Hannity's Hypocrites

Some time ago, I joined "Hannity's Discussion Board" to see if I could get support from those people should I decide to run for President.

The Saturday after Thanksgiving, I was listening to "The Best of Sean Hannity," on a local radio station. The discussion I heard was centered on the question of whether or not the United States was complicit in 9/11. And of course, Sean use his usual demeanor of arrogance and beligerence, toward the lady he disagreed with. Talking over her several times when she was attempting to answer his questions.

So I wrote an article on Hannity's Discussion Board I called, "Hannity, Please Tell The Truth ........... about 9/11." I explored one aspect of it. How did the WTC, buildings 1,2,and 7 "pancake"? I have only seen that type of pancaking in controlled demolitions. Part of the discussion is quoted here:

Quote by Cav Scout:

Originally Posted by TomL2012
Are you saying that the planes caused damage at just the right supports that caused a controlled demolition? How?

Click to expand...

That is basically what happened.

Click to expand...

Here's the link to the thread:
http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=2136831

So, these people believe that random acts can have specific results. The random act of flying the planes into the the WTC caused specific damage to just the right supports that caused a controlled demolition. There is no way that is true. Yet, this what is suggested by the "9/11 Commission Report."

Well, my questioning of the "9/11 Commission Report" caused a firestorm of comments, in which I was called a "9/11 Truther" which they called "wacky." And I agreed that the 9/11 truther movement has it's wacky elements. Ideas like no plane went into the Pentagon. Yet I know of one fine lady, Barbra Oleson, lost her life on that plane. To suggest that plane did not hit the Pentagon is to suggest that the plane was landed and the people taken to holding area where they remain to this day. While I do not believe it is beyond our government to do that, the evidence suggests otherwise. Then the idea that no plane crashed in Pennsylvania. Being from Pennsylvania, if witnesses said they saw a plane go down, I believe them.

But, what happened at the World Trade Center can not be easily be explained away as the 9/11 commission has tried to do. Why? What are they covering-up? Why are we being lied to?

This was my original post:

Hannity, Please Tell The Truth........
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

about 9/11.
I can't say for sure that our government was in any way complicit in what happened, but I can tell you that the "9/11 Commission" lied to us. That tells me that they were covering up something. And, since we have had a Democratic Congress for most of the last decade, and a Democratic President for almost 2 years, and they have done nothing to get at the truth, it must be assumed that they are part of the cover-up.
The "9/11 Commission Report" suggests that all the damage done to the World Trade Center (WTC), was done by the two planes that were flown into buliding 1 & 2. That's not possible unless the laws of physics were radically changed.

First of all, the pancaking of the towers looked like a control demolition. The panckaing certainly was not caused by the two planes. Even if that would be true, why did building 7 come done in the same way? There were no planes that were flown into buliding 7.
Let's look at some of those laws of physics. Steel melts at a higher temperature than what jet fuel burns at. Even if that was not true, it is still a scientific fact that HEAT RISES. The heat from the planes could not have traveled all the way to the bottum of the WTC to cause the pancaking. The most damage that could have done by those planes is that the top of the bulidings should have toppled off and fell. But that still doesn't explain building 7. How did the planes in building 1 & 2 cause the pancaking collapse of building 7?

For whatever purpose the 9/11 Commission lied to us. Are they purposfully covering-up the truth? If so, why?

And why aren't Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hanity, Glenn Beck, and all the other "conservative" talk show hosts asking these questions?

Click to expand...

What do you think? Is my skepticism wrong?

Why do I call them hypocrites? Go here:
http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=2136871

Some have tried to have me silenced. I have heard Sean Hannity talk about the "fairness doctrine," and that the Obama Administration was trying to silence people like him. Yet, here on a discussion board that bears his name, they silence people they disagree with. That's why I call them hypocrites.

:smoke:

So you too believe that random acts can have specific results?

Kyuubi said:

"Random acts" sounds like something you made up on your own.

The act of hijacking planes wasn't "random." It was planned, for months if not years.

The act of crashing planes into two of New York's most iconic buildings at the time isn't "random." A terrorist attack like this aims for maximum casualties and a target with huge symbolism.

"caused specific damage to just the right supports that caused a controlled demolition"

Sounds like you assumed it to be a controlled demolition from the get go, without reading any of the pertinent engineering reports that came out for it. You need to read the NIST report, or one of the case studies performed by Purdue and others. If you have objections to those then bring 'em up, but AE911truth material's not gonna cut it

Click to expand...

The random acts I am referring to is that when the planes hit, from that point there were a random set of variables, such as the flow of the jet fuel, the distribution of the heat, the points where the steel beams and girders became the most weak. They could not have been pre-planned, could they?

I have no doubt the events leading up to 9/11 were not random, including the ineptness of the INS to let these guys in and out of this country without proper documentation. Had the INS did their job, 9/11 might not have happened.

I have never seen pancaking of any building except in a controlled demolition. Have you?

Kyuubi said:

A lot of people have grown tired of the truth movement arguments because they get repetitive. It's not always the proper "etiquette" of debate but people tend to be that way. The concerns you brought up are full of absolute holes, and I've personally seen the same stuff repeated more than my fair share of times. I'll be brief:

Click to expand...

You make the false assumption that I am part of the "truth movement." The fact is I am just as sleptical about them. This is what I said about them.

And I agreed that the 9/11 truther movement has it's wacky elements. Ideas like no plane went into the Pentagon. Yet I know of one fine lady, Barbra Oleson, lost her life on that plane. To suggest that plane did not hit the Pentagon is to suggest that the plane was landed and the people taken to holding area where they remain to this day. While I do not believe it is beyond our government to do that, the evidence suggests otherwise. Then the idea that no plane crashed in Pennsylvania. Being from Pennsylvania, if witnesses said they saw a plane go down, I believe them.

Click to expand...

So, you can see, I am also at odds with the so called "truther movement." I simply have questions about the pancaking of the WTC. And I have yet to see what I would consider as a credible answer to my questions.

True, I am basing my skepicism on my own understanding of the way things work, and I might have some faulty understanding. But, there are people I have trusted for many years who have the same questions. People who have a much better knowledge of the way life works than I do. The fact that they have the same questions I do confirms to me that I am on the right track. I can't get away from the fact that heat rises.

Some have mentioned the "venturi effect." This explanation simply makes no sense to me. Either way, this "venturi effect" would also be a random variable. There is no way to pre-plan air quality and oxygen levels. Once the planes hit, everything else was random. So, how did the pancaking happen of all three buildings?

That is what I mean by "random acts having specific results," which you all seem to believe.

WillypHD said:

The idea that you think this was planned and orcestrated by the government is rediculous. I'm not an expert engineer or scientist, but I know that what you are suggesting is rediculous.

Click to expand...

Where have I said the government orchestrated 9/11? I have an open mind about that. I do not believe a government run by evil men is beyond doing things like this if it benefits them in some way. But I have never said they did. I do believe the goverment is covering up something. What it is, I do not know.

The reason people have a problem with the conspiracy theory is if there was a conspiracy, George W. Bush was a part of it.

Till 9/11 I have never been a conspiracy theorist. Now I at least have an open mind. I am unaware of a government conspiracy leading up to 9/11. But, I think it's plain, there have been failures in our government, specifically with the INS.

Further, either way, the people who lost loved ones in the WTC deserve to know the whole truth.

obtuseobserver said:

of course they can

If I shoot a bullet randomly it'll hit something specific

Click to expand...

So if you shoot a gun randomly, you can preplan the specific target?

Kyuubi said:

Just to make sure it's absolutely clear:

FEMA pancake theory = collapse initiation theory, which the NIST later determined was not how the collapsed started

Collapse progression is separate from collapse initiation. It is the stage where the floors pancake. This is called a progressive collapse in contemporary terms, not unlike the example I just gave. We can move on once you are clear with this.

You're confusing collapse initiation theories with collapse progression; Reading and understanding the reports that discuss this should be your first priority before resuming this conversation


Whether you're affiliated with the movement or not is irrelevant to me. You don't need to be actively part of their movement or participating with them to use their their major talking points. With due respect, this much should have been clear from my responses to you. I'll add that I don't care what architects or engineers support those theories; the notorious guys like Gage who have worked professionally for 20 years have shown their study capacity to be less then a college freshmen new to architecture, how do I know? Because I'm finishing college now and his ability to practice basic study principals I learned just a couple years ago is way below par. The moment you should really be asking questions is when the results of their studies are shown to be valid, but this is impossible when their methodologies are crimped

Click to expand...

I am not using talking points. My points come from my own understanding. I have been asking these questions for 9 years.

As far as progression and initiation, I have never heard these terms before applied to a collapsing building. However, If I understand what you are saying, the collapse was initiated in one way, then progessed into the pancaking. Is that what you are saying? If it is, can you explain how that happens?

:unsure:

Kyuubi said:

NIST NCSTAR 1-6: Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of the World Trade Center Towers

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/

Click to expand...

I will check it out.

I can't believe it. I just got a message that my message was too short. I trust it's long enough now.