September 5, 2009

"If I have offended anyone with statements I made in the past, I apologize."

Van Jones is sorry if you were offended.

AND: What if we're still offended?

91 comments:

John Lynch said...

It's not about offense. It's about having nutballs in the government. Not opposing views, nutballs.

There needs to be some political price for conspiracy theory. Spreading those beliefs should carry a cost, since they are destructive. You shouldn't be able to undermine the government (not just opposing parties, but the government itself) and then join it.

Synova said...

Even assuming they were "in the past" the point of making them was to offend people, wasn't it?

I don't want a "sorry you were offended" I want a discussion of how maturity was reached, lessons learned from youthful folly, and how what he thinks *now* is different from what he thought in the past.

Synova said...

I want him to tell me how his support for Mumia died.

How he discovered that communism was a failing ideology.

Bender said...

You left out the rest of the quote -- "And if you were not offended by what I said, I meant every word, so go f**k yourself and eat s**t and die," said Van Jones.

MayBee said...

I don't want a "sorry you were offended" I want a discussion of how maturity was reached, lessons learned from youthful folly, and how what he thinks *now* is different from what he thought in the past.

Because it is doubtful what he thinks now is different than what he thought in the past, his apology is the most sincere I think we are going to get.

Truly, he is only sorry if we were offended. He would prefer we not be.

miller said...

If Glenn Beck or Sean Hannity were to say "If I have offended anyone with statements I made in the past, I apologize," would the lefties say "OK, all is forgiven"?

No?

Carry on, then.

WV conestsl, as in "Some conestsl drank my chocolate."

rhhardin said...

Lefties don't actually believe anything they say, or for that matter anything you say.

Maguro said...

Now he's not only a Marxist, truther and racist, but also a liar, and a bad one at that.

Lord knows what other crazy stuff he said/done/written and is just waiting to be dug up and presented to the public. This can't be all the embarrassing stuff there is.

He won't last the weekend.

PatCA said...

"It's not about offense. It's about having nutballs in the government. Not opposing views, nutballs."

Right. Nutballs with their hands on budgets of over $30 billion.

But not to worry! Wapo says he is legendary! And he didn't read the petition carefully. Whew.

MayBee said...

What has Van Jones said that we can imagine offending Barack Obama?

miller said...

He probably couldn't read the petition because it was so long - like maybe a 1000 pages. Who has time to read that?

But put in charge of us? Sure! I like the guy's naked desire for power over us.

WV: eiant, an omelet made with tapinoma sessile

Robin said...

This is the usual not actually sorry formulation I never let my daughter get away with. Hers sounds like this: "SorREEEE!!!"

His might as well be "Hey you ignorant rubes, sorry you're so stupid as to be offended by my perfectly legitimate statements."

Kansas City said...

Van Jones is a charismatic guy with a great name. He also is a dangerous extremist, but it is true that Obama has always hung out with such guys.

It is mildly surprising that: (1) Obama and his crew are so cocky that they think they can get away with these kind of appointments and actions; and (2) people in powerful positions are so self absorbed that they think the way to frame their "apology" is "if I have offended anyone . . ." - they can't come out and say they are sorry - at some level I guess it accurately represents that they are no actually sorry about anything other than getting caught and being in trouble.

SteveR said...

What I'm offended by is that you are getting a lot of taxpayer money for a bogus job.

There are plenty of idiots out there, I can't get too worked up about that.

rhhardin said...

The offense if any is directed at Obama.

There's where the apology should come from.

And the point of an apology is to indicate a more correct attitude in the future, not to remedy an injury.

Bissage said...

It's all fine, well and good for Mr. Jones to apologize to the people he offended.

But what about those of us who are merely irritated?

What are we, chopped liver?!

Laura(southernxyl) said...

Bissage - and those of us who think truthers are raving idiots; what do we get?

lucid said...

Obama appears unwilling to fire Jones, which means that there will continue to be a steady drip, drip, drip of video of Jones's more extreme and delusional statements.

The net effect on Obama will be to strengthen the view that he is himself an out-of-the mainstream lefty who wants to increase the power of the state in order to achieve "transformational" ends. This paints him, accurately I think, as a modern day Leninist, i.e., someone who thinks the ignorant masses have to be led and maniputlated by a political vanguard weilding the power of the state. This is certainly where Saul Alinsky comes from intellectually.

So, for Obama, democratic process is not important as a goal in itself (as it is in market-influenced conceptions, where the correct outcome can only be achieved by integrating widely dispersed opinions and information), but only as a possible means to a centrally predetemined end. This is why he and other statist liberals are so willing to villify dissent and to practice political thuggery in pursuit of their goals. They possess the truth and their opponents are either evil or ignorant. Voting and democratic processes that include the evil and the misinformed just confuse the issue. Ask Van Jones.

You can hear some of these themes in many of his supporters, e.g. Olapade in her arguments to Althouse.

Brian O'Connell said...

The whole green jobs thing is a sham anyway. We don't want more jobs in the energy sector- that raises prices. As if energy were a jobs program. And the shifting of jobs from "dirty" to green will happen anyway if we get more of our energy from renewables. We don't need a govt overseer for that.

Given that the position is pure bs, it strikes me as very appropriate that this guy is the czar for it.

And yeah, Van Jones is a great name. It's perfect for tweeting too!

kimsch said...

to me it seems more like: "I'm sorry if you were offended by what I said, but boy are you a stupid sh*t to have been offended by that in the first place."

WV: raverco = The company all Obama's associates seem to have come from.

REVULVR said...

Who the hell is Van Jones??! Nobody in the general public knows who Van Jones is, and nobody cares!

LonewackoDotCom said...

How is asking (as the item in update 2 here does) "What is the relationship between Bin Laden, his family and the Bush family and the Carlyle Group?" undermining the government or in any way an objectionable thing to ask? Aren't there in fact links between at least the (non-Osama) BinLadens and the rest?

Isn't calling someone a "Truther" equivalent to saying that we've been told the whole truth about that event and we shouldn't ask any questions even about possible massive incompetence? Isn't that either crazy or corrupt?

Opponents should concentrate on the Communism, Mumia, and the other race-related things he's said.

The Drill SGT said...

From the article: But reporters peppered the White House with questions about Jones after the blogger Gateway Pundit reported Thursday that in 2004 Jones had signed a petition circulated by the group 911Truth.org about the 9/11 attacks.

People familiar with the matter said he did not fully read the petition before signing, but the adviser apologized nevertheless on Thursday night.


This willful ignorance on the part of the WaPo looks pretty bold to me.

The reporters quote Gateway Pundit, then go on the excuse the offense by saying, that he didnt read what he signed in 2004.

However, the same Gateway Pundiit posted on Froday 5:57 AM, a full 24 hours before this story arrived on my doorstep. Gateway pointed to the fact that in January 2002, 4 months after 9/11 Jones was:

Today, using the sophisticated vetting tool the White House is apparently not privy to (Google), Gateway Pundit turned up yet another link between Jones and the 9/11 Truther movement. Jones is listed as an organizer for a San Francisco Truther march in 2002. If you were part of the Truther movement in 2002, does that not make you one of its Founding Fathers?

miller said...

I'm unfortunately not shocked that Teh One™ hasn't just fired Van Jones. First rule of political firestorms is to jettison the offender and say "I have accepted the resignation of Van Jones. I'm shocked - shocked - at these allegations. This is not the Van Jones I knew."

This is not a good time to double-down.

WV: tacism - the cult of Tacy.

t-man said...

No, Miller, you're forgetting the first step. The first step is to say "I can no more disavow Van Jones than I can my own grandmother." Then, as more damning videos, speeches, etc. by Jones drip out, you disavow Jones and everyone in the MSM keeps talking about how eloquent and moving the first speech was.

AJ Lynch said...

"Legendary figure in the green movement". LOL. The Wapo and the MSM just makes stuff up with that tongue bath. And co-written by Anne Kornblut- I thought she had more class and balance.

"Van Jones" is the name he made up in college. His given name is Anthony Jones.

rhhardin said...

I'd recommend Madoff for the green jobs position, if you can get him out of jail.

LL said...

He apologized about comments he made in Feb. 2009 where he called the Republicans a bunch of assholes. His non-apology apology is I'm sorry if my calling you an asshole offended you. It is their problem if the Republicans are offended by being called a bunch of assholes.

He's a piece of work.

LonewackoDotCom said...

The question in my previous comment is from the page for the 2002 "Truther March" mentioned by Drill SGT. Since the goal of throwing around words like "Truther" is to stifle debate, could someone explain to me someone would want to stifle debate about the CarlyleGroup and their network of friends and associates?

Kirby Olson said...

There are disturbing new links between the Van Jones' founded group STORM (Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement), and the Weathermen, which was co-founded by Bill Ayers and Jeff Jones.

It turns out that Jones is the New York office of Storm's director in chief -- even though he bombed buildings after leaving SDS to co-found the Weathermen with Obama's friend, Ayers.

I don't know how widely disseminated the information is at this point.

Google Jeff Jones and Van Jones, and all kinds of links will appear.

It's beginning to look a lot like a Christmas tree, in which green and red twinkle together merrily.

LonewackoDotCom said...

The Jones have already been covered here and here.

While certainly interesting and worrisome, it's also a bit worrisome that Beck's source for the first is from the Kochtopus.

Zach said...

Since the goal of throwing around words like "Truther" is to stifle debate, could someone explain to me someone would want to stifle debate about the CarlyleGroup and their network of friends and associates?

"Debate" is between equally matched sides. Accusing your opponents of lurid crimes and fantastic conspiracies with no evidence poisons the atmosphere for true debate.

I admit that truthers are one of my pet peeves, but here's how I see it. Van Jones is apparently an energetic, charismatic guy who has been very successful in the career he's chosen for himself. But there's some dark place in his character that makes him accuse his political opponents of murdering thousands of innoncent people based on pathetically flimsy evidence.

I don't see Truthers as extreme, I see them as psycho.

jacksonianlawyer said...

Ah the state-run media. Obama has been saying "little" about any of those with whom he has surrounded himself throughout his life. "Little" was said about Ayers. "Little" was said about "Wright." What makes Van Jones different?

Well, for one, Van Jones is now in the Obama administration. Second, he's an absolute communist radical intent on "revoultion" and the (further) dismantling of America as we know it. That Obama is dismissing this or, excuse me, saying "little," is only a testament to the fact that Obama shares Van Jones ideals. Point blank and period. It is not about he having called Republicans "assholes;" ignoring that such petutlant name calling belongs in a schoolyard rather than a political forum, I could care less what he thinks of the Republican Party. Rather, it is "offensive" that this communist is in the administration to begin with.

Obama hand picked this communist; the cat is out of the proverbial bag and it is clearly too late to (geniunely) dis-own Van Jones...nor more than Obama could his own grandmother.

LonewackoDotCom said...

Generally speaking, making wild claims is self-correcting: it leads to the person making the claims being discredited.

Here's the statement he signed. Anyone spot a magic word? Let me highlight it: a call for immediate inquiry into evidence that suggests high-level government officials may have deliberately allowed the September 11th attacks to occur.

Even with the "may", that goes further then I'd like and I wouldn't stress that point despite the fact that anyone who thinks it isn't possible - no matter how slight - is being completely ahistoric.

However, what those who throw around "Truthers" want you to ignore are questions like these from that page:

# Why were standard operating procedures for dealing with hijacked airliners not followed that day?
# Why were the extensive missile batteries and air defenses reportedly deployed around the Pentagon not activated during the attack?
# Why did the Secret Service allow Bush to complete his elementary school visit, apparently unconcerned about his safety or that of the schoolchildren?
# Why hasn't a single person been fired, penalized, or reprimanded for the gross incompetence we witnessed that day?


Those are just the first four, and there's nothing wrong with asking those and demanding an answer.

The truly crazy (or corrupt) people are those who don't think those are valid questions that demand an answer.

onthecoyle said...

Getting canned could put a damper on the revolution. Dang.

I don't trust Green people anyway. They seem to get bored and irritated if there's too much talk about the environment.

traditionalguy said...

Van Jones is a test case for the Obama Gang.Will they be loyal to one of their stars, or will they pretend to be surprised that he said out loud what the Gang's policy for looting the Treasury is for this year and next. That is the test for Boss Obama. My money is on Boss Obama keeping Jones and promoting him to show his strength to his home boys.

AlphaLiberal said...

Speaking the truth comes at a cost.

Are Republicans assholes? Duh!

Look they're saying a Democratic President can't speak to the American schoolchildren even though Republican Presidents have given hyperpartisan speeches to school kids.

Vile, lying, hypocrites. And assholes.

jacksonianlawyer said...

AL -

Nice red herring. Ignoring the communist issue that is Van Jones and, instead, engage in your haggard, antiquated leftist soundbytes. Even at that, you can only manage, albeit with far inferior grammar, to re-quote your communist mentor, Van Jones. At the very least, you might have earned a fleeting glint of respect had you been able to craft something new and/or of your own. But, that begs the question - the left hasn't done that for decades, instead choosing to beat the same tired drum. Keep it at it, by all means...you'll answer for it next year.

The Drill SGT said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Drill SGT said...

LonewackoDotCom said...However, what those who throw around "Truthers" want you to ignore are questions like these from that page:

# Why were the extensive missile batteries and air defenses reportedly deployed around the Pentagon not activated during the attack?


I don't think I have ever purposely insulted anybody on this blog, but talk like that is just wacko.

I live in the region. I knew people that died on 9/11. I worked in the Pentagon. I still live there.

THERE ARE NO extensive missile batteries and air defenses in the area and there have been none since 1963 when the Fairfax Nike sites were closed. if you go by the empty fields in Great Falls for instance, you can see the bronze historic plaques marking the sites, just as you can see those plaques on Civil War Battlefields.

Any fantasy that there are such sites is truly WACKO.

TRUTHERS are WACKO

The Drill SGT said...

LonewackoDotCom said...
However, what those who throw around "Truthers" want you to ignore are questions like these from that page:

# Why were standard operating procedures for dealing with hijacked airliners not followed that day?


How soon we want to rewrite history. On 9/11, my wife worked for the FAA, and now for DHS. The SOP pre-9/11 was when a plane was hijacked, the pilots and crew should cooperate, and attempt to get the plane on the ground in a friendly country. Delta would be called and the problem would be solved. 9/11 changed the rules.

Synova said...

You're an asshole AL.

No one said Presidents can't speak to school kids.

Many people have said that a nation-wide simultaneous address by the president to a captive audience is not a cute gimmick. It's a creepy semblance of classic dystopian literature and movies, but only really unsettling even then with the addition of a (now revised) lesson plan that directs children to think about ways to help the President and enlist the little dears in community and world service.

Planning "Obama Day" to be attended by every single school child in the Nation, praise his name, is CREEPY.

The fact that every child will *not* attend and teachers will ignore the lesson plans doesn't really negate that.

reoconnot said...

When 9/11 was being planned by al Qaeda, George Bush was the Governor of Texas. Anyone who believes that 9/11 was an inside job is not fit for public employment. The idiot who appointed this idiot should be voted out of office. On this account alone.

ethan said...

Ann Althouse is offended by some random guy, but not offended by war crimes committed by our highest officials.

That's awesome!

Hey Ann, do your colleagues at UW know about your selective outrage?

(For example, I know you are selectively outraged by tits.)

Crimso said...

"Planning "Obama Day" to be attended by every single school child in the Nation, praise his name, is CREEPY."

There's nothing wrong with it at all. They'll simply be telling the children interesting facts about Dear Leader, such as how many holes-in-one he's shot in a single round of golf and that he's composed operas.

LonewackoDotCom said...

1. I really haven't looked into this issue in depth, I've just seen enough to know we aren't being told the whole story. One of the biggest red flags for me was the rush to get rid of the steel from the buildings ASAP. Why get rid of potential evidence so quickly? See this and this.

2. Instead of looking into this issue in depth, I've concentrate on other areas where Bush showed himself to be a Quisling, corrupt and un- and anti-American, and corrupt, incompetent, and un- and anti-American. And, more recently, I've spent some time pointing out how the MSM and others are lying about another issue that gets the Stalinist treatment from lying "debunkers" (see the next point).

3. I don't look too kindly on those who want to call their opponents crazy in an attempt to warn others off discussing perfectly valid topics; that's a start on the road to how things were done in the Soviet Union and similar countries.

4. From the 2004 NYT (link): The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks is expected to offer sharp criticism of the Pentagon's domestic air-defense command in its final report, according to commission officials who said they believed that quicker military action might have prevented a hijacked passenger plane from crashing into the Pentagon itself.

5. From the "debunking" side, this discusses SOP during hijackings; it's always been more than just letting it play out.

6. Is BlogsForBush still around? Perhaps they could conduct a recruiting drive here.

Old Dad said...

Hey ethan,

Do your handlers know that you've snuck out of the ward and got on the internets?

Old Dad said...

Lone,

About the steel. A girder from one of the towers was given to a local churce and became a part of a bell tower. Nothing sinister there.

wv: eflish--what dyslexic elves speak.

Crimso said...

From one of your links, LW: "Steel was the structural material of the buildings. As such it was the most important evidence to preserve in order to puzzle out how the structures held up to the impacts and fires, but then disintegrated into rubble. Since no steel-framed buildings had ever collapsed due to fires, the steel should have been subjected to detailed analysis. So what did the authorities do with this key evidence of the vast crime and unprecedented engineering failure?"

Anyone making such statements has never so much as had a basic materials science course. As for WTC7, another obsession of the intellectually-challenged, it never seems to occur to these engineering experts that the collapse of 2 huge towers across the street might possibly have made WTC7 sructurally unsound. Nope, not possible.

ricpic said...

Hey, it worked for Sotomayor, why not for Jones?

It being feed the bourgeois chumps what you think they'll swallow.

ricpic said...

...I know you are selectively outraged by tits.

Natural tits don't offend me no matter what their shape. It's those silicone jobs that get my dander up...er, down.

LonewackoDotCom said...

Once again: I haven't looked into these issues. If anyone wants to discuss the issues I do cover with me, I can show how the MSM and pols have lied to them.

That said, Excuse #4 here is definitely interesting.

Paul Zrimsek said...

I really haven't looked into this issue in depth, I've just decided to shoot my mouth off about it anyway.

Fixed.

elHombre said...

The narrative for diversity pimps is that it is all about who is offended. Substance counts for nothing.

Like I said, there is no vetting problem. This guy is a test balloon to see how far Obama can go with the MSM and with the rest of us. He still doesn't get it.

Diamondhead said...

I guess there's no such thing as being too stupid to be in government. That said, this is a guy who's in the mainstream of his party.

Diamondhead said...

Oh, and anyone who supports the cop killer Wesley Cook can go fuck themselves.

No, I don't care about VJ's salty language.

elHombre said...

ethan wrote: Ann Althouse is offended by some random guy, but not offended by war crimes committed by our highest officials.

Did I miss that? Which of our "highest officials" have been convicted of war crimes?

Obama? Clinton? Biden?

elHombre said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
traditionalguy said...

Van Jones and his type of government approved Eco-experts reminds me the most of the play Terrorists in the movie Die Hard. They said that they were there to free others, but that was a cover story for a long planned Robbery of the cash in the vault.

The Drill SGT said...

traditionalguy said...
Van Jones and his type of government approved Eco-experts reminds me the most of the play Terrorists in the movie Die Hard.


The common theme of all the Die Hards is "Don't Let a Crisis Go to Waste", even if you must make it yourself.

reoconnot said...

9/5/09 3:26 PM

ethan said...
Ann Althouse is offended by some random guy, but not offended by war crimes committed by our highest officials.

----

Ethan

Obama's support for the brutal repression of pro democracy protesters in Iran is certainly disgusting, but I think you go too far in describing it as a war crime.

Kirby Olson said...

20 points to Traditional Guy: brilliant comparison. THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. The only difference is that these guys are taking over banks from the inside, using the office of the president as cover.

It's hard to believe.

Because there are three levels of deception: many of the cronies of the president are actually Marxists, planning a revolutionary take-over of the government, but they ARE the government.

So what are the police going to do?

Thank goodness they haven't managed to nationalize FoxNews yet. That's next.

Big Mike said...

It's not for Van Jones to apologize for his statements. He believes what he believes and that's that. But his unapologetic "apology" is meaningless because he clearly made many of his remarks deliberately to offend people.

Instead it's for Obama to apologize for appointing such an utter fool to a senior position.

@Lonewacko, a large portion of that World Trade Center steel was turned into the keel of the USS New York, an amphibious assault vessel just delivered to the US Navy.

Ignorance is Bliss said...

LoneWacko said

I really haven't looked into this issue in depth, I've just seen enough to know we aren't being told the whole story. One of the biggest red flags for me was the rush to get rid of the steel from the buildings ASAP. Why get rid of potential evidence so quickly?

And here I thought my pseudonym was appropriate

garage mahal said...

My pearls.......where are my pearls??? I must clutch my pearls!

LonewackoDotCom said...

Great, intellectual comments! Thanks for the spirited debate, especially about the curious destruction of potential evidence.

Althouse: the Intellectual's Choice.

Revenant said...

One of the biggest red flags for me was the rush to get rid of the steel from the buildings ASAP. Why get rid of potential evidence so quickly?

Presumably "LoneDumbass.com" was already taken.

Rialby said...

Does anyone have the timeline on how this all got exposed? Here's what I think happened - correct me if I'm wrong -

1) Glenn Beck went on Fox and called Obama a racist
2) Van Jones - the green jobs czar organized a advertising boycott of Beck,
3) Beck began doing some really easy digging and started finding out all of this crazy stuff about Van Jones
4) the right-leaning blogosphere chipped in with some more (easy) digging and came up with all of the stuff that we've seen over the course of the last 4-5 days

Is that it?

Synova said...

Why clear away and dispose of the wreckage of the World Trade Centers?

Off the top of my head...

TO FIND THE FREAKING BODIES

Synova said...

Rialby... pretty good, AFAIK, except for what Beck said was that it was possible that Obama was a racist.

I think that it's a near certainty that Obama is as racist as any other person who prejudges issues by race and makes public statements of guilt and innocence based on no knowledge of an event but the color of the skin of one party involved.

Rialby said...

I did a little more research - I guess Beck found out at some point that Color Of Change was behind the advertising boycott. This org was co-founded by Van Jones who is now the Green Jobs czar so he started getting dirt and reporting on VJ.

Mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mark said...

Oh, I dearly love the "steel structures don't collapse due to fire" argument.

Here's a picture.

Here's the discussion of what the symbols mean.

(Yeah, I know, science is hard, but stay with me here.)

What the picture explains is that as temperatures rise or fall, the crystalline structure of steel starts to change. Steel that is very rigid and at room temperature will become relatively soft at, say, 1200 degrees F. Just like butter, this change of properties isn't instantaneous, but it is inevitable.

The floors hit in the WTC became effective blast furnaces that burned for about an hour before the first collapse, and about an hour and 40 minutes before the second collapse. Nothing special had to happen. Just a lot of jet fuel burning in a confined space causing materials that were supposed to be rigid become soft.

And why was the pit cleared as quickly as possible? Well, if the "bathtub" had collapsed and the Hudson river filled in the site, much of the financial district would have become structurally unsound. The first priority was to ensure that follow-up disaster didn't happen.

Google is your friend, whacko.

thecoyle said...

The clown has resigned.

kcom said...

"Once again: I haven't looked into these issues. If anyone wants to discuss the issues I do cover with me, I can show how the MSM and pols have lied to them."

I thought you were the lone whacko. Can't we just keep it that way? You wouldn't want a truth-in-advertising problem, would you?

P.S. He resigned because he was "smeared" by his own words.

John Lynch said...

Cool. One less nutball in the government.

Maybe he can go on Democracy Now and complain about it.

rhhardin said...

My pearls.......where are my pearls??? I must clutch my pearls!

Dianne Feinstein?

The Drill SGT said...

And why was the pit cleared as quickly as possible? Well, if the "bathtub" had collapsed and the Hudson river filled in the site, much of the financial district would have become structurally unsound. The first priority was to ensure that follow-up disaster didn't happen.

and the Transit station was below the bathtub. Flooding the Subway system would have huge short and long term costs.

rhhardin said...

The NYT

So it was not until recently that some of Mr. Jones’s past actions received broad airing, including his derogatory statements about Republicans in February and his signature on a 2004 letter suggesting that former President George W. Bush might have knowingly allowed the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to occur in order to use them as a “pre-text to war.”

I'm wondering about "pre-text."

Frodo Potter said...

Lone Wacko, there is a difference between trying to call George W. Bush (or any president) to accountability, and, on the other hand, engaging in irrational theories which have their basis in bigotry and in the denial of fundamental scientific facts.

I’m not going to defend President Bush for his brilliant leadership (Michael Brown, anyone?). He made a host of mistakes and I am disgusted by his friendship with the Saudis. But, as Mark explained so well, you and the other Truthers are denying certain scientific facts.

It’s not just that you deny that steel can melt—which even a child knows. It’s that, when the question of steel melting is finally settled, the Truthers convince themselves that the hijackers were really Mossad agents. When it becomes apparent that the hijackers really were Muslim, then the Truthers allege that all the Jews were warned to stay home that day. And on and on and on and on and on.

You will do anything to inculpate Americans and anything to exculpate Islamic terrorists. The saddest thing is that you are not a lone wacko; you have thousands of allies. Van Jones is one such ally. Good riddance.

Laura(southernxyl) said...

Bill Clinton responds to truthers:

How dare you

and

You're an idiot, go away

Pogo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Pogo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Big Mike said...

@Frodo and @Lonewacko, you're both wrong, though one of you is only slightly wrong. To translate Mark into plain English, well below the peak temperatures achieved in the towers by the burning jet fuel and burning plastic furniture steel looses its rigidity. It's not melted but it's no longer strong.

If that didn't happen, then how would they have been able to make steel armor, steel swords, and steel horseshoes back in the Middle Ages?

A couple wildfires ago there was a picture in the MSM of a house that had been burned in the wildfire. The steel I-beams that had partially supported it (presumably floor beams such as I have in my own house) were twisted and warped. And that was ordinary burning wood, not burning jet fuel. I need to see if I can find it online.

Frodo Potter said...

Big Mike, you are correct in that I assumed that the steel actually melted in the Towers, when in fact it merely softened to the point of losing its strength. I stand corrected.

My larger point was that the burning jet fuel was more than sufficiently hot enough to weaken the steel so that the towers came down. You also have a very good point about the house in the wildfire.

Big Mike’s comment also exemplifies part of the problem of dealing with Truthers. Had Big Mike not made the distinction pointing out that the steel did not melt, but was merely softened, then Lone Wacko and his fellow Truthers would have used that as one more spurious argument. My apologies for letting down the side. I will be more careful in the future.

wv: lather. Lone Wacko has worked himself into a lather.

LonewackoDotCom said...

Like I said, this site is truly the Intellectual's Choice. In none of my comments - and in fact nowhere else AFAIK - have I said anything about the steel melting issue. My comments above were about the steel being quickly disposed of instead of, for instance, what would happen after a plane crash where the pieces would be painstakingly reassembled in a hangar. Yes, I realize there was a lot more material involved, but a good amount of it could be preserved. Instead, it was not.

Only if you're an idiot do you think the melting and the evidence side of the steel are the same, yet there are at least two such idiots above.

Synova said...

Do you actually have any knowledge AT ALL that the wreckage was not inspected and tested and results recorded?

Did no agency or team of expert engineers spend time examining and determining how the buildings failed? Math? Equations? Material testing? Was it not the most intently studied engineering failure EVER? Or is it just easier to present "questions" implying that something terribly technical must be lacking because they hauled the wreckage away?

Are you actually suggesting that the wreckage should have been reassembled like an aircraft?

Where, pray tell?

It's easy, very very easy to ask questions but frankly, it makes you sound like Rosie O'Donnell telling us that it's *questions* there are *questions* and thinking that proves something.

As if someone else is obligated to explain yet *again* the physics and engineering that we KNOW brought the towers down.

Nichevo said...

The big problem with Wacko is that he will never be shut up. Not in the sense of a sock in the mouth, but in the sense that his curiosity is on the level of a five-year-old who has just learned the word "Why" and, unlike everyone else around him, has not tired of it yet. Pretty soon he may graduate to "Are we there yet," but in either case, it's the sound of his own voice that keeps him coming back to his folly like the Biblical puke-eating dog.

Wacko doesn't want answers - he just wants to ask the questions and feel wise, superior, in possession of occult knowledge. That, and to be the center of attention. He doesn't even pretend to hope to accomplish anything real.

Nichevo said...

Wacko, if you are ever shot, I will instruct the surgeons that you only want the bullet recovered intact; saving your life is a lesser priority. Let them scoop out half a pint of your brain if they must, rather than mark the bullet with their saws and forceps. Leave the fragments to fester in the wound, rather than removing them to a basin. Or pile then up in the ER (in everybody's way) rather than taking them out of the room to Pathology or, indeed, dumping them in the red waste bag.

After all, CSI:Wackoland can do more with your corpse if nothing is done at all to disturb the crime scene (like lifesaving or other rescue type efforts).

Daryl said...

I'm sorry if you're offended that we chased out Van Jones by telling the truth about things he's said and done in the past.