Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Bunker (Giuliani's Emergency Command Center at WTC)
CBS News ^ | 8/11/07 | Kevin Drum

Posted on 08/11/2007 11:33:49 AM PDT by wagglebee

(Political Animal) THE BUNKER....When Rudy Giuliani finally agreed to build an emergency-command center in New York City back in 1996, the city's emergency management director recommended a site in Brooklyn: it was a safe location, had a low profile, and could be built quickly. Giuliani refused. He wanted a location he could walk to, so the command bunker ended up in the World Trade Center instead, where it was destroyed on 9/11.

But there's more. Mark Kleiman points out this paragraph from Wayne Barrett's takedown of Giuliani in the Village Voice:
Giuliani's office [in the bunker] had a humidor for cigars and mementos from City Hall, including a fire horn, police hats and fire hats, as well as monogrammed towels in his bathroom. His suite was bulletproofed and he visited it often, even on weekends, bringing his girlfriend Judi Nathan there long before the relationship surfaced. He had his own elevator.
So far the Christian right has at least semi-forgiven Giuliani for his stands on abortion and gay rights. And the philandering and the messy divorce don't seem to have hurt him all that much either. But I wonder what they'll think of this? And I wonder which mud-slinging Republican opponent will finally get desperate enough to craft a Willie Horton style attack ad darkly allowing the obvious innuendo here to flit across conservative television screens?


TOPICS: Extended News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: 911; giuliani; giulianitruthfile; judith; nyc; preparedness; rudy; rudygiuliani; wtc
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last
And I wonder which mud-slinging Republican opponent will finally get desperate enough to craft a Willie Horton style attack ad darkly allowing the obvious innuendo here to flit across conservative television screens?

It's not "mud-slinging" to point out the truth.

1 posted on 08/11/2007 11:33:53 AM PDT by wagglebee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
So far the Christian right has at least semi-forgiven Giuliani for his stands on abortion and gay rights. And the philandering and the messy divorce don't seem to have hurt him all that much either.

I don't think so and for good reason.

But let's keep to the issues rather than the 9/11 revisionist history the leftist are trying to press upon us. The Village Voice? Pleazzzzze!

2 posted on 08/11/2007 11:38:41 AM PDT by frogjerk (If ignorance was bliss, liberals would be happy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
The truth is that Rudy was one of many heroes on 9/11.

And the truth is that Kevin Drum and The Village Voice were very happy on 9/11.

3 posted on 08/11/2007 11:40:16 AM PDT by LdSentinal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LdSentinal

Very true. And he had a number of friends killed that day, and didn’t really have any chance to grieve, since he had to be in charge and on camera constantly.


4 posted on 08/11/2007 11:47:53 AM PDT by GovernmentShrinker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LdSentinal
Still, tossing aside the apparent abuse of an taxpayer funded EM shelter as a love shack, failing to put the shelter in a nondescript location is quite damning.

A basic shelter in the city hall area hardwired to the proposed Brooklyn location would have made more sense, if Giuliani was worried about not making it to Brooklyn.

5 posted on 08/11/2007 11:49:40 AM PDT by Calvin Locke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Calvin Locke

If the bridges are down, there would be no access to Manhattan to from Brooklyn except via the Battery tunnel.


6 posted on 08/11/2007 11:51:44 AM PDT by LdSentinal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

Damn, saw the term “The Bunker”, thought it was a Paul thread


7 posted on 08/11/2007 11:58:01 AM PDT by ejonesie22 (Vote for the man who will keep those Barbary Pirates at bay, RON PAUL 1816!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Was it the fuel kept in this building because of the bunker that caused 7 WTC to come down many hours after the two Towers?

Was it really a good idea to have that much fuel in 7 WTC?

What did Silverstein mean when he said that 7 WTC was "pulled"?

Were there really Federal Reserve and/or U.S. Treasury gold bars in the area that were stolen?

8 posted on 08/11/2007 12:21:56 PM PDT by Freedom of Speech Wins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
So far the Christian right has at least semi-forgiven Giuliani for his stands on abortion and gay rights.

I must have missed that! :)
9 posted on 08/11/2007 12:24:38 PM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Freedom of Speech Wins

In order: yes, no, time to leave, no sure but I know someone tried.


10 posted on 08/11/2007 12:25:57 PM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: LdSentinal
>>>>>The truth is that Rudy was one of many heroes on 9/11.

I don't think Rooty Toot wa a hero. Neither do a whole lot of New Yorkers.

According to Deputy Fire Chief Jimmy Riches, who sepnt months searching for the remains of his firefighter son, Giuliani "is such a liar, because the only time he was down there was for photo ops with celebrities, with politicians, with diplomats,"

"On 9/11 all he did was run. He got that soot on him, and I don't think he's taken a shower since.", Riches said.

Riches remarks ring true.

11 posted on 08/11/2007 12:27:38 PM PDT by Reagan Man (FUHGETTABOUTIT Rudy....... Conservatives don't vote for liberals!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Have you seen the tape of the tv news reporter on 9/11 reading from a script saying that 7 WTC had fallen while it was still standing in the background behind her?

They also I believe reported that 130 Liberty Street had fallen and stated it was going to fall when it didn't.

Did the way 7 WTC fell look like something that happened because of the fire?

Not saying that I endorse any theory here as to what exactly brought down 7 WTC.

What about the eyewitness accounts about what the ground floor lobby of 7 WTC looked like?

12 posted on 08/11/2007 12:30:30 PM PDT by Freedom of Speech Wins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
Have you seen the tape of the tv news reporter on 9/11 reading from a script saying that 7 WTC had fallen while it was still standing in the background behind her?

They also I believe reported that 130 Liberty Street had fallen and stated it was going to fall when it didn't.

Did the way 7 WTC fell look like something that happened because of the fire?

Not saying that I endorse any theory here as to what exactly brought down 7 WTC.

What about the eyewitness accounts about what the ground floor lobby of 7 WTC looked like?

13 posted on 08/11/2007 12:30:35 PM PDT by Freedom of Speech Wins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
His suite was bulletproofed and he visited it often, even on weekends, bringing his girlfriend Judi Nathan there long before the relationship surfaced. He had his own elevator.

So that's where Kerik got the idea for his own "Ground Zero love nest".

14 posted on 08/11/2007 12:31:07 PM PDT by wideminded
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man

You mean he’s an opportunistic policitian? Oh my God..? I am outraged. Shocked, I tell you, Shocked. //sarcasm off


15 posted on 08/11/2007 12:32:47 PM PDT by Vermont Lt (I am not from Vermont. I lived there for four years and that was enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Vermont Lt

So, in your opinion all politicians are opportunists.

Guess you like being a cynic.


16 posted on 08/11/2007 12:38:51 PM PDT by Reagan Man (FUHGETTABOUTIT Rudy....... Conservatives don't vote for liberals!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man

NYC firefighters think so, which was they cheered Rudy and booed Hillary at the ‘Concert for NY.’


17 posted on 08/11/2007 12:52:34 PM PDT by LdSentinal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
"On 9/11 all he did was run. He got that soot on him, and I don't think he's taken a shower since.", Riches said.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Rooty pull out the suit he wore on 9/11 in the same manner that Jesse Jackson has been known to do with Martin Luther King's bloody shirt.

18 posted on 08/11/2007 12:54:19 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Freedom of Speech Wins
"Did the way 7 WTC fell look like something that happened because of the fire?

Not saying that I endorse any theory here as to what exactly brought down 7 WTC

What about the eyewitness accounts about what the ground floor lobby of 7 WTC looked like?"

Try this

19 posted on 08/11/2007 1:01:17 PM PDT by pandemoniumreigns (Cr)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: LdSentinal
From reading the "memo" a few months ago, I believe there was a helipad or room for a makeshift pad. Or what about boat? Or a small hovercraft?

Again, it depends on what's going on. There is plenty of notice for most potential natural disasters, although NYC is probably overdo for a big earthquake. A terrorist attack? Who knows what disruption factor is intended?

Granted, an out of the way site could get smacked by a tornado, or a meteoroid.

As I stated, a nearby barebones with secure comms to a less targeted site would serve for immediate needs, except for the preening, primping, and prancing "I'm destined for higher office" media antics. (That's a generic swipe at all pols, not specifically Giuliani, and inspired by the "Brooklyn" memo itemizing a separate presser room as a benefit, iirc)

Giuliani, for whatever reason, made a bad decision putting it in a high value target, especially after it was attacked once.

20 posted on 08/11/2007 1:09:57 PM PDT by Calvin Locke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Freedom of Speech Wins

Do you have links to all the questions that you are posing?

I’m guessing you don’t.


21 posted on 08/11/2007 1:22:04 PM PDT by CaptainK (...please make it stop. Shake a can of pennies at it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
It's not "mud-slinging" to point out the truth.

When you quote the Village Voice, you're licking the bottom of the barrel.

Enjoy...

22 posted on 08/11/2007 1:25:08 PM PDT by mac_truck ( Aide toi et dieu t aidera)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mac_truck

Then please enlighten us all with a link where Rooty Toot refutes any of the claims made in the Village Voice.


23 posted on 08/11/2007 1:28:31 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: LdSentinal
>>>>>NYC firefighters think so, which was they cheered Rudy and booed Hillary at the ‘Concert for NY.’

I know why so many booed Hillary but it had little to do with 9-11. OTOH, Rooty used the national and international media in a highly successful propaganda effort that left him as the public face, so to speak, of the Big Apple in the aftermath of the 9-11 attacks. Rooty took advantage of the raw emotions people were still experiencing and sadly, its even more evident today. Rooty is still feeding off the 9-11 attacks. Running around the country telling people you're the best man to lead America in the fight against terrorism, because you were NYCity`s Mayor on 9-11, doesn't stand up to serious scrutiny. Rooty has no special talents or abilities in the area of national defense or homeland security.

Rooty has always been an opportunist, an authoritarian and a liberal of the first order. As a conservative I don't him in the Oval Office. Period.

24 posted on 08/11/2007 1:33:42 PM PDT by Reagan Man (FUHGETTABOUTIT Rudy....... Conservatives don't vote for liberals!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man

I must tell you in all honesty, I am so frustrated with all of the politicians—local, state, and federal. It seems that they have all adopted the “me or nothing” attitude that has paralyzed and ruined the country.

Some examples include: The impotent stance on the war, from both sides. Niether side willing to either stand up for the war, or pull the funding. Instead they wallow back and forth with debates and bills that mean nothing.

They make great speeches about immigration, yet do nothing.

Finally, and this is perhaps the most disgusting, they spend pork and earmark funds to projects that mean nothing to 99.9% of the people—and then stand around with ape-like faces when bridges collapse. And then they have the audacity to state that they will fund the reconstruction without interferring with politics.

A pox on all their houses. I really do wish them ill.


25 posted on 08/11/2007 1:46:14 PM PDT by Vermont Lt (I am not from Vermont. I lived there for four years and that was enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Vermont Lt
I understand and can appreciate your frustration with the current political environment. Reality is, politics has never been for the thin skinned, or the faint of heart. But politics is an easy target for cynicism.

There have been many good politicians throughout the history of this great nation, who were fine patriots and placed the nations interests first and foremost. People like George Washington and Abe Lincoln come to mind. Ronald Reagan was a great American patriot, but he was no opportunist. Neither is Fred Thompson, Tom Tancredo or Duncan Hunter. Neither is my new Congressman, Doug Lamborn. All true patriots.

IMO, Rudy Giuliani is the biggest opportunist, not to mention the biggest liberal, the GOP has had running for POTUS in my lifetime and I go back to Truman. Lets not condemn all politicos. Just the ones who deserve it.

26 posted on 08/11/2007 2:10:32 PM PDT by Reagan Man (FUHGETTABOUTIT Rudy....... Conservatives don't vote for liberals!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee

So the Bunker was a Julie love-nest for his illicit affairs. I don’t like the mention of cigars and Judy. Reminds me of Xlinton.


27 posted on 08/11/2007 2:14:50 PM PDT by George W. Bush (Rudy: tough on terror, scared of Iowa, wets himself over YouTube)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush

There are A LOT of things about Rooty that remind me of Xlinton.


28 posted on 08/11/2007 2:15:35 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
So far the Christian right has at least semi-forgiven Giuliani for his stands on abortion and gay rights. And the philandering and the messy divorce don't seem to have hurt him all that much either.

It has?

29 posted on 08/11/2007 2:15:55 PM PDT by Lexinom (http://www.gohunter08.com Don't let the press pick our candidates)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lexinom

This is seeBS we’re talking about, “fake but accurate” is their motto.


30 posted on 08/11/2007 2:17:13 PM PDT by wagglebee ("A political party cannot be all things to all people." -- Ronald Reagan, 3/1/75)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: frogjerk
But let's keep to the issues rather than the 9/11 revisionist history the leftist are trying to press upon us.

It isn't revisionist history at all - sometimes it just takes a little while for emotions to fade and the truth to surface.

Even Rudy now admits that putting the command center in a known terrorist target was a mistake - only he lied about whose idea it was, trying to pin it on an advisor who tried to talk him out of it.

31 posted on 08/11/2007 7:42:04 PM PDT by highball ("I never should have switched from scotch to martinis." -- the last words of Humphrey Bogart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CaptainK
Copy paste this to the address in your browser and you have a link to the Larry Silverstein video where he says he was talking to a fire department official and they made the decision to "pull" and they watched the building collapse.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100

32 posted on 08/12/2007 11:10:19 AM PDT by Freedom of Speech Wins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Freedom of Speech Wins

So I watched the video.

What is it suppose to signify?


33 posted on 08/12/2007 11:22:06 AM PDT by CaptainK (...please make it stop. Shake a can of pennies at it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: CaptainK
Silverstein states that the fire department official says that the decision was made to pull Seven.

So how was Seven pulled or destroyed?

It should make us ask that question.

Trying to find you the link to the Jane Standley BBC video where she reports it falling before it fell, while it was still standing behind her.

Here is a link to some articles on that though.

http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/270207_bbc_lost_response.html

Also if you watch the tapes of these buildings falling you may ask yourself how exactly they fell in the way they did.

NY Firmen have consistently testified of explosions on lower levels of the Trade Center.

A New York Times suit made the NYFD release this information.

Also the news reports reported explosions.

34 posted on 08/12/2007 2:13:20 PM PDT by Freedom of Speech Wins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Freedom of Speech Wins
They pulled the fireman because they thought they were losing the building to the fire.

Please stop the conspiracy theory. A mind is a terrible thing to waste. I don't question the collapse of a building that had a plane fly into it. I would have been more shocked it had continue to stand.

In fact when viewing the event on TV, and seeing the intensity of the fire, I could not understand why they continued to send firemen go into it. There was no way to stop it.

35 posted on 08/12/2007 3:38:04 PM PDT by CaptainK (...please make it stop. Shake a can of pennies at it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: CaptainK
I agree that they shouldn't have sent firemen in at that point.

Clearly though it seems that that is not what Silverstein was saying.

He didn't say firemen, he said "pull it".

He wouldn't use the term it to refer to firemen, noone would.

I wouldn't have wanted firmen sent in there either.

Believe me, I would also rather not have to believe that Seven was "pulled", whatever that might mean.

I don't know what I believe.

Here is the link to the BBC report saying that Seven had fallen while it was still standing.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/260207building7.htm

36 posted on 08/12/2007 11:44:13 PM PDT by Freedom of Speech Wins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
When Rudy Giuliani finally agreed to build an emergency-command center in New York City back in 1996, the city's emergency management director recommended a site in Brooklyn: it was a safe location, had a low profile, and could be built quickly. Giuliani refused. He wanted a location he could walk to, so the command bunker ended up in the World Trade Center instead, where it was destroyed on 9/11.

I would think -- and I hope the city has learned in the last six years -- that NYC should have at least one emergency bunker in each borough. It wouldn't have to be luxurious, just wired to the gills. Police, fire, military and National Guard officials could use them in an emergency, coordinating with the other bunkers, and the mayor could take over the HMFIC desk at whatever bunker is closest.

I can't imagine it would have been fast or easy for Rudy to get to Brooklyn on 9/11, to get a helicopter out of lower Manhattan or a car through the chaotic streets. So it makes sense to have some kind of facility within walking distance of city hall. It doesn't make a lot of sense to make that the only one.

Redundancy is a good thing. The president has the war room in the White House itself, the Greenbriar hotel, Mount Weather, Camp David, and that's just the ones we know about.

Giuliani's office [in the bunker] had a humidor for cigars and mementos from City Hall, including a fire horn, police hats and fire hats, as well as monogrammed towels in his bathroom.

No problem there. If I had a second office (shoot, a first one outside my house, for that matter -- I'm still stuck in cubicle-land), I'd decorate with personal items. Unless those little luxuries cost a bundle of taxpayer dollars, I have no problem.

His suite was bulletproofed

Sensible.

and he visited it often, even on weekends

I don't have a problem with that. It doesn't cost much more money to keep the office ready when he's there than when he isn't. Again, if I had a second office, I'd use it -- in part so I'd be comfortable there if I had to use it, and in part to get away for a little while.

bringing his girlfriend Judi Nathan there long before the relationship surfaced. He had his own elevator.

Whoa, there, Huckleberry. Time to head back to the ranch. See that <-------- back there? That's the line. You crossed it.

I have no problem with a decent office in an emergency bunker, but using it as a love nest is an abuse f public property, just as it was when Rudy's pal Bernie Kerik used an apartment designated for downtown rescue efforts to the same end.

And a private elevator? That's not just an expensive and unnecessary luxury, but counterproductive. If there's a serious emergency, serious enough to run to the bunker, the mayor shouldn't be without security until he reaches his office. He and his detail can commandeer the main elevator if need be.

And I wonder which mud-slinging Republican opponent will finally get desperate enough to craft a Willie Horton style attack ad darkly allowing the obvious innuendo here to flit across conservative television screens?

That's just the thing. No candidate will have to. The bloggers, netroots and 501(c)(4)s have it covered.

In 1988, the Willie Horton ad was not produced by the Bush campaign. It was produced by Americans for Bush, an independent group. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were not funded by and did not report to the Bush campaign. MoveOn and the various union PACs are not run by the Democratic Party. They might be marching in lockstep, but they don't have the same paymaster and don't report to the same general.

Bottom line is, I think we've seen the end of sleazy negative ads from the official campaign organizations -- because they can get the same effects while at least superficially keeping their hands clean. Let the bloggers and the 501s sling the mud; it will still get out, still go national, and still hit its target. And the candidate can blink innocently and say "who, me?"

37 posted on 08/13/2007 12:23:16 AM PDT by ReignOfError (`massive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Freedom of Speech Wins
He didn't say firemen, he said "pull it".

He wouldn't use the term it to refer to firemen, noone would.

I don't know what terms a firefighter would use over a scratchy and crowded radio channel. I do know that such messages are meant to be short, sharp and clear. He wouldn't say "Hey, Bob, how about you extract the firefighters from the edifice at the earliest possible convenience, what do you think about that?"

"Pull it" may or may not mean that. But to extrapolate that "pull it" meant "commence the controlled demolition of the building pursuant to secret cabal plan X-237" is a hell of a leap.

Here is the link to the BBC report saying that Seven had fallen while it was still standing.

The cornerstone of a lot of conspiracy theories is initial reporting that turned out to be false -- initial claims that "WERE NEVER MENTIONED EGAIN!!!1!," which is supposed to prove that some truth was suppressed. It ain't so.

I've worked a lot of breaking stories in real time. They are clusterf--ks. The information coming in is fast, furious, and frequently dead wrong. Witnesses are stunned and confused. Reporters are grasping for information. If those initial accounts aren't repeated, it's usually for the reason that they were simply WRONG.

Don't believe that breaking news can get confused, and that initial reports are unreliable? Three words. DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN.

I was near Centennial Olympic Park the night of the bombing there in 1996. The first word that I heard was that an electrical transformer had exploded one one of the lighting towers in the park. The next person I asked about that said that he was an electrician, and he could say confidently that there were no transformers on that tower.

Meanwhile, eyewitnesses were reporting scores or even hundreds dead, likely based on the number of people who were on the ground and bleeding. In the end, one person was directly killed by the bomb, and a second, a Turkish cameraman, had a heart attack rushing to the scene. There were a whole hell of a lot of wounded.

It could have been much worse; Rudolph built his knapsack-bomb with a metal plate at the back, and placed it so that plate would focus the blast and projectiles into the crowd. A couple of teens tried to steal the unaccompanied backpack, found it too heavy to tote off, and dropped it in such a way that the metal plate focused most of the blast into the ground.

My experience with breaking news confusion leads me to the WTC7 hypothesis is that someone said something along the lines of "Get out! it's coming down!" The person talking meant that the building was buckling and would fall soon. Someone listening thought he meant that it was collapsing then, at that moment. That filtered though a few confused folks and got on the air

But let's look at the alternative. The destruction of WTC7 was planned well in advance. The conspirators briefed the news media to expect it. And the BBC reporter slipped up and got ahead of herself, reading the 5:30 script at 5:12.

Why would the conspirators brief the media? Why feed damning information to hundreds more people who could drop dime? If you ask, you're just another one of the sheeple being led by your nose by the facts instead of suggestive inconsistencies and piles of innuendo. WAKE UP!

38 posted on 08/13/2007 12:59:25 AM PDT by ReignOfError (`massive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Freedom of Speech Wins
So the British government was in on it too? Good lord.

Well I know what to believe. Terrorists took the buildings down, not the US government.

I make it a point never to be on the side of an imbecile like Rosie O'Donnell or a whoremonger druggie like Charlie Sheen.

But that's just me.

39 posted on 08/13/2007 7:43:59 AM PDT by CaptainK (...please make it stop. Shake a can of pennies at it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: CaptainK
So, how did the goobermint agents slip in there unnoticed and rig the building with the dozens of explosives necessary to bring it down?

Maybe everyone really did see them, and they swooped in on black helicopters and set it up, but they had one of those MIB flashy, ray-like thingies and just flashed everyone's memories away.

Yea. yea. That's it. That's the ticket.
40 posted on 08/13/2007 8:08:54 AM PDT by reagan_fanatic (Ron Paul put the cuckoo in my Cocoa Puffs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: reagan_fanatic
The whole lower area of Manhattan was evacuated by the government, so yes the government could have done whatever it wanted.

To say otherwise on this is just lying to yourself.

41 posted on 08/14/2007 1:12:26 AM PDT by Freedom of Speech Wins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: CaptainK
No fan of Rosie or Charlie here.

All I say is what clearly appears to be the truth, the BBC reported the building had fallen before it fell.

I am not saying who took it down or how.

42 posted on 08/14/2007 1:15:54 AM PDT by Freedom of Speech Wins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: ReignOfError
The BBC didn't know which building was Seven and they thought it had already fallen while it was still standing in their report. That much is very clear.

I would agree with some of your points and partially with your argument about how information can be confusing and how things can be misreported.

43 posted on 08/14/2007 1:28:38 AM PDT by Freedom of Speech Wins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: ReignOfError
The BBC didn't know which building was Seven and they thought it had already fallen while it was still standing in their report. That much is very clear.

I would agree with some of your points and partially with your argument about how information can be confusing and how things can be misreported.

44 posted on 08/14/2007 1:28:41 AM PDT by Freedom of Speech Wins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Reagan Man
Deputy Fire Chief Jimmy Riches

Union Thug...

45 posted on 08/14/2007 1:38:35 AM PDT by gdc314
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: reagan_fanatic
Keep in mind that Seven fell much later than the Towers after the government had been clearing people out of the area.

So who exactly were the independent expert witness 24 hour guardians of Seven?

46 posted on 08/14/2007 1:42:10 AM PDT by Freedom of Speech Wins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Freedom of Speech Wins

Well if the BBC reported it, it must be true.


47 posted on 08/14/2007 5:08:43 AM PDT by CaptainK (...please make it stop. Shake a can of pennies at it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
It's not "mud-slinging" to point out the truth.

Since when does CBS News "point out the truth?"

48 posted on 08/14/2007 5:13:29 AM PDT by Labyrinthos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Freedom of Speech Wins
The whole lower area of Manhattan was evacuated by the government, so yes the government could have done whatever it wanted.

They couldn't have rigged a high-rise for a controlled demolition in the space of a few hours without any of the thousands of cameras trained on the area noticing. It takes days to do that when you're not worried about secrecy.

The old formula is that the odds of keeping a secret are proportional to the square of the number of people who know about it. Any time a conspiracy theory depends on thousands of people keeping their silence over a span of years, it quickly becomes absurd.

49 posted on 08/14/2007 5:37:26 AM PDT by ReignOfError (`massive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: gdc314
So because Riches is a union leader, you take sides with the liberal Giuliani. Riches lost his son on 9-11 and spent weeks searching for his remains. While Giuliani gained national attention for talking on TV. Now he's exploiting the 9-11 events to run for POTUS.

The firefighters are the heroes of 9-11. Not Rooty Toot!

Video

50 posted on 08/14/2007 8:15:07 AM PDT by Reagan Man (FUHGETTABOUTIT Rudy....... Conservatives don't vote for liberals!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-59 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson