OT: does obama bring change?

[BoulderDawg]

"While the economy will begin growing again by the end of 2009, the unemployment rate will continue to expand into next year, the Congressional Budget Office reported Thursday.

The CBO projects Americans will continues to lose jobs through mid-2010, with the umemployment rate peaking at 10.5 percent next year, CBO Director Doug Elmendorf said in testimony before the House Budget Committee.

The CBO's March assessment initially predicted unemployment would peak at 9.5 percent.

The current unemployment rate is 8.9 percent. The Labor Department on Thursday reported 631,000 new jobless claims last week.

The Federal Reserve said Wednesday that the unemployment rate could rise to 9.6 percent this year and remain elevated until 2011. Some private economists told The Associated Press they expect the rate to reach 10 percent by the end of this year."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/21/congressional-budgeters-predict-percent-unemployment-rate-year/?test=latestnews

You say we can't afford this. Yet we can afford 12 billion a month in Iraq.

Notice how the neos got us into to this big mess then complain because it's not instantly fixed....Their solution....thier only solution is to cut taxes......Taxes were cut and cut and cut again by the Bush admin....look where that got us.

[Drake]

1886: Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad - Corporations get personhood under the 14th Amendment

1890: Sherman Anti-Trust Act - Sections 7&8 define corporations as persons

1893: Noble v. Union River Logging - 5th Amendment (due process) - first Bill of Rights

1906: Hale v. Henkle - Corporations get 4th Amendment "search and seizure" protection

1925: Gitlow v. New York - rules constitutional protections for corporations include 14th Amendment, press, speech, and 5th Amendment

1976: US v. Martin Linen Supply - corporation uses 5th Amendment to protect against double jeopardy to avoid retrial in anti-trust case

http://www.nancho.net/corperson/corptime.html

Now, maybe some ignorant fools will stfu. If they had done their own homework, they wouldn't have embarrassed themselves by repeatedly demanding proof that is quite easy to find.

I keep telling you not to do the work for him. Now he's probably like "Uhhhh... these don't count!"

[KC Elbows]

I'm not saying Obama is or isn't a natural born citizen. There seems to be evidence pointing both ways at this point.

But I will say in answering KC, that you cannot say something is not true simply because "credible news sources" do not pick it up.

I never, not once, said this. I said that the fact that, given the fact that it was in the vested interest of some very powerful political and media folk, to report on this, and none have chosen to, it certainly does not bode well for the "story" itself, and that having a source is worth about zero if the source fails to establish credibility, which is what seems to be the case here.

Remember, Drudge broke the Lewinsky story,

Drudge did actual investigating, had sources that could be crosschecked, et al. Thus far, I have seen not one source that could do the same on this "story", despite there being elements of it that could be checked. Snopes did a better job checking it than the so-called journalists who wrote it, and snopes is not that great.

And we all agree that Drudge and the National Enquirer are not "mainstream news", right?

The fact that they had sources that could be checked out means a lot more than this whole story. Again, why would Bush's election team, known in the past for using everything and the kitchen sink against opponents, chose not to run with this? Why didn't Fox? Or anyone, this is not a new story, everyone's had plenty of time to check it out, and no one on either side of the political field is staking even one shred of their rep on this. Unlike both stories you just cited. Why? Because the liberal media runs Fox?

[KC Elbows]

Dang, I was logged in and posted a big long reply then when I was done it asked for my login again and the post was gone.

I hate that!

"http://www.examiner.com/x-5697-Grassroots-Politics-Examiner~y2009m5d20-National-billboard-campaign-launched-challenging-Obamas-eligibility-for-office"

I hate to break it to you, but that link is not a case of investigative journalism at all. It does not support the claim whatsoever, provides not one source to check, and is an example of a media outlet not only failing to even try to do so, but then trying to play politics instead of doing their job. I'm sorry, if they cannot support their assertion, why is the next logical step to organize a protest for something they fail to supply evidence for?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2008-12-08-obama-eligibility_N.htm

I'm confused why you would present an article stating that the Director of the Health Department of Hawaii and the registrar of vital statistics both confirmed that Obama was born there as evidence that he wasn't born there.

"http://usjf.net/archives/182"

Oh my god, that article is so bad. First, not one source of use for verifying anything they say. Two, the author suggests that, while Obama has a birth certificate in Hawaii, there's no proof it's a Hawaiian one. Perhaps Hawaii is different, but no matter where I live, my birth certificate will always be in the state of my birth. I'm pretty sure Hawaii is no different.

URL="http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081013064550AA7cVgs" (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081013064550AA7cVgs)


Dude, that's a forum, and less reliable than Wikipedia! That's not a journalistic website, nor does it even pretend to be!

"http://www.ballot-access.org/2008/11/16/alan-keyes-files-lawsuit-over-obama-eligibility/"

That's just an announcement that someone filed a suit, not evidence that the suit holds any water.



Are you aware that experts have pretty much proven that image to be a poor forgery?

http://www.americandailyreview.com/home-features-articles-blog/2009/5/6/obama-birth-certificate-forgery.html

Um, no, and that article did not make me aware of it because 1) Not one expert is quoted in that entire article, 2) That article makes claims about what's happening behind the scenes without even claiming to have a source, and 3) that article fails, in every way, to cite or support a single assertion!

I'm sorry, I don't disagree that the process of running for President should include supplying one's birth certificate to proper channels(READ: not any yahoo, since I don't have to give you my BC to get a driver's license), but you still have not provided articles with sources, and have only really provided some that give information as if having sources, while having no sources. If those who support this cannot supply even that, why should the rest of us think it's true?

The problem with your theory is that those protected by the Constitution cannot voluntarily give up their Constitutional rights.

They cannot, however, others can offer them loans and bailouts at terms of their own making, and they clearly preferred to lose some to the state in the bailout over going belly up from their own incompetence and corruption meeting bad timing. They knew the money would have strings and accepted it, tough crap. This is not like Stalin, Mao, or any other case where the state seized assets with nothing in return, this was a clear exchange of services, and if the credit industry didn't know the terms before accepting it, well, that's some fine irony.:D



The courts have said that while corporations do not enjoy the rights guaranteed a 'person' under the Constitution (voting, bearing arms, etc), they do indeed have the protections granted a 'person' by the Constitution.

Fair enough.

[MightyB]

or OBAMA THE NEOCON :eek:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/07/AR2009050704336.html

bastids- --


Let 'em fail.

[MightyB]

The problem with globalization or "NAFTA" type initiatives were that they were never intended to raise the standards of living and quality of lives of those overseas in the labor markets that we're more or less "exploiting". The true goal of those initiatives was quite the opposite- they were intended to lower the standard of living for the wage earning class in the United States.

[MightyB]

"More significantly, it raises fundamental questions about the purpose of bailing out these big companies. If GM is going to do more of its production overseas, then why exactly are we saving GM?" -- former labor secretary Robert B. Reich

[sanjuro_ronin]

"More significantly, it raises fundamental questions about the purpose of bailing out these big companies. If GM is going to do more of its production overseas, then why exactly are we saving GM?" -- former labor secretary Robert B. Reich

What little we can?

Actually, the truth be it told, the only thing trying to be saved is the cities and towns that became dependant on the domestic auto industry.
Something that would best be donw with bailout money to established small businesses on the condition they hire X number of employees for X number of years:
EX:
250 million for 1000 business @ 250K each on the condition of hiring 2 full time employees for 2 years min.

[1bad65]

I keep telling you not to do the work for him. Now he's probably like "Uhhhh... these don't count!"

I actually did it for the other left-leaning guys in case they thought he MIGHT have had a point. He has been on ignore since I told you he was. And it will stay that way. I gave him more than enough chances to debate rationally.

Discussing politics with him is like discussing calculus with someone who adamantly believes that no matter what anyone else says, 2+2=5 in his world. It's an excercise in futility. I'll admit you figured that out much faster than I did. ;)

[1bad65]

The fact that they had sources that could be checked out means a lot more than this whole story.

You admitted Yao presented good evidence mentioned one one of his links that said Obama only released an electronic copy of the birth certificate. And that part is true. That assertion checked out, correct?

Again, why would Bush's election team, known in the past for using everything and the kitchen sink against opponents, chose not to run with this?

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't think Bush ran against Obama. And the guy who did run against him didn't use Bush's strategists, like Karl Rove for example.

Why didn't Fox? Or anyone, this is not a new story, everyone's had plenty of time to check it out, and no one on either side of the political field is staking even one shred of their rep on this. Unlike both stories you just cited. Why? Because the liberal media runs Fox?

Once again, none chose to break the Lewinsky or the Edwards stories either. And both Drudge and the Enquirer said the 'mainstream' news had access to alot of the same evidence they had. They chose not to report something that 'lesser' media outlets did, stuff which was later confirmed to be 100% true.

[1bad65]

They knew the money would have strings and accepted it, tough crap.

Once again, States and the people cannot give up their Constitutional rights. Nowhere in the Constitution does it give rights to States and the people, and then preface it with something like, 'unless they accept money from the Federal Government and agree to waive these rights'.

[1bad65]

Actually, the truth be it told, the only thing trying to be saved is the cities and towns that became dependant on the domestic auto industry.

Close.

What is trying to be saved is the UAW. Notice the stock that was unconstitutionally taken from the rightful owners was given to the UAW, not to those cities.

[BoulderDawg]

What is trying to be saved is the UAW. Notice the stock that was unconstitutionally taken from the rightful owners was given to the UAW, not to those cities.

What stock might that be?

Something tells me you don't know the difference between debt and equity.

Not surprising....:p

[BoulderDawg]

Check out some quotes from this article about life expectancy:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090521/ap_on_he_me/un_un_life_expectancy

For every 1,000 babies of both sexes born in Japan, 996 will make it past their fifth birthday — a key indicator of the health of a nation. Most European countries fare equally well on child mortality, while the United States limps behind both in child mortality and life expectancy.

The U.S., which spends the highest amount of money per person on health care — $6,719, also still lags on child mortality compared to other advanced nations. About eight in 1,000 children will die before the age of 5 — an improvement from 11 per 1,000 in 1990 but still twice as many as in Japan.

Hmmmm.........The neos tell us there is nothing wrong with health care in America....I guess as long as the rich gets it that's all that counts!

[KC Elbows]

You admitted Yao presented good evidence mentioned one one of his links that said Obama only released an electronic copy of the birth certificate. And that part is true. That assertion checked out, correct?

I think you have me confused with someone else, I hadn't commented on that. I also think what you are claiming qualifies as "good evidence" is lacking. Obama's staff put out an electronic copy for people to see, but this is not evidence of anything other than that's as far as they bothered to go with answering these spurious allegations.

Again, post an actual article with sources that back this whole story, and it might be news, but until that happens, it isn't news. Not one article that was posted actually supported the allegation in any way. Not one. Not to mention a few of the sources would be considered biased, even if they bothered to support their allegations, which they didn't. EVERY ONE of those articles goes miles out of the way to actually avoid substantiating the accusation. Read them, you'll see that's the case.



Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I don't think Bush ran against Obama. And the guy who did run against him didn't use Bush's strategists, like Karl Rove for example.

LOL. Good point. Which still begs the question, if the accusation has any legs, why didn't Fox or McCain's people back it in any real way? Answer: because it's hocum.



Once again, none chose to break the Lewinsky or the Edwards stories either. And both Drudge and the Enquirer said the 'mainstream' news had access to alot of the same evidence they had. They chose not to report something that 'lesser' media outlets did, stuff which was later confirmed to be 100% true.

Are you saying that not one major media source chose to air the Lewinski story or the Edwards story ever? Because that's clearly not true. Once the story ran, and those journalists had something to fact check, they quickly ran with them. Which is exactly what is not happening with this idiotic citizenship bs. No one is willing to back it, why? Why won't Fox back it? Answer: because it's hocum.

[Yao Sing]

For starters I'm trying to establish that his eligibility is being questioned. I got the impression you thought it was just a made up story. People ARE questioning it, regardless of what you think of those people (Alan Keyes for one), and there are lawsuits trying to get some verification released.

So we can establish as fact that it is an issue that is being challenged/questioned.

Now, has he provided acceptable proof of eligibility? Apparently not. Unless you can provide evidence otherwise.

True, Hawaii admits they have a birth certificate on record for Obama but during that time the state allowed a foreign birth to be recorded and they have not indicated whether this is the case or not.

So, that is NOT acceptable proof he's a natural born citizen. Now if you could just name the hospital where he was born I'm sure it can be easily checked out.

You see his sister mentione 2 hospitals but it seems neither one have any record of his birth or anyone, doctors included, that recall his birth.

His aunt I think it was stated that she remembers witnessing his birth in Kenya and that is recorded on tape. Kenya also celebrates his birth there (http://nicedeb.wordpress.com/2008/11/21/kenyan-ambassador-obamas-birthplace-already-well-known-in-kenya/)but they could just be jumping on the publicity. Funny thing though but all the records in Kenya have been sealed also. Why a cover-up?

So we have recorded statements that he was born in Kenya but lack any physical evidence in the form of documentation (birth certificate, hospital records) that would contradict the testimony. This is not by accident but deliberately sealed so the truth cannot be discovered. Why?

It amazes me that any US citizen that cares even the slightest about this country would not want to clear this up and be satisified that the law is being followed.

How hard is it to get a copy? People do it all the time. Why spend money on a legal team to supress this information How did he get into college? Did he scam the college and pretend to be a foreign student and receive grants or was he reallly a foreign student? This should be investigated as there could be criminal activity involved.

And how did he travel to Indonesia and Pakistan in 1981 when American Citizens were not allowed unless he had an Indonesian passport?

[BoulderDawg]

I actually did it for the other left-leaning guys in case they thought he MIGHT have had a point. He has been on ignore since I told you he was. And it will stay that way. I gave him more than enough chances to debate rationally.

Discussing politics with him is like discussing calculus with someone who adamantly believes that no matter what anyone else says, 2+2=5 in his world. It's an excercise in futility. I'll admit you figured that out much faster than I did. ;)

High praise coming from a neo.

How do you know you're a true liberal?

When you are personally attacks because of your liberal philosophy.

and

When you rationally explain your point of view to a neo they just ignore it(Put you on ignore).:D

Anyway I have a lot of company!

[Yao Sing]

Politicians putting on tinfoil hats to join the demand for proof (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=88646) of Obama eligibility.

Expert says posted image of birth record (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82503) is a forgery.

[Reverend Tap]

Expert says posted image of birth record (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82503) is a forgery.

"Experts" say lots of things. You'll find a lot more "experts" out there who'll tell you that 9/11 was an inside job than those who'll tell you Obama isn't a citizen. And the fact that this particular "expert" (I use the singular because there's only one actually mentioned; the use of phrases like "experts say..." in the article is trash journalism) hides behind a fake name, voice, and face as a supposed security precaution on a story few people really care about only indicates that trusting in him is a dubious proposition. Seriously, the man is basically saying "you can't accept this document because it's a reproduction posted online, but you should accept everything I say because I post it anonymously online." Give me a couple of days and a video camera and I'll be an "expert" too on whatever you like.

Now, personally, I don't really give a sh!t about the issue. He's very probably a natural-born citizen, and on the off-chance that he's not, honestly, enforcing the law (which would entail running a new election and nullifying EVERYTHING he's done since entering office) would at this point do much more damage to the country than not. And, unless this ever gets some traction with the major news media, it will remain a somewhat amusing curiosity and little more. I just don't like seeing people passing off trash journalism as the real deal, especially given the pounding the the journalist's craft is already taking in our society.

[1bad65]

Who knew William Gates was our Secretary of Defense? I didn't. I thought he ran Microsoft. Oh wait, the Secretary of Defense is Robert Gates. Someone better tell this breaking news to Obama. Or maybe he forgot how to read a Teleprompter.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/05/21/video-obama-acknowledges-defense-secretary-william-gates/

[1bad65]

Looks like GMAC gets another $7.5 billion. :rolleyes: They already got $6 billion, and that didn't fix it.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/21/autos/gmac_bailout/index.htm?postversion=2009052119

Remember; the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over, yet expecting a different result.

[BoulderDawg]

Who knew William Gates was our Secretary of Defense? I didn't. I thought he ran Microsoft. Oh wait, the Secretary of Defense is Robert Gates. Someone better tell this breaking news to Obama. Or maybe he forgot how to read a Teleprompter.

http://hotair.com/archives/2009/05/21/video-obama-acknowledges-defense-secretary-william-gates/

Of course! Democratic president are not allowed to misspeak.

The problem is that if you had some highly polished talking machine who never made a mistake he would be cricitized as being too perfect.

In any case I never understood the teleprompter thing.....I guess neos don't use them. For me this is as silly as when the neos jumped on Obama during the campaign by suggesting that to save gas we check the air in our tires. McCain's staff handed out tire guages........

Anything to pull the average American's mind off the real issues I guess.

[Drake]

I'm wondering if he'll ever beat Fmr. Pres. Bush's gynecologist remark. A classic! I've been in a lot of briefings, and this stuff happens. It can be very VERY funny. :D

[1bad65]

I'm wondering if he'll ever beat Fmr. Pres. Bush's gynecologist remark. A classic! I've been in a lot of briefings, and this stuff happens. It can be very VERY funny. :D

What happened there?

My favorite military briefing moment was when General Honore told that reporter he was "stuck on stupid".

[Yao Sing]

You guys are just unbelievable. You can't pick and choose which laws you follow and which you ignore. No wonder Bush got away with his crap. Talk about an apathetic population. "Oh, it's just too much trouble adhering to the law now so let's just drop the whole thing."

You can bet that Obama is banking on that attitude. This should have been addressed when it first came up BEFORE the election instead of all the stalling and legal maneuvers.

And regardless of what experts say, or whether they really are experts, a digital graphic (easily modified) is NOT sufficient evidence especially for something this important.

He's a Constitutional scholar and knows full well what he's doing is unlawful. Bush trashed "that god**** piece of paper" every chance he had and Obama is putting the final nail in the coffin of the Constitution and you guys think it's ok.

You all should be deported. Either swear and oath (some of you already have) to support and defend the Constitution or get the hell out.

[SharkyT]

You guys are just unbelievable. You can't pick and choose which laws you follow and which you ignore. No wonder Bush got away with his crap. Talk about an apathetic population. "Oh, it's just too much trouble adhering to the law now so let's just drop the whole thing."

You can bet that Obama is banking on that attitude. This should have been addressed when it first came up BEFORE the election instead of all the stalling and legal maneuvers.

And regardless of what experts say, or whether they really are experts, a digital graphic (easily modified) is NOT sufficient evidence especially for something this important.

He's a Constitutional scholar and knows full well what he's doing is unlawful. Bush trashed "that god**** piece of paper" every chance he had and Obama is putting the final nail in the coffin of the Constitution and you guys think it's ok.

You all should be deported. Either swear and oath (some of you already have) to support and defend the Constitution or get the hell out.

You need help, Lee Harvey.

[Reverend Tap]

You guys are just unbelievable. You can't pick and choose which laws you follow and which you ignore. No wonder Bush got away with his crap. Talk about an apathetic population. "Oh, it's just too much trouble adhering to the law now so let's just drop the whole thing."

You can bet that Obama is banking on that attitude. This should have been addressed when it first came up BEFORE the election instead of all the stalling and legal maneuvers.

And regardless of what experts say, or whether they really are experts, a digital graphic (easily modified) is NOT sufficient evidence especially for something this important.

He's a Constitutional scholar and knows full well what he's doing is unlawful. Bush trashed "that god**** piece of paper" every chance he had and Obama is putting the final nail in the coffin of the Constitution and you guys think it's ok.

You all should be deported. Either swear and oath (some of you already have) to support and defend the Constitution or get the hell out.

You, sir, evidently mistake me for a patriot. However, and fortunately for those of us who don't share your rather extreme point of view, living in a relatively free society entails, in part, not actually being required to be patriotic in that fashion.

Personally, I don't particularly care about the constitution in and of itself. I care about people not getting screwed over. The former is only important inasmuch as it prevents the latter, in my eyes. Not a take I expect others to share, just my personal POV.

And in any case, failing to enforce laws when doing so would be more trouble and/or more damaging to the society those laws are supposedly enacted to protect is a standard procedure from the local to the federal level of law enforcement.

This is all, of course, beside the point, as the effort to prove Obama isn't a natural-born citizen remains less developed than the effort to prove 9/11 was an inside job, and as such, merits an equivalent degree of attention; ie, little to none.

[1bad65]

Personally, I don't particularly care about the constitution in and of itself. I care about people not getting screwed over. The former is only important inasmuch as it prevents the latter, in my eyes. Not a take I expect others to share, just my personal POV.

That is exactly what the Constitution was written for, to make sure people don't get screwed over.

Look at all the rights it gave the people; freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom to own firearms, freedom to assemble peaceably, right to be judged by a jury and no double-jeopardy, etc.

It says repeatedly what Government 'shall not' do, yet NEVER says 'the people' 'shall not'. It also made the Federal government quite weak, sadly that's been whittled away for decades and thus we are in the mess we are in now.

[BoulderDawg]

It says repeatedly what Government 'shall not' do, yet NEVER says 'the people' 'shall not'. It also made the Federal government quite weak, sadly that's been whittled away for decades and thus we are in the mess we are in now.

Dam shame ain't it?

I guess we should go back to the time when government did not interfere in no one's life...Like in the great depression where if you had no money you were F'd! Government was not there to help no one...or maybe in the 50s/60s in the south with the "White's only" waiting room and the dam feds sure as hell wasn't going to tell them they had to let a N vote! That's when state rights were respected!

And what's all of the fed interference with private companies.....No reason food producers should be burdened with all of these strict laws to keep our food safe....what the hell is up with that?

[BoulderDawg]

Can't wait to see Obama's choice for supreme court. My guess is that he'll cave in and name a moderate conservative.

In any case it doesn't matter who he picks every member of the GOP in the senate will vote against the candidate. Sad really. Of course the court should have balance. With the most liberal member of the court leaving he should be replaced by another liberal.

Also,

I heard Obama say today that the nuclear test made by North Korea was "illegal"....:D I don't think that North Korea falls under the jurisdiction of US law...and as far as any type of international law goes I think North Korea respects it about as much as the US.

I think the US should practice what they preach. If they don't want other countries to have nukes they should get rid of their own.

[Hardwork108]

You'll find a lot more "experts" out there who'll tell you that 9/11 was an inside job than those who'll tell you Obama isn't a citizen.

Actually, you don´t need to be an expert to know that 9-11 was an inside job, possessing more than 2 brain cells should be sufficient.

Here is an interesting link regarding Obama. It seems that the assault on the rights and freedoms of US (and other) citizens continues to go on under the new president.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uuWVHT1WUY

It is my humble opinion and I have said this before, no matter who is "elected" president the people who run the United States remain the same!

Hence the "Bush agenda(s)" will continue under different guises and sugar coated terms. By the way, the same applies to the UK and other so called "Democratic" (what a laugh!) countries!

People need to wake up and see the big picture!!!!!!!!

[Drake]

9-11 was inside incompetence... not an inside job.

[Hardwork108]

9-11 was inside incompetence... not an inside job.

IMHO, 9-11was an INSIDE JOB where planned incompetence was used to facilitate events.

[1bad65]

It is my humble opinion and I have said this before, no matter who is "elected" president the people who run the United States remain the same!

Hence the "Bush agenda(s)" will continue under different guises and sugar coated terms. By the way, the same applies to the UK and other so called "Democratic" (what a laugh!) countries!

People need to wake up and see the big picture!!!!!!!!

So it's the "Bush Agenda" that is the goal of these conspirators? :confused: How long has this conspiracy been going on? Are you sure it's not the "Ford Agenda", or maybe the "LBJ Agenda"? :rolleyes:

[1bad65]

IMHO, 9-11was an INSIDE JOB where planned incompetence was used to facilitate events.

Oh, Jeez. :rolleyes:

There are still tinfoil hat wearers who say Pearl Harbor was a conspiracy.

Dude, Islamic radicals caught us napping and pulled off a fairly complicated terrorist attack. Islamic radicals do that sort of thing. And they hate us and Israel. This may shock you, but if given the chance, they will do it again. It is what it is.

[BoulderDawg]

Islamic radicals caught us napping and pulled off a fairly complicated terrorist attack.

Yeah right.......:rolleyes:

A bunch of radicals take basic pilot training telling their instructors they are not interested in take-off or landing they just want to know how to fly. They buy one way tickets....I guess they wanted to save money. The week leading up to the attacks they were in bars getting drunk and bragging about it.

Hell, even Bin Laden himself didn't think the Bush Admin were stupid enough to allow this to happen. No way did he ever think they would pull it off.

Just because a group of radicals managed to fool the Bush admin does not mean they had some sort of genius plan that tooks months of training.....In fact the plan was crazy and probably would not have succeeded had anyone else been in office.

[sanjuro_ronin]

There are a lot of things that stink with 9-11, of that there isn't much of a gray area unfortunately.

[BoulderDawg]

Obama's supreme court choice: Sotomayor

Just been announced. From what little I've heard about her it sounds like a fairly good choice. A few liberal groups are giving their approval.

I am a little surprised that Obama did not cave to the neos and nominate a moderate conservative to the court.

In any case it looks like hearings will be held in July and, without any major scandal, I can't see the GOP getting 40 votes to stop this, even if Frankin is not in the senate yet.

Isn't it time that Thomas and Scalia retired? With any luck Obama will be able to 3-4 appointments to this court.

[1bad65]

There are a lot of things that stink with 9-11, of that there isn't much of a gray area unfortunately.

There are alot of parellels between 9/11 and Pearl Harbor.

But the main thing in both cases was the sheer audacity of the attacks themselves. And warning signs were missed because those who got the warnings could just not conceive the possibility of what was going to happen.

[sanjuro_ronin]

There are alot of parellels between 9/11 and Pearl Harbor.

But the main thing in both cases was the sheer audacity of the attacks themselves. And warning signs were missed because those who got the warnings could just not conceive the possibility of what was going to happen.

This is true, there are also quite a bit of BS circulating as to how the towers fell, but that is another thread and probably something that people will never agree on anyways...

[1bad65]

This is true, there are also quite a bit of BS circulating as to how the towers fell, but that is another thread and probably something that people will never agree on anyways...

When you crash large planes full of jet fuel into buildings, it causes massive damage. Again, common sense. Sadly, common sense seems to be in short supply.

[1bad65]

This is quite unusual. :)

First, they finally voted down tax increases. And now their court system finally didn't overturn the will of the people. There may be hope yet over there.

"The California Supreme Court upheld a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage Tuesday, but it also decided that the estimated 18,000 gay couples who tied the knot before the law took effect will stay wed.

The 6-1 decision written by Chief Justice Ron George rejected an argument by gay rights activists that the ban revised the California constitution's equal protection clause to such a dramatic degree that it first needed the Legislature's approval.

The court said the people have a right, through the ballot box, to change their constitution."

Source:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GAY_MARRIAGE?SITE=ININS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[BoulderDawg]

Par for the course

Limby has already this morning called Satomayor a "racist"......what else is new!:D

By the way he also called Obama racist too!.....again

********

Anyway the more I read about the choice the more it appears she's really a moderate in her views. It would suit me if every neo in congress fought her tooth and nail. Of course in a CNN poll the American people, by a vote of 70-30, feel that Obama made a good choice. The GOP would just tie the noose tighter around their neck.

[BoulderDawg]

This is quite unusual. :)

First, they finally voted down tax increases. And now their court system finally didn't overturn the will of the people. There may be hope yet over there.

"The California Supreme Court upheld a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage Tuesday, but it also decided that the estimated 18,000 gay couples who tied the knot before the law took effect will stay wed.

The 6-1 decision written by Chief Justice Ron George rejected an argument by gay rights activists that the ban revised the California constitution's equal protection clause to such a dramatic degree that it first needed the Legislature's approval.

The court said the people have a right, through the ballot box, to change their constitution."

Source:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_GAY_MARRIAGE?SITE=ININS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

The "will of the people" is of no concern when it comes to the rights of the people. If this was so there would still be colored water fountains in Georgia.

Also, why should that concern you? You live in Texas. A state that wants to leave the union.

[sanjuro_ronin]

When you crash large planes full of jet fuel into buildings, it causes massive damage. Again, common sense. Sadly, common sense seems to be in short supply.

I am a P Eng, my specialty is high temperature and high pressure stress ( piping and pressure vessels).
Like I said, many questions still to be answered in a satisfactory way.

[1bad65]

I am a P Eng, my specialty is high temperature and high pressure stress ( piping and pressure vessels).
Like I said, many questions still to be answered in a satisfactory way.

You're not a conspiracy theorist though on this, are you?

[sanjuro_ronin]

You're not a conspiracy theorist though on this, are you?

Nah, I work closely with government, they couldn't plan this if their ass depended on it.
Nevertheless the questions are there.
EX:
I recall seeing a picture of one of the internal structural hollow square "tubing", huge sucker too, it was cut on a 45 with "cutting slag" on it and the slag was not done as it would have been done if it was cut by the clean up crew, the torch cutter would have had to be INSIDE the tube to cut it that way...

[Drake]

Burning jet fuel can destroy virtually any standing structure out there.

The fact is, we identified this (the 9-11 attacks) as a possibility, but it was considered a bit far out to be taken too seriously. Have you all seen the Onion clip where a 9-11 conspiracy theorist is arguing with the Al Qaeda guy? Hilarious.

[1bad65]

You almost have to laugh.

"Within minutes of the Supreme Court's 6-1 ruling, gay leaders said they were moving into campaign mode with an eye toward trying to repeal Proposition 8 at the ballot box as early as next year."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/27/gay-marriage-fight-return-california-ballot/?test=latestnews

So let's see what the liberals have said and done over there on this issue:

1. They wanted it put to the voters, figuring since it was in California they would win.
2. They lost, so then they said that the voters wishes didn't count and they got a liberal court to overturn the election they called for.
3. Then the California Supreme Court overturned that court, thus upholding the original election results.
4. Now the liberals want another statewide election. :rolleyes:

[sanjuro_ronin]

Burning jet fuel can destroy virtually any standing structure out there.



Where did you get that info?

[David Jamieson]

Burning jet fuel can destroy virtually any standing structure out there.

The fact is, we identified this (the 9-11 attacks) as a possibility, but it was considered a bit far out to be taken too seriously. Have you all seen the Onion clip where a 9-11 conspiracy theorist is arguing with the Al Qaeda guy? Hilarious.

Drake, that statement is patently incorrect.

I think the US government has failed to provide the whole story of what happened. I think the security breaches went way beyond planes into buildings.

I think as a matter of national security, the rest of the information is being withheld for whatever reasons.

The truth is that the WTC are the first ever steel structure building to collapse in free fall from fire where the jet fuel more or less was gone on the initial impact and subsequent explosion.

The problem is the atmosphere of fear created, the institutionalizing of stfu and so on and so forth.

Truth fears nothing and it will prevail eventually.

I agree that the government is far too incompetent to arrange anything like that, but I wouldn't put it past a military source and not necessarily an inside one either.

Just sayin.

[1bad65]

I agree that the government is far too incompetent to arrange anything like that, but I wouldn't put it past a military source and not necessarily an inside one either.

Not to sound like a broken record, but this EXACTLY what many of the Pearl Harbor conspiracy theorists said.

[BoulderDawg]

The truth is that the WTC are the first ever steel structure building to collapse in free fall from fire where the jet fuel more or less was gone on the initial impact and subsequent explosion.

As far as I know the WTC is the only skyscraper to ever be hit by a jumbo jet. So how can anybody say something different might have happened?

The truth is I don't see anything different here than in the Kennedy assination.

People are trying to balance the equation. They say, "There is no way some uneducated, underemployed man woke up one morning and just said "I'm going to kill the President today". Nope, to make things equal it had to be a very complex plan with layers and layers of conspiracy......That's the reason even today people still believe Oswald did not do it by himself.

911 was the same. Nobody (not even Bin Laden) believed a bunch of Muslim thugs with IQs around 80 would ever pull that off. The only reason it was even tried was because Bin Laden saw how stupid the Bush admin was and figured he would take a chance.

I'm wondering why no one has came out and blamed OJ yet.

[David Jamieson]

As far as I know the WTC is the only skyscraper to ever be hit by a jumbo jet. So how can anybody say something different might have happened?

The truth is I don't see anything different here than in the Kennedy assination.

People are trying to balance the equation. They say, "There is no way some uneducated, underemployed man woke up one morning and just said "I'm going to kill the President today". Nope, to make things equal it had to be a very complex plan with layers and layers of conspiracy......That's the reason even today people still believe Oswald did not do it by himself.

911 was the same. Nobody (not even Bin Laden) believed a bunch of Muslim thugs with IQs around 80 would ever pull that off. The only reason it was even tried was because Bin Laden saw how stupid the Bush admin was and figured he would take a chance.

I'm wondering why no one has came out and blamed OJ yet.

a) it wasn't a jumbo jet that hit the wtc towers, it was 2 planes, one each, and they were 767s and each was comparable to what the original design could handle crashing into it.

b) the wtc is wholly separate from the JFK killing. and Oswald was not uneducated at all. It's just likely that he wasn't the only shooter.

c) the islamic fundamentalists tried to bring down the wtc before and almost succeeded in 93 with the truck bomb in the car park. They also at that time vowed they would give it another go in the future.

The part that confirms that the Gov wasn't telling everything came out when first Bush and Cheney along with Rumsfeld said "we didn't have any indication they would attack" followed by Rice under oath revealing the document titled contrary to that which they had before it happened.

They had every indication that Islamic fundamentalists would attack the symbols of American power, they were just out of their field to deal with it and screwed it up further with how they handled the event afterwards. Bumbling idiots in a lot of respects regarding that.

[Drake]

Where did you get that info?

Because we don't build our skyscrapers out of titanium? Don't be lazy and expect me to get you the burning temp of jet fuel as opposed to what it takes to melt the support structure of a skyscraper. It was built to withstand IMPACT, not the heat itself. Research it. I'm not doing it for you.

This as opposed to the outrageous idea that enough explosives to sink a skyscraper could be planted without detection in the middle of a %^&$ing metropolis.

[1bad65]

It was built to withstand IMPACT, not the heat itself.

Isn't that why the hijackers hijacked planes very near to their targets? So the planes would be full of fuel?

[1bad65]

Drake, as a member of our armed forces, what's your take on the Korea situation?

I'm nervous, but I'm also incensed because I remember who sold the North Koreans missile technology.

[Drake]

Drake, that statement is patently incorrect.

I think the US government has failed to provide the whole story of what happened. I think the security breaches went way beyond planes into buildings.

I think as a matter of national security, the rest of the information is being withheld for whatever reasons.

The truth is that the WTC are the first ever steel structure building to collapse in free fall from fire where the jet fuel more or less was gone on the initial impact and subsequent explosion.

The problem is the atmosphere of fear created, the institutionalizing of stfu and so on and so forth.

Truth fears nothing and it will prevail eventually.

I agree that the government is far too incompetent to arrange anything like that, but I wouldn't put it past a military source and not necessarily an inside one either.

Just sayin.

I'm saying the jet fuel melted the support structure of the building, which resulted in a pancake effect. You can make up any story you want and make it sound somewhat true. I can assert that norse militants caused 9-11, and even create a clever side story and logistics plan to support it. However, it's not true.

Yet when we have message traffic from Al Qaeda confirming the success of the attack and an entire plot shown to us, we still cry conspiracy. It's like you guys are being contrary just for the sake of being contrary. The Japanese did it! The Chinese did it! The (insert evil organization here) did it! It's shooting from the hip trying to make something out to be more than what it is.

We were attacked by terrorists. We were surprised. Our pres reacted exactly like I figured he would, which is not good. There's nothing more to this.

[Drake]

Drake, as a member of our armed forces, what's your take on the Korea situation?

I'm nervous, but I'm also incensed because I remember who sold the North Koreans missile technology.

It's N. Korea struggling to stay relevant, if you ask me.

[1bad65]

It's N. Korea struggling to stay relevant, if you ask me.

But they were GIVEN the reactor and the technology by Clinton. :eek:

They may just be 'rattling the sabres', but they do now have nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to the targets of their choosing.

[Drake]

Isn't that why the hijackers hijacked planes very near to their targets? So the planes would be full of fuel?

Yes, and they use this same tactics with VBIEDS downrange, too. However, I don't think they anticipated the towers collapsing. Put them in a bad spot.

[Drake]

But they were GIVEN the reactor and the technology by Clinton. :eek:

They may just be 'rattling the sabres', but they do now have nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them to the targets of their choosing.

N. Korea may be crazy, but they aren't suicidal.

[BoulderDawg]

Wow, just heard that Limby has continued his attack of Sotomayor today. He once again called her a racist and other not too kind comments.:D

That sounds good to me. Everytime that land whale opens his mouth with stuff like this the GOP loses votes.

I think it's put up of shut up time for the GOP....Should they follow Limby, Cheney and Rove or go the route of Colin Powell.

If they go with the Limby philosophy they will soon cease to be a major political party. A more moderate conservative party will take their place.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Because we don't build our skyscrapers out of titanium? Don't be lazy and expect me to get you the burning temp of jet fuel as opposed to what it takes to melt the support structure of a skyscraper. It was built to withstand IMPACT, not the heat itself. Research it. I'm not doing it for you.

This as opposed to the outrageous idea that enough explosives to sink a skyscraper could be planted without detection in the middle of a %^&$ing metropolis.

Its 500+ F, just under 600 and I did research it, did you miss the part where I mentioned I am a P.Eng and ASME P.Eng specializing in high pressure and high temperature? I am also an ASME qualified Welder.

I am NOT putting forth ANY view, I am asking a simple question that seems to be very hard to answer, for some reason.

[David Jamieson]

I'm saying the jet fuel melted the support structure of the building, which resulted in a pancake effect. You can make up any story you want and make it sound somewhat true. I can assert that norse militants caused 9-11, and even create a clever side story and logistics plan to support it. However, it's not true.

Yet when we have message traffic from Al Qaeda confirming the success of the attack and an entire plot shown to us, we still cry conspiracy. It's like you guys are being contrary just for the sake of being contrary. The Japanese did it! The Chinese did it! The (insert evil organization here) did it! It's shooting from the hip trying to make something out to be more than what it is.

We were attacked by terrorists. We were surprised. Our pres reacted exactly like I figured he would, which is not good. There's nothing more to this.

dude, did you even read my post? lol

conspiracy? where did i say that?

as a besides, there are plenty of engineers and architects that would disagree with the steel melting, the pancaking and so on.

there is a lot of evidence that is contrary to the official report and it is not going to just lie down and go away.

so what can I say? get used to the perpetuity of conspiracy theorists and those who want the whole truth to come out because quite frankly, that hasn't happened so far.

Because you don't want anything more on this means you're satisfied with what you've been told, however, that is not the position of a great deal of people and by the way, people from all over the world lost people on that tragic day, so it's not solely a US problem and it is being looked at by many.

[sanjuro_ronin]

You almost have to laugh.

"Within minutes of the Supreme Court's 6-1 ruling, gay leaders said they were moving into campaign mode with an eye toward trying to repeal Proposition 8 at the ballot box as early as next year."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/27/gay-marriage-fight-return-california-ballot/?test=latestnews

So let's see what the liberals have said and done over there on this issue:

1. They wanted it put to the voters, figuring since it was in California they would win.
2. They lost, so then they said that the voters wishes didn't count and they got a liberal court to overturn the election they called for.
3. Then the California Supreme Court overturned that court, thus upholding the original election results.
4. Now the liberals want another statewide election. :rolleyes:

Well, isn't that how democracy works?
You wanna change a Law, you vote on it, it fails, you keep trying till it pasts.

[1bad65]

so what can I say? get used to the perpetuity of conspiracy theorists and those who want the whole truth to come out because quite frankly, that hasn't happened so far.

Which again, is EXACTLY what the tinfoil hat crowd said about Pearl Harbor. :rolleyes:

[1bad65]

Well, isn't that how democracy works?
You wanna change a Law, you vote on it, it fails, you keep trying till it pasts.

Not really. This 'hold elections repeatedly until we get the result we want, and if we lose we go to court' strategy is not how the Constitution envisioned our country working.

Look at our Government: Congressmen get 2 years, Senators get 6, and the President gets 4. It's not some Election of the Month system.

Let's say your correct though; If the people of California vote this time to allow gay marriage, does it go to court again? When would the next gay marriage election occur? If the people again vote 'NO', do they have another election the next year? And the next? And the next? :rolleyes:

[David Jamieson]

Which again, is EXACTLY what the tinfoil hat crowd said about Pearl Harbor. :rolleyes:

name calling doesn't constitute a counter argument.

[1bad65]

name calling doesn't constitute a counter argument.

I agree, but my point was made. And it's 100% true.

[David Jamieson]

I agree, but my point was made. And it's 100% true.

you didn't make a point. you compared an apple to a lemon then kept going about something else.

pearl harbour was a sneak attack.

there is some evidence that there was fore knowledge of the event about to occur, however, the negotiations were under way and so, I guess the lights were on but no one was home that day.

wtc attack was done previously ('93 bombing), and they (fundamentalist islamic militants) vowed to strike again, and Bush government failed to do anything about it even though they had a document that stated as the title "Bin Laden Determined to Strike the United States" date prior to the attacks and with knowledge that they wanted to directly attack symbols of american power.

The first was a fool me once thing, the second was utter incompetence and not minding the store by teh Bush administration.

[1bad65]

Get real. The terrorists repeatedly struck us under Clinton. Bush stopped them after ONE attack. And we now know the plot was hatched and the planning started on Clinton's watch. His erecting the "Wall of Silence" was a gift to the 9/11 plotters. Bush repealed that foolishness.

And Clinton was offered up Bin Laden by Sudan, but he said 'No'. Maybe he was too busy GIVING North Korea a nuclear reactor and guided missile technology.

He left foreign policy a real mess. I don't think highly of Obama, but he has to deal with the mess in Korea that Bill Clinton caused. I honestly hope Obama handles it well.

[David Jamieson]

Get real. The terrorists repeatedly struck us under Clinton. Bush stopped them after ONE attack. And we now know the plot was hatched and the planning started on Clinton's watch. His erecting the "Wall of Silence" was a gift to the 9/11 plotters. Bush repealed that foolishness.

And Clinton was offered up Bin Laden by Sudan, but he said 'No'. Maybe he was too busy GIVING North Korea a nuclear reactor and guided missile technology.

He left foreign policy a real mess. I don't think highly of Obama, but he has to deal with the mess in Korea that Bill Clinton caused. I honestly hope Obama handles it well.

I disagree with pretty much your entire assessment.

[Drake]

you didn't make a point. you compared an apple to a lemon then kept going about something else.

pearl harbour was a sneak attack.

there is some evidence that there was fore knowledge of the event about to occur, however, the negotiations were under way and so, I guess the lights were on but no one was home that day.

wtc attack was done previously ('93 bombing), and they (fundamentalist islamic militants) vowed to strike again, and Bush government failed to do anything about it even though they had a document that stated as the title "Bin Laden Determined to Strike the United States" date prior to the attacks and with knowledge that they wanted to directly attack symbols of american power.

The first was a fool me once thing, the second was utter incompetence and not minding the store by teh Bush administration.

And just like PH, there were a few people who suggested that they might attack us in the manner of 9-11. And, just like PH, their ideas were dismissed. At least now we are steadily working towards a more critically thinking environment. The hard part is getting rid of or converting the old guard to a more dynamic mode of thinking. Believe it or not, a lot of the intel leadership still thinks in a Cold War state of mind. Change is happening, though.

[BoulderDawg]

And Clinton was offered up Bin Laden by Sudan, but he said 'No'.

That would have been a political assasination pure and simple. You Neo are very much for shutting up people you don't agree with. However the rest of us don't use mafia type tactics.

[Drake]

FINE. Here...

The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.

Part of the problem is that people (including engineers) often confuse temperature and heat. While they are related, they are not the same. Thermodynamically, the heat contained in a material is related to the temperature through the heat capacity and the density (or mass). Temperature is defined as an intensive property, meaning that it does not vary with the quantity of material, while the heat is an extensive property, which does vary with the amount of material. One way to distinguish the two is to note that if a second log is added to the fireplace, the temperature does not double; it stays roughly the same, but the size of the fire or the length of time the fire burns, or a combination of the two, doubles. Thus, the fact that there were 90,000 L of jet fuel on a few floors of the WTC does not mean that this was an unusually hot fire. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.

In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame. A jet burner generally involves mixing the fuel and the oxidant in nearly stoichiometric proportions and igniting the mixture in a constant-volume chamber. Since the combustion products cannot expand in the constant-volume chamber, they exit the chamber as a very high velocity, fully combusted, jet. This is what occurs in a jet engine, and this is the flame type that generates the most intense heat.

In a pre-mixed flame, the same nearly stoichiometric mixture is ignited as it exits a nozzle, under constant pressure conditions. It does not attain the flame velocities of a jet burner. An oxyacetylene torch or a Bunsen burner is a pre-mixed flame.

In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace flame is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire.

Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types.

If the fuel and the oxidant start at ambient temperature, a maximum flame temperature can be defined. For carbon burning in pure oxygen, the maximum is 3,200°C; for hydrogen it is 2,750°C. Thus, for virtually any hydrocarbons, the maximum flame temperature, starting at ambient temperature and using pure oxygen, is approximately 3,000°C.

This maximum flame temperature is reduced by two-thirds if air is used rather than pure oxygen. The reason is that every molecule of oxygen releases the heat of formation of a molecule of carbon monoxide and a molecule of water. If pure oxygen is used, this heat only needs to heat two molecules (carbon monoxide and water), while with air, these two molecules must be heated plus four molecules of nitrogen. Thus, burning hydrocarbons in air produces only one-third the temperature increase as burning in pure oxygen because three times as many molecules must be heated when air is used. The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000°C—hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1,500°C.

But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio. Typically, diffuse flames are fuel rich, meaning that the excess fuel molecules, which are unburned, must also be heated. It is known that most diffuse fires are fuel rich because blowing on a campfire or using a blacksmith’s bellows increases the rate of combustion by adding more oxygen. This fuel-rich diffuse flame can drop the temperature by up to a factor of two again. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range.2,3 It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range. All reports that the steel melted at 1,500°C are using imprecise terminology at best.

Some reports suggest that the aluminum from the aircraft ignited, creating very high temperatures. While it is possible to ignite aluminum under special conditions, such conditions are not commonly attained in a hydrocarbon-based diffuse flame. In addition, the flame would be white hot, like a giant sparkler. There was no evidence of such aluminum ignition, which would have been visible even through the dense soot.

It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.

The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.


Source: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

Oversimplification is easy for conspiracy theorists. Hard core conservatives are also guilty of this. I trust engineers. Call me gullible.

[Drake]

1Bad... don't confuse nuclear reactors with nuclear weaponry... two different animals entirely.

[David Jamieson]

And just like PH, there were a few people who suggested that they might attack us in the manner of 9-11. And, just like PH, their ideas were dismissed. At least now we are steadily working towards a more critically thinking environment. The hard part is getting rid of or converting the old guard to a more dynamic mode of thinking. Believe it or not, a lot of the intel leadership still thinks in a Cold War state of mind. Change is happening, though.

no dude, not like ph at all.

why?

because the freaking japanese never attacked america previously either abroad at embassies or on their own ground.

again, apples to lemons.

as for the popular mechanics explanation, it has been written off by more than a few engineers and ridiculed as well not mention, mentioned as impossible, unacceptable, suspect, etc etc.

some 665 architects and engineers so far vs...what? a few that worked directly under the bush admin and the popular mechanics editor who gee was related to a bushie insider?

check it if you dare to shake your happy sensibilities.
http://www.ae911truth.org/

just saying that your truth isn't THE truth and maybe mine isn't either, but I am not buying into the official report for one second because it's got holes in it bigger than craters on the moon.

there was something else plain and simple.

It doesn't matter how many times you want to say there isn't.

There is.

[Drake]

Oh yeah... I'll trust a website calling itself "911truth.whatever". First mistake of scientific method... researching around an assumed result.

Don't argue the science by throwing a conspiracy website at me. Why not discuss the materials I've just presented?

[David Jamieson]

Oh yeah... I'll trust a website calling itself "911truth.whatever". First mistake of scientific method... researching around an assumed result.

Don't argue the science by throwing a conspiracy website at me. Why not discuss the materials I've just presented?

ok, well i can see where you're coming from then.

I am refuting the materials you have presented outright with the support of the arguments of hundreds of architects and engineers.

Outright.

[Drake]

ok, well i can see where you're coming from then.

I am refuting the materials you have presented outright with the support of the arguments of hundreds of architects and engineers.

Outright.

I actually looked at the website you provided. I don't even know where to start, but you don't find it unusual that on the top part of the page alone there are three attempts at getting money from you? Don't even get me started about the "engineer" support.

[David Jamieson]

I actually looked at the website you provided. I don't even know where to start, but you don't find it unusual that on the top part of the page alone there are three attempts at getting money from you? Don't even get me started about the "engineer" support.

Drake

you come to this site.
they want your financial support as well.
any cause or investigation that requires time and effort also needs money.

the government just takes your money from you to do it and the rest of the world has to solicit.

I don't find it unusual, I have no idea why you would. Would you carry on a lengthy investigation out of pocket or would you rather have a pooled resource to help you waylay the costs of doing so?

even popular mechanics wouldn't give you your information without someone actually paying to advertise in the magazine or people buying them.

it's a pretty simple economic concept really.

anyway, did you look at the data they present? It is very compelling stuff and it's not a bunch of frat boys and frenchmen shouting conspiracy. these are trained people who understand exactly what it takes for these things to happen.

How many architects and engineers openly support the commission report? How many from NIST (a government org).

I'm willing to bet that the number of contrary thinkers to the official line is much higher.

here's a look at some of it that begs further investigation.

from taht site:

As your own eyes witness — WTC Building #7 (a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane) exhibits all the characteristics of a classic controlled demolition with explosives: (and some non-standard characteristics)
1.

Rapid onset of “collapse”
2.

Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse
3.

Symmetrical “collapse” – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall acceleration
4.

Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed mostly in its own footprint
5.

Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
6.

Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly-qualified witnesses
7.

Chemical signature of Thermite (high tech incendiary) found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples by physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
8.

FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
9.

Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional
10.

Fore-knowledge of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY

And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1.

Slow onset with large visible deformations
2.

Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3.

Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4.

High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Not really. This 'hold elections repeatedly until we get the result we want, and if we lose we go to court' strategy is not how the Constitution envisioned our country working.

Look at our Government: Congressmen get 2 years, Senators get 6, and the President gets 4. It's not some Election of the Month system.

Let's say your correct though; If the people of California vote this time to allow gay marriage, does it go to court again? When would the next gay marriage election occur? If the people again vote 'NO', do they have another election the next year? And the next? And the next? :rolleyes:

Don't know, but it doesn't seem to be an issue that is going away and to be truthful, I have NO IDEA why it is even an issue !

[Drake]

You know, if you are going to be biased, you might be more convincing if your arguments weren't laced with assumptions and clever names for those that you oppose.

The link I provided isn't asking for money, because these are engineers who already have well-paying jobs and have nothing to gain. One of your "engineers", Mr. Hoffman, through a cursory examination, also believes no jet struck the Pentagon and is linked to one of those lovely ET/Alien websites.

It's a silly conspiracy theory that has a few armchair engineers and "scholars" riled up. The concept of a coverup this large is not only preposterous, but also naive. Are you one of those who also believe the moon landing was staged and that the entire world is being ran by a super-secret organization?

[Drake]

Heh...another engineer on there is educated in Asian literature and religion. No engineering background whatsoever....

[sanjuro_ronin]

FINE. Here...

The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.

Part of the problem is that people (including engineers) often confuse temperature and heat. While they are related, they are not the same. Thermodynamically, the heat contained in a material is related to the temperature through the heat capacity and the density (or mass). Temperature is defined as an intensive property, meaning that it does not vary with the quantity of material, while the heat is an extensive property, which does vary with the amount of material. One way to distinguish the two is to note that if a second log is added to the fireplace, the temperature does not double; it stays roughly the same, but the size of the fire or the length of time the fire burns, or a combination of the two, doubles. Thus, the fact that there were 90,000 L of jet fuel on a few floors of the WTC does not mean that this was an unusually hot fire. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.

In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame. A jet burner generally involves mixing the fuel and the oxidant in nearly stoichiometric proportions and igniting the mixture in a constant-volume chamber. Since the combustion products cannot expand in the constant-volume chamber, they exit the chamber as a very high velocity, fully combusted, jet. This is what occurs in a jet engine, and this is the flame type that generates the most intense heat.

In a pre-mixed flame, the same nearly stoichiometric mixture is ignited as it exits a nozzle, under constant pressure conditions. It does not attain the flame velocities of a jet burner. An oxyacetylene torch or a Bunsen burner is a pre-mixed flame.

In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace flame is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire.

Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types.

If the fuel and the oxidant start at ambient temperature, a maximum flame temperature can be defined. For carbon burning in pure oxygen, the maximum is 3,200°C; for hydrogen it is 2,750°C. Thus, for virtually any hydrocarbons, the maximum flame temperature, starting at ambient temperature and using pure oxygen, is approximately 3,000°C.

This maximum flame temperature is reduced by two-thirds if air is used rather than pure oxygen. The reason is that every molecule of oxygen releases the heat of formation of a molecule of carbon monoxide and a molecule of water. If pure oxygen is used, this heat only needs to heat two molecules (carbon monoxide and water), while with air, these two molecules must be heated plus four molecules of nitrogen. Thus, burning hydrocarbons in air produces only one-third the temperature increase as burning in pure oxygen because three times as many molecules must be heated when air is used. The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000°C—hardly sufficient to melt steel at 1,500°C.

But it is very difficult to reach this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio. Typically, diffuse flames are fuel rich, meaning that the excess fuel molecules, which are unburned, must also be heated. It is known that most diffuse fires are fuel rich because blowing on a campfire or using a blacksmith’s bellows increases the rate of combustion by adding more oxygen. This fuel-rich diffuse flame can drop the temperature by up to a factor of two again. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500°C to 650°C range.2,3 It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich—hardly surprising with 90,000 L of jet fuel available. Factors such as flame volume and quantity of soot decrease the radiative heat loss in the fire, moving the temperature closer to the maximum of 1,000°C. However, it is highly unlikely that the steel at the WTC experienced temperatures above the 750–800°C range. All reports that the steel melted at 1,500°C are using imprecise terminology at best.

Some reports suggest that the aluminum from the aircraft ignited, creating very high temperatures. While it is possible to ignite aluminum under special conditions, such conditions are not commonly attained in a hydrocarbon-based diffuse flame. In addition, the flame would be white hot, like a giant sparkler. There was no evidence of such aluminum ignition, which would have been visible even through the dense soot.

It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425°C and loses about half of its strength at 650°C.4 This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse. It was noted above that the wind load controlled the design allowables. The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable, which is roughly one-fifth of the yield strength of the steel. Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650°C fire.

The additional problem was distortion of the steel in the fire. The temperature of the fire was not uniform everywhere, and the temperature on the outside of the box columns was clearly lower than on the side facing the fire. The temperature along the 18 m long joists was certainly not uniform. Given the thermal expansion of steel, a 150°C temperature difference from one location to another will produce yield-level residual stresses. This produced distortions in the slender structural steel, which resulted in buckling failures. Thus, the failure of the steel was due to two factors: loss of strength due to the temperature of the fire, and loss of structural integrity due to distortion of the steel from the non-uniform temperatures in the fire.


Source: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

Oversimplification is easy for conspiracy theorists. Hard core conservatives are also guilty of this. I trust engineers. Call me gullible.

There are many things in there that are not correct, which doesn't mean they are wrong.
Jet fuel tends to "evaporate" liek most fuels, at the moment of explosion and very little gets left behind.
Unless one is dealing with a pure O2 environment, it is irrelevant what happens in a pure O2 environment.
And no, we don't confuse Temp and heat, temp. is constant, heat isn't.
:p
Structural steel's "softness" limits are based on thickness and type of structure and whoever wrote that has very little idea about "stress relieving".
At work reguarly design pressure piping systems and such that work over 500 F AND 250 PSI, typicallt piping systems, but many times with structurals.


Again, none of this means as much as people think it means, typically because not only have other buildings older than the WTC been exposed to such things and survived, but it doesn't explain other issues such as the perfectly cut debris that were there BEFORE removal started ( even after certain cuts are still not explainable due to collapse and "fire damage"), doesn't explain the collapse of the smaller WTC 7 ( I think it was 7), and even more stiff that has ZERO to do with this thread.

I don't give crap about conspiracies, I just want answers to questions, that's all.

[sanjuro_ronin]

You know, if you are going to be biased, you might be more convincing if your arguments weren't laced with assumptions and clever names for those that you oppose.

The link I provided isn't asking for money, because these are engineers who already have well-paying jobs and have nothing to gain. One of your "engineers", Mr. Hoffman, through a cursory examination, also believes no jet struck the Pentagon and is linked to one of those lovely ET/Alien websites.

It's a silly conspiracy theory that has a few armchair engineers and "scholars" riled up. The concept of a coverup this large is not only preposterous, but also naive. Are you one of those who also believe the moon landing was staged and that the entire world is being ran by a super-secret organization?

I agree, conspiracies are silly, but there is no reason not to give VALID answers to questions that are asked.

[Drake]

Answers were given, but the conspiracy theorists weren't satisfied with them. Like, being told a plane hit the Pentagon. For whatever reason, they didn't accept that.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Answers were given, but the conspiracy theorists weren't satisfied with them. Like, being told a plane hit the Pentagon. For whatever reason, they didn't accept that.

Well, as you know, some people will always take the extreme view, regardless.
Although that does tend to reflect on the government that their version of things is, at times, controversial.
I blame it on not giving full disclosure on things and trying to cover up things instead of just coming out and saying, "Hey, we are as stupid as you guys think we are, sorry".

[David Jamieson]

Answers were given, but the conspiracy theorists weren't satisfied with them. Like, being told a plane hit the Pentagon. For whatever reason, they didn't accept that.

Drake~

You write off questioning the government story as conspiracy theorists.

This is a lack of critical thinking in my opinion.

conspiracy does happen, it happens every day. companies conspire to take over or destroy others, soldiers conspire to defeat their opponents and so on.

Conspiracy doesn't equate to poor thinking. It is what it is.

The pentagon has never been properly explained and has never had corroborating evidence shown and has been left unanswered. The official commission didn't even really deal with it and there was next to nothing about building 7.

There are hundreds of engineers and architects registered at that site.

Again, the questions are still unanswered and there are huge gaps.

Willful ignorance may help some people cope with the world, but I prefer my truth straight up and stark and so far, I haven't seen much of that in regards to more than just 911.

the global economic collapse is another thing that is being explained away and dealt with in pretty strange ways.

I guess there are more than a few people in power who count on willful ignorance and apathy as a mechanism to further their agendas whatever they may be.

You probably aren't that much of a pollyanna, but you seem to have an aversion to critical thought and write it off as tin foil hat stuff.

I'm not trying to convince you, I'm just pointing out the elephant in the room. Because it's there and it's not going away until it is dealt with fully and transparently.

For pete's sake, there are still people in the US who believe Iraq was responsible for 911 even though the perpetrators of that war have declared that to be untrue. But the meme was set early and en masse, large apathetic societies simply refuse to think for themselves so long as their own stuff is ok.

well, the world is hurting now and that will effect change. and it is probably not going to be pleasant.

[Drake]

Except that nobody ever said Iraq was responsible for 9-11. Someone just made it up. Like the Twin Towers conspiracy.

[Drake]

Well, as you know, some people will always take the extreme view, regardless.
Although that does tend to reflect on the government that their version of things is, at times, controversial.
I blame it on not giving full disclosure on things and trying to cover up things instead of just coming out and saying, "Hey, we are as stupid as you guys think we are, sorry".

They really should of been more forthcoming with that. And honestly, a lot more people should've been fired.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Except that nobody ever said Iraq was responsible for 9-11. Someone just made it up. Like the Twin Towers conspiracy.

Didn't Bush "lead" the thinking down that path in a few of his speeches?

[sanjuro_ronin]

They really should of been more forthcoming with that. And honestly, a lot more people should've been fired.

Its very simple really, get people who KNOW WHAT THE **** THEY ARE TALKING about, to comment on these questions.
Don't get people that are "offically appointed" because they tow the company line.

[Drake]

I don't see the "elephant in the room" because there isn't one. I did critically approach this, and by checking into the references on your provided website, I can't help but think that most, if not all, of those people are quacks and snake oil artists. How can you use an argument of a man who believes the Pentagon attack was faked and no plane was even used? Wouldn't that also affect your interpretation about what he might say about the Twin Towers, and also raise some questions about those who side with him? When I can trace a few of those "engineers" to "end times" websies, the credibility begins to falter very rapidly.

Jet fuel does evaporate rapidly. When it's not burning.

[David Jamieson]

Drake~

It's clear you are not taking a critical look at it. It appears you don't want to and it appears you are unable to process information and it would also appear that you have many of your facts incorrect and are now reiterating lies and untruths.

To what end, I have no idea. But you are free to hold your opinion even though you are factually wrong on pretty much every count.

you don't see because you don't want to see. You are willfully ignorant and there's nothing that can be done about that except for you to maybe get some more experience in life I guess.

So, I guess there is no point whatsoever in discussing it with you as it would seem I may as well be talking to a wall. You come across as a typical neo-con ditto head.

such is life.

regards

[sanjuro_ronin]

I don't see the "elephant in the room" because there isn't one. I did critically approach this, and by checking into the references on your provided website, I can't help but think that most, if not all, of those people are quacks and snake oil artists. How can you use an argument of a man who believes the Pentagon attack was faked and no plane was even used? Wouldn't that also affect your interpretation about what he might say about the Twin Towers, and also raise some questions about those who side with him? When I can trace a few of those "engineers" to "end times" websies, the credibility begins to falter very rapidly.

Jet fuel does evaporate rapidly. When it's not burning.

Those are attacks on the individuals, not their claims/questions.
No mater how warranted, it doesn't change that the questions were not answered.
RE: Jet Fuel:
Sniper training 101, when using the 50 caliber round to "take out" a jet one guy asked if shooting the fuel resevoir was a good target, he was told NO because the chance of detonating was minimal ( this is real life, not the movies) and that, even if the fuel exploded it would burn off quickly and probably not cause any other plane to be taken out so the ratio of effectivness was less than taking out the "right spot".

[1bad65]

I disagree with pretty much your entire assessment.

Then you're wrong.

The "Wall of Silence" was erected on his watch. Jamie Gorelik did it. She was his appointment, and he went along with the plan.

The plot was indeed hatched under Clinton's watch.

Bill Clinton was indeed offered Bin Laden by the Sudanese government. He declined their offer.

Clinton GAVE North Korea a nuclear reactor and guided missile technology. His reasoning was that it would appease them.

Do you need sources for these facts? I'll gladly provide them. ;)

[sanjuro_ronin]

Then you're wrong.

The "Wall of Silence" was erected on his watch. Jamie Gorelik did it. She was his appointment, and he went along with the plan.

The plot was indeed hatched under Clinton's watch.

Bill Clinton was indeed offered Bin Laden by the Sudanese government. He declined their offer.

Clinton GAVE North Korea a nuclear reactor and guided missile technology. His reasoning was that it would appease them.

Do you need sources for these facts? I'll gladly provide them. ;)

Well, I can see that viewpoint, I mean, better they get it from the US than from Russia or China, right?
At least you can make a buck off them ;)
It was a calculated risk, like supporting Sadam against Iran, the contras and voting for Bush twice.
:D

[1bad65]

no dude, not like ph at all.

why?

because the freaking japanese never attacked america previously either abroad at embassies or on their own ground.

Wrong again.

You seem to have forgotten about the USS Panay incident in 1937.

[1bad65]

Well, I can see that viewpoint, I mean, better they get it from the US than from Russia or China, right?
At least you can make a buck off them ;)
It was a calculated risk, like supporting Sadam against Iran, the contras and voting for Bush twice.
:D

My point is that what I claimed happened, indeed happened.

David seems to think those things did not happen.

Anf fyi, despite the USSR and China being Communist dictatorships like North Korea, for DECADES they had refused to sell the North Koreans nuclear technology. So the 'better they get it from us than them' argument makes no sense.

[David Jamieson]

Wrong again.

You seem to have forgotten about the USS Panay incident in 1937.

dude, you are laughable with that.

It must of taken you all day and night to come up with that.

again, this was not an attack on american soil by japanese and is in no way shape or form similar to the wtc attacks.

the panay was a us ship built in china and sailing in chinese waters during a time when it was risky to do so.

that's like putting a teddy bear in a mine field. hardly unprovocative of the sponsors of the ship.

i'll give you that it was a prelude to the conflict, but it is a crappy example you are using to support your already weak and sloppy argument.

[sanjuro_ronin]

My point is that what I claimed happened, indeed happened.

David seems to think those things did not happen.

Anf fyi, despite the USSR and China being Communist dictatorships like North Korea, for DECADES they had refused to sell the North Koreans nuclear technology. So the 'better they get it from us than them' argument makes no sense.

Ah, so who, besides you guys, is selling to the N.Koreans?
And my post was in jest, though that was clear with the smiley face :D

[1bad65]

dude, you are laughable with that.

It must of taken you all day and night to come up with that.

again, this was not an attack on american soil by japanese and is in no way shape or form similar to the wtc attacks.

the panay was a us ship built in china and sailing in chinese waters during a time when it was risky to do so.

that's like putting a teddy bear in a mine field. hardly unprovocative of the sponsors of the ship.

i'll give you that it was a prelude to the conflict, but it is a crappy example you are using to support your already weak and sloppy argument.

Actually it came to me moments after reading your posts. I majored in History in college, and was a WWII and Civil War buff since I was a kid.

The Panay was clearly marked as a United States ship. We know know (since the documents were released much later than 1937) that radio intercepts and decryption PROVED the Japanese military ordered the strike knowing full well it was a US warship. Many feel that the ones who ordered the strike (who were the same ones in power in 1941) were trying to start the war with the US in 1937.

So the first Trade Center bombing was only a U-Haul with explosives, while 9/11 was 4 large passenger jets filled with jet fuel. Seems the first attack was on a much smaller scale, kinda like the Panay incident in relation to Pearl Harbor.

[1bad65]

...but it is a crappy example you are using to support your already weak and sloppy argument.

Like you using an 'engineer' who believes no jet struck the Pentagon, yet believes in space aliens? Or another 'engineer' who is educated in Asian literature and religion, and has NO engineering background whatsoever? :rolleyes:

[sanjuro_ronin]

Like you using an 'engineer' who believes no jet struck the Pentagon, yet believes in space aliens? Or another 'engineer' who is educated in Asian literature and religion, and has NO engineering background whatsoever? :rolleyes:

What do you call it when you attack the person asking a question and ignore the question?

:D

[David Jamieson]

Like you using an 'engineer' who believes no jet struck the Pentagon, yet believes in space aliens? Or another 'engineer' who is educated in Asian literature and religion, and has NO engineering background whatsoever? :rolleyes:

perfect example of your cherry picking.

so what about the other 600+ architects and engineers, you gonna give them a poor vetting as well or are you just regurgitating drakes minimal observations?

care to answer that or do you want to deflect onto some other path so as to avoid the elephant on the table again as you seem to enjoy doing?

came to you? whatever man, if you are a history major as you stated, why not refute my point immediately.

I'm more inclined to think that you desperately searched for some little bread crumb like the panay to support your crappy argument.

but that's here nor there, it's still not comparable in any way to the current situation whereby the Bush administration planted and supported the seed of thought that 911 was connected to Iraq and justified the US attack on Iraq.

There is reams of supporting evidence to what I say and there are exactly 2 documents that prop up yours and they are incomplete.

The NIST report ( a federal organization) that was put into the commission report and the popular mechanics article.

There is a greater weight of evidence from people on the ground (NYFD +NYPD + NYC citizens) at the event that contradicts what both of those say and there is a continuous and growing movement to find out what happened and that snowball is going to get a lot bigger with time.

In the long run, Bush will probably die before he's indicted, Cheney is in trouble now, Powell bailed when it got too hot and he got caught in his lies and Rice will wind up in hot water as well. Many of Bushes administration are indicted now and a few have gone to prison for their seedy crimes already.

Bush ran that office like a criminal cabal. No doubt and I hope Obama brings change by prosecuting the lot of them.

The hard evidence will be available as soon as they can get through the reems of it and we'll just see now won't we. :)

[sanjuro_ronin]

You're being naive Dave.
IF there was some conspiracy, it will never see the light of day.

[1bad65]

What do you call it when you attack the person asking a question and ignore the question?

The question, and the answers, are posed by people whose qualifications are quite dubious. When you bring in an 'expert' to butress your case, be prepared for his credentials to be questioned.

While the space alien part MAY be considered piling on, that same guy denies a plane was involved, despite video evidence to the contrary. And the other guy who was touted as an 'engineer', did not have the education/credentials to use that title.

[sanjuro_ronin]

The question, and the answers, are posed by people whose qualifications are quite dubious. When you bring in an 'expert' to butress your case, be prepared for his credentials to be questioned.

While the space alien part MAY be considered piling on, that same guy denies a plane was involved, despite video evidence to the contrary. And the other guy who was touted as an 'engineer', did not have the education/credentials to use that title.

You make valid points, applicable to those sole individuals, and that does become the main issue with conspiracies, they bring everyone out of the woodwork, good AND bad, qualified and unqualified.
BUT, if some space cadet asked me a question about/question the validity of the conditioning methods used in Kyokushin, I would answer the question, regardless of the fact that he wore an aluminum hat and said that Bugs Bunny told him to ask me.

[1bad65]

Drake pretty much had it right.

A group of terrorists came up with an audacious plan. They carefully plotted it and trained for it over years. Mistakes were made by the US; stuff like the "Wall of Silence", the pilot training by people on a watch list was ignored, immigration laws were not followed, and James Woods actually filed a report with the FAA because on an earlier flight he noticed a group of Muslim men in first class appearing to be 'casing out' the plane, etc.

Drake's point that no one was willing to admit 'Hey, we screwed up', gave fuel to these conspiracy theorists. Not to beat a dead horse, but that ALWAYS happens in these cases. Pearl Harbor, no one wanted to admit they screwed up and missed warning signs; the Lincoln assassination, again no one wanted to admit they screwed up security; JFK is the same way, mistakes were made and no was willing to step up and take blame.

I look at it this way; It's not a conspriracy, it's a cover-up. But not a cover-up about who did it, it's a cover-up over responsibility. And these conspiracy people see this cover-up, and they immediately take that ball and run with it and turn it into some sort of vast conspiracy designed to make the event itself happen.

[1bad65]

BUT, if some space cadet asked me a question about/question the validity of the conditioning methods used in Kyokushin, I would answer the question, regardless of the fact that he wore an aluminum hat and said that Bugs Bunny told him to ask me.

And if you have the experience/credentials to give him the answer he can use you as a legit source.

Now; if the same guy asked me, and I gave him an answer that he used to back up his case, his detractors would point out I have zero experience in Kyokushin. And they would have every right to call me out as someone who is totally ignorant on that subject, and thus my opinion should carry about ZERO weight.

[1bad65]

Many of Bushes administration are indicted now and a few have gone to prison for their seedy crimes already.

In relation to 9/11? :confused:

Please give us an accurate list. The only member of Bush's Administration I can think of is 'Scooter' Libby, and it had NOTHING to do with 9/11.

[David Jamieson]

The question, and the answers, are posed by people whose qualifications are quite dubious. When you bring in an 'expert' to butress your case, be prepared for his credentials to be questioned.

While the space alien part MAY be considered piling on, that same guy denies a plane was involved, despite video evidence to the contrary. And the other guy who was touted as an 'engineer', did not have the education/credentials to use that title.

1) what video evidence is there of a plane at the pentagon? While I don't know either way what hit the pentagon, i have never seen video evidence of a plane hitting it. Just an explosion occurring from the gas station camera and a couple of vague shots that do not fit teh profile of a large passenger jet.

2) again 2 guys out of 600+ members is a given. There will always be loopy ones in there, but it doesn't take anything away from what the other 600+ people are saying.

[BoulderDawg]

Drake pretty much had it right.

A group of terrorists came up with an audacious plan. They carefully plotted it and trained for it over years. Mistakes were made by the US; stuff like the "Wall of Silence", the pilot training by people on a watch list was ignored, immigration laws were not followed, and James Woods actually filed a report with the FAA because on an earlier flight he noticed a group of Muslim men in first class appearing to be 'casing out' the plane, etc.

Total BS

There was no "years of training"...That's just something the Neos say to cover up their stupidity.

For example, watch list or not, if I was planning to do this I'm, sure as hell, not going to have a bunch of muslims start taking commercial flying lessons. I'm going to do that in-house. Also I sincerely doubt the story of "bunch of Muslim men" casing a plane. However if that was true then that just give additional weight to the lameness of the plan. Let's see if I have this right: A group of terrorist get on a plane and start nosing around, taking notes and being really obvious.....:D Right! Once again, It's would be a good plan to gather intel but with one or two people (probably a couple) in regular clothes who were very discreet.

Finally, If this was such a well thought out plan would the plane crash in Penn have happened? Don't think so. Also would not the plane that crashed into the Pentagon have targeted the part of the building that held the most important and high ranking people?

There was no plan at all, if the truth be told, other than get on a plane with boxcutters and mace and hope for the best.

[BoulderDawg]

1) what video evidence is there of a plane at the pentagon? While I don't know either way what hit the pentagon, i have never seen video evidence of a plane hitting it. Just an explosion occurring from the gas station camera and a couple of vague shots that do not fit teh profile of a large passenger jet.

Then what happened to the plane and all of the people on it? Did they fly it to the north pole or something?:p

[David Jamieson]

Then what happened to the plane and all of the people on it? Did they fly it to the north pole or something?:p

see, now despite it all, that is a good question.

what did happen to the plane?

the records state that only 2 planes were destroyed that day and the other two are still listed as in service. ???

That is totally odd!

no video showing a plane at the pentagon and no debris, just a hole in the ground in Pennsylvania.

never mind all the other video data and personal vid camera evidence that doesn't support the official report.

there is a lot of weight against the official story.

now it DID happen and people DID die and I for one completely respect that. What I don't get is why is the entire event not transparent and what is being hidden and why?

There is video of rumsfeld stating that 93 was shot down.

He's off the radar entirely now. But if 93 was shot down, it explains the lack of centralized debris at the alleged crash site. IE it would be scattered over a greater area if shot down in the air and also a lot of it would be dust from the ordinance that hit it.

If anyone thinks that a secret can't be kept by a large body of people I got one thing to refute that. "D-Day". Thousands kept that secret and it succeeded.

If we really wanna see change, we have to look at the ugly things we do and the ugly things we support. Burying our heads in the sand and not looking at it does nothing.

[1bad65]

no video showing a plane at the pentagon and no debris, just a hole in the ground in Pennsylvania.

There is video of rumsfeld stating that 93 was shot down.

I'll look for that video.

In the mean time, can you provide us with this supposed Rumsfeld admission video?

[1bad65]

How do you explain the black box recorders and the cell phone calls from Flight 93 pointing to the fact that the ****pit was stormed and the plane went out of control and crashed?

[BoulderDawg]

This is a crazy as aliens in the White House, Obama was born in Africa and a hundred other conspiracies from the flat earth society.

One final comment then I'll file this under Space aliens and Sasquatch: The pentagon is in a metropolitian area. Hundreds of people saw that plane flying towards the Pentagon. If somehow they just had explosives at the Pentagon don't you think the media would have picked on that in about an hour or so after it happened? There would have been hundreds of people in the area who would say "I didn't see or hear any plane fly over low".

[David Jamieson]

I'll look for that video.

In the mean time, can you provide us with this supposed Rumsfeld admission video?

rumsfeld admits the shooting down of 93 in a slip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucGCs0hl9S8

[1bad65]

rumsfeld admits the shooting down of 93 in a slip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucGCs0hl9S8

Is that your proof?! :rolleyes:

Have you ever heard of the word "context"? Listen again, and see what the context was.

[1bad65]

Here is Ted Kennedy calling Obama "Osama Bin Laden"

See, those conspiracy theorists were right, that proves he is a Muslim. :rolleyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YaRpx3LphI

[David Jamieson]

Is that your proof?! :rolleyes:

Have you ever heard of the word "context"? Listen again, and see what the context was.

proof? I'm not trying to prove anything.

I'm merely indicating that the commission report based on the NIST report and PM report were sorely lacking in evidence that supported their side of the story of what happened. The physical evidence indicates many errors in the official reports.

I'm pointing out that there is a barrel load of unanswered questions and a lot of information about what happened being withheld for whatever reasons.

I personally don't buy the official line and I think there is a lot more at play and that with time, it will come out in the wash, hopefully.

If Obama has the guts and the prerogative to do so, he should call for an independent review of the events. But I think that is being lobbied for anyway.

[1bad65]

If Obama has the guts and the prerogative to do so, he should call for an independent review of the events. But I think that is being lobbied for anyway.

Why?

I'm serious here. The country is dead broke. Our grandchildren are now born in debt. And we are bailing out private companies, talking about socialized medicine, and we give billions in free foreign aid (often to our enemies and those who despise us). Yet you want us to waste money on this?

Really, can't you see the truth? Like me and Drake said, some terrorists who hated us pulled off an audacious attack. It's really that simple. The only money spent on this should be in order to prevent another attack, not to satisfy the very few wackos of the population who are conspiracy theorists. Face it; even if Obama spent billions on this, if his commission/investigation came to the same conclusions, those crazies still wouldn't be satisfied.

[David Jamieson]

Why?

I'm serious here. The country is dead broke. Our grandchildren are now born in debt. And we are bailing out private companies, talking about socialized medicine, and we give billions in free foreign aid (often to our enemies and those who despise us). Yet you want us to waste money on this?

Really, can't you see the truth? Like me and Drake said, some terrorists who hated us pulled off an audacious attack. It's really that simple. The only money spent on this should be in order to prevent another attack, not to satisfy the very few wackos of the population who are conspiracy theorists. Face it; even if Obama spent billions on this, if his commission/investigation came to the same conclusions, those crazies still wouldn't be satisfied.

you and drake are a highly vocal minority. :)

also, nuh uh.

[Drake]

rumsfeld admits the shooting down of 93 in a slip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucGCs0hl9S8

I suppose all the families of the deceased are in on it too?

Rumsfeld was a colossal failure, and that was by far the least foolish of his gaffes.

You didn't see the plane, personally hit the Pentagon. Gee, I suppose you need to be present at any event or tragedy in order to believe it happened? Maybe the eyewitnesses, dead soldiers, government employees, passengers on the flight, pilots and crew are all in on it, because by gum, you didn't see it. And the guy who believes in aliens also says it didn't happen.

[Drake]

you and drake are a highly vocal minority. :)

also, nuh uh.

A highly vocal minority? Are you actually suggesting that most people think 9-11 was a hoax? Seriously?

[Hardwork108]

Burning jet fuel can destroy virtually any standing structure out there.

The fact is, we identified this (the 9-11 attacks) as a possibility, but it was considered a bit far out to be taken too seriously. Have you all seen the Onion clip where a 9-11 conspiracy theorist is arguing with the Al Qaeda guy? Hilarious.



Have a look at this interesting clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO2yT0uBQbM&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwhatreallyhappened.com%2F&feature=player_embedded

It seems that there are people who have their doubts about certain aspects of the official vision of 9-11.

[Drake]

Video of plane hitting Pentagon for lazy conspiracy theorists who like to be spoon-fed...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5415578059017835301

[Drake]

Have a look at this interesting clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO2yT0uBQbM&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwhatreallyhappened.com%2F&feature=player_embedded

It seems that there are people who have their doubts about certain aspects of the official vision of 9-11.

Too bad they are still not credible, lie as they may. :D

http://911guide.googlepages.com/ae911truth


See attached for credibility check :D

[Hardwork108]

9-11, Neo-cons and more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_obrw6B464

You guys better look at this fascinating talk and PLEASE, PLEASE, don't shoot the messenger before at least having the decency to watch the first clip.

[Drake]

9-11, Neo-cons and more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_obrw6B464

You guys better look at this fascinating talk and PLEASE, PLEASE, don't shoot the messenger before at least having the decency to watch the first clip.

He brought up Illuminati.... HAHAHAHAHAHA!

[Hardwork108]

Too bad they are still not credible, lie as they may. :D

http://911guide.googlepages.com/ae911truth


See attached for credibility check :D

It all seems to be claims and counter claims. I did not see anything that discredited the architect involved, just "insinuations".

[Hardwork108]

He brought up Illuminati.... HAHAHAHAHAHA!

Is that the only thing you that struck you in that clip?

As I said please SEE what he is saying.:)

[Drake]

He said Illuminati.. and I was like "OH NO HE DI'INT!!!!!!" :D:D:D

Better yet was quoting American "official" documents using British spelling in the text...

"OH NO HE DI'INT!!!!!"

OMG.... he brought up multi-theater (theatre, in the official military text, lol) strategy. Gee... that's only been around since WWII, when we realized how important it was. This is awesome stuff...

A world war in 2012! BWAHAHAHA! OMG, is Roland Emmerich paying this guy off?

US Space Forces???? Attacking genetic structures????

War with China??

This is some humorous left field stuff here...

[David Jamieson]

A highly vocal minority? Are you actually suggesting that most people think 9-11 was a hoax? Seriously?

drake, you are typical of the neo-con ditto head crowd always bleating, foot stamping and insisting on telling others what they are saying when in fact that is not so.

a) you must be an expert on aircraft to determine that a little white blur is a large commercial aircraft despite the contrary evidence that indicates an entirely different object hit the pentagon

b) there are millions of people, hundreds of millions of people who do not believe the official story, get that into you.

c) most nations on the planet did not support the unilateral declaration of war on iraq by the bush administration and to this day do not.

d) the official report has been pulled apart and shattered so many times by so many highly educated people it is ridiculous listening to harping neo-cons bleat on about how that is the truth.

and nuh uh. dude, you are hyping the myth, not me, you want to make the questioning of the event seem like it's bad. this is the typical neo-con ditto head stfu tactic.

I support my troops, but I don't support their mission and I don't support the people who put them into harms way.

You haven't provided a shred of evidence that confirms the official story.
there has to date been no independent investigation and most of the evidence has been destroyed by the same people who are trying to sell the story that you are.

Your google vid fails by the way. You show me the frame where you think that is a large commercial aircraft and I will show you the math that says you are wrong.

I don't know what happened that day other than people died and property was destroyed and the bush admin used it as a pretext to launch a war against a country that happens to have the 3rd largest oil reserves on the planet and that has led us all down the road to ruination so far.

You defend that record? really? then I would say that you and your ilk are a major part of the problem.

the only way any of it will be resolved is through independent third party review and thanks to the federal agency NIST, that may never happen.

just because you say it's so doesn't mean it's so.

:)

[Drake]

It all seems to be claims and counter claims. I did not see anything that discredited the architect involved, just "insinuations".

You mean nothing like the guy admitting he has no expertise in structural engineering? Or do you mean the fact that no certified structural engineer has ever questioned 9-11?

[Hardwork108]

He said Illuminati.. and I was like "OH NO HE DI'INT!!!!!!" :D:D:D

Better yet was quoting American "official" documents using British spelling in the text...

"OH NO HE DI'INT!!!!!"

OMG.... he brought up multi-theater (theatre, in the official military text, lol) strategy. Gee... that's only been around since WWII, when we realized how important it was. This is awesome stuff...

A world war in 2012! BWAHAHAHA! OMG, is Roland Emmerich paying this guy off?

US Space Forces???? Attacking genetic structures????

War with China??

This is some humorous left field stuff here...

People were laughing at his work and books in the 1990´s, but a lot of things that he was predicting happened. Now you have a lot of people who are not laughing so loud.

Did´nt you get any thing else out of that video?

[Drake]

drake, you are typical of the neo-con ditto head crowd always bleating, foot stamping and insisting on telling others what they are saying when in fact that is not so.

a) you must be an expert on aircraft to determine taht a little white blur is a large commercial aircraft depsit the contrary evidence that indicates an entirely differnet object hit the pentagon

b) there are millions of people, hundreds of millions of people who do not believe the official story, get that into you.

c) most natiions on the planet did not support the unilateral decalaration of war on iraq by the bush administration and to this day do not.

d) the official report has been pulled apart and shattered so many times by so many highly educated people it is ridiculous listening to harping neo cons bleat on about how that is the truth.

and nuh uh. dude, you are hyping the myth, not me, you want to make the questioning of the event seem like it's bad. this is the typical neo-con ditto head stfu tactic.

I support my troops, but I don't support their mission and I don't support the people who put them into harms way.

You haven't provided a shred of evidence that confirms the official story.
there has to date been no independent investigation and most of the evidence has been destroyed by teh same people who are trying to sell the story that you are.

Your google vid fails by the way. You show me the frame where you think that is a large commercial aircraft and I will show you the math that says you are wrong.

I don't know what happened that day other than people died and property was destroyed and the bush admin used it as a pretext to launch a war against a country that happens to have the 3rd largest oil reserves on the planet and that has led us all down the road to ruination so far.

You defend that record? really? then I would say that you and your ilk are a major part of the problem.

the only way any of it will be resolved is through independent third party review and thanks to the federal agency NIST, that may never happen.

just because you say it's so doesn't mean it's so.

:)

1. You keep mixing topics. It's a distraction technique, and I find it annoying.

2. You have now just said I haven't provided a shred of evidence, where I have provided multiple viewpoints, all discrediting this band of "9-11 truthers". Are you stark raving mad or just failed to read all the work I put into a discussion in which you've contributed nothing but a single link to a single conspiracy theory?

3. Hundreds of millions of people? Where in the HELL did you get that number?

4. It was an aircraft, because I know people who were AT THE PENTAGON WHEN IT HAPPENED. IT WAS A PLANE. THEY F'ING SAW IT. To say otherwise just because you weren't there is disrespectful to those who died there.

I'm done with you. Don't respond to this post, and please do me a favor and refrain from talking to me in the future. 1Bad... he's all yours.

[Drake]

People were laughing at his work and books in the 1990´s, but a lot of things that he was predicting happened. Now you have a lot of people who are not laughing so loud.

Did´nt you get any thing else out of that video?

Yes. Before publishing a vid on youtube, be sure to make sure the sound is synched with the video. Otherwise, he is parroting the far christian right's view that the world is ending soon, and the NWO is responsible, along with Illuminati. He did put a Mayan twist on it and added the year 2012.

[David Jamieson]

You mean nothing like the guy admitting he has no expertise in structural engineering? Or do you mean the fact that no certified structural engineer has ever questioned 9-11?

are you a structural engineer? do you have a degree in architecture? Are you an aeronautical engineer?

If not, then it is ok to say you don't know.

why were all teh cameras pointing at the pentagon removed? why is there only one or two poor frames of the object hitting the pentagon when it is one of the most cctv secure buildings on teh planet.

why did colin powell present blurry out of focus photos when I can get better images from google earth and I know for a fact taht military tech surpasses that by a few years?

why do many firemen, policemen and people state they heard explosions all over?

why do the buildings show hallmarks of controlled demolition.

why was the lawn destroyed at the pentagon? why was the building knocked down after the fact?

why weren't the windows damaged in anyway?

how did an aluminum plane penetrate right to the core of the steel reinforced pentagon rings?

why did building 7 fall into it's footprint when nothing hit it and it wasn't on fire?

can you answer any of that? because these are the things I would like to know.

[David Jamieson]

1. You keep mixing topics. It's a distraction technique, and I find it annoying.

2. You have now just said I haven't provided a shred of evidence, where I have provided multiple viewpoints, all discrediting this band of "9-11 truthers". Are you stark raving mad or just failed to read all the work I put into a discussion in which you've contributed nothing but a single link to a single conspiracy theory?

3. Hundreds of millions of people? Where in the HELL did you get that number?

4. It was an aircraft, because I know people who were AT THE PENTAGON WHEN IT HAPPENED. IT WAS A PLANE. THEY F'ING SAW IT. To say otherwise just because you weren't there is disrespectful to those who died there.

I'm done with you. Don't respond to this post, and please do me a favor and refrain from talking to me in the future. 1Bad... he's all yours.
I'm not mixing topics at all, I'm talking about the events of one day and you are flubbering and bleating and wishing it would all go away so you don't have to deal with it maybe?

I don't know why you support that story it's got holes so big in it a five year old could point them out.

care to indicate any answers at all to the questions I asked in my previous post.

even just one or two? can you?

[Drake]

Pentagon eyewitness accounts:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html

And plenty of crash photos...

http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

For people who prefer the truth to people trying to get attention by profiting off of tragedy.

[Hardwork108]

You mean nothing like the guy admitting he has no expertise in structural engineering? Or do you mean the fact that no certified structural engineer has ever questioned 9-11?

Well we need to check and see if any of the other engineers who are on his side are also "uncertified".

And here is something interesting that has stuck in my mind for years. I was living in Brasil when 9-11 happened. On the day of this tragedy a well respected civil engineer was interviewed. The point of the discussion was the collapse of the buildings. As the videos were being played and examined this gentleman was saying that those buildings were brought down internally and that a decision would have had to have been made to actually start the whole process. He also, if I remember correctly, said that the more modern buildings were built in such a way that their demolition would have been easier.

Anyway, then we had the official version of the events come out and we never heard from that guy again. The fact of the matter is that the official version is full of holes and so there is no surprise in the fact that many people are suspicious of anything a government led by a psychopathic president has to say in that regard.

[Drake]

Well we need to check and see if any of the other engineers who are on his side are also "uncertified".

And here is something interesting that has stuck in my mind for years. I was living in Brasil when 9-11 happened. On the day of this tragedy a well respected civil engineer was interviewed. The point of the discussion was the collapse of the buildings. As the videos were being played and examined this gentleman was saying that those buildings were brought down internally and that a decision would have had to have been made to actually start the whole process. He also, if I remember correctly, said that the more modern buildings were built in such a way that their demolition would have been easier.

Anyway, then we had the official version of the events come out and we never heard from that guy again. The fact of the matter is that the official version is full of holes and so there is no surprise in the fact that many people are suspicious of anything a government led by a psychopathic president has to say in that regard.

I've already posted the physics about it. I'm not going back into it, because those who think it was an inside job are conveniently ignoring the facts. Refuting it with anecdotal Brazilians who were "never heard from again" while people actively attempt to discredit the obvious without consequence doesn't hold water, either.

[Hardwork108]

Pentagon eyewitness accounts:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html

And plenty of crash photos...

http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

For people who prefer the truth to people trying to get attention by profiting off of tragedy.

Yet here is another take on 9-11 from the second site that you posted.

http://www.rense.com/general36/hoax.htm

It is long but please read.:)

[David Jamieson]

I've already posted the physics about it. I'm not going back into it, because those who think it was an inside job are conveniently ignoring the facts. Refuting it with anecdotal Brazilians who were "never heard from again" while people actively attempt to discredit the obvious without consequence doesn't hold water, either.

the person saying inside job is you drake.

the facts as you say are entirely unclear and there has never been an independent third party review or investigation.

the debris was shipped out and gone within days and never looked at by anyone outside of the federal government.

no one is conveniently ignoring the facts, many of us are simply asking why is it not investigated and what is not being told.

for instance, hypothetically lets say that aq operatives did rig the buildings? how was that done and why woukld that be withheld? Is it indicative of a larger security breach and how is that being dealt with in the case of possible future attacks?

see what I'm saying?

do you really trust your government so much that you don't feel that the deaths of these people and the declaration of a war based on the pretext despite no connection to the event is ok by you? really?

startling.

I'd like to see a new investigation and a full investigation. i don't believe there has been one.

and as for the millions of people, you do realize that the bush admin had to basically buy that coalition right? Not to mention it was pretty much made up of next to no military operatives.

there are simply too many unsatisfactorily answered question and totally avoided questions.

Building 7 is a huge question.

the original damage to the pentagon not corroborating with a large aircraft is another.

The statements of hundreds of witnesses who said there were other explosions and the constant attacks on people who ask these questions liek you are doing is suspicious and indicative of a fear of the truth.

let a 3rd party independent organization or several of them investigate and make a report. That shouldn't be too much to ask now should it?

[Hardwork108]

I've already posted the physics about it. I'm not going back into it, because those who think it was an inside job are conveniently ignoring the facts. Refuting it with anecdotal Brazilians who were "never heard from again" while people actively attempt to discredit the obvious without consequence doesn't hold water, either.

As far as the Brazilian engineer was concerned, he was presented as a "heavy weight" and he was no conspiracy theorists. He just gave his professional opinion on the collapse of the buildings.

Of course, then there was the Number 7 building that collapsed with apparently no reason, or was it because of sympathy pains for the other two?

The "free"(:rolleyes:) press have been quiet for the most part about that event.

[Drake]

Yet here is another take on 9-11 from the second site that you posted.

http://www.rense.com/general36/hoax.htm

It is long but please read.:)


His personal opinion aside, it actually largely supports what I strongly believe to be complete and utter incompetence. I agree that a good chunk of the last administratio should go to jail. However, I believe the charge should be gross negligence and arrogance.

If it makes you feel any better, many of those holes in our defense are still there, so a well planned attack could probably be pulled off again.

[David Jamieson]

His personal opinion aside, it actually largely supports what I strongly believe to be complete and utter incompetence. I agree that a good chunk of the last administratio should go to jail. However, I believe the charge should be gross negligence and arrogance.

If it makes you feel any better, many of those holes in our defense are still there, so a well planned attack could probably be pulled off again.

I reiterate:

let a 3rd party independent organization or several of them investigate and make a report. That shouldn't be too much to ask now should it?

[Hardwork108]

The statements of hundreds of witnesses who said there were other explosions and the constant attacks on people who ask these questions liek you are doing is suspicious and indicative of a fear of the truth.

You took the words out of my mouth. I seems that Drake is trying VERY hard to "debunk" obvious suspicions (using among other things ridicule) that anyone with a basic level of intellect would have. WHY?

[Hardwork108]

Yes. Before publishing a vid on youtube, be sure to make sure the sound is synched with the video. Otherwise, he is parroting the far christian right's view that the world is ending soon, and the NWO is responsible, along with Illuminati. He did put a Mayan twist on it and added the year 2012.

That is not what he is saying. Why are you trying so hard to discredit what he is saying in that video??? The man is not religious and does not even believe in the historical existance of Jesus Christ and yet you correlate what he says with religious wackos.

Are you afraid that people will have access to info that is not for them?

[David Jamieson]

You took the words out of my mouth. I seems that Drake is trying VERY hard to "debunk" obvious suspicions (using among other things ridicule) that anyone with a basic level of intellect would have. WHY?

probably because he's admitted he's a government employee working for the armed forces in some capacity. lol

[Hardwork108]

probably because he's admitted he's a government employee working for the armed forces in some capacity. lol

So much for free speech, eh?;)

[Yao Sing]

Pentagon eyewitness accounts:

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html

And plenty of crash photos...

http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

For people who prefer the truth to people trying to get attention by profiting off of tragedy.

I bet if I posted a link to an article on rense.com to support my argument I would get crap for it being a looney conspiracy site. You do know they also posts articles about aliens and just about every conspiracy story circulating these days.

This one here (http://www.rense.com/general85/form.htm) is a good read.

Interesting but none of the links provided any photos (most didn't work at all) and none of the pics in the article itself provided any evidence that what hit was the plane they claimed.

It's my understanding that the conspiracy claim is that either a missile or a smaller jet hit the building and not a 757.

probably because he's admitted he's a government employee working for the armed forces in some capacity. lol

Bingo!

He doesn't realize there are probably more people questioning what really happened then believe the official story. I'm sure within his little circle it's reversed but start talking to the general public and he'd be shocked.

[BoulderDawg]

Well today Limby announced that the GOP has written off the latino vote.

Let's see....... they've written off the Blacks, written off the Latinos, written off the young people, Written off the gays, written off the poor and written off the moderate conservatives.

Dam! I'm just wondering who is left to vote for the republicans!:D

[Yao Sing]

Here's more (http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_4741.shtml) on the 9/11 coverup/conspiracy.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Video of plane hitting Pentagon for lazy conspiracy theorists who like to be spoon-fed...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5415578059017835301

What kind of plane was that suppose to be?

[1bad65]

David, just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

When a guy who believes a white dude with a spray-on tan is an Indian says you're not making sense, that about says it all.

[1bad65]

David, what about the FACTS regarding American Airlines Flight 77?

People like Barbara Olson made cell phone calls saying the plane had been hijacked.

People witnessed the plane flying very low and crashing into the Pentagon.

The plane is indeed gone.

The people on the plane are also gone.

So, are you really saying the plane itself and it's passengers disappeared somewhere else, yet those passengers played into the conspiracy by making those cell phone calls, and then they disappeared too, and something else hit the Pentagon????

Use common sense.

[1bad65]

You took the words out of my mouth. I seems that Drake is trying VERY hard to "debunk" obvious suspicions (using among other things ridicule) that anyone with a basic level of intellect would have. WHY?

Like those who believe in space aliens?

[David Jamieson]

David, what about the FACTS regarding American Airlines Flight 77?

People like Barbara Olson made cell phone calls saying the plane had been hijacked.

People witnessed the plane flying very low and crashing into the Pentagon.

The plane is indeed gone.

The people on the plane are also gone.

So, are you really saying the plane itself and it's passengers disappeared somewhere else, yet those passengers played into the conspiracy by making those cell phone calls, and then they disappeared too, and something else hit the Pentagon????

Use common sense.

Facts aren't clear though 1bad

there are conflicting stories about what hit for one thing.

some witnesses said a small aircraft, like a missile sound, some witnesses say a plane.

the cell phone thing has been questioned as well due to the technology being flaky at that time and only recently have cell phones been able to reliably work at speed in an aircraft.

there are hundreds of cctv cameras pointed at the pentagon. all the content of everything was ceased by fbi that day immediately following the event and has never been shown except for the fuzzy blurry unclear gas station shots.

the original damage of the building is not consistent with an aircraft of that size hitting it and there is loads of information that shows the original hole before the wall was collapsed by excavation machinery.

the windows next to the hole were unaffected, the desks and offices at the hole were unaffected. again there is tons of photographic material on this.

there is no common sense.

so long as the videos and photos are withheld by the government in their original state is as long as the event remains unresolved in the minds of millions of people.

emotional leading is for stupid people and doesn't cut it with critical thinkers.

I don't think the whole truth has been shown or told and that's my viewpoiint. I'm not filling gaps or voids with my own information, I'm merely pointing out what is available is not satisfactory and I won't take the word of the US government on the event because there hasn't been a 3rd party independent investigation and there hasn't been transparency on the matter.

don't you think it would be common sense to release the video of the plane as oppose to a couple of undeterminable frames? there are hundreds of cams pointed at the pentagon. where is their data? why is it still withheld?

why am i asking you? you are obviously touting the official line as gospel lol.

[1bad65]

David,

Where is the plane then? Where are the passengers?

If they didn't crash into the Pentagon, where are they?

So, are the witnesses who saw a passenger jet flying low in on the conspiracy too? :rolleyes:

[David Jamieson]

David,

Where is the plane then? Where are the passengers?

If they didn't crash into the Pentagon, where are they?

So, are the witnesses who saw a passenger jet flying low in on the conspiracy too? :rolleyes:

These are all really great questions.

I don't have the answers.

Perhaps you could write your congressman and ask that s/he lobby for an independent 3rd party investigation of the event in order to clarify those questions you are asking.

[Drake]

David,

Where is the plane then? Where are the passengers?

If they didn't crash into the Pentagon, where are they?

So, are the witnesses who saw a passenger jet flying low in on the conspiracy too? :rolleyes:

Don't bother with this one. No evidence in the world will convince them.

Planes either eventually have to land or crash. They don't just evaporate.

[David Jamieson]

Don't bother with this one. No evidence in the world will convince them.

Planes either eventually have to land or crash. They don't just evaporate.



weird! But true, a 757 wouldn't just evaporate and it wouldn't penetrate 3 rings of reinforced concrete and so on.

It's a great question!

What did happen that day?

3rd party independent investigation can only be a good thing.

[KC Elbows]

You're being naive Dave.
IF there was some conspiracy, it will never see the light of day.


While I'm not commenting on the 9-11 thing, I do think you make an important point here that many on both the left and right often forget. Even recent history suggests that, if a group with any legitimacy does something ugly enough, the motivation to keep it secret can be enough to effectively do so. Good examples would be the conduct of specific CIA operatives in Guatemala in the seventies and eighties, death squads in central America during the same periods, etc. At best, we know of the existence of such problems, but the true history of who went there and did what will never be known.

History is full of successful conspiracies done by less efficient governments than our own. The argument that "they can't even run medicare efficiently, how could they plot this?" is particularly bad, because the difference between incompetence and outright criminality provides a different motivation.

That said, I don't see what the advantage is for the pentagon to hitting the pentagon, since news of it was going to be heavily eclipsed by the towers. I'm pretty sure the military doesn't need to fake a plane crash to get funds to replace buildings, unless those buildings are hospitals for vets.

This is coming from someone who is a bit of a conspiracy theorist, but I prefer more down to earth conspiracies, ones that provide a motive that would drive a need to cover up.

So, hiding aliens, not so interesting, hard to see how leaks wouldn't appear, but things like the glut of assassinations of leaders of the left into the early seventies matched with unmonitored government projects(cointelpro, etc) that, based on what little the people are allowed to know of their activities, suggests thuggish behavior and an ideological view that painted even moderate left folk as traitors whose rights could be suspended and violated without public trial at the whim of government employees and those on their payroll, not only lends itself to conspiracy theories, but, according to conservative principles, lends itself to the view that ultimately, the incompetence of government employees would not only lead them to overextend themselves, but then lead the agencies involved to do whatever it takes to not be transparent about the actual conduct of the agency itself.

The agents(in the game theory sense of those who perform an act, not always literally "government agents) and their handlers should thus get caught in the difficulty of not being able to achieve their goals while following the laws, and have twice as much reason not to follow the laws, not only to achieve their goals, but then to cover up when they violate rights to achieve them. Were this not true, the weathermen would all be in prison, for example.

Conspiracy theories are sometimes good things. They are the folk consciousness of events that have murky stories, and they are chaotic and often disorganized, but they are also something no one can really stop, and so can trump corrupt but powerful people by directly attaching suspicion to their reputation.

Sometimes this is unfair, but it is the price of power, a price that always must be paid because power, even in the most free societies, clearly can pervert justice.

Honestly, trials of former strong arm dictators who used death squads on their people are often largely based on conspiracy theories, because the main actors had the capacity to destroy paper trails, and those living who know either would end up in prison for speaking out, or the victims who come forward face murder for speaking out.

Since we know that our own government was a chief supporter of certain countries' death squads in the past, we know perfectly well that our government has had people that were perfectly willing to kill innocents not only for political expedience, but to cover up the act itself, as any government does.

Anyway, the act of murder is high motivation for secrecy, and if that act involves a group, that motivation extends to the group, and since government must occasionally commit murder, conspiracy is reality, and the best one can hope for is that they aren't committing murder simply to cover their own incompetence or out of ideological rigidness, but to protect the system that protects the people, and the hope is that they don't destroy the system to protect it, because the system is a contract with the people, and if the people can't count on that, then society and the state will take two different roads, and the government will be made up of the self serving while many useful and talented people will be forced to opt out.

That being said, considering that Cheney clearly used his position to broker deals for his and his friends to the detriment of our economy and our way of life and we can't even show that, conspiracy to blow up the pentagon is not likely to see much more focus than conspiracy to make a foreign national president.:p:D

Although, in fairness to whoever I was arguing with last week about Obama's birth certificate, it seems true that no step of the process to run for president actually requires confirmation of birth records. This DOES mean that Obama cannot be claimed to have failed to submit such records, since there is no legal requirement, only a constitutional requirement that apparently has had no laws supporting it enacted. I suppose the founding fathers assumed that the American people were capable of recognizing an American when they see one. Faking being an American(or any nationality) is only really feasible for people acculturated to the American way of life who are likewise functionally native American-english speakers. While many internationally speak english, aside from things they learn from movies, most have studied british english as the more proper form, so, even where someone is fluent enough to lose their native accent, their word choices tend toward the British, and tend to not sound like an American. The amount of training required to do this will show up quite readily in their history, or be a suspicious blank period in their history, and certainly no competent intelligence agency would expect to pull such a thing off without having more stringent control of the election process and press than is possible in the US(where soft control of the press is preferred over more overt control). The idea that Obama is some shoe in from Indonesia lacks a motivated agency willing to go to the trouble of carrying out the plan because the plan would be so prone to discovery. The only alternative that remains to conspiracy theorists, that Obama, when it comes to citizenship, is an unknown quantity, is legalist lawyer crap that ignores the fact that common sense tells us all he is clearly an American, because he's got way too big of cojones to be Canadian.:p:D

No offense meant to Canadians, it's just so cold up there, your cojones never really had a chance.

[Drake]

Any citizenship issues with President Obama would have come up when he received his security clearance. Authority doesn't matter here, and I'll personally detain a politician trying to override SSO policies on a SCIF.

[KC Elbows]

I'll personally detain a politician trying to override SSO policies on a SCIF.

I don't actually know what that means. Is it anything like catching an STD from a MILF?

[Baqualin]

While I'm not commenting on the 9-11 thing, I do think you make an important point here that many on both the left and right often forget. Even recent history suggests that, if a group with any legitimacy does something ugly enough, the motivation to keep it secret can be enough to effectively do so. Good examples would be the conduct of specific CIA operatives in Guatemala in the seventies and eighties, death squads in central America during the same periods, etc. At best, we know of the existence of such problems, but the true history of who went there and did what will never be known.

History is full of successful conspiracies done by less efficient governments than our own. The argument that "they can't even run medicare efficiently, how could they plot this?" is particularly bad, because the difference between incompetence and outright criminality provides a different motivation.

That said, I don't see what the advantage is for the pentagon to hitting the pentagon, since news of it was going to be heavily eclipsed by the towers. I'm pretty sure the military doesn't need to fake a plane crash to get funds to replace buildings, unless those buildings are hospitals for vets.

This is coming from someone who is a bit of a conspiracy theorist, but I prefer more down to earth conspiracies, ones that provide a motive that would drive a need to cover up.

So, hiding aliens, not so interesting, hard to see how leaks wouldn't appear, but things like the glut of assassinations of leaders of the left into the early seventies matched with unmonitored government projects(cointelpro, etc) that, based on what little the people are allowed to know of their activities, suggests thuggish behavior and an ideological view that painted even moderate left folk as traitors whose rights could be suspended and violated without public trial at the whim of government employees and those on their payroll, not only lends itself to conspiracy theories, but, according to conservative principles, lends itself to the view that ultimately, the incompetence of government employees would not only lead them to overextend themselves, but then lead the agencies involved to do whatever it takes to not be transparent about the actual conduct of the agency itself.

The agents(in the game theory sense of those who perform an act, not always literally "government agents) and their handlers should thus get caught in the difficulty of not being able to achieve their goals while following the laws, and have twice as much reason not to follow the laws, not only to achieve their goals, but then to cover up when they violate rights to achieve them. Were this not true, the weathermen would all be in prison, for example.

Conspiracy theories are sometimes good things. They are the folk consciousness of events that have murky stories, and they are chaotic and often disorganized, but they are also something no one can really stop, and so can trump corrupt but powerful people by directly attaching suspicion to their reputation.

Sometimes this is unfair, but it is the price of power, a price that always must be paid because power, even in the most free societies, clearly can pervert justice.

Honestly, trials of former strong arm dictators who used death squads on their people are often largely based on conspiracy theories, because the main actors had the capacity to destroy paper trails, and those living who know either would end up in prison for speaking out, or the victims who come forward face murder for speaking out.

Since we know that our own government was a chief supporter of certain countries' death squads in the past, we know perfectly well that our government has had people that were perfectly willing to kill innocents not only for political expedience, but to cover up the act itself, as any government does.

Anyway, the act of murder is high motivation for secrecy, and if that act involves a group, that motivation extends to the group, and since government must occasionally commit murder, conspiracy is reality, and the best one can hope for is that they aren't committing murder simply to cover their own incompetence or out of ideological rigidness, but to protect the system that protects the people, and the hope is that they don't destroy the system to protect it, because the system is a contract with the people, and if the people can't count on that, then society and the state will take two different roads, and the government will be made up of the self serving while many useful and talented people will be forced to opt out.

That being said, considering that Cheney clearly used his position to broker deals for his and his friends to the detriment of our economy and our way of life and we can't even show that, conspiracy to blow up the pentagon is not likely to see much more focus than conspiracy to make a foreign national president.:p:D

Although, in fairness to whoever I was arguing with last week about Obama's birth certificate, it seems true that no step of the process to run for president actually requires confirmation of birth records. This DOES mean that Obama cannot be claimed to have failed to submit such records, since there is no legal requirement, only a constitutional requirement that apparently has had no laws supporting it enacted. I suppose the founding fathers assumed that the American people were capable of recognizing an American when they see one. Faking being an American(or any nationality) is only really feasible for people acculturated to the American way of life who are likewise functionally native American-english speakers. While many internationally speak english, aside from things they learn from movies, most have studied british english as the more proper form, so, even where someone is fluent enough to lose their native accent, their word choices tend toward the British, and tend to not sound like an American. The amount of training required to do this will show up quite readily in their history, or be a suspicious blank period in their history, and certainly no competent intelligence agency would expect to pull such a thing off without having more stringent control of the election process and press than is possible in the US(where soft control of the press is preferred over more overt control). The idea that Obama is some shoe in from Indonesia lacks a motivated agency willing to go to the trouble of carrying out the plan because the plan would be so prone to discovery. The only alternative that remains to conspiracy theorists, that Obama, when it comes to citizenship, is an unknown quantity, is legalist lawyer crap that ignores the fact that common sense tells us all he is clearly an American, because he's got way too big of cojones to be Canadian.:p:D

No offense meant to Canadians, it's just so cold up there, your cojones never really had a chance.

One of the best post I've seen on here in a while!!

Got to take up for the Canadians though......There's plenty of little fury pockets up there, that love to keep cojones warm....their good at it too....long winters, you have to do something to pass the time;):D
BQ

[Old Noob]

Any citizenship issues with President Obama would have come up when he received his security clearance. Authority doesn't matter here, and I'll personally detain a politician trying to override SSO policies on a SCIF.

Is that right? It's my understanding that political appointees and elected officials aren't subjected to the same rigor when getting their clearances that normal federal employees or military members are. Am I wrong about that?

[BoulderDawg]

Do you people want cover up and conspiracy?

You'll get plenty by just sitting back and watching this case in New York where a cop shot another cop.

I say so what? At least if they are shooting each other they are leaving innocent people alone.

[sanjuro_ronin]

While I'm not commenting on the 9-11 thing, I do think you make an important point here that many on both the left and right often forget. Even recent history suggests that, if a group with any legitimacy does something ugly enough, the motivation to keep it secret can be enough to effectively do so. Good examples would be the conduct of specific CIA operatives in Guatemala in the seventies and eighties, death squads in central America during the same periods, etc. At best, we know of the existence of such problems, but the true history of who went there and did what will never be known.

History is full of successful conspiracies done by less efficient governments than our own. The argument that "they can't even run medicare efficiently, how could they plot this?" is particularly bad, because the difference between incompetence and outright criminality provides a different motivation.

That said, I don't see what the advantage is for the pentagon to hitting the pentagon, since news of it was going to be heavily eclipsed by the towers. I'm pretty sure the military doesn't need to fake a plane crash to get funds to replace buildings, unless those buildings are hospitals for vets.

This is coming from someone who is a bit of a conspiracy theorist, but I prefer more down to earth conspiracies, ones that provide a motive that would drive a need to cover up.

So, hiding aliens, not so interesting, hard to see how leaks wouldn't appear, but things like the glut of assassinations of leaders of the left into the early seventies matched with unmonitored government projects(cointelpro, etc) that, based on what little the people are allowed to know of their activities, suggests thuggish behavior and an ideological view that painted even moderate left folk as traitors whose rights could be suspended and violated without public trial at the whim of government employees and those on their payroll, not only lends itself to conspiracy theories, but, according to conservative principles, lends itself to the view that ultimately, the incompetence of government employees would not only lead them to overextend themselves, but then lead the agencies involved to do whatever it takes to not be transparent about the actual conduct of the agency itself.

The agents(in the game theory sense of those who perform an act, not always literally "government agents) and their handlers should thus get caught in the difficulty of not being able to achieve their goals while following the laws, and have twice as much reason not to follow the laws, not only to achieve their goals, but then to cover up when they violate rights to achieve them. Were this not true, the weathermen would all be in prison, for example.

Conspiracy theories are sometimes good things. They are the folk consciousness of events that have murky stories, and they are chaotic and often disorganized, but they are also something no one can really stop, and so can trump corrupt but powerful people by directly attaching suspicion to their reputation.

Sometimes this is unfair, but it is the price of power, a price that always must be paid because power, even in the most free societies, clearly can pervert justice.

Honestly, trials of former strong arm dictators who used death squads on their people are often largely based on conspiracy theories, because the main actors had the capacity to destroy paper trails, and those living who know either would end up in prison for speaking out, or the victims who come forward face murder for speaking out.

Since we know that our own government was a chief supporter of certain countries' death squads in the past, we know perfectly well that our government has had people that were perfectly willing to kill innocents not only for political expedience, but to cover up the act itself, as any government does.

Anyway, the act of murder is high motivation for secrecy, and if that act involves a group, that motivation extends to the group, and since government must occasionally commit murder, conspiracy is reality, and the best one can hope for is that they aren't committing murder simply to cover their own incompetence or out of ideological rigidness, but to protect the system that protects the people, and the hope is that they don't destroy the system to protect it, because the system is a contract with the people, and if the people can't count on that, then society and the state will take two different roads, and the government will be made up of the self serving while many useful and talented people will be forced to opt out.

That being said, considering that Cheney clearly used his position to broker deals for his and his friends to the detriment of our economy and our way of life and we can't even show that, conspiracy to blow up the pentagon is not likely to see much more focus than conspiracy to make a foreign national president.:p:D

Although, in fairness to whoever I was arguing with last week about Obama's birth certificate, it seems true that no step of the process to run for president actually requires confirmation of birth records. This DOES mean that Obama cannot be claimed to have failed to submit such records, since there is no legal requirement, only a constitutional requirement that apparently has had no laws supporting it enacted. I suppose the founding fathers assumed that the American people were capable of recognizing an American when they see one. Faking being an American(or any nationality) is only really feasible for people acculturated to the American way of life who are likewise functionally native American-english speakers. While many internationally speak english, aside from things they learn from movies, most have studied british english as the more proper form, so, even where someone is fluent enough to lose their native accent, their word choices tend toward the British, and tend to not sound like an American. The amount of training required to do this will show up quite readily in their history, or be a suspicious blank period in their history, and certainly no competent intelligence agency would expect to pull such a thing off without having more stringent control of the election process and press than is possible in the US(where soft control of the press is preferred over more overt control). The idea that Obama is some shoe in from Indonesia lacks a motivated agency willing to go to the trouble of carrying out the plan because the plan would be so prone to discovery. The only alternative that remains to conspiracy theorists, that Obama, when it comes to citizenship, is an unknown quantity, is legalist lawyer crap that ignores the fact that common sense tells us all he is clearly an American, because he's got way too big of cojones to be Canadian.:p:D

No offense meant to Canadians, it's just so cold up there, your cojones never really had a chance.

Oh year, great secrets, that's why we're talking about them.
:D

[Yao Sing]

The problem with all these different conspiracies, and the common denominator, is the official withholding of evidence. Look at just about every conspiracy theory and you'll find the government hiding info or acting strangely and inconsistent with normal protocols.

The typical excuse for this is "national security" which is correct in the sense that if the public found out what really happened there would be a revolution or they would all lose their jobs, possibly be indicted.

When do you ever see the physical evidence of a major crime quickly hauled away and destroyed? Why is it they can never release any photos/videos that would prove what happened?

Doors magically go missing when they would prove the direction of gunfire, closed circuit video of what hit a building is confiscated and not released to the public, steel girders with possible thermite residue quickly removed and shipped overseas.

Maybe they want speculation to run wild. I know, it's a conspiracy to create conspiracies!

[MightyB]

Is it possible Kim Jong Il is really wanting to start a fight 'cuz he's dying? Do you think it's possible for him to want to go out with a bang and see just how well his military can do? I mean the guy's spent a lifetime building it- he may just want to see it in action. Think Obama's up to the challenge?

[David Jamieson]

Is it possible Kim Jong Il is really wanting to start a fight 'cuz he's dying? Do you think it's possible for him to want to go out with a bang and see just how well his military can do? I mean the guy's spent a lifetime building it- he may just want to see it in action. Think Obama's up to the challenge?

North Korea could be crushed in a matter of Hours.

They have a less threatening army than saddam had in GW1.

The problem with taking out their army, airforce and navy is China who they are the problematic step child of.

a slam on NK would be a bit of a sticky wicket with China. and russia as well.

[Old Noob]

North Korea could be crushed in a matter of Hours.

They have a less threatening army than saddam had in GW1.

The problem with taking out their army, airforce and navy is China who they are the problematic step child of.

a slam on NK would be a bit of a sticky wicket with China. and russia as well.

N Korea has the chemical weapons and wouldn't hesitate to use them. They're that silly. Those guys.

[KC Elbows]

Is it possible Kim Jong Il is really wanting to start a fight 'cuz he's dying? Do you think it's possible for him to want to go out with a bang and see just how well his military can do? I mean the guy's spent a lifetime building it- he may just want to see it in action. Think Obama's up to the challenge?

No one is up to that challenge. The only lucky break would be he's just out for his own gratification, and so dying in opulence(while his people starve) would be his end goal. If he actually feels pressure to make true all his hype, despite the world clearly not reflecting said "truth", this would be bad for everyone involved. Actually having to wipe out North Korea comes with the baggage that nearly everyone in both Koreas consider the North-South distinction to be a temporary artifice, and so, being the nation that wipes out half of someone's country might not work out so well in the long run.

Assassination? Very likely attempts could justify his paranoia and drive more extreme acts.

Direct war? Again, justifies his worldview. The only success would have to be faster than the the lay of the land might allow.

Diplomacy, while validating his authority, does not validate his worldview at all, while providing only a fairly light threat to that view, but over a longer period that threat might be more effective than efforts that seem to justify his worldview to his people. The strain of being a cartoon country at the table with countries in the region with more legitimacy could also have a positive impact on North Koreans close to power who might like bigger plans than going down in flames with the weirdest world leader in the region.

[BoulderDawg]

I don't see a whole lot of difference between North Korea and China.

One just has a better PR department.

It's just as if you had two neighbor who beat their wives. One is really friendly and invites everyone into his home while the other is standoffish and doesn't associate with anyone..........Which one of these guys would be given the benefit of the doubt.

[1bad65]

Don't bother with this one. No evidence in the world will convince them.

Planes either eventually have to land or crash. They don't just evaporate.

"No amount of evidence, no matter how good it is or how much there is of it, is ever going to convince the true believer to the contrary." -James Randi

That about sums it up.

Although I am curious as to what these people think happened to the plane and passengers. ;)

[BoulderDawg]

I personally believe there should be a third party independant investigation on whether or not Elvis is still alive. There's just been way too many sightings and unanswered questions.

Also Andy Kauffman did his Elvis impersonation.....now he's suppose to be dead but there are questions.....What's up with that?:eek:

[Yao Sing]

You realize that quote goes both ways. You look just as silly to the guys that look silly to you.

I just don't understand why anyone would be against open information and questioning things is usually required to open thing up for review.

I mean why would anyone be against having all the facts made available to the general public?

I don't trust anyone that wants to keep info suppressed. I support open, independent hearings and investigations into any event that the public still questions.

[Yao Sing]

Don't listen to BoulderDawg, he's really Elvis and he's trying to stop an investigation by calling for one using reverse psychology. :D

[BoulderDawg]

I don't trust anyone that wants to keep info suppressed. I support open, independent hearings and investigations into any event that the public still questions.

How would any real work ever get done? There are hundreds (if not thousands) of things the public have questions on.

This is the job of the media. The media's freedom of press to ask questions and investigate is what broke the Watergate scandal.

If no one in the media is really activily pursuing whether of not there are space aliens in the White House or that planes didn't really crash into the Pentagon then shouldn't that tell you something?

[KC Elbows]

"No amount of evidence, no matter how good it is or how much there is of it, is ever going to convince the true believer to the contrary." -James Randi

That about sums it up.

Ugh. James Randi is a typical "skeptic", meaning he is not a typical scientifically minded, rational man, but a man focused on a goal over the realities along the way. I agree with him on a lot of things, but rarely do I find even his lab setups to be good tools for what he tries to do. And he absolutely avoids the most relevant debunking in order to avoid angering groups with influence, mostly going after people whose claims have zero relevance on society.

True believers, i.e. those under cognitive dissonance, do have a limit to what evidence they can endure without alteration of opinion, and when they reach that limit, they either change, or remove the stressor by insulating themselves from it's presence, allowing what was originally a conversation between them and another to lapse into the other conversing, and the true believer running away, or parroting some justification that becomes built into their belief, but with each additional justification, their true belief becomes less tenable, requiring further removal from outside ideas, creating more cognitive dissonance, making the likelihood of true belief in the face of outside pressure less tenable.

In China, I met lots of true believers in the infallibility of their system of government, mostly younger. Those with experience learned caution, because they had the experience of following justifications during the cultural revolution, and are not willing to continue endlessly on that road.

Most true believers do not last forever as true believers. They either begin to moderate in order to function in society, or, for those who find gain by their belief, are dependent on the justifications that arise from it in order to continue their gain, and are forced to keep themselves away from the larger part of their society, which often is a situation that cannot last.

Sorry, Randi is just a bit lame to me, I'm the same way about Houdini's efforts in the same field: both failed to understand that the truth of beliefs is rarely their foundation, and both targeted street cons of little concern while avoiding larger religious movements of any relevance.

[KC Elbows]

You realize that quote goes both ways. You look just as silly to the guys that look silly to you.

I just don't understand why anyone would be against open information and questioning things is usually required to open thing up for review.

I mean why would anyone be against having all the facts made available to the general public?

I don't trust anyone that wants to keep info suppressed. I support open, independent hearings and investigations into any event that the public still questions.

My view is not completely dissimilar. Granted, I think external intelligence should be pretty **** secret, but I feel that classifying internal intelligence is just asking for abuse of the citizenry by whatever party runs the government, and I think U.S. history has pretty much shown this to be correct.

[BoulderDawg]

To me the most rediculous scam going these days is Nostradamus.

I watch these shows where they talk about how he was suppose to predict the future and just laugh at how vague general statements are suppose to point to actual events.

A close second is the Bible code. I can take any large book and code it in the same manner.

[Yao Sing]

The media has lost it's credibility for real journalism. Those Watergate days are long gone and probably contributed to the more recent lockdown (http://www.akdart.com/med7.html)of what's reported.

But I really don't expect you to be aware of that or believe it. Here's an example (http://conservativeoutpost.com/ny_times_suppressed_story_about_acorn_fraud_links_ obama_campaign_just_election) to support my viewpoint.

[Yao Sing]

To me the most rediculous scam going these days is Nostradamus.

I watch these shows where they talk about how he was suppose to predict the future and just laugh at how vague general statements are suppose to point to actual events.

A close second is the Bible code. I can take any large book and code it in the same manner.

Didn't someone show this to be true with any book by using it on a copy of Moby ****?

[Yao Sing]

KC, the problem with Randi's method of exposing fakes is the assumption that if he can duplicate the event then it must be faked.

The fact that he duplicates it does not mean the event was done in that manner. We're supposed to believe that because it can be done a certain way that it was done that way. That's poor logic and most seem to fall for it.

[KC Elbows]

KC, the problem with Randi's method of exposing fakes is the assumption that if he can duplicate the event then it must be faked.

The fact that he duplicates it does not mean the event was done in that manner. We're supposed to believe that because it can be done a certain way that it was done that way. That's poor logic and most seem to fall for it.

I'll tell you, I grew up around a lot of interesting people, stunt people, magicians, generally performers. Among that kind of group you tend to pick up a lot of skills that are related to various cons, and you tend to actually meet some conmen.

Those guys make more money than most of the fakes Randi focuses on, and they don't make that much, and don't represent much of a threat to society, and will eventually get busted on their own. Guys like Randi and Houdini paternalistically act as though they "uncovered" these frauds when people from the beginning of society have been well aware of them.

If Randi wants to save us from quackery, his efforts would be better spent offering a portion of his reward to proof of churches playing politics despite tax exempt status, which undoubtedly loses us all more money than all the other quacks in history together.

Apparently, I'm surly today.:mad:

[1bad65]

KC, the problem with Randi's method of exposing fakes is the assumption that if he can duplicate the event then it must be faked.

The fact that he duplicates it does not mean the event was done in that manner. We're supposed to believe that because it can be done a certain way that it was done that way. That's poor logic and most seem to fall for it.

Not totally. He shows how he (Randi) does it, and that proves it's scientifically explained. Then he puts in things to make it impossible for the claimant to be able to do the trick HIS (Randi's) way. They always fail.

Here is a perfect example of him debunking a fraud on live TV:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CASghTzNhc&feature=related

[1bad65]

Well, he failed again.

First Chrysler, and now GM.

"General Motors, once the largest U.S. auto maker by far, will file for bankruptcy on Monday in federal court in New York City, FOX Business Network has confirmed.

The filing will come after an announcement by President Barack Obama during which he will provide details of how his Administration plans to guide GM through the restructuring, according to people familiar with the scenario."

Source:
http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/markets/general-motors-file-bankruptcy/

"New GM could just as well be called "Government Motors," because the U.S. is going to own 72.5% of it. That may not be a good thing. Remember the Trabant and other vehicles built by the government-owned companies in the old Soviet Union?

Although the bureaucrats disclaim any interest in micromanaging the automaker, it isn't hard to imagine them nudging and guiding decisions in directions they would like them to go. V-8 engines? Inefficient. Leather seating? Bad for the environment. Multiple options and trim levels? Wasteful. We could all wind up driving some variation of a minivan."

Source:
http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/29/news/companies/gm_fuzzy.fortune/index.htm?cnn=yes

Soon they will get to FORCE us to drive the cars of THEIR choice. Yup, I'm sure that's exactly what the Founders wanted.

And remember, when the day comes we are all forced to drive these SmartCar deathtraps, the ones who forced us will be driving nice, large, polluting vehicles. Those laws won't apply to THEM. Mark my words.

[1bad65]

By the way, can anyone show me where our bankruptcy laws say it's the President's duty to guide private companies through bankruptcy?

How in the hell is he getting away with this? :eek:

[David Jamieson]

By the way, can anyone show me where our bankruptcy laws say it's the President's duty to guide private companies through bankruptcy?

How in the hell is he getting away with this? :eek:

How did Cheney get away with protecting the thieves at Enron?

They "get away" with it because ordinary normal Americans like you wait for someone else to do something about it.

Nobody will do anything.

[Yao Sing]

Speed limiters, GPS tracking, remote shutoff by LEO, pay-as-you-go roadway tolls, skill test ignition lockout (sobriety), black boxes, in-car audio/video recording.

What else am I missing?

How about in-cab air analysis for marijuana which, if detected, would lock the doors and contact the local police while recording everything for future prosecution?

[KC Elbows]

Not totally. He shows how he (Randi) does it, and that proves it's scientifically explained. Then he puts in things to make it impossible for the claimant to be able to do the trick HIS (Randi's) way. They always fail.

Here is a perfect example of him debunking a fraud on live TV:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CASghTzNhc&feature=related

That link is a perfect example of my main thing with him. Yes, that guy was a con, of the lowest order. That guy was probably making next to nothing on his con game. And yes, Randi did reveal the con. But to what point? In essence, Randi becomes the entertainment, but achieves nothing of any real value. Everybody had already heard of people conning other people based on spiritual power a number of centuries before, and, aside from Randi fans, there is no specific purpose served in Randi doing so, aside from becoming the entertainment.

I see nothing heroic or stoic in putting aside a million dollars to show people as fakes when a perusal of any book on magic will reveal ALL their tricks.

Again, I don't disagree with him in many cases, but what he does is a wee bit pretentious, which usually is not a good friend to truth. When has he ever taken on any organization or group that makes dubious claims but also has the financial and legal capability to trouble him? Because that is the only way I could see him as anything other than some form of entertainer, and I've really never seen him take on such groups to any great effect, instead investigating trivialities and never pursuing at any great cost the worst offenders. The million dollar offer sounds great, but none need go to it, and if he's not willing to take a more aggressive stance than that, he's no more relevant to truth than any other entertainer.

The problem with taking a stand for truth is that no one ever really does it, and Randi is no different. His truth is good, but banal and irrelevant, because he limits it to circuses and looneybins for fear of the real world. As an entertainer and skeptic he is a shadow of Houdini, as a hero of truth his actions fall short of actually advancing truth, and as a man of the rational world, he fails to see what little part the targets of his intellect play in it.

[1bad65]

KC,

You do realize Randi wrote a book called "The Faith Healers" which dealt exclusevly about people using religion to fleece their victims, right?

[1bad65]

How did Cheney get away with protecting the thieves at Enron?

They "get away" with it because ordinary normal Americans like you wait for someone else to do something about it.

Nobody will do anything.

Cheney guided them through bankruptcy? And the US owns ~75% of ENRON? Thats news to me.

And you didn't answer my question.

I myself can't stop it. Hell, I don't own any shares of GM or Chrysler. If I'm not mistaken, it's the Courts job to stop this stuff. I have heard a Chrysler shareholder did file a lawsuit over this, citing the 5th Amendment, but I've not heard much on that.

I do feel the owners of the dealerships that the Government ordered to close have a legit lawsuit, but we shall see. As of now, I've not heard of any filing suits yet.

[1bad65]

How did Cheney get away with protecting the thieves at Enron?

He did?

Ken Lay, convicted. Died while awaiting sentencing.
Jeffry Skilling, sentenced to 24 years and 4 months in prison, and fined $45 million. Currently in prison.
Andrew Fastow, plead guilty. Was sentenced to six years, followed by two years of probation. Also agreed to forfeit $23.8 million in family assets. Currently in prison.
Lea Weingarten Fastow, plead guilty. Lea Fastow reported to prison on 12 July 2004 and was released to a halfway house on 11 July 2005.
Timothy Belden, plead guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Cooperated with authorities to help convict many top Enron executives. Belden was sentenced to two years of court-supervised release and must forfeit $2.1 million.
Richard Causey, plead guilty. Received a 5-7 prison sentence. Currently in prison.

And remember, Bush didn't pardon ANYONE for Enron related crimes.

[KC Elbows]

KC,

You do realize Randi wrote a book called "The Faith Healers" which dealt exclusevly about people using religion to fleece their victims, right?

It dealt exclusively with faith healers, again, carny level cons that are safe to take on without much chance of repercussions.

It did not deal broadly with religious cons at all.

If Randi offered a million to the pope to wire himself up for a conversation with God, I'd find him more relevant.

If Randi offered money to more productive activities than his million dollar offer, but instead to proof of churches playing politics and accepting a tax exempt status, or to help counter implementation of programs that have historically had no success rate(like abstinence programs, which repeatedly get sold to the tax payer despite previously failing to live up to even acceptable success rates), then at least he'd be actually living up to the hype.

If he really took on quackery that affects most people, he'd be worth the hype. What he takes on is the fringe of the fringe, but not even that in any meaningful way. Faith healing, despite his book, is still a fringe activity, and always will be. His views on it and mine are not different, I'm glad he could write about it, but frankly, laughing and pointing at one religious practice is only fun and profitable as long as you forget to laugh and point at your listener's religious practices.

That he has to play it safe with things like christianity and scientology is lamentable, but that he does play it safe means that I can't buy the hype, he has his lines that he doesn't cross, and heroism and truth are not the reasons for this. As a christian nation, most religious cons will be mainstream christian ones, so what is his point with psychics? That we should be worried? Please.

[Drake]

Is that right? It's my understanding that political appointees and elected officials aren't subjected to the same rigor when getting their clearances that normal federal employees or military members are. Am I wrong about that?

Same process, same rules. Like us, they eventually have to confront that weathered old man who is completely unsympathetic to their wants, and puts you on the hot seat like you have just killed a puppy.

Again... I don't care if it's the Grand Poobah of the 5th Holy Senate... I will detain you. :D

[KC Elbows]

that weathered old man who is completely unsympathetic to their wants, and puts you on the hot seat like you have just killed a puppy

Are you being autobiographical here?:D

[Drake]

I should add, however, that it's very likely their clearances are expedited, meaning they get to the front of the line for their background investigations (not checks, investigations), interviews, and polygraph tests. I hate the polygraph, btw... I felt guilty just being attached to the **** thing.

[Drake]

Are you being autobiographical here?:D

Yup... I'm telling you...those guys are GOOD at their job.

[Yao Sing]

Although, in fairness to whoever I was arguing with last week about Obama's birth certificate, it seems true that no step of the process to run for president actually requires confirmation of birth records. This DOES mean that Obama cannot be claimed to have failed to submit such records, since there is no legal requirement, only a constitutional requirement that apparently has had no laws supporting it enacted.

BTW, thanks for taking an intelligent approach to the discussion. As with most of these things if you avoid the kneejerk reaction and actually look into the topic you'll find some substance to the allegations.

Too bad most prefer to blather on about tin foil hats and attacking the messenger they never find out for themselves the truth of the matter.

So don't you think it's an issue that needs to be addressed? Shouldn't someone be tasked with verifying he's eligible for POTUS?

[BoulderDawg]

I should add, however, that it's very likely their clearances are expedited, meaning they get to the front of the line for their background investigations (not checks, investigations), interviews, and polygraph tests. I hate the polygraph, btw... I felt guilty just being attached to the **** thing.

I don't take polygraphs. If it means that I don't get a certain job then so be it.

It would be the same with a criminal investigation. If I was asked to take a poly about anything the cops would get an upraised middle finger.

[Hardwork108]

"No amount of evidence, no matter how good it is or how much there is of it, is ever going to convince the true believer to the contrary." -James Randi

That about sums it up.

It does for you and Drake, for sure.

Although I am curious as to what these people think happened to the plane and passengers. ;)
Given the psychotic nature of those (allowed) in power in the US I would say that you wouldn´t have to stretch your imagination too far to see the possibility that the plane was destroyed and its passengers murdered.

The people who think that Bush, Cheney and those who pull their (and currently, Obama´s) strings, would lose two minutes of sleep over such an act are the ones who are wearing the tin hats.

[KC Elbows]

KC,

You do realize Randi wrote a book called "The Faith Healers" which dealt exclusevly about people using religion to fleece their victims, right?


To make myself clear, I used to be more interested in Randi's work, just as I used to be more interested in Sagan's views on religion. I still see both as important reading for understanding what they are writing about, Randi's because it involved actual cases, Sagan's because he was better able to get right to the root of the problem, but both fall short in aspects for the current reader.

[sanjuro_ronin]

To make myself clear, I used to be more interested in Randi's work, just as I used to be more interested in Sagan's views on religion. I still see both as important reading for understanding what they are writing about, Randi's because it involved actual cases, Sagan's because he was better able to get right to the root of the problem, but both fall short in aspects for the current reader.

By Sagan you mean Carl Sagan, right?
I didn't know he was religious.

[Yao Sing]

Clinton had the OKC bombing, Bush had 9/11.

I wonder what we'll get with Obama? Is it time for a nuke (http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/cetron_terror_attack/2008/09/10/129636.html) yet?

[Hardwork108]

Clinton had the OKC bombing, Bush had 9/11.

I wonder what we'll get with Obama? Is it time for a nuke (http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/cetron_terror_attack/2008/09/10/129636.html) yet?

You are scaring me now. That is because if such a "Terrorist" event does happen then most people will have the rest of their constitutional liberties taken away (in their own interest and that of ¨national security", of course) and with the capabilities that current technology provides as regards controlling people, then it would be a case of ¨welcome to the new dark ages".

[KC Elbows]

BTW, thanks for taking an intelligent approach to the discussion.

No problem.

As with most of these things if you avoid the kneejerk reaction and actually look into the topic you'll find some substance to the allegations.

Now, I'm not saying I found substance for the investigations. I found that there appears to be no requirement in any of the forms for running for POTUS that required as much ID as a bank account.

Too bad most prefer to blather on about tin foil hats and attacking the messenger they never find out for themselves the truth of the matter.

So don't you think it's an issue that needs to be addressed? Shouldn't someone be tasked with verifying he's eligible for POTUS?

It would seem to me, if one wanted to make clearest their concern for the constitution over partisan issues, to petition to implement a law that requires the act of anyone running to provide proof first.

Petitioning the President for blocking something that isn't required by law comes off as partisan bickering. How many of these people making suits are actually petitioning or contacting their rep to get such a law passed? If not, how do we determine that they actually care about the constitution when their actions ignore actually trying to establish a legal means to follow it?

BTW, after actually thinking about it, I would also probably not provide my own personal info outside of required channels, and, if I knew it was partisan hacks doing it, I'd let their followers follow through with suits, then seek to force them to pay my legal expenses if possible when it's all done. The letdown would be massive, since it would be my, an American's, personal info, it's my right to keep it to myself except to the dmv and a couple of other places, and no judge is gonna easily touch that, so assuming he has the right credentials, which Drake suggests he must, he can drag this thing out quite some time in order to really build up the disillusionment of his detractors when it's all done.

Then, of course, I'd socialize internet forums and force Gene to purge you all. I'd also make SanjuroRonin Chief Minister of B00bie Pics. Lkmfdc will be spending some years watching reeducation films about all the good Sun Lu Tang has done for the world, and 1bad will be working the handlebar installer at the solar powered state-run Vespa hybrid plant.

[Hardwork108]

This is the job of the media. The media's freedom of press to ask questions and investigate is what broke the Watergate scandal.

If no one in the media is really activily pursuing whether of not there are space aliens in the White House or that planes didn't really crash into the Pentagon then shouldn't that tell you something?

IMHO and unfortunately the concept of "Free Press" is as big a myth as the concept of "Free and Democratic elections". IMHO, most "scandals" happen because they were planned to happen and then the "free" press is allowed to "investigate".

[KC Elbows]

By Sagan you mean Carl Sagan, right?
I didn't know he was religious.

He's a staunch atheist, of the "angry atheist" variety, which is my main criticism of him, though it is definitely a mark of his generation.

My point was, he was important in regards to who he was and what he published in regards to religion. He was important to getting to the point of saying "how we are allowed to discuss christianity, a topic that is constantly brought up to us, is defined by rules made by Christians, and debate doesn't work that way, so screw off, if you wanna talk, grow some balls."

He and Randi are friends and most of my generation who read one read the other, which was why I brought them both up, especially since they provide a good contrast. Sagan is the only one with balls, though: he took risks being so outwardly atheistic. Randi investigates people who drink chicken blood. Whoopie.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I'd also make SanjuroRonin Chief Minister of B00bie Pics.

Ask and Ye shall receive:

[1bad65]

It does for you and Drake, for sure.

We're not the ones using people who believe in space aliens as reputable sources.

Given the psychotic nature of those (allowed) in power in the US I would say that you wouldn´t have to stretch your imagination too far to see the possibility that the plane was destroyed and its passengers murdered.

The people who think that Bush, Cheney and those who pull their (and currently, Obama´s) strings, would lose two minutes of sleep over such an act are the ones who are wearing the tin hats.

So where is the plane???

Again, if we buy you guy's theory we have to believe at a minimum the eyewitnesses on the ground were in on it, the familes of the victims were in on it, the cell phone providers were in on it, and the security camera companies were in on it. And someone had to hide the plane and passengers too. :rolleyes:

[sanjuro_ronin]

He's a staunch atheist, of the "angry atheist" variety, which is my main criticism of him, though it is definitely a mark of his generation.

My point was, he was important in regards to who he was and what he published in regards to religion. He was important to getting to the point of saying "how we are allowed to discuss christianity, a topic that is constantly brought up to us, is defined by rules made by Christians, and debate doesn't work that way, so screw off, if you wanna talk, grow some balls."

He and Randi are friends and most of my generation who read one read the other, which was why I brought them both up, especially since they provide a good contrast. Sagan is the only one with balls, though: he took risks being so outwardly atheistic. Randi investigates people who drink chicken blood. Whoopie.

An athiest discussing religion, isn't that like ballet dancer discussing fighting ??
:D

[sanjuro_ronin]

Oh, and here is the greatest conspiracy of them all :

[Hardwork108]

We're not the ones using people who believe in space aliens as reputable sources.
Most people believe in "space aliens" ie. other forms of life (sometimes I believe you to be one as well :p), the point of argument seems to be wether they have visited earth.



So where is the plane???

Again, if we buy you guy's theory we have to believe at a minimum the eyewitnesses on the ground were in on it, the familes of the victims were in on it, the cell phone providers were in on it, and the security camera companies were in on it. And someone had to hide the plane and passengers too. :rolleyes:

Please read my post again as regards the plane!

[Hardwork108]

We're not the ones using people who believe in space aliens as reputable sources.



So where is the plane???

Again, if we buy you guy's theory we have to believe at a minimum the eyewitnesses on the ground were in on it, the familes of the victims were in on it, the cell phone providers were in on it, and the security camera companies were in on it. And someone had to hide the plane and passengers too. :rolleyes:

And here is another of your "eyewitnesses":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEgHU6pS-tg&feature=related

[KC Elbows]

An athiest discussing religion, isn't that like ballet dancer discussing fighting ??
:D

Ballet dancers and fighters both can discuss fighting as something that exists that they have knowledge of the existence of.

Atheists were traditionally forced to remain silent or debate very carefully on spirituality with the spiritual, a topic neither has any direct knowledge of the existence of. Only recently has that discussion had the potential to be a real debate, and the religious have opted to simply demonize the product of their influence over actually improving based on past mistakes.

I can be certain that my tax dollars will never pay for a tribute to atheist thinkers, but I have a guarantee that I have already paid for Christian symbols in statuary in two states. I also have a guarantee that I have already had my tax dollars used to alter my stepson's biology class despite a huge majority of research suggesting that the old class was better, under the urging of organized religion.

Without the religious base, the resistance to actually giving equal right to gays would be minuscule. The base of their argument is that God says it's wrong. The justifications are it's not natural(wrong, every society has had it, we know of no population of humans completely free of it, therefore it's naturally occurring), marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman(half right, marriage has traditionally been a property exchange between a man and a woman's parents, hardly the same and hardly a rationale for future conduct), and gays will ruin marriage(just idiotic, completely unsupported rationale).

Liberty, equality, these are major things to me, and I feel that people who call themselves Americans and feel they should have the power to decide on where liberty is placed, what lessons it must teach, etc, are missing the boat and need to be fought.

Basically, the core of Christianity includes antagonism to the unbeliever, they are, by the very definition of Christianity, going to hell and in league with the big horned god of evil. Why again would atheists find it important to counter the arguments of a large majority who subscribe to this view?;):D

[Baqualin]

Oh, and here is the greatest conspiracy of them all :

D@mn..........made my day...Thanks as always:D

[1bad65]

Most people believe in "space aliens" ie. other forms of life (sometimes I believe you to be one as well :p), the point of argument seems to be wether they have visited earth.

Well, I don't believe in space aliens at all.

I'm not sure the "majority" does believe in other forms of extraterrestrial life. I'll try and look that up soon.

Please read my post again as regards the plane!

I can't find in that post what you think happened to it.

Look, you guys claim to have 'proof' Flight 93 was shot down. You also claim 'proof' that something else caused the WTC buildings collapse. So again, how come you guys claim something else hit the Pentagon, but can't find ONE OUNCE of the missing Boeing 757? :rolleyes:

[1bad65]

HW,

Do you even believe that the Government is telling the truth that American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175 hit the Twin Towers?

[Yao Sing]

Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., filed H.R. 1503, an amendment to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 which would "require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of president to include with the committee's statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution."

So someone is trying to rectify the problem so we don't go through this again in the future.

Also, Congress addressed the issue of McCain's eligibility so why is there so much trouble getting Obama verified? Why the resistance?

"BTW, after actually thinking about it, I would also probably not provide my own personal info outside of required channels"

You are a private citizen and there is no reason for anyone to need to see your documents but Obama is a public figure and there is so much at stake that there is no comparison to a private individual. He applied for the office so it's on him to prove he's eligible.

Obama's grandmother has stated in a recording that she was present at his birth in Kenya. And, according to Wayne Madsen, Journalist with Online Journal, a "research team went to Mombassa, Kenya, and located a Certificate Registering the birth of Barack Obama, Jr. at a Kenya Maternity Hospital, to his father, a Kenyan citizen".

For all we know he isn't even a citizen. He could be in this country illegally all this time. And don't think that's not a possibility because it happened to my own mother.

[BoulderDawg]

Well, I don't believe in space aliens at all.

I'm not sure the "majority" does believe in other forms of extraterrestrial life.


Not surprising. You neos have a hard time believing anything that you cannot see, touch or feel.

By the way the vast majority of people believe in extraterrestrial life. In the vastest of space there is bound to be another planet with a moderate climate, water and the building blocks for life. I'll lay even money that there is also other life close by in our own solar system underneath the frozen oceans of europa.

Anyway the percentages go way down when speculating about intelligent life out there and drop way past .1% when you say there are beings out there somewhere with the intelligence to travel to our planet from great distances.

By the way the notion that you can shoot radio waves into space and have someone pick them up 50 years later is total BS. After several years they just dissapate and turn into white noise.

[Yao Sing]

So what does anyone think about this statement?

"Pennsylvania Democrat Philip J. Berg, who filed a lawsuit demanding Sen. Barack Obama present proof of his American citizenship, now says that by failing to respond Obama has legally "admitted" to the lawsuit's accusations, including the charge that the Democratic candidate was born in Mombosa, Kenya."

He hasn't denied the charge or provided evidence to the contrary. I believe the legal standard is if you don't deny the allegations then you're implying they are true.

[David Jamieson]

So what does anyone think about this statement?

"Pennsylvania Democrat Philip J. Berg, who filed a lawsuit demanding Sen. Barack Obama present proof of his American citizenship, now says that by failing to respond Obama has legally "admitted" to the lawsuit's accusations, including the charge that the Democratic candidate was born in Mombosa, Kenya."

He hasn't denied the charge or provided evidence to the contrary. I believe the legal standard is if you don't deny the allegations then you're implying they are true.

Berg's an idiot.

the state of Hawaii and the hospital he was born in already showed the document.

[David Jamieson]

Well, I don't believe in space aliens at all.



maybe not space aliens, but life elsewhere than earth will be confirmed soon enough. ;)

the drake equation has been revised to a positive.

we might be a bit long in the tooth when it happens, because the implications are strong and there are many simple minds that will not be able to absorb it because of the conflict with their limited and narrow perspective.

But then, isn't that always the case?

"Life ain't simple, if you think it is, then so are you." :)

[Yao Sing]

Berg's an idiot.

the state of Hawaii and the hospital he was born in already showed the document.

Ok, great. Which hospital is that, I'd like to check it out. You seem to have info that a whole bunch of lawyers haven't been able to get.

And for the record that State of Hawaii only stated that it had a birth record for Obama, something that is also recorded for births outside the state.

It seems that at the time of his birth the state allowed parents to register a birth with the state even though it didn't happen there so that still does not prove anything other than he was born alive (somewhere).

So just name the hospital and the doctor if you can and that should be sufficient if it checks out.

[Yao Sing]

The other is from Chiyome Fukino, the director of the Hawaiian Department of Health, who issued a statement, "I as Director of Health for the State of Hawaii, along with the Registrar of Vital Statistics who has statutory authority to oversee and maintain these type of vital records, have personally seen and verified that the Hawaii State Department of Health has Sen. Obama's original birth certificate on record in accordance with state policies and procedures."

While the certificate on file is "in accordance with state policies and procedures," there's no affirmation that the document reflects a Hawaiian birth.

There also have been no confirmed hospital records uncovered that would document his birth, and an investigator even cast doubt on whether the Obama family lived at the address listed in the newspaper announcements.

"Hawaii Revised Statute 338-178 allows registration of birth in Hawaii for a child that was born outside of Hawaii to parents who, for a year preceding the child’s birth, claimed Hawaii as their place of residence," the document said. "The only way to know where Senator Obama was actually born is to view Senator Obama's original birth certificate from 1961 that shows the name of the hospital and the name and signature of the doctor that delivered him."

[1bad65]

"Pennsylvania Democrat Philip J. Berg, who filed a lawsuit demanding Sen. Barack Obama present proof of his American citizenship, now says that by failing to respond Obama has legally "admitted" to the lawsuit's accusations, including the charge that the Democratic candidate was born in Mombosa, Kenya."

Berg's an idiot.

Well, he is a Democrat. ;)

It does say something when someone from his own Party feels he hasn't provided proof.

[Yao Sing]

Hey 1bad65, you might like this one (http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=1073).

These guys are as clueless as most of the general population, unfortunately.

[Yao Sing]

According to Orly Taitz, who has a number of suits filed to get to the truth of Obama's eligibility, she "has 10 state representatives and about 130 members of the U.S. military signed on as plaintiffs in the action".

Her new blog is at http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/blog1/ in case any of the lurkers are interested in this issue.

This is not going away and whether you believe he's eligible or not everyone should support following the law of the land, namely the Constitution, and push for a decision so we can all trust that we have a lawful government.

[1bad65]

Hey 1bad65, you might like this one (http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=1073).

These guys are as clueless as most of the general population, unfortunately.

It's scary.

They are nationalizing industries! That's stuff Mao, Stalin, and Hitler did. That's what Hugo Chavez is doing. And there are provisions in the Constitution to stop this, namely the 5th and 10th Amendments. Has no one in Congress even read the Constitution?

We know that Geithner either has not, or he has read it and he disregarded it. Same as his boss.

[Mas Judt]

It's scary.

They are nationalizing industries! That's stuff Mao, Stalin, and Hitler did. That's what Hugo Chavez is doing. And there are provisions in the Constitution to stop this, namely the 5th and 10th Amendments. Has no one in Congress even read the Constitution?


Other than Ron Paul? None that I am aware of.

[David Jamieson]

Other than Ron Paul? None that I am aware of.

lol..zing to congress! :D

[uki]

They are nationalizing industries! That's stuff Mao, Stalin, and Hitler did.bingo.

knock yourself out... http://www.redicecreations.com/mtsarforum/viewtopic.php?t=15

[1bad65]

bingo.

knock yourself out... http://www.redicecreations.com/mtsarforum/viewtopic.php?t=15

I'm not trying to come off a nutbar here, but doesn't it make you wonder why ONE MAN is currently nationalizing our auto industry, says he wants to nationalize health care this year, and has said banks may also have to be nationalized?

That's an awful lot of power in the hands of ONE MAN. :eek:

[Yao Sing]

But that one man is just so trustworthy (http://www.rense.com/general86/repub.htm) right? :eek:

[BoulderDawg]

Just seen on TV where this is a red letter day for the neos. They finally got one of those baby killer. Dr Tiller, long time abortion advocation was shot and killed at his church today.

Shot at his church.....................Doesn't surprise me. They probably felt the church would be the best place to off this guy!:D

[Drake]

I've been a pretty big Obama supporter since his election, but this kind of freaks me out...

"Today will rank as another historic day for the company -- the end of an old General Motors and the beginning of a new one," the Obama administration stated in documents released Sunday.

[Luk Hop]

"Today will rank as another historic day for the company -- the end of an old General Motors and the beginning of a new one," the Obama administration stated in documents released Sunday.

Reminds me of Napolean on the movie Animal Farm ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZldlyeR8DU ) when he says "now let me show you my plan for Animal Farm".

All things considered, this is a very interesting film.

[David Jamieson]

I'm not trying to come off a nutbar here, but doesn't it make you wonder why ONE MAN is currently nationalizing our auto industry, says he wants to nationalize health care this year, and has said banks may also have to be nationalized?

That's an awful lot of power in the hands of ONE MAN. :eek:

write your congressman.

It is congress that decided to let the executive deal with this hot potato.

Frankly I'm not happy that my own government is buying this dud of a company as opposed to letting other businesses of a similar vein flourish and make use of the workers.

government ownership of private industry is always a bad thing.

Obama's biggest goof up so far.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Ballet dancers and fighters both can discuss fighting as something that exists that they have knowledge of the existence of.

Atheists were traditionally forced to remain silent or debate very carefully on spirituality with the spiritual, a topic neither has any direct knowledge of the existence of. Only recently has that discussion had the potential to be a real debate, and the religious have opted to simply demonize the product of their influence over actually improving based on past mistakes.

I can be certain that my tax dollars will never pay for a tribute to atheist thinkers, but I have a guarantee that I have already paid for Christian symbols in statuary in two states. I also have a guarantee that I have already had my tax dollars used to alter my stepson's biology class despite a huge majority of research suggesting that the old class was better, under the urging of organized religion.

Without the religious base, the resistance to actually giving equal right to gays would be minuscule. The base of their argument is that God says it's wrong. The justifications are it's not natural(wrong, every society has had it, we know of no population of humans completely free of it, therefore it's naturally occurring), marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman(half right, marriage has traditionally been a property exchange between a man and a woman's parents, hardly the same and hardly a rationale for future conduct), and gays will ruin marriage(just idiotic, completely unsupported rationale).

Liberty, equality, these are major things to me, and I feel that people who call themselves Americans and feel they should have the power to decide on where liberty is placed, what lessons it must teach, etc, are missing the boat and need to be fought.

Basically, the core of Christianity includes antagonism to the unbeliever, they are, by the very definition of Christianity, going to hell and in league with the big horned god of evil. Why again would atheists find it important to counter the arguments of a large majority who subscribe to this view?;):D

Interesting view on Christianity.

[1bad65]

Reminds me of Napolean on the movie Animal Farm ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZldlyeR8DU ) when he says "now let me show you my plan for Animal Farm".

All things considered, this is a very interesting film.

Animal Farm was written about socialism/communism. The parallels are plain as day.

[1bad65]

write your congressman.

My Congressman is 'Bolshevik' Lloyd Doggett. I'd have better luck talking to my mailbox.

At least our 2 Senators here are very much opposed to this.

Obama's biggest goof up so far.

It's not a "goof up" at all. He did it ententionally. All he has left is Ford. Once he drives Ford out of business (and tell me Ford has a level playing field competing against government owned companies with endless cash reserves), he controls 100% of domestic automobile production. All he has to do then is slap outrageous tarriffs on foreign automakers who don't play ball, and we all are forced to drive these SmartCar-type deathtraps. Well, WE will be forced to drive them. The ones who passed the laws will be exempted. Mark my words.

It's scary....

[1bad65]

I've been a pretty big Obama supporter since his election, but this kind of freaks me out...

"Today will rank as another historic day for the company -- the end of an old General Motors and the beginning of a new one," the Obama administration stated in documents released Sunday.

Would you still be upset if I resumed calling him 'Comrade'? ;)