Unfortunately, many theorists don’t know what they’re talking about. They’re not demolition experts, mechanical engineers, etc. Everyone loves a plot twist, and that’s why these theories are so hot right now.
We’re not actually fighting Iraq, just the terrorists that forcefully occupy it. We actually started the war in Afghanistan, hunting Osama.
I think it’s important to note that I didn’t say we are fighting just for revenge. The perpetrators do need to be killed, but we’re also insuring the future safety of America and addressing the wrongs of these terrorist organizations on their own people. First off, if we just took a hit like that and did nothing, our enemies would become bolder with each assault, increasing their frequency of attack. Political leaders must play a delicate role of showing other countries that we can and will fight back if we are provoked. Our nation’s seal is one of my favorite examples: we hold the olive branch representing peace, but also 13 arrows representing force to defend ourselves. Secondly, we’re helping the civilians there by protecting them from Taliban cruelty. As I’ve said, they kill women for trying to read, and strap explosives to young children.
Just a quick reference to the governmental conspiracies of 9/11 and Pearl Harbor. If the government really did invoke a catalyst to go to war, they wouldn’t choose Pearl Harbor or the Twin Towers. Pearl Harbor was a severe loss to our fleet, and several military experts were even doubtful we’d be effective in the war with such a blow. The loss of the Towers gave a severe hit to our economy as well. Going to war with a bad economy can be very painful–you want to fight with every advantage you have, rather than crippling yourself. Not to mention one plane hit a government military building, and the other was on its way to the White House. If the government really did want to invoke such a catalyst, and were truly evil (which they’re not) they would sacrifice a packed football stadium (American football for you European Folk) or a crowded mall. This would be much less damaging economic and military-wise, but would still invoke a strong spirit of patriotism.
As for the death of civilians. This is war–innocents will die. It is a cruel and horrible aspect of war, and exactly why I hate it, but it is impossible not to kill any civilians. We take the utmost care in protecting them though. Billions of dollars are poured into research for bombs that can take out a building, but not its surrounding buildings, or bombs that can be dropped with precision accuracy. Not to mention the Taliban hide amongst their own people, using them as a shield and disguise, and even using them, as in the case with women and children, as suicide bombers. If these enemies cared anything for their people, they wouldn’t take up such tactics. An Allied war fighter?s job is something I don’t envy one bit (that’s why I’ll just be carrying around the Band-Aids). They must find an enemy who might shake their hands in the morning, and shoot at them from behind a mask at night. They must decide if that thing held in a person?s hand is an explosives detonator, or something else. They can never let their guard down?even among woman and children.
At Mr Roo:
Very good point! That’s why I wanted to ask the large European / other population on this site what they thought of their systems, since I’ve never seen any other than my own. I’ve read countless articles and studied numerous aspects regarding solely economies, but healthcare alone is much less known to me.
All I’m going to say is that if we continue to allow governments to push their Utopian agendas by stepping in and curtailing the actions of commercial entities, we’re eventually going to end up with a idyllic world society like Roddenberry and others envisioned. And where will that get us? So happy and peaceful that we become bored enough to search out trouble and challenge amongst the races already populating the stars?
No.. I say to you the answer is too allow commerical entities to run amok unleashed. Only then will we achieve the Mega-corp ruled dystopian futures of Bladerunner, Rollerball, Soylent Green, Shadowrun, and other such visions. Only then can we see the dark, gritty, desparate livelihoods set forth in those epic ideals.
Let’s face it, which is going to have a greater need for our kind and our knowledge? One where ships are ‘tied up in port’ with tractor beams? Or one where life and death is determine by being able to quickly and skillfully use electrical wire to tie that prosthetic leg back on till you can get it fixed by some back alley butcher with a medical book and a soldering iron.
Oh, come on! Really! :
If that percentage is a problem with you I suggest you calculate how many percent of the US population who supported (=actually voted for) the elected president in just about any of the last 5 president elections… You all seem to accept and live with that, right?
I agree that these low percentages do suggest that the US has a slight democracy problem - but that is not what we are discussing here, right?
Haha, we have strayed away from the original topic haven’t we?
Well, in the presidential elections we have small 3rd parties that make things difficult. We might end up with 49%, 48%, and 3%, or so on. But in these cases, we don’t have only two options, so the “minimum majority” will be lowered (in a case with 4 parties, the minimum majority would be only 26%). However, in the case of the health care poll, there were only the options for “support, don’t support, and undecided.” (Not sure why you would vote if you?re undecided though :)). Assuming that the undecided people need more time to think about it, and the rest are opposed to it, then I would say our best bet would have been to slow down and think about it some more–maybe even have a chance to read the full bill :)).
I do understand why many people pushed for it so fast though. There will always be those who only care about improving the President’s legacy or pushing just because their party wants it, but I think the majority of the population who supported the bill really do care about our citizens, and they just want to help them as soon as possible. My problem with that is that I think it will only hurt, and we need to go about helping in other ways. Also, I don’t think the way things have played out agree with our Constitution.
No, I’m referring to Cheney-Bush lying to invade a non-involved country,
in pursuit of a different agenda, which they had been planning well prior
to the terrorist attacks of 2001-09. Their focus was on Iraq and not Al
Quaida, to the dismay of some of those in the administration, such as
Richard Clarke (who cited the gratuitous attack on & invasion of Iraq
as a great boon to Osama bin Laden’s radical Islamist goals – HE, after
all, was after Hussein’s hide and the Bathists’ rule). Bush was bin Laden’s
pawn in this, and provided a great rallying event for anti-American sentiment.
And I’m referring to the Gonzales Justice Dept. who checked first
for swearing allegiance to Bush.
The Bush administration is bound by civilized morals.
The war was started in retaliation of 9/11. It was absolutely necessary to hunt, find,
and end this threat to innocent lives, who plainly stated they would attack again.
You can’t be serious. The attackers were in Afghanistan, perhaps about
to be trapped at Tora Bora --that was the belief-- , not in Iraq. Cheney-Bush
had their long-term aims however at Iraq; “911” was a convenient excuse
for them, if they could just warp public opinion enough … .
To which end they lied and bullied, and began a war of their choosing.
And a war terribly mismanaged, at considerable cost.
All this nonsense about the war being about oil is ridiculous.
As ridiculous as the fact that the invading US army secured the oil
industry building while not guarding weapons depots. Yeah, right,
oil was maybe a coincidence.
if the soldiers thought that was all they were securing, they’d quit in a heartbeat.
Theirs was not to reason why, … – and the Cheney-Bush-Wolfowitz… lies
fueled their beliefs. (How many Scooter-Libby, Cheney-directed drafts of
the BS UN speech sent for He-who-has-credibility, Sec./Gen. Colin Powell did
State have to reject as clear rubbish? “slam-dunk” deception, all the way.
AND FOR WAR. (somehow, abortion is more upsetting to some)
Hell, just look at how Pat Tilman’s tragic death was handled, made into
a tale of glory, knowingly a big lie, but all’s fair in love & war.
because they know the good they’re accomplishing.
Yeah, right. Just like those Blackwater guards loved to drive in
places without traffic cops. And some of those prison guards just
liked to make the odd home video … (higher ups may be excused
for all this, tsk tsk).
They’re hunting an enemy who killed 3,000 innocent mothers,
With incredible --that means unbelievable, indefensible-- misnavigation!
They’re fighting terrorist regimes that can fairly be compared with Hitler.
These regimes
… were on the USA payroll with gifts of war gear not so long prior.
The list of terrorist nations is a rather politically convenient one
depending on what some in power see as their (in our name) interests.
On the torture issue: I would gladly waterboard every single person
prisoner of war we have if I thought it could save even one life.
Which good Christian verse will you cite for this? Whom would
Jesus kill first (I thought he turned the other cheek)? You must
have a lot of asterisks in your book of love.
Waterboarding doesn’t cause permanent damage, and they kick
themselves for giving up the information 10 seconds after it’s stopped,
because they feel perfectly fine.
??? Where do you come up with such nonsense? Why not say that
they eagerly suggest that they’ve more secrets to tell, each time they
get thirsty! (It is an amazing thing that Khalid was tortured some 180
times, and this we are supposed to believe indicates an efficacious
practice, nevermind morals &, at least, laws/treaties!) And do keep
track of how many so-called “terrorists” are ever really shown to be
such (such as the poor Syrian taken captive en route Canada by US
and sent to Egypt to be, uhm, maybe given back rubs?, on some
belief --unfounded, wrong-- that he was a “terrorist” or maybe knew
one or … . No apology from this moral country that I know of
(Canada at last did).
[quote="Dan_Lehman post:16, topic:3652"]
What
would YOU do if you were Iranian: buy Halliburton stock?
[/quote]
Do you mean Afghan?
No, I meant what I wrote: you live in Iran, you see the USA
drum up an excuse and go invade Iraq, and you hear the good
Christian words of Bush cite you as one of a trio of “Axis of Evil”
states, and … : let’s see, Korea has a nuke, no invasion; Saddam
didn’t, oops!
Much of Iran would like to be rid of … whom we’d like to be
rid of, just as much of USA wanted to be rid of Cheney-Bush.
Christian crusades aren’t the answer.
Like I said above the Taliban aren’t defending their homes,
as many people like to suggest. I once had a professor who
called them freedom fighters. Whose freedom are they fighting for?
Whose home do you think Afghanistan is? Not that you (or I) might
like the way they managed it, but it was their home, with that simmering
civil war which we swayed. In the good ol’ days we were arming them.
Sound familiar?!
They suppress anyone but themselves.
As would you re abortion; contrary beliefs lead to struggle.
The Republicans have been trying to come together. All you hear
about in the liberal media is that republicans are only saying “no,” and
… They actually proposed 80 amendments to the bill
Hey, they WERE IN CHARGE for 8 years. Where was THEIR bill,
nevermind their nuisance attempts to thwart others’ efforts.
I don’t know about you, but I sure couldn’t read 2000+ pages
in the time they rammed the bill through.
As though this is a novel thing, for Congress?
Republicans have told the dems they desperately want to work together,
Uh-huh, surely you cannot be so unware of their meeting in which what
was told was how to Stop Obama, fearing the momentum his election
brought? There was no desperate will to work with anything.
38% of the population supported the bill–aren’t representatives
supposed to “represent” those they serve? These polls should
… give the answers pollsters seek. There are many polls out there,
and a science to how to ask for what you want to hear.
They stuffed it with earmarks (a.k.a bribes to get votes).
Earmarks are not “aka bribes” any more than anything else:
they are ways to target funds – for good or bad motives
(e.g., one could be targeting funds to ensure that a good
project got them, and not that funds leaked into areas not
part of the rationale for their award).
Bribery is illegal in the US, and is grounds for impeachment.
And you see this happening, in any likelihood?
Jimmy Carter decades ago in some interview lamented that
people have no clue as to how much of our government is
essentially one of bribery. And it’s a price demanded by the
high cost of campaigning, under that great “free speech”
protection George Will luvs to rant about – those hugely
costly, emotion-tingling, empty rhetoric PR boosts over
the airwaves, pumped up at the last minute, timed just
so by the experts on marketing.
They are also forcing the American public to buy a product.
That’s much worse than corporations!
There is an economics of such a system that needs the cash
flow. When your corporation finds an out on your insurance
to avoid a claim, or bumps your rates to put you in bankruptcy,
I don’t think you’ll be so happy. So, far, so good for you?
As noted, T.R. Reid did a survey and wrote about it. That’s a
start to getting past the Republican sound bites.
[quote="Dan_Lehman post:16, topic:3652"]
Let's see how the unregulated private
financial industry did at that? -- or the old Microsoft ("M$") behavior
of driving OUT innovation, all the while claiming themselves to be
The Great Innovator (I recall how their "innovations" with Hotmail
--whom they acquired, mind you-- were consistently behind those of
then vigorous Yahoo), to preserve their monopoly (and they were too
big to get justice, here in the USA, courtesy of an egregiously pompous
federal judge P.).
[/quote]
It's odd how we punish people for being too successful.
They weren’t charged for being successful. You need to read the
case against them. They were putting the screws to even Intel,
and it certainly wasn’t because they were such great innovators
and could win business easily with their superior products. Rather,
they forced themselves in.
In fact, without sugar, our bodies wouldn’t be able to function.
There is a gulf of difference between healthy eating and what our
food industry markets for us.
Abortion is murder–there’s no other way around it.
“murder” is a legal term, and clearly abortion isn’t murder.
That’s your belief. And it’s a tough nut to deal with, when
such beliefs differ. We don’t all share that belief.
Owning a gun doesn’t make one a violent, life-hating person.
In fact, I own guns because I love life so much. …
Guns save lives by deterring crime. A little old lady with a .38
now has a chance against a 200 lb man. A young woman can
actually protect herself against rape or murder on a dark night.
This is patent nonsense. That data on guns show that they cost
lives, not save them. – the accidents, the heated arguments, … .
A person doesn’t go around and point a gun at every stranger,
and the criminal gets the jump; with a gun in your back, you
aren’t reaching for one of your own – too late. And AK-47s
aren’t hunting tools, either.
Tobacco is a horrible product. However, it's industry has created many jobs
and pumped up many economies. Plus, the government doesn't have the right
to tell someone they can't smoke.
Brothels create jobs, so do drugs. What happened to your
desire to save lives? Tobacco was long ago cited as a major
life stealer, slowly, painfully.
But, if you take away tobacco, they'll find other things--they always do.
“They”? The great govt. of, by, & for the People? They do
this? Maybe democracy is a bad idea? Maybe the Texas books
can say that tabaccy is fine & dandy, light up and make a job
– one for the grower, one for the wholesaler, one for the marketer,
several for healthcare! And then we can all vote for that.
Well, in the presidential elections we have small 3rd parties that make
things difficult. We might end up with 49%, 48%, and 3%, or so on
No, no. We have a stupid voting system that makes 3rd parties
problematic (and a 2-party deathgrip on maintaining status quo).
Voters should vote preference, to influence ANY possible
candidate A v. B choice, not have to guess who might have the
best chance of those having your favor – Bush over Buchanon, say.
But we’re talking about PERCENT WHO VOTED FOR … and that
is of ALL electorate: i.e., many did not vote. That has nothing to
do with 3rd-party detractions.
Now, back “on track”:
I do understand why many people pushed for it so fast though.
So fast? After how many decades of nothing?
No, they wanted to DO something, at lonnnng last, even so
imperfect. And then hope to improve on that.
Thanks for that link, sadly it read like one of those charming Jehovah’s Witness ‘Watchtower’ novels. Right from the get go it was making fun of the theories, so it was never likely to make a serious analysis of any of them.
Probably you are not interested, but there are four things I would point out to you.
First, the common saying that ‘There are none so deaf as those who do not want to hear’ is based on the very real human trait of putting our belief before our intelligence. This is particularly the case if someone is highly patriotic - even faced with prime proof, you will always find it hard to ever question those in charge of your country (no I do not mean the politicians), let alone countenance the deliberate slaughter of your countrymen and women.
Second, the best place to hide is in a crowd. By that I mean that if you want to hide your wrong doing, the best way to hide it is in a morass of obviously ridiculous conspiracy theories. The more that get started and the wackier the better. Folks will soon tire of the nonsense theories and stop paying them any attention. This way, the moment anyone spots a ‘smoking gun’ it can be disregarded as ‘more conspiracy nonsense’.
Third, forensics after the crime, should not have turned up large quantities of state of the art nanocomposite Aluminothermics. Yes they should have been present in the aftermath of a controlled building demolition, but they are not a normal component of iconic buildings such as the twin towers nor are they present in passenger jets, so they had no business being in the dust that exploded out from these collapsing buildings. Ignore if you can for one moment all the conspiracy ‘smokescreen’ that has been put up to hide this one scientific fact and ask how on earth could this material legitimately have been anywhere near the towers before their downfall. If you can sensibly answer this then you will have dispelled a ‘smoking gun’. If you cannot find any rational explanation then the remaining conclusion is that it was used to cut the heart out of the towers and ensure that they came down after the planes hit.
Note - the article you cited conveniently totally ignored this ‘smoking gun’ – why ?
Finally, if the planes had managed to cut through the cores of these buildings, then the tops should have fallen off and the pancaking floors should have left the cores standing and in the rubble there should not have been any ‘cut’ stanchions see http://www.wtc7.net/articles/WhyIndeed09.pdf
To an outsider, it is blatantly clear that you poor buggers have been shafted right up the ar**. The amazing thing is that you all seem to be loving it… Our controllers clearly have a very good measure of us.
I am of the mind that this Knot Forum is not the place for this.
To me it is the kind of topic that has and is the type that potentially drives people/members to other things, perhaps even making this forum a little less attracting.
Please take this topic offline with each other.
In my opinion this forum is not a pulpit for the wisdom s of of the few to share.
I know I have the right and the ability to not read or contribute to this, but I would hope that this topic could be served better elsewhere and that the subject and members I have some respect for not be sullied further.
I am sure that you are right that not many would be interested in this topic, but now we have a well structured Forum, this area can at last happily return to its planned use vis –
Chit Chat
You can talk about anything in here
So long as it remains polite and well mannered of course, and I grant you the topic might challenge several to keep their tempers and indignations in tight check, but I am sure that the rest of us are grown up sufficiently to step away from the ockie should that happen.
of course you are correct that this is the place in our forum to chit chat about anything. And I don’t think that originator intended to cause dismay.
I just know from personal experience, long personal experience that the “usual” outcome of discourse that involves some of what has been brought up already by our esteemed brethren generally, not always, but generally causes blisters.
That said I say, “Go for it” all who care to and know that the rest of the knotting world is reading.
Of course I’m interested! I know it may not seem like it to people who don’t agree with me, but I always like to look at the other views in addition to mine. (That way you can get the best from both worlds :).)
I do hope we haven’t scared anyone off! Politics are a touchy topic. It’s amazing though, how so many different view points can be brought together by one thing–knotting.
I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Smith, Mr. Lehman, and all the other posters who disagree with me on this forum. Other?s views are just as important as mine?we?re all in this game of life together. I apologize if it seems like I?m being insulting?as I?ve said, it?s hard for text to get emotions across. If anyone thinks I?m throwing punches, please call me out on it! I don?t want anyone to think I hate them for disagreeing with me. (I?ll guess I?ll try to include more smiley faces from now on .
I?ve been stretched for time, so I didn?t have much chance to read through the whole site, but the parts I read didn?t seem like they were making fun of anything. Plus, popular mechanics is supposed to be a fairly good source, so I assumed they wouldn?t sling any mud. Not to say there wasn?t any slinging in there though?I just didn?t find any in my brief overview. I apologize if there was any.
Speaking of time, I need to get away from this topic and back to my work :). I?ll be back in a couple days.
Destroying the credibility of a subject is a powerful tool, and strangely, the lighter it is applied, the more effective it becomes.
The opening page of the article is couched in terms set to accord with the readers if they are already sceptic and aimed at scorning a reader if they have given any credence to any particular theory. (emphasis mine)
Healthy skepticism, it seems, [b]has curdled into paranoia[/b]. Wild conspiracy tales are peddled daily on the Internet, talk radio and in other media. Blurry photos, quotes taken out of context and sketchy eyewitness accounts have inspired a slew of elaborate theories: The Pentagon was struck by a missile; the World Trade Center was razed by demolition-style bombs; Flight 93 was shot down by a mysterious white jet. As outlandish as these claims may sound, they are increasingly accepted [b]abroad and among extremists[/b] here in the United States
Only by confronting such[b] poisonous claims[/b] with irrefutable facts can we understand what really happened on a day that is forever seared into world history.
They dismiss the demolition theory by glibly talking about the floors ‘pancaking’ and make no reference to the substantial amount of analysis that has gone into reviewing the (im)possibility of this ‘perfect downing’ event, let alone the impossible chance of it happening twice in exactly the same manner. Indeed, to suggest that these buildings were not designed to withstand fire and impact does a great disservice to the designers and engineers who created these icons. Even had every floor fallen, the cores should have remained standing - even some of the comparatively fragile outer shell remained standing, yet the structural cores, massively stronger by comparison, were levelled.
The smoking gun is well in evidence - the only questions remaining are ‘How and when was the thermitic demolition charge applied ?’
But then, perhaps too few people want to know the answer to those questions. The answers and their implications are perhaps too horrendous to contemplate.
After all -what would you do when you discovered it was the truth ?
Well stated I think we must have very similar beliefs on the value of life and the uselessness of war.
Knot Head
I never said anything about a specific people.
Correct, sort of. you made a blanket statement about all immigrants to The US Legal or Illegal the only ones left out of your statement are those who are trying to immigrate legally and are still waiting on citizenship status.
Here in my country we have a big share of immigrants that are not even on our governments books for citizenship, and yet our system takes care of them through the welfare and social security. Most of them are just plain lazy and getting fat off the American tax dollar.
Mr. Smith–I am deeply sorry that my link offended you and others. In my scan of the site I skipped the introduction and went straight to the fact sheet links above. I hope you know that I am not here to insult anyone, and I hope you can forgive me.
Here’s my interpretation of what it says: The steel structure with spray on thermal coating was certified at a certain temperature. This coating was bypassed on several columns though, when the plane severed them, and caused damage to many others. Severing only a few columns would not make the building come down. Despite the thermal coating being bypassed in these columns, hydrocarbon flames are still not hot enough to melt steel, but they can weaken it enough to the point where the load of the tower would be too much to bear–even with the coating still intact. As the first columns were severed, the others became overly stressed. In the end, the steel frames failed, causing the towers to come down.
The inner and outer cores, although relatively strong, were weakened by the heat, and the falling floors brought them down with them. The inner core would not still be standing with all that weight brought down on them, coupled with the weakening power of the flames. Also, once the momentum built up, the force coming down would be amplified, requiring the steel to be stronger and stronger as time passed.
The pictures of cut steel in the photos of your attached report are from rescue operations. Contrary to what the writer said, acetylene torches can spill the molten metal they cut on the inside and outside of the column–especially if there was weight above the cut. Also keep in mind that the rescuers weren?t concerned with how pretty the cut looked, but rather how they could get to the victims the fastest and most efficiently.
How could this thermite get into the building in the first place? One clean cut of one steel column would require approximately 100 lbs of thermite. However, if the molten flow really is molten steel, then the thermite quantity would have to have been many times more than that. One truther paper I read said he suspected the thermite was brought in on pallets. How could this much explosive material go unnoticed?
The thermite that was in the building was from the construction and building supplies. Also, the center was packed with gypsum.
?Additionally, on February 14, 1975 a major fire occurred, the result of arson, which began on the 11th floor of the North Tower during the middle of the night. Spreading through floor openings in the utility closets, it caused damage from the 10th to 19th floors, though this was generally confined to the utility closets. However, on the 11th floor about 9,000 square feet was damaged. This was about 21 percent of the floor?s total area (43,200 square feet) and took weeks to repair. Some parts of the steel trusses (floor supports) buckled due to the heat. 132 firefighters were called to the tower in response, and because the fire was so hot, many got their necks and ears burned.?
This fire was hot enough to buckle the steel floor, and it wasn?t even feed by jet fuel?just ?paper baskets, etc.? If thermite was used, then it was that which was in the building materials (placed there without a malicious intent). I highly doubt the US government planned this whole thing over 25 years before the fact.
The thought that the towers couldn?t fall into their footprint is false as well. As the center of the tower buckled and fell, and brought down its surroundings as well. It takes a lot of skill to do something like that, and only a few contractors are willing to even do it. Which brings us to why would the government want to do it? If it?s so hard to do, and if a normal building can?t fall like it, then why give the public a ?smoking gun? like that? If they?re smart enough to do all the necessary math and physics to control a demolition that size and put it in its own footprint, then they would know that the public would become suspicious if it didn?t follow the normal laws of physics. And, if their intent was to rally support, why not let the towers fall all over the place to begin with? That?d end more lives, cause more damage, and would be more ?mechanically correct? (according to truthers).
We’re not attacking Iraq; we’re attacking the terrorist groups and extremist regimes within Iraq. And these people are warring. Also, they’re not just fighting for revenge, but to prevent future attacks, and help the oppressed people who were under terrorist control.
@Mr. Lehman
No, I’m referring to Cheney-Bush lying to invade a non-involved country,
in pursuit of a different agenda, which they had been planning well prior
to the terrorist attacks of 2001-09. Their focus was on Iraq and not Al
Quaida, to the dismay of some of those in the administration, such as
Richard Clarke (who cited the gratuitous attack on & invasion of Iraq
as a great boon to Osama bin Laden’s radical Islamist goals – HE, after
all, was after Hussein’s hide and the Bathists’ rule). Bush was bin Laden’s
pawn in this, and provided a great rallying event for anti-American sentiment.
I guess we?ll never have any proof of what the Cheney-Bush administration was trying to accomplish by going to war, since we can?t see inside their heads. I can say for certain though, that the reason I?ll be there soon is to help and heal my fellow soldiers, as well as the innocent people of the Middle East who were either caught in the cross fire or abused by terrorist regimes.
As ridiculous as the fact that the invading US army secured the oil
industry building while not guarding weapons depots. Yeah, right,
oil was maybe a coincidence.
I don?t remember seeing that. Are you referring to allied weapons depots, or enemy weapon depots? Either way, an oil field should be secured?otherwise it?s nothing more than a big bomb.
Yeah, right. Just like those Blackwater guards loved to drive in
places without traffic cops. And some of those prison guards just
liked to make the odd home video … (higher ups may be excused
for all this, tsk tsk).
Blackwater is a private contractor, not the US military. Private contractors usually have a record of little digression, and probably shouldn?t have been hired in the first place. Also, those ?home videos? were isolated incidents?you can?t assume every soldier would do that. The fact that they were punished shows the military doesn?t approve of it.
With incredible --that means unbelievable, indefensible-- misnavigation!
I?m not sure what you mean. There were actually reports that a lead terrorist was at the towers a day before to input the coordinates into a GPS system.
… were on the USA payroll with gifts of war gear not so long prior.
The list of terrorist nations is a rather politically convenient one
depending on what some in power see as their (in our name) interests.
At that time they were on our side. People betray each other everyday.
Which good Christian verse will you cite for this? Whom would
Jesus kill first (I thought he turned the other cheek)? You must
have a lot of asterisks in your book of love.
I will cite no Christian verse. War is not a Christian matter, and wars should never be fought under the flag of any religion. Also, water boarding is a non-lethal, non-perm ant-damaging method that could save lives by obtaining important info. In a perfect world no one would have to get hurt, but I would sacrifice the comfort of the evil to save innocent lives any day.
??? Where do you come up with such nonsense? Why not say that
they eagerly suggest that they’ve more secrets to tell, each time they
get thirsty! (It is an amazing thing that Khalid was tortured some 180
times, and this we are supposed to believe indicates an efficacious
practice, nevermind morals &, at least, laws/treaties!) And do keep
track of how many so-called “terrorists” are ever really shown to be
such (such as the poor Syrian taken captive en route Canada by US
and sent to Egypt to be, uhm, maybe given back rubs?, on some
belief --unfounded, wrong-- that he was a “terrorist” or maybe knew
one or … . No apology from this moral country that I know of
(Canada at last did).
Actually, Khalid was boarded 266 times. First off, the fact that he survived that many times indicates that boarding doesn?t do permanent damage?it only creates the sensation of drowning. Keep in mind though; he was one of the plotters behind the attacks, so we knew he was an enemy.
As for that Syrian you mentions: I said that I would board every prisoner of war that we have, if I thought it would save a life. This Syrian didn?t pick up a gun and shoot as us, so you can?t claim I would support boarding him. Just because someone has darker skin than us doesn?t mean he?s a terrorist.
No, I meant what I wrote: you live in Iran, you see the USA
drum up an excuse and go invade Iraq, and you hear the good
Christian words of Bush cite you as one of a trio of “Axis of Evil”
states, and … : let’s see, Korea has a nuke, no invasion; Saddam
didn’t, oops!
Much of Iran would like to be rid of … whom we’d like to be
rid of, just as much of USA wanted to be rid of Cheney-Bush.
Christian crusades aren’t the answer.
Ok, my mistake. I thought you were referring to the beginning of the conflict in the Middle East itself.
Iran was labeled as such because they supplied weapons to our enemies. That?s indirect warfare.
Korea wasn?t attacking us at the time.
There is no such thing as a true Christian crusade. It is fine to prey to your God in war, but to claim that you?re fighting because of God (which I didn?t state in my reasons for the war) is an insult to your religion.
Whose home do you think Afghanistan is? Not that you (or I) might
like the way they managed it, but it was their home
Germany was Hitler?s home as well. That didn?t give him the right to kill his citizens who didn?t match up to his idea of ?perfect.?
Hey, they WERE IN CHARGE for 8 years. Where was THEIR bill,
nevermind their nuisance attempts to thwart others’ efforts.
They?re thwarting other?s effort because they think the bill will be a hazard to America. Rushing to fix something isn?t the answer, if your rush will cause you to mess things up even more.
As though this is a novel thing, for Congress?
Passing a bill you haven?t fully read is never acceptable.
Uh-huh, surely you cannot be so unware of their meeting in which what
was told was how to Stop Obama, fearing the momentum his election
brought? There was no desperate will to work with anything.
I was referring to the bill, not Obama?s election. That?s a different can of worms.
… give the answers pollsters seek. There are many polls out there,
and a science to how to ask for what you want to hear.
It is true that many polls are written to get the answers the pollsters want, but this particular poll was conducted by Quinnipiac University as a national service, not to sway opinion. If I had taken this poll from a Republican website, I would have been more cautious to believe it?s outcome.
Earmarks are not “aka bribes” any more than anything else:
they are ways to target funds – for good or bad motives
(e.g., one could be targeting funds to ensure that a good
project got them, and not that funds leaked into areas not
part of the rationale for their award).
These earmarks are incentives for certain congressmen to vote for the bill. This is buying a vote.
And you see this happening, in any likelihood?
Jimmy Carter decades ago in some interview lamented that
people have no clue as to how much of our government is
essentially one of bribery. And it’s a price demanded by the
high cost of campaigning, under that great “free speech”
protection George Will luvs to rant about – those hugely
costly, emotion-tingling, empty rhetoric PR boosts over
the airwaves, pumped up at the last minute, timed just
so by the experts on marketing.
Of course I don?t see it happening?I was merely stating that to show the significance of the matter. Jimmy Carter should have reported the incidences he saw if he really disapproved of it.
There is an economics of such a system that needs the cash
flow. When your corporation finds an out on your insurance
to avoid a claim, or bumps your rates to put you in bankruptcy,
I don’t think you’ll be so happy. So, far, so good for you?
I?m not sure how corporations finding an ?out? relates to forcing the public to buy a product. Just because the universal healthcare system needs funds to operate doesn?t mean it?s right to force the public to buy a product.
They weren’t charged for being successful. You need to read the
case against them. They were putting the screws to even Intel,
and it certainly wasn’t because they were such great innovators
and could win business easily with their superior products. Rather,
they forced themselves in.
That was my mistake?I should have elaborated more. I was referring to how a company that follows legal guidelines becomes a monopoly, but then is charged with antitrust laws at its height. As I said, corporations should follow moral and legal guidelines when operating their businesses.
There is a gulf of difference between healthy eating and what our
food industry markets for us.
They don?t hold a gun to our head and make us eat chocolate bars. But I agree they are VERY effective in their advertising. Unfortunately, many people don?t have the self-control to know when to stop, or when to eat better?but the companies can?t be blamed for their lack of discipline.
“murder” is a legal term, and clearly abortion isn’t murder.
That’s your belief. And it’s a tough nut to deal with, when
such beliefs differ. We don’t all share that belief.
It still remains that abortion is the taking of a life. What defines life? Is it when one is able to defend themselves, or when we see a face so we feel guilty?
This is patent nonsense. That data on guns show that they cost
lives, not save them. – the accidents, the heated arguments, … .
A person doesn’t go around and point a gun at every stranger,
and the criminal gets the jump; with a gun in your back, you
aren’t reaching for one of your own – too late. And AK-47s
aren’t hunting tools, either.
No matter how much gun control you enact, criminals will still get a hold of them. Taking them away from the civilians just makes them more susceptible to attack. As for the data, more violent crimes take place in Washington DC than the national average?and DC is a gun-free zone. I assume you?re taking your stats from the UK? (Correct me if I?m wrong). The US and UK are two different countries though, and those numbers can?t be conclusive without taking them from within the culture being studied.
Brothels create jobs, so do drugs. What happened to your
desire to save lives? Tobacco was long ago cited as a major
life stealer, slowly, painfully.
I just stated that tobacco is a horrible product. I obviously don?t want anyone to use it, but the government doesn?t have any right to tell them what they can or can?t do to their bodies. Just because tobacco takes lives, doesn?t mean you can count out the one positive aspect of it?its job creation.
“They”? The great govt. of, by, & for the People? They do
this? Maybe democracy is a bad idea? Maybe the Texas books
can say that tabaccy is fine & dandy, light up and make a job
– one for the grower, one for the wholesaler, one for the marketer,
several for healthcare! And then we can all vote for that.
Actually I meant the user of the product. And what I meant was, they might turn to a tobacco alternative that burns and tastes similar?especially with all the flavors they can put in them now-a-days.
No, no. We have a stupid voting system that makes 3rd parties
problematic (and a 2-party deathgrip on maintaining status quo).
Voters should vote preference, to influence ANY possible
candidate A v. B choice, not have to guess who might have the
best chance of those having your favor – Bush over Buchanon, say.
But we’re talking about PERCENT WHO VOTED FOR … and that
is of ALL electorate: i.e., many did not vote. That has nothing to
do with 3rd-party detractions.
From what I can understand, we don?t have differing views on this. I don?t like the fact that people vote just because of party ties, and in this case 51% of the population wasn?t required to vote in a new candidate (only 34%, assume two other candidates got 33% each.)
If you want to cite fictional works, how about The Giver, where the governent tries to silence a boy for finding out the truth. Or Harrison Garrison, where a man who chooses not to wear his clown makeup and weights (used to make everyone equal and to completyly redistibute not only the weath, but every quality of life) is hunted down and killed in a haze of government gunfire?
Mr. Justin. I hate war as well, but I don’t think it’s useless. If you were in charge, what would you have done in response to Pearl Harbor, or an unpromted invasion of Huns, etc? Not to be sarcastic–I’m truly interested in what other logic might be used on the matter.
From my readings of these posts, no one has been offended and there has only been one light hearted warning that the subject might get tempers a little heated.
However, I take it from your switch to using the very formal ‘Mr. Smith’ salutation instead of the customary ‘Derek’, that I have in fact ruffled your sensibilities. If this is the case, I would hasten to assure you that I am in no way making an attack on you or your opinions, and that my posts are simply offering ‘factual’ information on this topic which paints a very dark alternative perspective on the 9/11 ‘trigger’ and the Iraq war.
Thanks for you new link, it is certainly couched in far less emotional terminology and indeed shows that a large number of critical questions are now being asked of those undertaking the investigations. Note again however, that in reading those reports, a significant amount of interpretation is necessary in what is said and indeed in what is not said. Again, what is written is aimed at confirming for the person who wants to believe that there is no home hand in this disaster. Note also, there is a complete absence of any answer as to why state of the art nano technology Aluminothermics were present in significant quantity in the dust which settled over the city. Ask the question - Why are they blind eyeing this smoking gun?
How could this thermite get into the building in the first place? One clean cut of one steel column would require approximately 100 lbs of thermite. However, if the molten flow really is molten steel, then the thermite quantity would have to have been many times more than that. One truther paper I read said he suspected the thermite was brought in on pallets. How could this much explosive material go unnoticed?
The thermite that was in the building was from the construction and building supplies. Also, the center was packed with gypsum.
The analysis of the thermite residues shows them to be ‘STATE OF THE ART’. The finer the aluminium particles the more efficient the thermite, and in these samples the aluminium was uniformly present as nano particles - far less than your quoted “100 lb per cut” would have been necessary and the analysis suggests that the cutting charges could have been applied underneath the recently renewed insulation layers. Yes, this would have been forward planning on a significant scale - in fact in line with the owner (Silverstein) taking out extended terrorist insurance cover in 2001 (after having bought it in 2001 for $15 million) and negotiating the rights to redevelop the area should a terrorist attack occur ? ? ? Silverstein walked away with seven billion dollars compensation (yes $7,000,000,000) along with full rights to redevelop the primest real estate in the USA – As you folks have coined the phrase – “Follow the money…”
The thermite that was in the building was from the construction and building supplies. Also, the center was packed with gypsum.
These state of the art thermites did not exist when the towers were constructed so how can you say they were used in construction, let alone the fact that these materials are used for demolition when the site is safe, they are never used for precision cuts in construction - where did you get your reference from - it is clearly in error. Also, gypsum? what has this to do with Aluminothermites ?
Re the floors pancaking when the spandrels are deformed by heat - yes it was modelled by the designers that this could happen, but the slightest bit of out of balance causes the falling material to spill out one side, so even if a genuine weakness had occurred at the impact point, the top(s) should have tipped over and ‘fallen off’. The cores of these buildings were immensely strong and should have been left standing even if all the floors pancaked - yet they were levelled.
I will attempt to recover the site that did a thorough analysis of the dynamics of destruction of these buildings for you to read. For one building to fall straight down is a fluke of unimaginable improbability - for both to do it and then hours later to be followed in the same fashion by building 7 begs a rational mind to say - Oh yeah? who are you trying to kid.
Finally, if the unexplained presence of high tech demolition charges in the debris, coupled with the perfect ‘pulling’ of these three buildings is not enough to make you think, then consider this last little possible ‘Own Goal’
The BBC were informed that building 7 had collapsed despite the fact that it had not been hit by terrorists. OK so far…
Yet the reporter was standing in front of the building and it was still standing. Clearly, she did not know the building the report referred to was building 7 - yet the report had already been published that the tower had fallen see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7SwOT29gbc Shortly though the report though, the feed is lost – OOPS . boobo there or what ?
To rewind the discussion a little bit:
I looked a little closer and according to figures I have found, which seem official and credible, about 62% of the US population voted when Obama was elected (and this very unimpressive percentage was apparently high compared to many other elections! :o).
He was elected by about 52% of the votes.
So, let us see… 52% multiplied by 62% means that… 32%, less than a third, of the population supported him enough to drag their lazy behinds to the election offices and actually vote! And this was the figures for the guy who won, mind you! No offence, but the democratic system in the US has some really serious problems, in my opinion. http://www.langkawi.dk/smileys/m52.gif
Mr. Justin. I hate war as well, but I don't think it's useless. If you were in charge, what would you have done in response to Pearl Harbor, or an unpromted invasion of Huns, etc? Not to be sarcastic--I'm truly interested in what other logic might be used on the matter.
When I say war is a useless act I am referring to those who start it not those who are the victim of it and a better word for me to use would have been pointless or senseless. Yes when an act of war is carried out against a country it must defend its self. In some cases that defense must be taken out of the country.
I know you are using the Mr. to denote that you are having a civil gentleman’s conversation so if you must the last name is Toliver. Mr. Justin just sounds strange to me
Oh no, I always use "Mr. and Ms.? If I haven’t used it before on this forum, then that was my fault. It’s just a sign of respect that I like to use. I even use it for several very good friends of mine who are around 10-20 years older than I.
As for the gypsum, I read in a truther article that the presence of sulfur indicated that explosives were used. Gypsum is a form of sulfur used in building materials that might explain the presence of them.
I suppose that we both have respected sources on either side that dismiss each other’s evidence with other scientific fact, and use alternate reasoning for the implied results and motives. When it comes to this, perhaps all we can do is interpret. Don’t think I’m not for an investigation into the collapse though–even if it doesn’t turn out to be proof of an inside job, then they could at least find out what weakness made the buildings collapse so they could hopefully prevent such disasters in the future.
Yes, voting turnout is very low. It’s a shame more people don’t exercise the rights they are blessed with. I asked one of my friends why he didn?t vote in the past election, and he replied that he didn?t care. How can one not care about the next four years of their life?! My philosophy behind that though is, if they didn?t vote, they can?t complain if things go bad.
Every system has its problems, but I suppose we must choose which one that we feel is the best out of the collection of flawed ones humanity has amassed.
Good point Mr. Toliver ( :)). I’d say we have the same view on the matter, and just differing views on the reasons for the current war. I would only add though, that if a government is engaging in genocide and invading other neutral countries (specifically referencing WWII and no other wars) then a country with the military means should take action to end these abuses (assuming all other means have been exhausted). Would you agree to that, or do you prefer isolationism to avoid wars that don’t directly involve specific countries?
Mr. SoL
No, I agree in the case of WWII, in fact we should have acted sooner. Allot sooner as in just after WWI. The way that aftermath was handled created the environment that allowed Hitler to rise to power and created the catalyst for WWII
Isolationism is a childish idea, it amounts to saying “if you ignore the bully he will go away”. Ultimately we live on a very small planet and with in, an ever shrinking culture (thanks in large part to the Internet) we can not simply ignore the plight of our neighbors for it will soon become ours. We must however take more care with our choices in how we act, it appears to me that violence is the option far to often taken as the solution. I blame this largely on our educational system, it is pathetic. Our history classes are based on rote memorization of dates and names instead it should focus on the socio economic pressures that created events in history, the why and how not the when and who if you will.
