen vertically

thankyou all for believing the conspiracy

Quote from: Saddam Hussein on September 12, 2008, 04:57:45 PM

If you feel that the 9/11 attacks were wrong, then why did you do them?

Osama didn't destroy the buildings! He was employed by the CIA (for a second time) to hijack the planes! The US did the dirty work by planting demo charges!

the evidence:

-the wtc was built to withstand the impact of large passenger planes
-70 years earlier, a large military transport plane crashed into the empire state building...and nothing happened to the building
-there are secondary and tertiary explosions after the effect
-the fuel wasn't hot enough to melt the supports
-a few weeks earlier the wtc was evacuated so some "engineers" could access the building
-a few policemen were censored for inferring that there was a bomb
-the building fell exactly the same way as every professionally demolished multi-story buildings

someone said that they could disprove this, I invite you to please try

I am going to now quote from the best page in the universe: http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

I've been getting a lot of email lately from people sending me this stupid 9/11 conspiracy video called "Loose Change." I've tried to ignore it for months now, but you morons keep forwarding it to me, and I keep having to add more email addresses to my spam filter. The ironic part is that I'm a huge conspiracy nut, and even I can't stomach this bullshit. For example, I believe that there is a small, reptile-like creature called Chupacabra that sucks the blood of goats in Mexico. Area 51? Hell yes. Roswell? Pass me the Kool-Aid. But "Loose Change" elevates bullshit to an artform. Watching this video is like being bukakked with stupid.

Unlike others who debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories, or "cons" for short, I'm not going to bother with going through intricate point-by-point rebuttals, or pointing out the hundreds of factual inaccuracies and outright lies in this "documentary," because I don't need to. In fact, I can debunk the entire story with one simple observation:

The fact that this man is alive...

...is proof that "Loose Change" is bullshit.

Here's why:

1. The man in the picture above is Dylan Avery. To be more precise, the fact that Dylan, his friends, and family are alive, is proof that "Loose Change" is bullshit. He, along with a couple of his friends, created a 9/11 conspiracy video claiming that the US government and the military caused 9/11. Take a closer look at the last part of that last sentence: he's claiming that the US government, for whatever ends, killed nearly 3,000 innocent Americans, and tens if not hundreds of thousands of more lives in the conflicts that ensued because of it.

2. Since Dylan's arguing that the government has no problem killing 3,000 innocent people, this raises the question: if his documentary is true, and we've established that the government has no ethical qualms about killing thousands of its own people, then why wouldn't the government kill Avery and his friends as well? What's a few more lives to them to ensure the success of this conspiracy?

Whatever reason it may be that the government supposedly orchestrated this conspiracy, it must have been worth it to them to cause so much suffering and loss of life. So if there's any truth to this, then you can bet your ass that the government wouldn't let a couple of pecker-neck chumps with a couple of Macs and too much time on their hands jeopardise their entire operation by letting this stupid video float around on the Internet. I can picture you morons emailing me now: "BUT MADOX, MAYBE DYLAN POSTED IT ON THE INTERNET BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT HAD A CHANCE TO REMOVE IT LOL." Yeah, too bad this rebuttal is inconsistent with the premise of Dylan's shit-festival of a movie: that the WTC was brought down "in a carefully planned and controlled demolition ... and it was pulled off with military precision." Now we're expected to believe that the same government that was able to commit the largest terrorist operation in history--with military precision no less--is suddenly too incompetent to sniff out and shut down a little website set up by some college losers within days, if not minutes of its creation? The US government has the capability to monitor every electronic communication made anywhere in the world, yet we're expected to believe that they wouldn't be able to nix this kid long before his video ever became popular?

I win. There is no conspiracy. Eat my shit, losers.

The other type of 9/11 conspiracy email you dipshits keep sending is the $20 dollar WTC conspiracy. Glenn Beck--a loud-mouthed, fat-faced asshole on CNN--has a copy of it on his website:

The new U.S. $20 dollar bill contains hidden pictures of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks!
Yes! see for yourself...

1st) FOLD A NEW $20 BILL THIS WAY:

2nd) CONTINUE TO FOLD THIS WAY
Compare your fold precisely to this picture.

3rd) FOLD THE RIGHT SIDE UNDER,
exactly as you folded the left side.
You'll immediately see the Pentagon ablaze! (red circle)

4th) NOW FLIP IT OVER AND SEE OTHER SIDE
The Twin Towers of the World Trade Center are hit and smoking.

What are the odds that a simple geometric folding of the $20 bill would accidentally contain a representation of both terror attacks?

What are the odds that a simple geometric folding of a $20 bill with elements of design that were conceived in 1928 by a committee of treasurers, a full 42 years before the World Trade Center even existed, could accidentally contain a representation of both terror attacks? Pretty good, apparently.

The article on Beck's page goes on to ask: Need even more proof? No, you cock! You had me at "the U.S. $20 dollar bill contains hidden pictures of the World Trade Center." As if a folded picture of shrubbery on a bill that kind of looks like smoke wasn't convincing enough of a conspiracy, Beck offers this gem on his site to sway those few remaining skeptics:

This is followed by the fact that 9+11 = 20, and in big red letters:

COINCIDENCE? YOU DECIDE!

The question mark at the end of "COINCIDENCE" is clearly there to denote a rhetorical question, as clearly, this is not a coincidence. To help out Glenn Beck, I sat down with a $100 bill and tried to find any hidden messages the bill might contain. Here's one that he hasn't found yet:

Step 1:

Fold the bill so that the "ON" of "ONE" is covered:

Step 2:

Fold again like so, covering "HU" of "HUNDRED:"

Step 3:

Another fold covering part of "DOLLARS:"

Step 4:

Finally make one last fold, and with a magic marker, add the following letters to reveal a hidden message!

Coincidence? YOU DECIDE!

Further Reading:

For anyone interested in a point-by-point debunking of some of the most popular conspiracy theories out there (like the fact that steel melts at 1525° C, and although jet fuel burns only at 825° C, it doesn't have to burn hot enough to melt to cause the buildings to collapse, since steel loses 50% of its strength at 648 ° C), check out the following links:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html

Wardogg, that's the most impressive bias I've ever seen.

Yup.  I hate it when my bias to reality shows.

-Can you redirect me to a site that lists the WTC archetectural integrity specifications?
-You would think 70 years later buildings would be stronger.
-The effect of the plane crashing?
-Well there are secondary supports.
-It only "hints"
-Ok.
-No if the plane crashed like it did on tv the building would have toppled over not have fallen vertically

thankyou all for believing the conspiracy

1 Nope do your own homework.
2 First its not the same building. Second its not the same airplane or impact speed.
3 The reasons for any secondaries are many.  Changes in air pressure in closed offices, pockets of juet fuel heating and then igniting.
4 That were all heated to a failing point.
5 Noted
6
7 Ok now wait.  Now your saying the airplane didn't crash into the building like I saw on TV because the building should have toppled over?

Never heard of the 20$ bill one before, and I don't believe most of those "forced math superstitions", but this one's kind of neat. Anyway, if the US killed him it would prove the conspiracy to the extreme.

-I am currently researching this
-Researching
-These were significant secondaries
-But there were failsafes
-
-
-No, I am saying if the building were as weak as you say, it would have toppled.

A little research has brought me to the following conclusions:

-There is conflicting data on this. If the WTC is really a conspiracy, it obviously involves the media, the internet, and possibly the engineers who built the WTC. However, one site claims that the WTC could possibly withstand a 707 but not a 767. However, a 707 has a higher maximum speed than a 767. Though I do not claim the Force equation to equate with the Damage equation, a 767 would have more kinetic energy crashing into a building than a 707.
-At 9:49 a.m., the ten-ton, B-25 bomber smashed into the north side of the Empire State Building. The majority of the plane hit the 79th floor, creating a hole in the building eighteen feet wide and twenty feet high. The plane's high-octane fuel exploded, hurtling flames down the side of the building and inside through hallways and stairwells all the way down to the 75th floor. The plane crash killed 14 people (11 office workers and the three crewmen) plus injured 26 others. Though the integrity of the Empire State Building was not affected, the cost of the damage done by the crash was $1 million. The speed was 225 mph.
-
-If the building fell down due corrosion you would have heard the metal bending and it would have fell down slowly and irregularly.

Yup.  I hate it when my bias to reality shows.

I am going to now quote from the best page in the universe: http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

While I used to hold Maddox in high regard, upon viewing that page when he released it, it showcased his stupidity. It was truly unfortunate.

Significant secondaries?

Like this?  This was 50 gallons (50!!!) heated to 140 degrees F and then ignited by a spark.

But how did this fuel spread to every section of the building?

But how did this fuel spread to every section of the building?

I didn't.  Although it did spread down through a few floors.  Where were these secondaries you speak of, and when did they occur?

Quote from: Hara Taiki on September 15, 2008, 09:13:21 AM

I am going to now quote from the best page in the universe: http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

While I used to hold Maddox in high regard, upon viewing that page when he released it, it showcased his stupidity. It was truly unfortunate.

I agree, hence the reason I posted it. The same ignorance on the opposite end is absolutely appalling.

Quote from: Nightmare on September 15, 2008, 09:35:21 AM

But how did this fuel spread to every section of the building?

I didn't.  Although it did spread down through a few floors.  Where were these secondaries you speak of, and when did they occur?

well just watch it falling. u see explosions on every side. Also, a question: Have you ever seen videos of tall buildings that have been demolished? They go the exact same way as the WTC. Also these vids were around before the wtc. Now, if there are any videos that show a building falling because of a plane, I'd like to see them, because it's never happened before.

Also, how could it fall at free-fall speeds unless all of the supports in the building were gone.

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on September 15, 2008, 09:37:40 AM

Quote from: Nightmare on September 15, 2008, 09:35:21 AM

But how did this fuel spread to every section of the building?

I didn't.  Although it did spread down through a few floors.  Where were these secondaries you speak of, and when did they occur?

well just watch it falling. u see explosions on every side. Also, a question: Have you ever seen videos of tall buildings that have been demolished? They go the exact same way as the WTC. Also these vids were around before the wtc. Now, if there are any videos that show a building falling because of a plane, I'd like to see them, because it's never happened before.

Ahh I knew those were the secondaries you were talking about.  Ever heard of air pressure?  Air pressure pushed that debris out those windows.

Yes I have seen demo'd buildings.  It doesn't prove anything.

You haven't seen any videos of it, because a 757 sized airplane full of fuel has never been flown into a building before.

Also what about that bridge collapse in California, I think it was, from the tanker truck fire.  That wasn't even as hot as the WTC fires.

Ever heard of air pressure?  Air pressure pushed that debris out those windows.

So, the building was airtight on every floor?

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on September 15, 2008, 10:07:15 AM

Ever heard of air pressure?  Air pressure pushed that debris out those windows.

So, the building was airtight on every floor?

Doesn't have to be.  Just a path of least resistance for the air.

Air pressure ain't that powerful. It may have pushed debris, but not much more.

It only "hints"

For both our sakes, it would make our arguments a lot more solid if it did.

Never heard of it but I believe you.

Can you explain how the building fell so fast though? If the supports weren't removed before the incident, it would have fallen a lot slower (less than 9 m/s2?)

Also, how did airpressure turn the building to dust?

Quote from: WardoggKC130FE on September 15, 2008, 09:37:40 AM

Quote from: Nightmare on September 15, 2008, 09:35:21 AM

But how did this fuel spread to every section of the building?

I didn't.  Although it did spread down through a few floors.  Where were these secondaries you speak of, and when did they occur?

well just watch it falling. u see explosions on every side. Also, a question: Have you ever seen videos of tall buildings that have been demolished? They go the exact same way as the WTC. Also these vids were around before the wtc. Now, if there are any videos that show a building falling because of a plane, I'd like to see them, because it's never happened before.

Also, how could it fall at free-fall speeds unless all of the supports in the building were gone.

The funny thing is all your arguments do not work. Just like any conspiracy theory. The empire state building has a completely different structural support system. The planes that hit the twin towers had completely full fuel tanks. The metal lost all structural integrity, then the cement brought itself down. Guess how they demo a building? They blow out the supports, then let it's weight bring it down. Wow. That actually makes.... sense.