Previous post
A crazy truther mob attacked Michelle Malkin at the Denver Mint. Watch the whole video:
In the midst of the chants of “Love, Peace, Justice” were chants of “KILL MICHELLE MALKIN!”.
But these are peace activists, right?
Best quote (from Michelle, of course):
It’s not going to make me leave, so shut up.
I didn’t think it was possible to think Michelle was much awesomer than I already did, but there you go. She didn’t even flinch. Didn’t get rattled. Just kept on going.
What’s really sad is that the police did nothing… didn’t intervene when a mob was screaming for an innocent person to be killed, when they surrounded her and wouldn’t let her leave. The police did nothing.
Yet strangely, this is unsurprising. It’s exactly what we’ve all expected would happen in Denver this week.
TomareUtsuZo says: Goodgrief. What a punk.
Rob Farrington says: Yup, Michelle rules!. I’ll let you guess as to the other two people I chose as the hottest American female conservative bloggers *looks into the air and whistles innocently*. Oh, I am SOOOO sexist and shallow!
One day, I’ll convince my fiance to blog, and of course, she’ll be numero uno. She seems to be getting irritated at me leaving stuff around on the floor, though. Hope that isn’t a bad sign…
Wow, that’s really great. I disagree with Michelle on this particular issue. But I’d love to “befriend” that guy in the blue tee shirt and say something like “Yeah, that Malkin bitch needs to understand that in America, freedom is non-negotiable…and until she does, she shouldn’t be allowed to write anything, huh?” And just see if he bites down on that bait. I’ll bet he would. Just like that weirdo in Berkeley who fell for that “If only there was some organization dedicated to freedom of speech” line on The Daily Show.
Jim Jameson says: This was a bad idea for her to be where she was “working.” Alex Jones may seem crazy, but he makes very valid points and has factual proof to support his claims. He has a great ability to remember certain facts and quotes, and had good reason to point out Michele on her statements and lies. I think she deserves to be put in an internment camp herself.
Karen Westbrook says: Does anyone ever wonder why these “crazy truthers” are so adamant about their beliefs? Do they have good reason to believe that the supposed hijackers and jet fuel AREN’T what actually brought down the towers? I think they do. In fact, I have studied the evidence for years now (after watching Loose Change). What I have found is that according to the laws of physics and conservation of energy, the towers could not have fallen as they did. Also, building 7 (aka the Solomon Brother’s building) came down as well on that day and WASN’T EVEN HIT BY A PLANE! (This was somehow left out of the 9/11 Commission Report)Until that day, no steel frame building has ever collapsed due to fire. There have been many that have burned for hours or even days and still showed no signs of impending collapse. Why did the BBC report the collapse of building 7 over 20 minutes before it actually did? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc
Did they somehow predict it? Why did Larry Silverstein say that they decided to pull it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p34XrI2Fm6I
Why do most any scientists or engineers who actually research 9/11 themselves come to the conclusion that what we are supposed to believe happened is IMPOSSIBLE.
Oh, and what about the 19 hijackers? AT LEAST 7 ARE CONFIRMED STILL LIVING!
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/hijackers.html
The truth is out there, and now MOST PEOPLE are seeing it. The truth is almost as crazy as what they want us to believe.
Who is crazy? I would rather found out for myself.
RESEARCH 9/11
docjim505 says: Ai-yi-yi.
“She wants to put us in camps! She wants to put us in camps! She wants to put us in camps!”
After listening to that… person… for a few seconds, it seems to me that putting him in a looney bin would probably be a good idea.
I wonder how it feels to be Michelle Malkin, a person whose very PRESENCE can cause people to become (more) insane.
Karen Westbrook – “Does anyone ever wonder why these ‘crazy truthers’ are so adamant about their beliefs?”
No, I’ve never wondered about that. Two explanations are obvious:
1. Troofers are ignorant, often willfully so
2. Troofers hate George Bush so much that they’ll believe ANYTHING bad about him, including the fantastic notion that he (somehow) staged 9-11 without anybody knowing about it or admitting to helping afterward
Leslie Holmes says: Democrats, the party of tolerance.
WayneB says: Oh, my. Not Truthers again.
Building 7? Here you go.
Hijackers still alive? HAH! Like I’ve NEVER seen two unrelated people who look alike before! *shakes head, snickering*
But this is the best one I’ve heard in a while:
“Why do most any scientists or engineers who actually research 9/11 themselves come to the conclusion that what we are supposed to believe happened is IMPOSSIBLE.”
Is that like the Anthropogenic Global Warming “consensus”, that even many of the authors of the report to the IPCC are now denouncing, because the report was largely edited and things that don’t support the thesis were removed, before it was published? Sorry, but the fact that Towers 1 and 2 stood for as long as they did after the combination of horrendous damage from the impacting planes plus the weakening of the steel from the heat is more of a testament to the designer than it is to any “conspiracy”.
WayneB says: Darn it. I forgot to close the link tag. Sorry.
Alex Jones is a loon. He’s not interested in rational discussion and intellectual exchange. Rational is not his gig.
I took physics. And math. I’ve built things. I’ve destroyed things. I didn’t need somebody’s “expert” to explain to me why the damned buildings collapsed.
If your research consisted of watching “loose change” and reading “truther” sites, then your research is sorely lacking, your sense of skepticism is horribly skewed, and your general knowledge of how the physical world works is probably next to nonexistent.
Give me any event that ever happened anywhere and I can whip up just as much “proof” that it actually went down some other way. All I need is a sack of red herrings to spew at such a volume that they’re impossible to track down fast enough before my audience shrugs and goes out for pizza. That’s how these guys do it. And it’s not that hard to do.
I also doubt Alex Jones is a Democrat. Or a Republican. Alex Jones is an Alex Jones-ite. He exists to promote Alex Jones. To him, everybody but Alex Jones is involved in The Grand Conspiracy. That’s right. It’s aaaaaallll about him.
Karen Westbrook says: Wayne B, nice link on building 7 by the way. That has to be the weakest argument against that I have seen to date. From linked post….
“The 77-page report concluded that the fatal blow to the building came when the 13th floor collapsed, weakening a critical steel support column that led to catastrophic failure.
“When this critical column buckled due to lack of floor supports, it was the first domino in the chain,” Sunder said.
Well, if it worked for two other buildings, why not spew this out and claim it is “incredibly conclusive.”
Do dominoes fall all at once?
Here are only a few problems from a list I could give you
1) Anyone ever heard of the Conservation of Energy?
If A hits B then A+B will have a slower velocity. This destroys the “pancake theory” of collapse. A falling billiard ball would have hit the ground in the same amount of time the top floors did.
Building 7 fell at FREEFALL SPEED as did the other two towers that had their steel UL certified for temperatures well over 2000F for hours.
2)For those that can read, here:
http://www.rense.com/general59/ul.htm
“I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F…..Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.”
“The buildings should have easily withstood the thermal stress caused by pools of burning jet fuel.”
From Kevin R. Ryan
Site Manager of the Environmental Health Laboratories
South Bend, Indiana
(Company site – http://www.ehl.cc)
A division of Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.
(Company site – http://www.ul.com)
And 3) Thermate was found on the steel
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/06/341238.shtml
“Based on chemical analysis of WTC structural steel residue, a Brigham Young University physics professor has identified the material as Thermate. Thermate is the controlled demolition explosive thermite plus sulfur. Sulfur cases the thermite to burn hotter, cutting steel quickly and leaving trails of yellow colored residue.
Prof. Steven Jones, who conducted his PhD research at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center and post-doctoral research at Cornell University and the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility, has analyised materials from WTC and has detected the existence of thermate, used for “cutting” the steel support columns…”
I could go on for days, but most people have made up their mind and don’t like to argue with people that put out undeniable facts and scientific proof.
Who are the nutjobs?
I am done, obviously you guys have made up your mind NOT to educate yourselves.
“Hooray for war and mass murder based on lies, yeah!!”
Karen Westbrook says: Philmon……”Give me any event that ever happened anywhere and I can whip up just as much “proof” that it actually went down some other way. All I need is a sack of red herrings to spew at such a volume that they’re impossible to track down fast enough before my audience shrugs and goes out for pizza. That’s how these guys do it. And it’s not that hard to do”
Wow, that’s pretty strong.
Did I feed you a sack of Red Herrings? Or was it undeniable scientific proof? Oh wait, you have no idea because you decided to shrug and go out for pizza, instead of look at the facts. I doubt Faux News would tell you to research anything for yourself.
Karen Westbrook says: Anyone want to explain the BBC report?……
MBSHELL: 9/11 COVER-UP UNRAVELING
CNN, BBC 24 Reports Conclusively Prove Media Prior Knowledge and False-Start Scripting of Building 7 Controlled Demolition
Aaron Dykes and Alex Jones /Jones Report | February 27, 2007
“It has now been discovered that BBC 24 also reported the Building 7 collapse before it fell. Furthermore, CNN’s Aaron Brown reported that Building 7 “has collapsed or is collapsing” over an hour before it fell.
These clips both reinforce the shocking, newly discovered BBC coverage wherein Jane Standley reports the collapse early– with the building still standing behind her.
The early timing of these reports is now verified twiceover– the BBC 24 report is time stamped at 21.54– or 4:54 P.M. Eastern Standard Time [See World Time Zones] Secondly, CNN’s Aaron Brown states the time as “4:15 Eastern Daylight Time,” announcing Building 7 has fallen– more than one hour before its actual collapse.
Furthermore, both the BBC report with Jane Standley and the CNN report with Aaron Brown clearly show Building 7 still standing, ‘billowing with smoke’ as the collapse is reported– so premature reporting is confirmed visually as well.
There is no longer any doubt they were all reading off the same script. Reports mirrored testimony of scores of fire fighters, police and emergency workers who were told to get back from the building in the 2 hours before Salomon Brothers building (better known as WTC 7) fell at free-fall speed.
Rescue workers were told the building was to be brought down in a controlled demolition.
The group that carried out the demolition of Building 7 was in a position to feed the media and local authorities an official story. We have the controlled demolition of Building 7 hidden in plain sight– including an admission by the building’s 99-year lease holder Larry Silverstein”
http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/270207_bbc_lost_response.html
There Philmon, prove that “some other way”
docjim505 says: Karen Westbrook – “Anyone ever heard of the Conservation of Energy?”
Yes. Since you’re tossing around terms from physics, here’s one for you:
Ever hear of something called “impulse”? This can be defined as a change in momentum, usually a very abrupt change… like when the upper floors of a building collapse onto the structure below it. The total mass supported by the lower structure hasn’t changed, but the momentum has suddenly changed tremendously. This can be explained by the conservation of energy: there is a large amount of potential energy stored in the supported mass of the upper floors of the building. When the supports fail, the potential energy is suddenly converted to kinetic energy.
Oh, one more thing: steel doesn’t have to melt to lose its structural strength. This is why blacksmiths can bend and shape steel parts that are at temperatures well below the melting point of the metal. This is also why fire codes require structural steel in buildings to be insulated against fire: fire marshalls, architects, civil engineers, and others concerned with the safe construction of buildings know (unlike Troofers) that steel buildings can certainly collapse due to fire.
Designing a building to ensure a determined level of fire safety is a comprehensive issue requiring the consideration of some related factors, such as the building type, the area and height of the building, located fire exits, the number of occupants, and the quantity and type of combustible materials (potential fire load) expected to be present in the building. It is also very important to consider the fire spread between attached buildings or building parts which can be used for different purposes. As mentioned previously, a steel building’s structural members are expected to have fire resistance to prevent any structural failure for a determined period of time, as stated by the related fire codes, to give the building occupants more time to escape and allow the fire service to control it. The required fire resistance periods for the different steel building types can be easily found in country-specific building codes.
On the other hand it must be kept in mind that, steel building members may easily collapse during a fire if the temperature is allowed to reach a critical value. The fire resistance of a steel member is related to some important factors including the section size, the perimeter of the section exposed to fire, place of the member in the protective structural assembly and the steel material thickness. Depending upon structural assembly and the fire occurrence, even the exposed steel may resist fire up to 30 minutes. However the structural steel needs to be protected against fire using the proper insulating materials and methods to control the situation and resist for longer periods. In essence the structure’s fire safety is measured by the time of resistance regarding the supplied evacuation time and the level of failure. It also is important to assure that the fire resistance time is sufficient as such that the structure is able to carry the building loads during the duration of the fire. [emphasis mine]
:
:
As previously mentioned, steel loses strength and stiffness at high temperature levels just like any other building materials. Although the effective yield stress for design purposes, generally is taken as zero at 1200 0C, in actuality the yield value does not fall to zero unless the steel reaches its melting point, 1550 0C. This melting point hardly will be reached in building fires. Although the steel is a non-combustible material itself, it has a high heat conducting value, which adversely affects the structural performance during a fire exposure. That is why it is important to create a fire design for the steel buildings. [emphasis mine]
http://www.livingsteel.org/structural-safety-3
WayneB says: “A falling billiard ball would have hit the ground in the same amount of time the top floors did.”
If you actually pay attention to the video, debris thrown out horizontally from the floors being collapsed on fell faster than the building.
“…had their steel UL certified for temperatures well over 2000F for hours.”
Except that all the reports have concluded that the insulation, which was required for that certification, was blown off in the blast from the collision, which invalidates the certification.
Thermate, eh? Sorry, Sulphur is not an unexpected chemical for the rubble. Here is one response to that claim.
By the way, this information is not actually meant for Karen, since I don’t expect to penetrate the shield of misinformation she has surrounded herself with, but for those who might begin to be swayed by the sheer volume of crap overwhelming them.
axiom says: RETRACT THIS DEFAMATION NOW OR BE SUED LIKE MARK DAVIS AT THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS.
MM IS A TREACHEROUS PIECE OF FILTH SO HAS TO EXPECT PPL TO BE ANGRY
THE WAR ON TERROR IS A TOTAL FRAUD.
DONT MESS WITH THE TRUTH MOVEMENT , ASK MARK DAVIS
KAPISH ?
docjim505 says: WayneB,
Thanks for the informative link.
Karen Westbrook says: Why was there molten metal in the basement of ALL THREE BUILDINGS when it is agreed upon that the fires were not even hot enough to melt the steel support members?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9qjgBJi98k
About 1:25 here you can see it SPEWING OUT of the building.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qitq-a9DXBU&feature=related
Also, where is the plane that “hit the pentagon?”
Is this a plane?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12818225/
How wide was the debris field in Shanksville?
There is just WAAAAY too much evidence against the official story guys.
Oh, and noone wants to even think about why the BBC reported the collapse early. I have NEVER heard ANYONE try to come up with an excuse for that.
Karen Westbrook says: Members of We Are Change UK questioned ex-BBC reporter Phil Hayton about the early reporting of WTC 7’s collapse during a speaking appearance. Hayton failed to recollect even being in the studio on the day of 9/11– at first– but then recalls the situation when it is described in detail, including the actions of Jane Standley, who reported the collapse some 26 minutes in advance with WTC Building 7 still visible in the background.
“A lot of eyebrows were raised,” We Are Change reporters point out in summary, because many saw it as a clear controlled demolition, including a number of engineers. Hayton responded, pointing out that he was not aware of the situation with WTC 7. “This sounds so significant– I’m just amazed I didn’t know about this… This is completely news to me.”
“So, is there no official explanation?” Hayton further probed.
We Are Change continues to explain the delayed NIST report on WTC 7 as well as the response from a BBC editor who claimed 9/11 tapes were “lost” in a ‘cock-up.’
“I sense that you think there’s a conspiracy here– but you might be right,” Hayton concluded
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/bbc_wtc7_videos.html
WayneB says: “Why was there molten metal in the basement of ALL THREE BUILDINGS when it is agreed upon that the fires were not even hot enough to melt the steel support members?”
The steel melted AFTER the towers collapsed, because of the insulating effects of the rubble containing the heat of the fires which kept burning for more than 24 hours after.
I realize that sounds counterintuitive, but it is the same reason that piles of damp straw can catch fire due to decay. The organisms that cause the decay cannot withstand the temperatures which would cause the straw to burn, but the heat continues to build from the fringes because it can’t escape fast enough, and the straw catches fire.
WayneB says: Oh, yeah, and a better explanation of the glowing stuff pouring out of the building is that it was burning plastic.
Another video that was in the related videos link shows that stuff was glowing far down its fall from the building. THEY claim this is because it was molten iron. That would not be the case. Iron does not hold heat well, and would stop glowing after a few dozen feet. Burning plastic, however, would keep glowing until it ran out of fuel and stopped burning.
Karen Westbrook says: OK Wayne, I see that you have no idea how to explain why did the BBC (and CNN and Fox as well) report building 7 collapsing over 26 minutes before it came down? Why did Silverstein say they decided to “pull it.” I could go on and on.
sully1972 says: Alex Jones may be loud, but he spoke the truth about Malkin. On the first page of her book (In Defense of Internment) she says: “My book is also a defense of racial, ethnic, and nationality profiling policies.” That says it all. She believes we should lock up people based on what church they go to or what color their skin is. That is fascism. I wonder how she will feel when she gets singled out and harassed and detained at the airport because of her tan skin and her oval eyes. I think she should reconsider her views.
23 Comments