Bill Clinton Shouts Down 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists

Former President Bill Clinton responded aggressively on Tuesday when his speech at a fundraiser for his wife's campaign was interrupted by 9/11 conspiracy protesters.

"A fraud? No, it wasn't a fraud," Clinton said, responding to one of the hecklers as the audience cheered. "I'll be glad to talk to you if you shut up and let me talk." Another protester yelled that the attacks were an "inside job."

"An inside job? How dare you. How dare you. It was not an inside job," Clinton said. "You guys have got to be careful, you're going to give Minnesota a bad reputation."

Watch the video:

From WJLA-DC (ABC)

Comments

[janmarie]

Perhaps he should have commented on the level of cynicism and mistrust so many Americans feel instead of trying to shut this person down.

[dryfactoidobotanoid]

1. 9/11 was not so much an inside job, as an outside job conduited through the inside using moles and patsies

2. these things are known to those who have done the research, examined the evidence, and come to their own conclusions. there is no use arguing with people who ignore evidence that they cannot acknowledge.

for example, no plane in sight at the Pentagon, WTC 7, the thermate chemical signature.

3. history is all very sad, and you can hear the weight of it in Bill's voice -- the compromises, the stories, the lies.

this video moment puts on a seal on the melancholy of state power, in a moment approaching projected self-awareness, the melancholy of faith, and reality.

[eugenegerard]

You forgot the pictures of I Beams cut by thermate at forty-five degree angles at ground zero. Inside job by rogue elements running this government in the backround. What you see is a stage. Who is really running things is behind the scenes. The actors are scared to death of their backstage hands.

[ZHarris]

I guess you all missed this.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/16/AR2006051600788.html

[YL]

While I do not believe it was an active conspiracy, I do believe the administration
let it happen. As it now become public, the
administration was swamped by repeated warnings during the period between April and September 01. Richard Clarke even wrote a dire memo to Bush the day before 9/11 about the urgency of the situation. Given Wolfowitz's comment about having an event as catastrophic as Pearl Harbor to galvanize the Americans to the Neocons' hardline foreign policy and the 8/6/01 President's Daily Brief about al Qaeda's plan to attack mainland US with airplanes, not to mention the various accounts of Bush's fixation to attack Iraq from the time he took office,the only explanation that the administration took no action has to be that they allow it to happen so that they would
have the Americans behind their military ambitious plan. By the way, in "A Time to Lead" by General Wesley Clark, he recounted the complaint by a general in pentagon about
a plan of changing leadership in 5 countries in 3 years, Iraq, Iran, Syria etc.

[BushSunkOurShip]

How about shouting down Bush, Cheney and their war On Iran, which Hillary voted for, before she knew it was for a war.

[Vr6]

The simple consideration here is surely, what would happen if these questions were answered by a person such as Clinton and he answered and started an open debate. Where would that lead ......... and how quickly!?

[opie]

The "how dare you" remark is what riles me about Clinton. Why should be HE be indignant in the first place? If he is attacking the hecklers with "how dare you interrupt me" that is one thing, but it seems he is saying "how dare you question the official record?". The latter is an irresponsible attitude if that is what he is suggesting.

[OleHippieChick]

Irks me, too, that it WAS the latter. Was it irresponsible of him to display arrogance in public? 9/11 truthers are an easy target nowadays because they're more vocal. But at this point in history, because the government ALWAYS lies, an aware, fair-minded person would have said 'We're all entitled to our beliefs.'
You don't have to be a CT nut to acknowledge the sordid fishiness of every aspect of the event.

[kellygrrrl]

"How dare You?"
"You're going to give us a bad name."

who would you say this to?

[theistus]

Has it occurred to anyone that these lunatic fringe tinfoil hat conspiracy theories discredit the opposition movement and distract from real issues? Hmmmm?

[OneVoiceInACrowd]

Yeah, we need something to put this argument to rest, something strong, something like "the magic bullet" theory. Come on Senator Specter, give us another one so we can sleep at night again.

[martinchill]

no they don't.

9/11 is not a real issue? there are plennnnty of questions to be asked about what happened on 9/11.

[ZHarris]

I know many licensed architects, I've worked with many licensed architects, and sir, you are no licensed architect.

Just look what it took to bring down the Hudson Building in Detroit and tell me how anyone was going to pull it off which out anyone noticing or talking?

http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=7&reqItemId=20030225133807

Specifically about building 7. A third of the building facing the twin towers was ripped off in their collapse. Between the weakened support structures and the fires fueled from two back-up generators, the building FELL.

[ZHarris]

oops, scroll down 1 comment.

[AntiFascistMajority]

ZHarris--No. Building 7 sank into its own footprint. I invite all readers to see for yourselves. At the link below is an excellent two-minute video in which Rudy Giuliani admits he had advance knowledge of 9/11, Larry Silverstein, then lease-holder of Building 7, states a decision was made to "Pull it," i.e., bring down Building 7 by controlled demolition, and, at the end, you see Building 7 drop straight down:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6357586375896950217
.

[AntiFascistMajority]

theistus--Surely you are referring to the lunatic fringe tinfoil hat conspiracy theory known as "Osama & the 19 Muslims." Yes I agree that this outlandish story distracts from real issues.

We ought to be raising awareness about the state's propensity for staging false flag operations and the possibility that it will conduct a "Second 9/11" or "another Gulf of Tonkin incident" in order to create an excuse for imposing martial law, reinstituting the military draft and bombing Iran.

We must not allow ourselves to be fooled again.
.

[NelsonJohnson]

My respect for Bill Clinton just took a major downturn. Methinks he doth protest too much.

It is patently obvious that the towers and Building 7 were engineered demolitions. I am a licensed architect and civil engineer who worked for the Port Authority when those buildings were built, and I know an engineered demolition when I see one.

There is a mysterious need for The Powers That Be (TPTB) to vehemently deny the possibility of engineered demolition. Their vehemence may betray a complicity on their part to deceive the public, perhaps because they realize how devastating it would be to their political futures if the truth came out. Perhaps the insiders know there was a secret plan to destroy the buildings, and that it had to be kept secret for too many reasons. One reason might be that the buildings had outlived their usefulness and needed to be destroyed. Another might be profit from insurance fraud - the buildings evidently were insured for billions of dollars. Imagine what the public would have thought if the owners of the buildings came out and said that the structures needed to be demolished. Instead, is it possible that TPTB chose to disguise the demolition and create a kind of mini-Pearl Harbor and insurance fraud in the process?

It has been just too convenient all around, and now evidently even for the sainted Bill Clinton, to deny that cutter charges were used to chop up all that steel and bring it down in six or seven seconds. The charges may have been installed after the 1993 attacks, when TPTB realized that an assymetrical collapse would literally have destroyed a major portion of lower Manhattan.

It might be interesting to examine other towers, such as the Sears Tower or John Hancock Building to see if there are explosives installed on their structural frames to keep those buildings from assymetrical collapse, i.e. toppling over as opposed to being demolished into their own footprints. If such charges were installed, would any of TPTB every make it public knowledge. Of course not!

[Alvin4NY]

You should write an op-ed piece for the NY TIMES. Or at least a letter to the editor. Arianna, are you reading this? Very well said, and makes total sense. It's too bad that Bush didn't make that public knowledge, about the charges. If he did, it would have shot a hole in a lot of the 9/11 Truthers. As it is now, we have an obvious conspiracy, with both Democrats and Republicans involved in keeping knowledge from us, and lying to us. Not to mention all of these Corporations from 9/11 forward who have been profiteering and bankrupting the United States Citizens.

[SupremeIdiot]

You're obviousy NOT an architect or a civil engineer. NO civil engineer or architect would talk about an "assymetrical collapse" because that would mean that a building was a monolithic structure and not made up of parts.

You've no notion of building construction or how buildings collapse. You obviously also have no idea what a demolition expert does to ready a building for a controlled collapse.

[SupremeIdiot]

http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion1.htm

Here's good link to howa demolition actually works.

All you "truthers" need to inform yourselves.

[NattyWho]

It seems that Bill has been drinking the Kool-Aid. Hillary has been slurping for a while. I guess she got Bill to imbibe.

[aaronburr]

I'd like to know what state you're "licensed" in so I can be sure to avoid it on the chance you might have worked on anything that might be load bearing.

Get better meds.

[Birdman]

Personally Bill should have kept on talking and ignored the RUDE interuptions. I have spoken to groups before it has gotten to the point that people do not have one ounce of consideration to speakers. If they have something to say the POLITE thing to do is wait until the speaker is finished, but anymore people will blurt out irrelevent rants about god knows what and the minute anyone says wait till I'm done, or sit down and be quiet etc. They are the bad ones not the rude audience members. I'm not defending what Bill did as I said he should have just kept on talking and ignored the Morons. Since he did not he is the bad guy, I say what about the rude jerks, oh I get it they are faceless and why pick on some drooler who could find a conspiracy in the morning dew. Lets blame it on the speaker who geee was invited to speak if the hecklers think they have something relevent to say why not get their own speaking engagement.

[JacqueItch]

"He should have just kept on talking and ignored the Morons" . . .??
By "Morons" are you referring to the Clintons?
Then yes, I agree. Not sure why you capitalized it but I am assuming you did it to mean the powermongers, and so Yes, absolutely, he should have ignored those Morons and just kept on talking about the collapse of the towers done by an inside group.

[BobC46]

This topic is a written proof of the low intellect of the radical american left.

[coyote4]

Have you not read my thesis: if it was not conspiracy it then was the overriding incompetence of America and Americans.

That's YOU, son: incompetent and useless.

[Alvin4NY]

Have you heard Bush speak in public? Right there is your proof of the low intellect of the radical American Right. (not to mention a boozing coke head, that you thought was the right guy to run the country..) A TRILLION and COUNTING....

[ZHarris]

Gee a choice between folks who think evolution and global warming is a hoax and those who think Bush is capable of anything. Let me think a minute ...

[TLV]

Shut the hell up, Bill. You are completely irrelevant. That's how this leftist feels.

[repubesnivel]

Shut the hell up TLV. You are completely idiotic, and this is how this ACTUAL progressive feels.

[in4success]

actually, and on the contrary, there are FACTS which lead to AT LEAST the possibility that this horrible event was "permitted" to support and agenda, produced historic profits coincidentally for those in power and kicked off the steps necessary to shut down our free society.

can anyone tell me where the following sentence came from? ::"the american people will not support an iraqi invasion without another catastophic event like pearl harbor (sic)"

can anyone tell me the man's name in charge of the security at logan, dulles, the world trade center and untied airlines?

if you cannot answer either of the previous questions you need to excuse yourselves from the dialogue until you become better informed.

hillary is a neo-con -- a snake in wolve's clothing and we are one step away from losing freedom as we know it. this is not an external, but interanl agenda.

[punkingale]

in4success: I think I can answer your first question. It was Bill Kristol and the PNAC members. They said they needed a "new Pearl Harbor" in order to get support from the American people to invade Iraq. So they gave us 911. As sick as it makes me to type this, it worked like a charm.

[punkingale]

in4success: I can answer part of your second question. Security for the World Trade Centers was Marvin Bush, Chimpy's brother.

[cultkicker]

Memo to Pres. Clinton... Oh SHUT UP!

[ZHarris]

You don't want to see the memo to cultkicker. Really, you don't.

[coyote4]

My argument here is simple: The 9/11 myth is that no one saw this coming; and therefore nothing could be done to stop it. Yet we also know that the security agencies of other countries knew and alerted us.

Therefore, if we eliminate conspiracy, then the only conclusion is that of MASSIVE AND OVERRIDING INCOMPETENCE.

If we accept that incompetence – that of being asleep at the wheel of our mega billion$$$ security and defense apparatus – is the only logical explanation, then why did not a purge take place?

And much more importantly: why has the American citizen not risen up in anger to demand a PURGE. (Why do the Clinton's not demand culpability?)

If this is so, then the American citizen herself is incompetent from the least citizen and apparently also to the most, as the Clinton's have demonstrated.

(full argument posted below)

[frost]

.

these "hecklers" are actually plants by the Clinton campaign..

turns out that after the Maher event where he supposedly had a heckler his ratings went up..

and in fact the "hecklers" at the Clinton event were brought in from Florida by the Clinton campaign..

big money marketing at work..

and the clowns who don't investigate the news fed to them will vote for this kind of bullshit every time..
.

[ZHarris]

wow, can I suck on a tab of whatever you're taking?

[Lelu]

I hope you're getting paid (not much but still).

[tkk]

Even if it was inside, what does that have to do with Bill Clinton?

[TLV]

Clinton was the president when the final planning for 9/11 took place. He's just afraid he won't be able to ride the lucrative coattails of Hillary if anyone decides to vote against her if they think he was involved.

[Yasmine]

tkk.............it has nothing to do with CLINTON....those who believe that the 9/11 attacks were either MADE TO HAPPEN OR it was ALLOWED TO HAPPEN via pseudo-incompetence LIKE TO GO TO BIG EVENTS AND EXPRESS THE CONSPIRACY OF 9/11/
and as Frost posted above , THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN MAY HAVE PLANTED The HECKLERs SO AS TO GIVE CLINTON AN OPPORTUNITY TO REBUTT THAT just like Maher had done.
SURELY MRS CLINTON who was the FIRST to mention THE RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY CANNOT POSSIBLY doubt 9/11 MAY HAVE BEEN PART OF THAT TOO.

[Mick7777]

The 9/11 Commissioners themselves were so distraught with the lack of cooperation on all levels that they almost took the entire case...twice...to the department of justice for criminal prosecution. If the Commissioners say it was criminal...why can't the American public?