| Author |
Message |
    
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 2758
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 9:01 pm: |     |
As of this posting, the speech is about to start. I'll read it later.
Two quotes, from the previews released by the White House, stand out so far:
"Our greatest responsibility is the active defense of the American people. Twenty-eight months have passed since September 11, 2001 - over two years without an attack on American soil - and it is tempting to believe that the danger is behind us. That hope is understandable, comforting - and false."
Well, sure, since we took that little detour through Iraq.
"As part of the offensive against terror, we are also confronting the regimes that harbor and support terrorists, and could supply them with nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons ..."
Which is the President's way of saying, "That so was NOT a detour!"
IMHO, it was a detour. A wasteful, costly detour. |
sbenois
Citizen
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 10632
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 9:09 pm: | |
IMHO, It was worth every penny.
---> Brought to you by Sbenois Engineering LLC <-
Hey, it also wouldn’t look good coming out of a motel with your wife’s best friend saying you were just planning a surprise birthday party for her husband...- Arturo November '03
|
themp
Citizen
Username: Themp
Post Number: 405
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 9:11 pm: | |
Why is it whenever I see a photo of Bush in his reading glasses, I think Homer Simpson in his reading glasses? You know, when he's drawing robots? They always release a bunch of stagy glasses pix whenever he has a major speech. |
sbenois
Citizen
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 10633
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 9:20 pm: | |
---> Brought to you by Sbenois Engineering LLC <-
Hey, it also wouldn’t look good coming out of a motel with your wife’s best friend saying you were just planning a surprise birthday party for her husband...- Arturo November '03
|
sbenois
Citizen
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 10634
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 9:23 pm: | |
---> Brought to you by Sbenois Engineering LLC <-
Hey, it also wouldn’t look good coming out of a motel with your wife’s best friend saying you were just planning a surprise birthday party for her husband...- Arturo November '03
|
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 2111
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 9:24 pm: | |
Sbenois,
Was he making monkey noises to accompany that facial expression? |
sbenois
Citizen
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 10635
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 9:28 pm: | |
---> Brought to you by Sbenois Engineering LLC <-
Hey, it also wouldn’t look good coming out of a motel with your wife’s best friend saying you were just planning a surprise birthday party for her husband...- Arturo November '03
|
sbenois
Citizen
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 10636
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 9:30 pm: | |
---> Brought to you by Sbenois Engineering LLC <-
Hey, it also wouldn’t look good coming out of a motel with your wife’s best friend saying you were just planning a surprise birthday party for her husband...- Arturo November '03
|
sbenois
Citizen
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 10637
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 9:34 pm: | |
America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country
So far, despite the goofy faces, I think this is a strong speech.
But he needs to discuss the economy or he's toast.
---> Brought to you by Sbenois Engineering LLC <-
Hey, it also wouldn’t look good coming out of a motel with your wife’s best friend saying you were just planning a surprise birthday party for her husband...- Arturo November '03
|
sbenois
Citizen
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 10638
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 9:42 pm: | |
He is now at a B-
---> Brought to you by Sbenois Engineering LLC <-
Hey, it also wouldn’t look good coming out of a motel with your wife’s best friend saying you were just planning a surprise birthday party for her husband...- Arturo November '03
|
Duncan
Citizen
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 1450
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 9:42 pm: | |
If he would stay away from the politics of fear, I could have stomached more of it. As it is I will give his writers credit for the use of "you" when acknowledging the work of congress and showing a small measure of humility on that front.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take"
Wayne Gretzky |
sbenois
Citizen
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 10639
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 9:43 pm: | |
Past your bedtime Dennis?
---> Brought to you by Sbenois Engineering LLC <-
Hey, it also wouldn’t look good coming out of a motel with your wife’s best friend saying you were just planning a surprise birthday party for her husband...- Arturo November '03
|
sbenois
Citizen
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 10640
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 9:46 pm: | |
---> Brought to you by Sbenois Engineering LLC <-
Hey, it also wouldn’t look good coming out of a motel with your wife’s best friend saying you were just planning a surprise birthday party for her husband...- Arturo November '03
|
jamie
Moderator
Username: Jamie
Post Number: 425
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 9:55 pm: | |
Did you get Charlie Rangel sleeping? CNN had a close up on him nodding off for a good 6 seconds. |
sbenois
Citizen
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 10641
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 10:06 pm: | |
Missed it..
---> Brought to you by Sbenois Engineering LLC <-
Hey, it also wouldn’t look good coming out of a motel with your wife’s best friend saying you were just planning a surprise birthday party for her husband...- Arturo November '03
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1823
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 10:07 pm: | |
quote:it is tempting to believe that the danger is behind us. That hope is understandable, comforting - and false.
I couldn't agree more. 28 months is good, but remember it was eight and a half years between the first WTC attack and the second. |
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 2759
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 20, 2004 - 10:46 pm: | |
Interesting how people interpret the same words differently.
For example, at the start of the thread I described the Iraq war as "a wasteful, costly detour".
Sbenois replied: "It was worth every penny."
The thing is, I wasn't talking about money. |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4387
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 8:46 am: | |
"Something for Nothing and the Chicks for Free*"
*if you are straight that is  |
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 2760
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 10:03 am: | |
I found my favorite line in the State of the Union Address in the paper this morning. It seems we have "identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities".
I think that's another way of saying that there are no actual weapons of mass destruction. It's my favorite line because it's such a neat verbal trick, which I think we should apply to other Administration activities.
"No Child Left Behind" - "child education-related program activities".
The "Clear Skies" plan - "air purification-related program activities".
1.5 billion for "Promotion of Marriage" - "matrimonial encouragement-related program activities".
Actual fight against terrorism - "homeland security-related program activities".
It doesn't matter if they're actually there, or doing what the name implies, it's just enough to have "related program activities". |
Ukealalio
Citizen
Username: Ukealalio
Post Number: 365
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 10:22 am: | |
I did not have genitalia zone-related sex with that woman.
I nearly fell off the chair when I heard Dumbya do his little verbal sleight of hand. I'll give him one thing, his handlers have got him to lose a little bit of the "deer in the headlights" look and I wonder how many hours they spent going over that speech so he wouldn't mangle the syntax.
I'm so happy, we can solve so many problems by telling our youngsters to practice abstinence. I'm sure this is exactly what he did in his younger years when he was drinkin and druggin up a storm--Oh yea that was before he found god.ROFLMAO
|
Don Perkins
Citizen
Username: Cowboy
Post Number: 292
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 5:05 pm: | |
I find it amazing that there seems to be no greater crime to a Democrat than to allow a successful person to keep one more dollar than necessary of the money they have earned from their hard work and good decision making. It's clear that Democrats hate the idea of tax cuts for anyone but their core constituency with a blinding passion. Yet, what was the deal with the applause from the Democratic side of the aisle when Bush pointed out that if the Congress didn't act to make his tax cuts permanent there would be a massive tax increase?
Are these people really this ignorant?
Democrats tell the reporters that Bush's talk of tax cuts and new spending programs (yes, there are some) were irresponsible in the face of our "massive" budget deficits. In their public utterances Democrats lead you to believe that there are only two ways to reduce a budget deficit:
1. Cut spending. This is completely unacceptable to Democrats (and apparently to President Bush), which leaves us with ...
2. Raise taxes.
Now, in an effort to help educate any of you who might tend to agree with 1 or 2 please consider this. America operates and thrives in a free enterprise economy, yet our schools teach virtually nothing to our children about the economics of free enterprise. Let me provide an example.
Let's say you sell widgets. You sell 1000 widgets at $100 each. Each widget costs you to $90 to manufacture and market. That leaves you with $10 profit for each widget. That's a $10,000 profit at the end of the year. You make ten grand. But what if your personal expenses are $12,000? You're running a $2,000 budget deficit!
Now a Democrat will try to convince you that you have only two options here. First, you can cut your manufacturing costs by $2.00 a widget in order to have a balanced budget. Or, you can increase the costs of your widget by two bucks a shot and Bingo! Budget balanced!
Please consider a third option. You can sell more widgets. If you sell an extra 200 widgets without increasing your personal expenses you will have killed off your budget deficit. If you sell 500 more widgets you're going to be running a budget surplus! Wow!
From a budget deficit to a budget surplus .. and you didn't have to raise prices or cut your manufacturing and marketing costs. In fact, if you sell an extra 500 widgets you can even cut the price of each widget by $1.00 and still have a surplus!
Please tell me that you get it. You can cut your taxes (prices) but expand the economy (the number of widgets sold) and move from a budget deficit to a budget surplus! Believe me, some Democrats understand this but leaders like Daschle think that you don't. That's why they can sit there and play their absurd little "You can't cut taxes when you have a budget deficit" game.
Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle sat by the fireplace and gave the Democratic response. "The massive tax cuts that were supposed to spark an economic expansion have instead led to an economic exodus." Excuse me? Has the senator not read the good economic news lately? Apparently not, but why let mere facts get in the way.
|
Don Perkins
Citizen
Username: Cowboy
Post Number: 293
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 5:07 pm: | |
One more quick thing:
Bush promises his next budget will only increase discretionary spending by four percent. Why four percent? Why not a decrease! The first three years of the Bush presidency rank as all-time champions for government spending increases. After three years of spending like this what's wrong with actually cutting discretionary spending? At some point we're going to have to start reducing the size of the federal government or this Republic will die. What better time than now?
|
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 2766
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 5:10 pm: | |
You can make more money, by cutting prices and selling more widgets, because of the low marginal cost of making the next widget.
But, that analogy does not apply to tax cuts ("revenue-reducing economy-related activity"). |
Don Perkins
Citizen
Username: Cowboy
Post Number: 296
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 5:33 pm: | |
Nohero, as usual, you toss about a link or a phrase in an effort to explain away or try and satisfy that the situation doesn't apply. Too bad simple economics as explained above has been proven several times in recent times. Begining with the Kennedy tax cuts, continuing with the Reagan tax cuts and now with the Bush tax cuts.
All have resulted in stimulating the economy. And if you don't believe me, sit back and watch the growth as it happens during the next few years. |
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 2769
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 5:35 pm: | |
Sorry, I was just addressing your "widget" explanation. I didn't realize that it was a non sequitur. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 472
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 5:36 pm: | |
it has been "proven?"
what reputable economist would ever say such a thing?
|
Don Perkins
Citizen
Username: Cowboy
Post Number: 298
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 5:41 pm: | |
Why none at all Dr.WOB. Certainly not anyone that you might know or even have heard of. Some say, Ignorance is bliss. I say, have a "blissful" day Dr. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 473
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 5:52 pm: | |
so I guess the answer is "none."
|
Mayhewdrive
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 723
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 6:10 pm: | |
What was that about Bush cutting spending? Try again: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040121/ts_nm/bush_iraq_dc_2 |
bets
Citizen
Username: Bets
Post Number: 467
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 9:15 pm: | |
Now I know who wrote all the annoying practice exercises they use during those interminable word processing software training classes. Widgets. Right.
I'm unsurprised to find that Bush has outed his plan to spend my social security (what's left of it). Less surprised that he's selling the concept that the bountiful windfall of my tax reduction will cover my "private health care" costs, which have doubled in 2 years.
The one real surprise (and scare) is the apparent intention to pass a Consitutional amendment that would effectively establish marital segregation in this country. I had no idea they were that serious, and I will fight to the teeth against it. His nauseating pledge to "honor the will" of Americans was insulting to every one of us who actually thinks for themselves and is informed.
My first inclination after his speech was to start a thread here titled "George W. Bush: What a F*cking J*ckoff". The resulting suspension would've been worth it; my better half talked me down.
(Wishing I had some stock dividends being taxed less, so I could continue to rub elbows in this, the Soapbox: All Politics topic.) |
Mayhewdrive
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 724
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 9:45 pm: | |
Bets,
I totally agree. I am AMAZED that people are not stunned & outraged that this guy is promoting "marital segregation" and discrimination against many people in this country. What ever happend to "equal rights for all"? To propose a constitutional amendment for his twisted view of "morality" is disgusting.
Also, in an email blast I got today I think the speech was summarized well - In the State of the Union address, President Bush led with war and terror – which wasn’t surprising. It’ll certainly be a big theme for an administration that has used fear again and again for partisan political gain. The agenda is clear: permanent war, permanent abridgement of freedom, permanent tax cuts for big campaign contributors. Worse, the right has clearly decided to pursue a strategy of dividing America. In his speech last night, Bush tried to open a new front in the culture wars, calling for a constitutional amendment to “protect the sanctity of marriage.” We have to ask: from whom?
But what was clearly missing in the speech was any vision for the future of our country, which probably explains why early reports show that the speech left people cold. Where are we going as a nation? What’s the plan for fixing health care? What’s the plan for getting out of Iraq? What’s the plan for staunching the hemorrhage of high quality manufacturing jobs, and now even service and professional positions? What’s the plan for stopping the flood of red ink from irresponsible tax cuts?
Together, we can do better. It’s a New Year – time for a new start.
|
notehead
Citizen
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 899
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 10:22 pm: | |
Did anyone else notice that, while Bush found time to discuss the evils of steroid use among athletes -- an issue entirely outside the purview of the federal government -- he did not mention the environment, or the environmental challenges facing the country, a single time? I guess his dropping all pretense of giving half a crap is the closest to honesty we'll see from him on the subject.
And I agree that his stance against marriage for homosexuals is terribly inappropriate.
Oh, and you may be interested to learn that the plastic thingies inside a can of Guinness are actually called 'widgets'. |
bets
Citizen
Username: Bets
Post Number: 468
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 - 10:50 pm: | |
MHD:
I hesitated to touch on the "Patriot Act" for the simple fact that I will never change anyone's mind. Those who are on record against it include Benjamin Franklin, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, and Bets.
Unfortunately, the climate for some Americans since September 11 continues to be fearful and frightened. They welcome the indignities of profiling and illegal confinement. They cheer each arrest as if due process were not the province of each and every one of us, citizen or illegal alien. Human rights still prevail even if civil rights are at risk, particularly when people are incarcerated indefinitely without contact with anyone from the outside world.
The future of our country? I like to believe that we can get along, we can make a better world. Respect, kindness, and understanding: we are all lucky to be here, gifted with our own talents to share. Life is a delicate balance and our best chance at happiness is finding our internal handicap, our weight class. Financially and socially, location and status, we're all human. Hopefully, you're funny, 'cause that's my favorite kind 
Scars take time to heal. We can't dispose of the Constitution. We cannot trash the fabric this Nation was built upon. Some policies can't be retracted. Please look into your heart and ask it whether it is the guaranteed freedom, or the proposed "safety", that is intrinsic to your soul. |
Greatest Straw of all time!
Citizen
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 1814
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 7:48 am: | |
boring
BUSH/CHENEY IN 2004.. |
Ainsworth Hunt
Citizen
Username: Ainsworth
Post Number: 180
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 9:16 am: | |
Nero burned Rome, blamed the Christians.
Hitler burned the Riechstag, blamed his enemies.
Did George W. Bush demolish the WTC and attack the Pentagon with a similar adgenda?
Think about the evidence. Look at the "Fireman's video" of the first attack. Ask why did that look so different from the spectacular explosion that happened when the second attack took place. When the second attack took place, notice how much flame went outside of the building. With that big fireball working for the cameras outside, how much unspent fuel could have burned inside the building? Think about it. The official story of how the Trade Center collapse took place is that the fire was so intense it melted structural steel. Really? What temperature does jet fuel burn at in the open atmosphere, and what temperature does it take to demolish structural steel? Are you aware that the WTC was designed to survive a hit by a commercial airliner of fuel capacity to the plane that supposedly demolished the building? How come George Bush is business partners with the Bin Laden family? Is oil, opium and money thicker than the blood of American civilians and soldiers? How did 7 WTC which was a 49 story building collapse without being hit by anything (no a 110 story building did not fall on it, it is across the street from buildings hit by debris from the collapse)? How come standing FAA/Norad proceedures failed so badly that 56 minutes after the first WTC attack occured? Find out for yourselves, use the internet to do more than entertain each other on MOL. I don't know where the WMD that Rumsfeld sold Saddam went (other than when we helped him gas the Kurds), but I do have a lot of questions I would like to Bush camp to answer. |
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 2771
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 9:19 am: | |
Well, Mr. Hunt's theory might be unlikely, but at least it's not boring!  |
aquaman
Citizen
Username: Aquaman
Post Number: 166
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 9:26 am: | |
trea·son ( P ) Pronunciation Key (trzn)
n.
Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
A betrayal of trust or confidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Middle English, from Anglo-Norman treson, from Latin trditi, trditin-, a handing over. See tradition.]
[Download or Buy Now]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
treason
( P ) treason: log in for this definition of treason and other entries in Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, available only to Dictionary.com Premium members.
Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
treason
\Trea"son, n. [OE. tresun, treisun, traisoun, OF. tra["i]son, F. trahison, L. traditio a giving up, a delivering up, fr. tradere to give up, betray. See Traitor, and cf. Tradition.] 1. The offense of attempting to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance, or of betraying the state into the hands of a foreign power; disloyalty; treachery.
The treason of the murthering in the bed. --Chaucer.
Note: In monarchies, the killing of the sovereign, or an attempt to take his life, is treason. In England, to imagine or compass the death of the king, or of the queen consort, or of the heir apparent to the crown, is high treason, as are many other offenses created by statute. In the United States, treason is confined to the actual levying of war against the United States, or to an adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
2. Loosely, the betrayal of any trust or confidence; treachery; perfidy.
If he be false, she shall his treason see. --Chaucer.
Petit treason. See under Petit.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
treason
n 1: a crime that undermines the offender's government [syn: high treason, lese majesty] 2: disloyalty by virtue of subversive behavior [syn: subversiveness, traitorousness] 3: an act of deliberate betrayal [syn: treachery, betrayal, perfidy]
|
Ukealalio
Citizen
Username: Ukealalio
Post Number: 370
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 9:54 am: | |
Any one notice Cheney's face when Dumbya was trashing gay marriages ?. He gave that same mean looking, crooked smile he is famous for. Wonder what his gay daughter thought of her "compassionate" dad and his cronies at that point ?. Then again should we be surprised ?, this was the crew that praised Strom Thurmond to the heavens, one of the worst segregationists this country has ever seen (and himself a "secret" father of a mixed race child). What a bunch of hateful , hypocrites this crew is. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1802
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 9:59 am: | |
Our president said: Twenty-eight months have passed since September 11, 2001 - over two years without an attack on American soil - and it is tempting to believe that the danger is behind us. That hope is understandable, comforting - and false.
I know a strawman argument when I see one. We argue about how to deal with terrorism, not whether or not we should.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
Duncan
Citizen
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 1453
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 10:09 am: | |
Yea that bit about the marriage amendment sent shivers down my spine. I have moved from a position of distrust and dissatisfaction to one of fear. I think it will prove a giant backlash as it will energize democrats and moderate republicans who might otherwise have sat back thinking, oh well whats the point GWB's gonna win anyway. He may well be hoist with his own petard.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take"
Wayne Gretzky |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4400
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 10:23 am: | |
Ainsworth, do you really believe this crap? |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 757
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 11:07 am: | |
Shall we start a tin-foil wearing wacko area on this board?
I thought Bush threaded the needle politically on that gay marriage stuff. He didn't ask for a constitutional amendment, just for the people's constitutional apparatus to be used rather than judicial fiat. OH just did that very thing, as did MA. And recent polling says most are against amending the constitution, leaving it at the state level.
I am disconcerted that people are against legal constructs sans marriage for same-sex couples. |
Mayhewdrive
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 727
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 11:37 am: | |
I am disconcerted that people actually support leglislating DISCRIMINATION |
Insite
Citizen
Username: Insite
Post Number: 217
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 11:54 am: | |
My guess is Ainsworth is really Straw.. |
Greatest Straw of all time!
Citizen
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 1816
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 12:03 pm: | |
very funny
BUSH/CHENEY IN 2004.. |
notehead
Citizen
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 901
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 2:02 pm: | |
I hate to say "I told you so" but on Thursday, November 7, 2002 I posted:
Reproductive rights, civil liberties, separation of church and state, corporate responsibility, environmental legislation, international relations... these are all poised to go down the toilet (at least, to my own leftish view) with Republicans having so much control.
Hey, if things are looking great in two years, I may vote for Dubya's re-election myself. But I think its more likely that the grass will come up pink next spring.
I suspect the GOP will do everything it can to keep the country in a wartime mentality to ensure it keeps the reins in 2004.
Sometimes it sucks to be right.
Incidentally, another thing Bush neglected to mention is the over 500 soldiers killed in Iraq so far. Apparently their ultimate sacrifice is not as worthy of mention as steroid use by athletes. |
Michaela May
Citizen
Username: Mayquene
Post Number: 49
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 3:43 pm: | |
Bets, I appreciated your post. It is too easy to stop seeing others as people not that different from ourselves, especially when we are nurtured to let fear rule our lives. That's why we aren't protesting in the streets nationwide over the people being held at Guatanamo Bay. That too is why Japanese-Americans were interned in the United States during World War II.
President Bush is right in that this conflict isn't over and that terrorism hasn't been thwarted (duh), but what he doesn't seem to understand (or care about) is that he and his policies exacerbate the problem. Sure, we shouldn't expect that there will be no more attacks in this country, but guess what, the world is dangerous. I think Bush also is trying to capitalize on fear, lest another attack happen and he is blamed for it, even if nothing could have been reasonably done to avoid it. This way, he can say, "I told you so." And of course, several people on this board are right on target: It's also one heck of an effective smoke and mirrors technique.
I think the "traditional values" coalition is trying to avert a Brown v. Board of Education style decision, that would effectively end discrimination against gay couples at the behest of a large portion of this country.
As for his anti-steriod tyrant, perhaps there was more to it in the original form. I wonder, since he aluded to professional athletes, if he was going to address ephedra and similar supplements. I hate to be a conspiracy theorist -- wait, no i don't -- but maybe some drug makers contributing to his reelection war chest had something to say to axe that ...
FYI, an article in today's Washington Post about some of the most significant "Ranger"-level contributors being Wall Street tycoons. Hrmm... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36868-2004Jan21.html2004Jan21.html,http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36868-2004Jan21.html}
Ainsworth, what about the Moon landing being staged in a movie studio? I saw that on Fox, and I'm sure some of our posters would attest to that network's quality programming. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1824
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 3:50 pm: | |
Bush took credit for the fact that we have not received any new terrorist attacks. He also warned us that the danger is not behind us yet. So which is it? Are we safe or not?
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
Kenney
Citizen
Username: Kenney
Post Number: 331
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 4:07 pm: | |
I avoided a car accident the other day because of my defensive driving skills. tomorrow i will continue to drive this way, lessening the chance i get in an accident. so which is it? am i safe or not?
The only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today..FDR..
Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth...G.W.
Everyone wants a voice in human freedom. There's a fire burning inside of all us...L.W.
Dave Ross is the coolest!!(being banned sucks) |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 765
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 4:16 pm: | |
It's not a safe or not-safe equation he put up there. We should be applauded for our efforts in stopping any more attacks on US soil, and we should be vigilant (meaning danger is out there) so another one doesn't sneak through.
Hey Notehead -- the democrats didn't mention any dead soldiers either. Why would the military overwhelmingly vote for and support Bush or any republican over a democrat anyway if democrats support the military as they do. Hmmmm.....
|
JJC
Citizen
Username: Mercury
Post Number: 175
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 4:22 pm: | |
Couple of additions for your defensive driving analogy - you have pissed off the other drivers and although you have installed a costly new accident avoidance system, it really is not connected to anything useful. Are you safe? or have you fooled yourself into feeling safe?
|
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1826
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 22, 2004 - 4:22 pm: | |
Kenney, you're right. He can make the claim that his programs and efforts have prevented further attacks and he can use them to justify continuing and extending his policies.
But to take credit for preventing attacks is a bit like saying I haven't died in my car because my car has bumpers on it. Precautions are often called for, but you can't prove they work. You can only prove they don't work.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 2779
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 9:35 am: | |
I know some folks don't like links, but in spite of that, here's a "shorter version" of the State of the Union Address:
quote:Things are good, though terrorism is a threat to America and so are kids who take steroids and gays who want to marry each other. The housing market's never been better. I have a 10 year-old pen pal named Ashley who's swell.
Source: http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/004105.shtml#004105 |
Ed May
Citizen
Username: Edmay
Post Number: 1919
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Friday, January 23, 2004 - 11:15 pm: | |
The State of the Union Address
President George W. Bush
January 20, 2004
America this evening is a Nation called to great responsibilities. And we are rising to meet them.
As we gather tonight, hundreds of thousands of American servicemen and women are deployed across the world in the war on terror. By bringing hope to the oppressed, and delivering justice to the violent, they are making America more secure.
Each day, law enforcement personnel and intelligence officers are tracking terrorist threats; analysts are examining airline passenger lists; the men and women of our new Homeland Security Department are patrolling our coasts and borders. And their vigilance is protecting America.
Americans are proving once again to be the hardest working people in the world. The American economy is growing stronger. The tax relief you passed is working.
Tonight, Members of Congress can take pride in great works of compassion and reform that skeptics had thought impossible. You are raising the standards of our public schools; and you are giving our senior citizens prescription drug coverage under Medicare.
We have faced serious challenges together -- and now we face a choice. We can go forward with confidence and resolve -- or we can turn back to the dangerous illusion that terrorists are not plotting and outlaw regimes are no threat to us. We can press on with economic growth, and reforms in education and Medicare -- or we can turn back to the old policies and old divisions.
We have not come all this way -- through tragedy, and trial, and war -- only to falter and leave our work unfinished. Americans are rising to the tasks of history, and they expect the same of us. In their efforts, their enterprise, and their character, the American people are showing that the state of our Union is confident and strong.
Our greatest responsibility is the active defense of the American people. Twenty-eight months have passed since September 11th, 2001 -- over two years without an attack on American soil -- and it is tempting to believe that the danger is behind us. That hope is understandable, comforting -- and false. The killing has continued in Bali, Jakarta, Casablanca, Riyadh, Mombassa, Jerusalem, Istanbul, and Baghdad. The terrorists continue to plot against America and the civilized world. And by our will and courage, this danger will be defeated.
Inside the United States, where the war began, we must continue to give homeland security and law enforcement personnel every tool they need to defend us. And one of those essential tools is the PATRIOT Act, which allows Federal law enforcement to better share information, to track terrorists, to disrupt their cells, and to seize their assets. For years, we have used similar provisions to catch embezzlers and drug traffickers. If these methods are good for hunting criminals, they are even more important for hunting terrorists. Key provisions of the PATRIOT Act are set to expire next year. The terrorist threat will not expire on that schedule. Our law enforcement needs this vital legislation to protect our citizens -- you need to renew the PATRIOT Act.
America is on the offensive against the terrorists who started this war. Last March, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a mastermind of September 11th, awoke to find himself in the custody of U.S. and Pakistani authorities. Last August 11th brought the capture of the terrorist Hambali, who was a key player in the attack in Indonesia that killed over 200 people. We are tracking al-Qaida around the world -- and nearly two-thirds of their known leaders have now been captured or killed. Thousands of very skilled and determined military personnel are on a manhunt, going after the remaining killers who hide in cities and caves -- and, one by one, we will bring the terrorists to justice.
As part of the offensive against terror, we are also confronting the regimes that harbor and support terrorists, and could supply them with nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. The United States and our allies are determined: We refuse to live in the shadow of this ultimate danger.
The first to see our determination were the Taliban, who made Afghanistan the primary training base of al-Qaida killers. As of this month, that country has a new constitution, guaranteeing free elections and full participation by women. Businesses are opening, health care centers are being established, and the boys and girls of Afghanistan are back in school. With help from the new Afghan Army, our coalition is leading aggressive raids against surviving members of the Taliban and al-Qaida. The men and women of Afghanistan are building a nation that is free, and proud, and fighting terror -- and America is honored to be their friend.
Since we last met in this chamber, combat forces of the United States, Great Britain, Australia, Poland, and other countries enforced the demands of the United Nations, ended the rule of Saddam Hussein -- and the people of Iraq are free. Having broken the Baathist regime, we face a remnant of violent Saddam supporters. Men who ran away from our troops in battle are now dispersed and attack from the shadows.
These killers, joined by foreign terrorists, are a serious, continuing danger. Yet we are making progress against them. The once all-powerful ruler of Iraq was found in a hole, and now sits in a prison cell. Of the top 55 officials of the former regime, we have captured or killed 45. Our forces are on the offensive, leading over 1,600 patrols a day, and conducting an average of 180 raids every week. We are dealing with these thugs in Iraq, just as surely as we dealt with Saddam Hussein's evil regime.
The work of building a new Iraq is hard, and it is right. And America has always been willing to do what it takes for what is right. Last January, Iraq's only law was the whim of one brutal man. Today our coalition is working with the Iraqi Governing Council to draft a basic law, with a bill of rights. We are working with Iraqis and the United Nations to prepare for a transition to full Iraqi sovereignty by the end of June. As democracy takes hold in Iraq, the enemies of freedom will do all in their power to spread violence and fear. They are trying to shake the will of our country and our friends -- but the United States of America will never be intimidated by thugs and assassins. The killers will fail, and the Iraqi people will live in freedom.
Month by month, Iraqis are assuming more responsibility for their own security and their own future. And tonight we are honored to welcome one of Iraq's most respected leaders: the current President of the Iraqi Governing Council, Adnan Pachachi. Sir, America stands with you and the Iraqi people as you build a free and peaceful nation.
Because of American leadership and resolve, the world is changing for the better. Last month, the leader of Libya voluntarily pledged to disclose and dismantle all of his regime's weapons of mass destruction programs, including a uranium enrichment project for nuclear weapons. Colonel Qadhafi correctly judged that his country would be better off, and far more secure, without weapons of mass murder. Nine months of intense negotiations involving the United States and Great Britain succeeded with Libya, while 12 years of diplomacy with Iraq did not. And one reason is clear: For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible -- and no one can now doubt the word of America.
Different threats require different strategies. Along with nations in the region, we are insisting that North Korea eliminate its nuclear program. America and the international community are demanding that Iran meet its commitments and not develop nuclear weapons. America is committed to keeping the world's most dangerous weapons out of the hands of the world's most dangerous regimes.
When I came to this rostrum on September 20th, 2001, I brought the police shield of a fallen officer, my reminder of lives that ended, and a task that does not end. I gave to you and to all Americans my complete commitment to securing our country and defeating our enemies. And this pledge, given by one, has been kept by many. You in the Congress have provided the resources for our defense, and cast the difficult votes of war and peace. Our closest allies have been unwavering. America's intelligence personnel and diplomats have been skilled and tireless.
And the men and women of the American military -- they have taken the hardest duty. We have seen their skill and courage in armored charges, and midnight raids, and lonely hours on faithful watch. We have seen the joy when they return, and felt the sorrow when one is lost. I have had the honor of meeting our servicemen and women at many posts, from the deck of a carrier in the Pacific, to a mess hall in Baghdad. Many of our troops are listening tonight. And I want you and your families to know: America is proud of you. And my Administration, and this Congress, will give you the resources you need to fight and win the war on terror.
I know that some people question if America is really in a war at all. They view terrorism more as a crime -- a problem to be solved mainly with law enforcement and indictments. After the World Trade Center was first attacked in 1993, some of the guilty were indicted, tried, convicted, and sent to prison. But the matter was not settled. The terrorists were still training and plotting in other nations, and drawing up more ambitious plans. After the chaos and carnage of September 11th, it is not enough to serve our enemies with legal papers. The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States -- and war is what they got.
Some in this chamber, and in our country, did not support the liberation of Iraq. Objections to war often come from principled motives. But let us be candid about the consequences of leaving Saddam Hussein in power. We are seeking all the facts -- already the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations. Had we failed to act, the dictator's weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day. Had we failed to act, Security Council resolutions on Iraq would have been revealed as empty threats, weakening the United Nations and encouraging defiance by dictators around the world. Iraq's torture chambers would still be filled with victims -- terrified and innocent. The killing fields of Iraq -- where hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children vanished into the sands -- would still be known only to the killers. For all who love freedom and peace, the world without Saddam Hussein's regime is a better and safer place.
Some critics have said our duties in Iraq must be internationalized. This particular criticism is hard to explain to our partners in Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands, Norway, El Salvador, and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraq. As we debate at home, we must never ignore the vital contributions of our international partners, or dismiss their sacrifices. From the beginning, America has sought international support for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we have gained much support. There is a difference, however, between leading a coalition of many nations, and submitting to the objections of a few. America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people.
We also hear doubts that democracy is a realistic goal for the greater Middle East, where freedom is rare. Yet it is mistaken, and condescending, to assume that whole cultures and great religions are incompatible with liberty and self-government. I believe that God has planted in every heart the desire to live in freedom. And even when that desire is crushed by tyranny for decades, it will rise again.
As long as the Middle East remains a place of tyranny, despair, and anger, it will continue to produce men and movements that threaten the safety of America and our friends. So America is pursuing a forward strategy of freedom in the greater Middle East. We will challenge the enemies of reform, confront the allies of terror, and expect a higher standard from our friends. To cut through the barriers of hateful propaganda, the Voice of America and other broadcast services are expanding their programming in Arabic and Persian -- and soon, a new television service will begin providing reliable news and information across the region. I will send you a proposal to double the budget of the National Endowment for Democracy, and to focus its new work on the development of free elections, free markets, free press, and free labor unions in the Middle East. And above all, we will finish the historic work of democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq, so those nations can light the way for others, and help transform a troubled part of the world.
America is a Nation with a mission -- and that mission comes from our most basic beliefs. We have no desire to dominate, no ambitions of empire. Our aim is a democratic peace -- a peace founded upon the dignity and rights of every man and woman. America acts in this cause with friends and allies at our side, yet we understand our special calling: This great Republic will lead the cause of freedom.
In these last three years, adversity has also revealed the fundamental strengths of the American economy. We have come through recession, and terrorist attack, and corporate scandals, and the uncertainties of war. And because you acted to stimulate our economy with tax relief, this economy is strong, and growing stronger.
You have doubled the child tax credit from 500 to a thousand dollars, reduced the marriage penalty, begun to phase out the death tax, reduced taxes on capital gains and stock dividends, cut taxes on small businesses, and you have lowered taxes for every American who pays income taxes.
Americans took those dollars and put them to work, driving this economy forward. The pace of economic growth in the third quarter of 2003 was the fastest in nearly 20 years. New home construction: the highest in almost 20 years. Home ownership rates: the highest ever. Manufacturing activity is increasing. Inflation is low. Interest rates are low. Exports are growing. Productivity is high. And jobs are on the rise.
These numbers confirm that the American people are using their money far better than government would have -- and you were right to return it.
America's growing economy is also a changing economy. As technology transforms the way almost every job is done, America becomes more productive, and workers need new skills. Much of our job growth will be found in high-skilled fields like health care and biotechnology. So we must respond by helping more Americans gain the skills to find good jobs in our new economy.
All skills begin with the basics of reading and math, which are supposed to be learned in the early grades of our schools. Yet for too long, for too many children, those skills were never mastered. By passing the No Child Left Behind Act, you have made the expectation of literacy the law of our country. We are providing more funding for our schools -- a 36 percent increase since 2001. We are requiring higher standards. We are regularly testing every child on the fundamentals. We are reporting results to parents, and making sure they have better options when schools are not performing. We are making progress toward excellence for every child.
But the status quo always has defenders. Some want to undermine the No Child Left Behind Act by weakening standards and accountability. Yet the results we require are really a matter of common sense: We expect third graders to read and do math at third grade level -- and that is not asking too much. Testing is the only way to identify and help students who are falling behind.
This Nation will not go back to the days of simply shuffling children along from grade to grade without them learning the basics. I refuse to give up on any child -- and the No Child Left Behind Act is opening the door of opportunity to all of America's children.
Ed May |
bets
Citizen
Username: Bets
Post Number: 469
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 12:51 am: | |
Ed,
Please tell us: What is the state of our Union? In your own words, please.
|
Ukealalio
Citizen
Username: Ukealalio
Post Number: 383
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 1:47 am: | |
As Truman Capote said about Jack Kerouac (actually I like Kerouac better), "Thats not writing, it's typing". |
Mayhewdrive
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 732
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 1:26 pm: | |
Whenever bush starts talking up the military, I think these sites are much more appropriate....
http://www.bushactionfigure.com/
http://www.awolbush.com/
Talk about a hypocrite. |
Ainsworth Hunt
Citizen
Username: Ainsworth
Post Number: 183
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 2:31 pm: | |
Three things:
1) why ask if I believe this "crap?"
2) please don't confuse me with Straw. I don't suffer from gender and age confusion, nor would I name myself after a baseball player of very questionable repute.
3) Would either Ed May or Sbenois please answer the questions in my previous posting in this thread in there own words or provide links that give answers to those questions? It is easy to dismiss as "conspiracy theory" thoughts that run contrary to the what the government and mainstream media want you to believe. This is exactly what the German government did after the Reichstag fire, but now it is accepted as historical fact that Hitler and his henchmen set the fire, so why is it so farfetched that our current political leaders couldn't have had a hand in the events of 9/11? After all, they now have 1) enacted legistlation that abridges the Constitution that President Bush swore to defend and protect, 2) have created a permanent state of fear, and 3) had the perfect excuse to go on a war of agression. So far answers to the questions posted above have not been provided by anyone. If not the highly educated Ed May or Sbenois, then who will answer those questions? Maybe they will find the truth in attempting to answer them, and find that their blind allegiance to the President is misguided. |
Greatest Straw of all time!
Citizen
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 1822
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 2:54 pm: | |
This guy says America bombed its own buildings....HA HA. I love Ainsworth Hunt. He so crazy.
BUSH/CHENEY IN 2004.. |
Duncan
Citizen
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 1472
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 3:10 pm: | |
Uh.. Mr. Hunt. The burden of proof usually falls on the people making the accusations. How about you back up your..ahem..theory with some facts. Not opinions or interpretations, but facts.
I am no Bushie but I highly doubt we are living under a tyrant similar to the little mustachioed guy from the late 30's.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take"
Wayne Gretzky |
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 2785
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 3:22 pm: | |
Anyway, back to the State of the Union address.
The Administration's chief weapons hunter, David Kay, the man who coined the phrase "weapons of mass destruction-related program activities", quit the other day. In today's news, he is quoted as saying that, not only are there no WMDs in Iraq, but they weren't there before the war.
So, was the President aware of Kay's conclusion, when he gave his speech the other night? If not, why not? And if he did know, why did the President imply otherwise, with his awkward phrasing?
Okay, enough time online. Back to folding clothes and watching the screwballs on FOX News ... |
Dave Ross
Citizen
Username: Dave
Post Number: 6187
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 3:27 pm: | |
Perhaps there were problems with speech writing-related program activities? |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1850
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 3:31 pm: | |
Conspiracy theories are usually wrong because they're too complicated. Simpler explanations are more likely to be right.
The fact that Bush is bad and has all sorts of motivations to do this is nowhere near any indication that he actually did it.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
Dave Ross
Citizen
Username: Dave
Post Number: 6188
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 4:35 pm: | |
Occam's razor argument: Iraq has oil |
Ainsworth Hunt
Citizen
Username: Ainsworth
Post Number: 185
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 7:50 pm: | |
Fact: a 49 story building that was not hit by anything collapsed in its own space.
Fact: 56 minutes after the World Trade Center was attacked, something from the sky above hit the Pentagon.
Fact: It has been standard policy for many years to intercept any aircraft within minutes of it being reported off course. The request is made by an air traffic control (ATC) operator as soon as he or she notices that an aircraft has deviated from its flight path. Failure to contact the pilot (which would have been the case under both the alternate scenario and under the White House interpretation) results in a request by ATC to the military (NORAD) to intercept the aircraft (FAA, 1998) (FAA, 2001). Interception is automatic, does not require approval by any authority higher than the FAA liaison official at NORAD, and takes anywhere from five to 15 minutes, depending on the initial separation of target aircraft and the nearest operational base. Upon arrival, the interceptor waggles its wings to elicit a response from the pilot of the off-course aircraft. The pilot is also instructed to make a visual check of the cockpit area.
New York and Washington are among the most heavily guarded places in the United States. For the first time in the history of this policy being implemented, no interceptors were sent up, in spite of the fact that not one but four aircraft were involved.
It would have taken approximately five minutes for any fighter from, Andrews Air force Base to intercept the aircraft that struck the Pentagon, for example. Aircraft were on standby on the morning of September 11, according to the official air force website, although the contents of the site were changed two days after the attacks to say that no aircraft were available that morning (a strange circumstance, considering the sensitivity of the area and the number of fighters stationed there). (Ruppert, 2002)
Fact: the "black boxes" from all four jets involved that day are missing.
Additional question: Does the Fireman's Video show that the plane which hit the North Tower did not have engines attached to the wings and thus was not a Boeing 767? Does it reveal that missiles were fired from this plane just before it hit?
Fact: the pro-Bush people refuse to answer the questions I asked.
|
Sylad
Citizen
Username: Sylad
Post Number: 168
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 8:36 pm: | |
AH--What are you talking about? What missiles? What is the source of your "facts". When the WTC was built it was engineered for a direct hit of a 707. A 767 has a fuel capacity of 23,980 gallons. A 707 has fuel capacity of 11,500 gallons.
See this link about how the towers were built: http://www.nae.edu/nae/naehome.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument
Here is an excerpt: The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.
|
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1851
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 10:31 pm: | |
Incompetence or disbelief or denial easily explain the failure to intercept the second and subsequent attacks. You're bending over backwards to provide alternative explanations.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
Dave Ross
Citizen
Username: Dave
Post Number: 6191
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Saturday, January 24, 2004 - 10:53 pm: | |
Incompetence is all too plausable. (See WMD experts) |
Ainsworth Hunt
Citizen
Username: Ainsworth
Post Number: 188
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 4:34 pm: | |
http://serendipity.ptpi.net/wtc.htm
http://www.serendipity.li/index.html
The World Trade Center Demolition
and the So-Called War on Terrorism
1. Introduction
This page on
mirror sites:
Powered by Bravenet
U.S. (SSL)
Australia
Europe
On September 11th, 2001, the 28th anniversary of the CIA-directed military coup d'etat in Chile, and the 11th anniversary of George H. W. Bush's "New World Order" speech, terrorists diverted four Boeing passenger jets. According to the official story (pre-written and rushed into print in the mainstream media immediately after the events, together with the identity of the alleged culprit) nineteen Arabs hijacked the four planes; they crashed two of them into the World Trade Center towers, causing fires within, and crashed a third into the Pentagon. According to the official story the fires in the Twin Towers then caused their steel structural supports to give way and they collapsed.
But, as will be argued below, the terrorists were not Arabs, three of the planes were substitutes, and the Twin Towers did not collapse because of the plane impacts and the fires. The most likely explanation of their collapse (an explanation supported by direct video evidence) is that explosives were placed besides their structural supports at numerous levels in the towers, explosives which were detonated 56 and 104 minutes after the planes hit, bringing the towers down in controlled implosions, killing several thousand American citizens and others.
The Twin Towers were designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 707, which in weight, size and speed is similar to a Boeing 767 (the kind of jet which hit the South Tower). Had one of the towers collapsed, that would have been amazing. That both of them collapsed, quickly (in fact, at nearly freefall speed), neatly and symmetrically, collapsed completely into fragments, ash and huge clouds of dust — with no remains of their central massive vertical steel columns left standing — solely as a result of the plane impacts and the resulting fires, is, upon examination, unbelievable, despite what the so-called "experts" say as quoted in the mainstream media.
Due to the astuteness of some Americans, who thought hard about the U.S. government's explanation of the events of September 11th, the official story quickly began to unravel. The big lie has been revealed for what it is (but word of this has not reached everyone yet). And the reason for it. If you don't already know, this page will inform you as to what really happened and what's really going on. As in the "War on Drugs", in the "War on Terrorism" just say 'Know'.
This web page does not present a "conspiracy theory" in the usual glibly dismissive sense. Rather, it takes the available evidence (mainly still photos and some video clips) and known facts (such as the existence of airplane remote control technology) and considers logically various explanations of what happened on September 11th in the light of this evidence. The inescapable conclusion is that September 11th was an inside job, planned and carried out by Americans (with possible foreign assistance) acting from within U.S. military and state security organizations. The three thousand people who died in these attacks were killed not by Arab terrorists but by agents of the U.S. government and their collaborators.
The accumulated evidence that the official account of the events of September 11th is a complete fabrication is now overwhelming. A lot of Americans knew this from the start, but there were many more who were mesmerized by the lies emanating from the White House and the mainstream media and who remain in that condition. If you happen to be one of those people who refuse to accept the possibility that the Bush clique has been lying to you all along, and that they themselves (in collaboration with others) are responsible for the deaths of three thousand Americans on September 11th, 2001, I say to you: Summon up your courage, put aside your prejudices and your beliefs based on what you heard some talking head say on TV, look at the evidence itself and think about it.
This web page, and the web pages on this site that it links to, are not intended to provide you with something that you can believe. That is what the White House and the mainstream media do, presenting you with something they want you to believe. On the contrary this page is intended to lead you to think for yourself, to evaluate the evidence presented and the reasoning put forward, and to decide for yourself whether this or the official story is more likely to be closer to the truth of what actually happened on September 11th, 2001.
The implications of this analysis are disturbing, but to ignore them (or the evidence itself) would be an attempt at denial which would constitute a surrender to evil. In this matter anyone with any degree of moral awareness will want to know the truth, however unpalatable or unflattering to national leaders. Continued willful ignorance on the part of the American people may result in slavery for all people everywhere, following death and destruction of a magnitude far greater than that of World War II.
Contents Next section
The CIA Serendipity home page
|
Ainsworth Hunt
Citizen
Username: Ainsworth
Post Number: 189
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 4:37 pm: | |
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040115-024012-7011r.htm
9/11 director gave evidence to own inquiry
By Shaun Waterman
UPI Homeland and National Security Editor |
Ainsworth Hunt
Citizen
Username: Ainsworth
Post Number: 191
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 4:53 pm: | |
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CRG204A.html
U.S. Government Foreknowledge of 9-11 |
Diversity Man
Citizen
Username: Deadwhitemale
Post Number: 598
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 5:35 pm: | |
Where would we be without the internet?
DWM |
Sylad
Citizen
Username: Sylad
Post Number: 169
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, January 25, 2004 - 8:36 pm: | |
AH--thanks for the fact based acticles. Stuff this this is an insult to the people that were killed and to their families. To say that our government was behind this is beyond belief.
I love this line:
Of course, some of the details of this account may turn out to be wrong, but overall it appears to be the most likely explanation of the events of September 11th...
I think that 90% of the details from the articles are WRONG.
|
Ainsworth Hunt
Citizen
Username: Ainsworth
Post Number: 193
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 7:41 am: | |
Sylad:
Based on what do you "think" that 90% of the details are wrong? Don't the victims and their families deserve the truth?
THE WORLD TRADE CENTER DEMOLITION
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_demolition_init.htm
Legal Group Blasts Papa Shrub on Bin Laden Link
Bush Sr. Could Profit From War
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0141/gray.php
|
Ainsworth Hunt
Citizen
Username: Ainsworth
Post Number: 194
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 7:50 am: | |
Sylad:
What are you talking about, and what is the source of your "facts" about about the aircraft involved?
the following is from:
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/wtc_demolition_init.htm
THE WTC WAS DESIGNED TO SURVIVE
THE IMPACT OF A BOEING 767
Fact. The twin towers were designed to withstand a collision with a Boeing 707.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.
The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.
The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.
The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.
The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s,
The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.
So, the Boeing 707 and 767 are very similar aircraft, with the main differences being that the 767 is slightly heavier and the 707 is faster.
In designing the towers to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, the designers would have assumed that the aircraft was operated normally. So they would have assumed that the aircraft was traveling at its cruise speed and not at the break neck speed of some kamikaze. With this in mind, we can calculate the energy that the plane would impart to the towers in any accidental collision.
The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 336,000 x (890)^2/32.174
= 4.136 billion ft lbs force (5,607,720 Kilojoules).
The kinetic energy released by the impact of a Boeing 767 at cruise speed is
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (777)^2/32.174
= 3.706 billion ft lbs force (5,024,650 Kilojoules).
From this, we see that under normal flying conditions, a Boeing 707 would smash into the WTC with about 10 percent more energy than would the slightly heavier Boeing 767. That is, under normal flying conditions, a Boeing 707 would do more damage than a Boeing 767.
In conclusion we can say that if the towers were designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 707, then they were necessarily designed to survive the impact of a Boeing 767.
So what can be said about the actual impacts?
The speed of impact of AA Flight 11 was 470 mph = 689 ft/s.
The speed of impact of UA Flight 175 was 590 mph = 865 ft/s.
The kinetic energy released by the impact of AA Flight 11 was
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (689)^2/32.174
= 2.914 billion ft lbs force (3,950,950 Kilojoules).
This is well within limits that the towers were built to survive. So why did the North tower fall?
The kinetic energy released by the impact of UA Flight 175 was
= 0.5 x 395,000 x (865)^2/32.174
= 4.593 billion ft lbs force (6,227,270 Kilojoules).
This is within 10 percent of the energy released by the impact of a Boeing 707 at cruise speed. So, it is also a surprise that the 767 impact caused the South tower to fall.
Overall, it comes as a great surprise that the impact of a Boeing 767 bought down either tower. Indeed, many experts are on record as saying that the towers would survive the impact of the larger and faster Boeing 747. In this regard, see professor Astaneh-Asl's simulation of the crash of the much, much larger and heavier Boeing 747 with the World Trade Center. Professor Astaneh-Asl teaches at the University of California, Berkeley.
Although the jet fuel fires have been ruled out as the cause of the collapses, it should still be pointed out that the fuel capacities of the Boeing 707 and the Boeing 767 are essentially the same. And in any case, it has been estimated that both UA Flight 175 and AA Flight 11 were carrying about 10,000 gallons of fuel when they impacted. This is well below the 23,000 gallon capacity of a Boeing 707 or 767. Thus the amount of fuel that exploded and burnt on September 11 was envisaged by those who designed the towers. Consequently, the towers were designed to survive such fires. It should also be mentioned that other high-rise buildings have suffered significantly more serious fires than those of the twin towers on September 11, and did not collapse.
|
Ainsworth Hunt
Citizen
Username: Ainsworth
Post Number: 197
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 8:14 am: | |
To all of my detractors and fans:
The following link is from Christopher Musso and Professor Thomas Eagar of MIT.
" Science, Engineering, and Speculation: The Collapse of the World ..."
http://eagar.mit.edu/EagarPresentations/WTC_TMS_2002.pdf
Please take the time to read it, and then figure out whether anything said by the President during the State of the Union address was worth listening to. What is the word of a liar worth? |
Ainsworth Hunt
Citizen
Username: Ainsworth
Post Number: 198
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 8:31 am: | |
The previous posting, by the way, both follows and refutes the official story line. First it tells you how the building was built, and why the impact of the aircraft couldn't have brought it down, and how the fire caused by jet fuel burning in an open air environment couldn't have brought the building down (too low a tempurature). Then it tells you the fire brought down the buildings, causing them to collapse in their own space. That's WTC 1 & 2. Now note the map in the presentation. Where was 7 WTC? Across the street to the North of 6 WTC right? 7 WTC wasn't hit by the collapse of 1 WTC....if it had been it would have to have fallen over sideways, which it did not do. So what caused a 47 story building that was not hit by anything to collapse? |
Sylad
Citizen
Username: Sylad
Post Number: 170
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 8:49 am: | |
AH--here are just a few questions that come to mind after reading the link you provided, and by the way, my fuel capacity info is from Boeing. The 10% of truth from your articles are the WTC complex and a portion of the Pentgon were distroyed, ~3000 people died. The majority of the other "facts" are they are facts, but not a factual description of what happened.
Here are my questions:
If the planes were empty how come they found DNA at the TWC and Pentagon sites?
All accounts that I have seen and read President Bush was in the school in FLA, not in has Limo as your source states when the first plane hit the WTC.
Donald Rumsfield was at the Pentagon the morning of the attack, don't you think that if President Bush was behind the attack that Rumsfield would have not been there that morning???
How do you explain all the calls from Flight 93? No call that I have heard or transcript that I have read mentions anything that other people were loaded on the flight at a military airfield?
The articles could be true, yes they contain facts, but it is just a theory, a weak one at that. And let me ask you this, why do you put so much weight in these reports?
As I said before, this is an insult the the people that were killed and to their faimly. Yes the family, the world needs to know the truth, but what you present here is not close to the truth of what happened on 9/11, it is collection of facts, that support a theory, nothing more.
|
Ainsworth Hunt
Citizen
Username: Ainsworth
Post Number: 199
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 9:18 am: | |
Sylad:
How do you explain this?
Building7Collapse
http://www.911review.org/Wiki/Building7Collapse.shtml |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1853
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 10:21 am: | |
AH, it was reported quite a while ago that the jet fuel burned off very quickly and was not the cause of the structural weaknesses. Rather, the fuel ignited all of the paper, carpeting, office furniture and everything else flammable. THAT is what weakened the structures.
Not that I put any stake in it, but just out of curiosity, why would building 7 have needed to be demolished?
This conspiracy is too complicated. Too many people have to keep too many really big secrets for too long. Besides, what's so implausible about a bunch of terrorists hijacking airliners? |
Sylad
Citizen
Username: Sylad
Post Number: 171
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 10:40 am: | |
AH...I suggest you check out this site for the real facts.
http://wtc.nist.gov/
As you will see they are holding a a public meeting on Feb. 12, 2004, in New York City, to present an update on the progress and preliminary findings of the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster in response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and to solicit comments from the public.
WTC 7 is a big part of their analysis, so check it out. You can register for the meeting at this site:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/wtcpubmtg_feb1204.htm
You will also find an email address to submit your questions if you can not attend in person.
Still waiting for a response to my questions. |
mem
Citizen
Username: Mem
Post Number: 2669
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 11:35 am: | |
AH,
Your theories are disgusting and those links are paraniod schizo crap and you are an embarrassment to the liberal democratic party. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1854
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 11:37 am: | |
this stuff has nothing to do with liberalism or the Democratic party, please. |
Ainsworth Hunt
Citizen
Username: Ainsworth
Post Number: 204
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 12:57 pm: | |
Mem... I don't have much to do with either major political party, and if you knew me, would know I am not very liberal, either.
As to my theories, please give me a plausable explination for the collapse of 7 WTC. |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4445
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 1:07 pm: | |
7 Wtc was the home of the city emergency management ceneter. Large quanities of fuel were stored to run emergency generators in the event of disaster, which greatly increased the fire load in the building.
Because of conditions at the site and low to non-esisting water pressure the sprinklers were ineffective. The FD wasn't about to send men into the building after the collapse of the other two buildings under those conditions. |
Sylad
Citizen
Username: Sylad
Post Number: 173
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 1:08 pm: | |
I am no expert, but based on what I have read it was due to damage caused by the attack on the Tower 1 and Tower 2, the fuel that was stored in various floors and possible other items that caught fire or blew up causing the structure to fall. I do not think it was blown up by our government and nothing that you posted provides any facts to support such a claim.
As I said before, the NIST is in the process of full analysis on WTC 7. I would think that they would be interested in the scientific and other evidence that you have shown here to support your theory.
Now that I have answered your question..how about answers to mine????? |
JJC
Citizen
Username: Mercury
Post Number: 181
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 1:08 pm: | |
Although these theories may seem implausible, we should keep our minds open. Our govt has lied to us quite often recently - for whatever purpose. That does not make what AH is bringing to the table true or false but it does require us to do our own homework and analyze... The point about WTC is a good one. 9/11 was horrific - and while it would be easier and less painful to call everyone heros and terrorists and then close the book, this would be a dis-service to those who died. The multiple breakdowns that allowed it to happen need to be looked into with open eyes, ears and minds. |
overtaxdalready
Citizen
Username: Overtaxdalready
Post Number: 189
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 2:03 pm: | |
Sylad, you're correct. The heat of the burning jet fuel and the "fuel" in the form of the tons of paper and other flammables generate sufficient heat to weaken the supports holding up the floors at or near the point of impact. That, combined with the structural damage caused by the impact, caused those supports to give way, and the entire structure above that point came down on the next floor. The supports for the next floor were not designed to hold the type of weight that they were now bearing, and they gave way to the next foor. And so on, which caused the "pancaking" effect of the collapse.
The towers did withstand the impact of the collision...it was the resulting fires and their impact on the already-weakened support structure that caused the collapse.
As far as WTC 7 goes, it would be interesting to find out :
How close was WTC 7 to the two towers that collapsed?
At what speed did the two towers strike the ground when they collapsed?
Has any reputable structural engineers about how a building's foundation would be impacted by shock comparable to the collapse of those two towers?
|
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1862
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 2:07 pm: | |
I am under the impression that the impacts of the first two collapses weakened the foundation of 7 WTC.
I don't know if any structural engineers did a post-mortem analysis of this. Whether or not they did, I suspect that this sort of analysis might be in uncharted territory and thus rather inconclusive. I wonder if structural engineers plan for a whump of that size. My mother's husband is a retired structural engineer who worked on some really tall buildings, so I'll ask him.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
Ainsworth Hunt
Citizen
Username: Ainsworth
Post Number: 205
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 2:09 pm: | |
Sylad:
You lied about getting the fuel capacity information on a 707 from Boeing and the amount you stated is low by more than 10,000 gallons. I can state this because I got the information from Boeing's website.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/707family/index.html
"Boeing quickly developed the larger 707-320 Intercontinental series with a longer fuselage, bigger wing and higher-powered engines. With these improvements, which allowed increased fuel capacity from 15,000 gallons to more than 23,000 gallons, the 707 had truly intercontinental range of over 4,000 miles in a 141-seat (mixed class) seating configuration. "
Despite the fact that you lied about this, I will answer some of your questions. I put weight in this/these "theories" because there is a consistent thread of truth in them, and there is a consistent motive by the President and his administration to lie to us, and by constant repetition, to get us to believe his lies. For example, we went to war against Iraq because of WMD, right? Didn't the President lie to Congress and the American public about this? Now the spin on it coming from the administration is "Ashcroft: War Justified Even Without WMD
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/wire/sns-ap-ashcroft-iraq,0,269570 .story?coll=sns-ap-world-headlines
Whose DNA did they find at the WTC and the Pentagon? Thousands died, of course there was DNA there.
The attack on the Pentagon did not hit Rumsfeld, did it? So if he was in the building, and his whereabouts were known to those planning the attack, with the precision seen in many of the "smart bomb" videos, Rumsfeld's safety would have been assured.
Your explination of the collapse of 7WTC follows the official story very well, but that does not hold water with what happened. 47 story steel buildings do not collapse neatly in their own space because of a diesel fuel fire.
I don't know if I answered all of your questions, but having exposed you as a liar, I think you may want to make amends to those who died on 9/11 by a willingness to make the search for truth a value in your life. What do we tell the families of the 500 soldiers who have died in Iraq for the President's lies? And what do we tell the countless additional wounded and permanently handicapped soldiers whose lives have forever been changed for the worse for the President's lies? Should this President be impeached for lying to Congress?
|
Sylad
Citizen
Username: Sylad
Post Number: 174
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 3:36 pm: | |
AH--easy there, if you bother to read the entire article you posted, the model you refer to is the 707-320B which had its first flight in 1962.
Based on what I have read and saw on TV I assume that when the designed the WTC they were using the technical information from the 707-80, 707-100.
My Boeing source is a family member in their engineering departmet. You can do your own search to see the fuel capacity of the 707 100 & 200.
What is interesting is that broke ground on the WTC in 1966, so perhaps they were using the series 320 fuel capacity, I don't know. Another big factor would be the weight of the plane, the 767 max weight is about 100,000 lbs more. Bottom line, we are both right regarding the fuel capacity. Call me many things but I am not lying. |
Diversity Man
Citizen
Username: Deadwhitemale
Post Number: 602
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 3:41 pm: | |
Did anyone else notice that Hunt has the same initials as Adolf Hitler, with whom he compares President George Bush?
Whose DNA will we find when we do a polymerase chain reaction of Hunt?
Hitler's, that's who.
Gregory Peck had it right.
In Brazil the experiment was underway.
But, unlike the book and movie, they succeeded.
The proof is in Maplewood, NJ.
Der grune Heinrich/toter weisser Mann
|
overtaxdalready
Citizen
Username: Overtaxdalready
Post Number: 190
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 3:48 pm: | |
Interesting, Diversity Man.
VERY interesting..... |
Sylad
Citizen
Username: Sylad
Post Number: 175
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 4:13 pm: | |
AH--one more thing, I want the entire truth, my point is I don't believe your theory. Go the the open hearing and or submit your theory I would love to see the response that you get. If it is proven that President Bush has not upheld his oath of office or that he has lied to the American people I will want him to be accountable for his actions. I voted for him but that does not mean that I will defend him to the end. I don't agree with President Bush on many issues, I don't agree with the republican party on many issues. I vote for the person who I think is best for our entire county, not just me, at the given time. I stand by my decision that President Bush was the best choice in 2000. If the election was today I would vote for Bush, but come November that may change. |
Ainsworth Hunt
Citizen
Username: Ainsworth
Post Number: 206
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 4:24 pm: | |
I did not choose my name, nor do I hide behind a screen name. Hitler was born Adolf Schnickelgrueber and changed his name. My DNA would reveal a German ancestor, Otto Sunneman, if that can be done. If you check historical records closely you will find that he was the engineer who put up the aqueducts in Washington, DC, and then enabled the Rotunda to be erected on the present Capitol building. In my DNA you will also find American Indian lineage, as well as English, Welsh, Scottish, Spanish and who knows what else. Call me a purebred mongrel American, but don't call me Hitler.
Sylad: I don't have family access to information about the 707, only what I can get from the company itself. You stated you got the information from Boeing, not from a family member who was an employee. So maybe you thought you were providing accurate information, and I will give your veracity the benefit of the doubt and apologize for calling you a liar. Did you get this information verbally, or do you have a written spec? The written spec I posted stated that the fuel capacity increased from 15,000 gallons to 23,000...and the initial capacity is still 5,000 gallons higher than you stated. In terms of weight, the 767 is heavier, but it is also slower, so the impact would be similar. Take a look at the Fireman's video. Tell me what you see when you see the first WTC attack. I wish I had a better copy of the video, but one thing I can clearly see is a bright flash from the bottom of the plane attacking the building before it hits. When the plane hits, the big fireball seen in the second attack is absent. Now think about the fire causing the building to collapse... if most of the fuel was consumed in a big fireball external to the building, how did that cause structural steel to give way? Please let me know how to melt structural steel with kerosene (the closest equivalent to jet fuel I know of) in an open atmosphere environment, as I would find that information fascinating. Neither kerosene in an open atmosphere environment, nor all the paper from office fires, nor the combination of the impact with the above adequately explains why 2 WTC fell before 1 WTC (which was hit first) or why 1 WTC fell, and certainly nothing provides a good explination of the collapse of 7WTC.
As for 7 WTC it was across the street from 6 WTC which was North of 1 WTC. 1 WTC fell straight down. 47 story structural steel buildings only collapse in their own space when they are rigged for demolition.
As for the cell phone calls:
9/11 Cellphone Calls - an Overview
http://physics911.org/net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=6
Phonecalls
Missing Evidence About the September 11th Flights
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/phonecalls.html
Strange phone calls
http://www.utopiax.org/phonecalls.html
The strange case of the 9/11 cell phone calls
http://www.democraticunderground.com/duforum/DCForumID60/29550.html
As for the planes, where is any one of the four black boxes? Those things are supposed to survive any kind of crash, and are designed to be found and examined afterwards.... why are all four of them missing? |
Ainsworth Hunt
Citizen
Username: Ainsworth
Post Number: 207
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 4:28 pm: | |
Sylad:
I also voted for Bush in the last election. We all make mistakes.
Ashcroft's announcement today is as close as we are going to get to an admission that the WMD weren't there in the first place, so let's put a good spin on it.
|
Michaela May
Citizen
Username: Mayquene
Post Number: 54
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 4:32 pm: | |
Did anybody find out who is behind that Serendipity Web site? The .li designation alone makes it seem spurious. Read more on that Web site and you'll find some pretty zealous, conspiracy-minded, absurd content.
From a "Serendipity" secition on Zionism: "In its current form Zionism seeks to dominate all of Palestine and the Middle East by means of violence and the threat of violence (using weapons manufactured and purchased with billions of dollars of 'aid' supplied by the United States) and to maximize its influence in world affairs and in world history, principally by means of control of the government of the U.S.A. (primarily by blackmailing its politicians), [Italics mine, I mean, c'mon] at the expense of the social wellbeing not only of the Palestinians but of the peoples of all lands."
Or on voting machines: "It seems very likely that the 2004 presidential election will be rigged so that the fascist powers-that-be behind the scenes will ensure that their man is elected President. This might or might not be George W. Bush. It might be Wesley Clark or Howard Dean."
This is not exactly a rational, fair-minded or objective source. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1861
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 5:30 pm: | |
All the black boxes missing? What about this one?
Conspiracy theories are so much fun. I know it's silly to try and get people off of them, but here's how the 9-11 Research site above poses supposedly mysterious questions, then inadvertently answers them:
quote:Experiments conducted with cellphones show that cellphones seldom work at all above 10,000 feet...
Below 10,000 feet, cellphone calls made from a jet would cause problematic "cascades" in networks of cellsites on the ground.
And you thought it was tough enough to keep a signal in your car.
quote:Family members of the Flight 93 victims reported that charges for the calls never appeared on the cellphone accounts.
Fortunately many services don't charge for dropped calls.
quote:Except for the Beamer call, all of the Flight 93 calls were very short, usually just a few sentences, with the caller ending the conversation by saying they had to go, only to call back later in many cases for another short call. Why did they have to go? Were the hijackers enforcing a 1 minute time limit on all conversations?
Uh, yeah, their limit was probably zero minutes. This was the flight with only four hijackers. Maybe the fifth guy's job would have been to keep an eye out for callers. But in any event they tried to call anyway, and disconnected when they though they were about to get caught. Seems sensible to me, what would you do?
quote:Sweeney, who was the "anchor" for Flight 11, says: "I see, buildings, water, ... Oh my God!", immediately before the crash, as though she, a Massachusettes-based flight attendant of 12 years, had never seen the Manhattan skyline before. Supposedly she was continuously monitoring the view out a window.
Would you recognize suburban Boston from the air? Probably not until you got close enough to see the Hancock Tower Before that it looks like any other big urban/suburban area. Then, you might say, "Oh My God" too.
Why just dispense with the commonsensical explanation, and pick up something incredibly elaborate in its place? |
Ainsworth Hunt
Citizen
Username: Ainsworth
Post Number: 208
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 7:22 pm: | |
Okay Tom, what have they done with the data from the black box from PA? Where is the black box from the plane that hit the Pentagon? I can understand the trouble finding these things from the WTC site, considering the amount of material, but hey who said you had to follow forensic rules when 3,000 people are murdered? Where has the only black box reported found gone? Why haven't they released the data from that black box? Did they ever get the voice data recorder? What was recorded in the cockpit? Why don't they release the security tapes from the airports showing the hijackers? I know that simple is easy to accept, but just because it simple doesn't mean it is correct, nor because it is complicated does it mean that it is wrong. I don't pretend to have a lot of answers here, I just have a lot of questions that some people would rather see go away. Does anyone remember what the justification was for Congress giving the authority to the President to attack Iraq? Does anyone care? By the way, what is the penalty for perjury? Does lying to Congress qualify as perjury? What connection did Iraq have with Al Queda, if any? What research did GWB base his claims for WMD on? Could it be that he borrowed the information from Tony Blair, who plagurized a paper from a graduate student? Its a lot nicer to call it operation Iraqi Freedom than operation middle eastern oil, isn't it? Why doesn't anyone ask, does it make sense that four commercial aircraft were hijacked with box cutters? How easy was it to bust into the cockpit, and take over a plane with such a menacing weapon? Why don't the conversations with the towers get released? Why don't the Bushes sever their business ties with the Bin Ladens? Shouldn't people in high places have high ethical standards? We have all heard the official story so many times we tend to believe it, and because the truth may be so unpalatable we don't want to believe it. IASOTS
|
Bananafish
Citizen
Username: Bananafish
Post Number: 47
Registered: 12-2002
| | Posted on Monday, January 26, 2004 - 7:42 pm: | |
And what's YOUR connection with Mecca Hosting, Ainsworth? |
overtaxdalready
Citizen
Username: Overtaxdalready
Post Number: 191
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 8:21 am: | |
These conspiracy theories are great for a good chuckle. Very creative indeed. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1871
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 9:23 am: | |
Here is the response I received from my mother's husband, who is a retired structural engineeer:
quote:Very little has been written about 7 World Trade Center. It was badly damaged by falling debris from the two towers but, except for certain areas, it did not collapse. It was a building forty or more years old, could have been repaired, but the owner chose to make a deal with the insurance company and he is now getting a new building - his choice.
Sounds more plausible to me than any complicated conspiracy.
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
Diversity Man
Citizen
Username: Deadwhitemale
Post Number: 607
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 9:42 am: | |
A.H. / H.A. !!!
Zionist conspiracy revelation:
Truth be told:
Bush is really the illegitimate son of Golda Meir and Prescott Walker Bush.
The prez's blood is Zionist, and Milwaukee school teacher, kitchen coffee klatcher.
Q: Weren't all those Boeing engineers Zionist occupation army spies working for the Mossad, which controlled the brain of the architects who designed the stressed truss floors at WTC?
twM |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 4458
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 27, 2004 - 10:31 am: | |
Tom, 7 WTC was built in the middle to late 1980s and was originally leased to Drexel Burnham, before they went belly up in the junk bond wars.
Again, since nobody picked up on it, there was a lot of fuel stored within the building to be used by the City Emergency Management Center which was located in the building. |
Tom Reingold
Citizen
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 1919
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 2:24 pm: | |
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/presaddress2.shtml
Tom Reingold the prissy-pants
There is nothing
|
Duncan
Citizen
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 1489
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, January 29, 2004 - 2:34 pm: | |
So Ainsworth did the 9/11 commission cook up that audio tape released yesterday of the flight attendant calling in the hi-jacking. Maybe she was in on the plot, or an actress, or maybe just an innocent victim of the administrations evil. GRRRRRRR
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take"
Wayne Gretzky |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page