PDA

View Full Version : 9/11 documentary/video very interesting



JaminT
2/24/2006, 09:35 AM
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=911+2001

I watched this the other day, and really wanted to find out what some of you thought.

It's about an hour and twenty long, so brace yourself

Mjcpr
2/24/2006, 09:39 AM
I'll let you know what I think in about an hour and a half.

BRB...

OklahomaTuba
2/24/2006, 09:40 AM
NSFW

Hatfield
2/24/2006, 09:49 AM
the attention span of the SO is roughly 10 minutes......I don't have high hopes for the crowd to watch your video today.

JaminT
2/24/2006, 10:12 AM
Hatfield, if you watch it i will consider this post a success.

Harry Beanbag
2/24/2006, 10:16 AM
I don't have sound at work, maybe this weekend.

Ross33
2/24/2006, 10:20 AM
I just watched the first 30 minutes. It's interesting, to say the least. I'll have to watch the rest at lunch.

Mjcpr
2/24/2006, 10:30 AM
I just watched the first 30 minutes. It's interesting, to say the least. I'll have to watch the rest when I get back from lunch.

That's how I roll too.

JohnnyMack
2/24/2006, 10:30 AM
I'll let you know what I think in about an hour and a half.

BRB...

Sweet, he's gone. Let's talk about him behind his back.

Harry Beanbag
2/24/2006, 10:32 AM
Heh. The last two posts cracked me up.

JaminT
2/24/2006, 10:56 AM
anyone finished it yet?

slickdawg
2/24/2006, 01:01 PM
I just did, it's rather interesting. They have many valid points, and back
them with video footage.

Stoop Dawg
2/24/2006, 01:20 PM
I'm disappointed that they didn't make that film BEFORE 9/11. Think how many lives they could have saved. I mean, it was obvious from statements like "military change will be slow absent some catastrophic event - like another Pearl Harbor" that our govt was going to kill thousands of its own civilians just to beef up military spending.

JaminT
2/24/2006, 01:46 PM
How bout that molten steel below the WTC's, that blew my mind all but confirming that something resembling a demolition charge was set to take them down. I checked that out and it certainly is well documented. Plus all the witnesses hearing/seeing/experiencing several explosions in the WTC's preceding the collapse. I can't imagine how people can just accept the innaccuracies of the official story and pay it no mind. This is a BIG story, whatever the truth turns out to be!

Mjcpr
2/24/2006, 02:01 PM
I've always felt Oswald was involved somehow.

Stoop Dawg
2/24/2006, 02:17 PM
How bout that molten steel below the WTC's, that blew my mind all but confirming that something resembling a demolition charge was set to take them down. I checked that out and it certainly is well documented. Plus all the witnesses hearing/seeing/experiencing several explosions in the WTC's preceding the collapse. I can't imagine how people can just accept the innaccuracies of the official story and pay it no mind. This is a BIG story, whatever the truth turns out to be!

Can you explain the "molten steel below the WTC's"? It's well-known that the jet fuel burned hot enough to melt the steel on the upper floors, which compromised the load bearing capability of the frame and initiated the collapse. It also seems very plausible that the molten steel from the upper floors would end up "underneath" the WTC after the collapse.

I also don't find it too surprising that people heard lots of explosions prior to a 30+ story building with a jet airliner planted in it pancaking to the ground.

I'll watch the entire video tonight, but the first 10 minutes seemed like a lot of innuendo and conincidence, and not much fact finding. For example, I'm not sure that the fact that NORAD investigated the possibility of an airplane crashing into the Pentagon leads to the conclusion that they actually did it. How many other terrorist events has NORAD investigated/played out that DIDN'T happen? I don't know, and the video didn't seem to think it was important to tell us. Hmmmm.......

Ike
2/24/2006, 02:22 PM
How bout that molten steel below the WTC's, that blew my mind all but confirming that something resembling a demolition charge was set to take them down. I checked that out and it certainly is well documented. Plus all the witnesses hearing/seeing/experiencing several explosions in the WTC's preceding the collapse. I can't imagine how people can just accept the innaccuracies of the official story and pay it no mind. This is a BIG story, whatever the truth turns out to be!


I'll preface this by saying I haven't watched the video yet...1:20:00 is too long for me to spend watching it while at work...

still be careful about jumping to conclusions here. remember that in that building, jet fuel was burning. It's my understanding that jet fuel is very viscous, and burns at a very high temperature. I could be wrong, but if that is the case, it is not inconcievable that burning jet fuel made its way down the support structure, possibly all the way to the bottom or near the bottom, where it is again concievable that it might pool, and stand long enough to melt steel at the bottom of the structure. other explosions could have been results of say, burning jet fuel finding a boiler and weakening the tank to the point that the internal pressure would blow it out.

I'm not claiming that these things happened, but that it is concievable that they did, and that one has to be very careful when jumping to conclusions.

12
2/24/2006, 02:27 PM
Say what you will, but that guy is one HECK of a narrator.

Harry Beanbag
2/24/2006, 02:31 PM
Here's a link from an article written by some civil engineer at MIT with his conclusions and conjecture of the destruction of the WTC. Pretty interesting, unless you're wearing your tin foil hat.

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:g2bbrR_ZVYcJ:web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%2520II%2520Inferno%2520%40%2520WTC.pdf+767 +fuel+load&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3

Stoop Dawg
2/24/2006, 02:33 PM
It's my understanding that jet fuel is very viscous, and burns at a very high temperature. I could be wrong

The History Channel interviewed the architect of the WTC. He said that it was engineered to withstand that size plane crashing into it (and it did) and to withstand the temperatures of the jet fuel used at the time (I forget what year they designed it). But he said the jet fuel used these days burns much hotter and it melted the steel.


one has to be very careful when jumping to conclusions.

'Zactly.

JaminT
2/24/2006, 02:35 PM
In the basements of the collapsed towers, where the 47 central support columns connected with the bedrock, hot spots of “literally molten steel” were discovered more than a month after the collapse. Such persistent and intense residual heat, 70 feet below the surface, in an oxygen starved environment, could explain how these crucial structural supports failed.


The molten steel was found “three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed,” Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.

Link (http://www.americanfreepress.net/09_03_02/NEW_SEISMIC_/new_seismic_.html)


These experts contend that books and articles by members and associates have established that the World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions and that the available relevant evidence casts grave doubt on the official story about the attack on the Pentagon. They believe that the government not only permitted 9/11 to occur but may even have orchestrated these events to facilitate its political agenda.


Link (http://www.st911.org/)

12
2/24/2006, 02:44 PM
http://www.ufowisconsin.com/pancakeperspectives/ppgraphics/alienautopsy1.jpg

Harry Beanbag
2/24/2006, 02:44 PM
I'm no demolitions expert, but how would the finding of molten steel (which I hadn't heard of before) prove that they were "almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions"? Ever been camping? You can cover your fire with dirt and come back hours or days later and there will still be burning coals inside.

If there were explosives in the basement, why did the towers begin collapsing/pancaking from above the plane impact points?

12
2/24/2006, 02:45 PM
"Catch my drift?"

Outstanding!

Ike
2/24/2006, 02:46 PM
Link (http://www.americanfreepress.net/09_03_02/NEW_SEISMIC_/new_seismic_.html)




Link (http://www.st911.org/)
I have a few problems with what you just posted...

a) controlled demolitions will NEVER create hotspots of molten steel. by their nature, controlled demolitions are small, and strategically placed so as to cause just enough structural instability to cause collapse. any molten steel found at any time during the S&R and later rubble cleaning effort could, IMHO, only be the result of burning jet fuel, or something else burning at sufficently hot temperatures. explosives do not continue to burn, and would not leave excesses of molten steel lying around for more than a few seconds.


b) there was something else, but I forgot it while typing the first part. I'll get back to you.

Stoop Dawg
2/24/2006, 02:48 PM
I'm no expert, but every demolition show I've watched (they're cool, I love 'em) shows them setting charges that "cut" the steel. There's no burning and very little "explosion". Certainly no fire. In my (uneducated) opinion, molten steel looks more like a plane crash than a controlled demolition.

12
2/24/2006, 02:49 PM
I keep waiting for him to say, "I sh** you not."

Stoop Dawg
2/24/2006, 02:50 PM
I guess it's possible that experts in Deluth think it's a cover up. But there are also quite a few experts (including the engineer that designed the WTC) that don't.

Harry Beanbag
2/24/2006, 02:50 PM
I'm no expert, but every demolition show I've watched (they're cool, I love 'em) shows them setting charges that "cut" the steel. There's no burning and very little "explosion". Certainly no fire. In my (uneducated) opinion, molten steel looks more like a plane crash than a controlled demolition.


It's easier to understand if you try one of these on first...


http://home.no.net/holodoc/ordinary1.jpg

SCOUT
2/24/2006, 02:50 PM
Your link is from AmericanFreePress.net. I am not sure they are a beacon of journalistic integrity.


The American Free Press is a weekly newspaper in the United States. It was founded in 2001 as the successor to The Spotlight, which ceased publication in 2001 when its parent company, Liberty Lobby, was forced into bankruptcy. The paper was founded by former Spotlight staffers.

Like The Spotlight, American Free Press proclaims a "populist and nationalist" political orientation and runs opinionated articles and editorials aimed at a mainstream audience across the political spectrum. Critics charge that it is a subtle recruiting tool for anti-Semitism and the political extreme right-wing. The classified section includes ads for the National Alliance, Christian Identity materials, and Creativity Movement books including White Man's Bible, Nature's Eternal Religion and On the Brink of a Bloody Racial War. The newspaper rejects the labels anti-Semitic and extreme right to describe their newspaper. The paper includes articles from mainstream columnists such as Ron Paul and Paul Craig Roberts, as well as articles by its own staff. Articles by Willis Carto, the founder of Liberty Lobby, also appear occasionally.

The American Free Press is opposed to free trade treaties such as NAFTA and the World Trade Organization, has been strongly opposed to all U.S. military interventions since the fall of the Berlin Wall to the present including the Iraq War, supports a large reduction of immigration into the United States, and supports the elimination of the federal income tax and the abolition of the Federal Reserve Bank. The paper takes a special interest in reporting on the activities of the Bilderberg group and on complementary and alternative medicine.

The newspaper is critical of the policies of the state of Israel, and of Zionist lobby groups in the United States such as AIPAC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Free_Press

Stoop Dawg
2/24/2006, 02:50 PM
I keep waiting for him to say, "I sh** you not."

C'mon, be fair. All he's said is "It's interesting". Which it is.

12
2/24/2006, 02:52 PM
I'm not picking on anyone here... just the video.

12
2/24/2006, 02:57 PM
There is some footage from 911 in this link that I think most people should see. Sweeping this day under the rug does our country little good.

And there is mucho conspiracy gold to be shared with all.

Ike
2/24/2006, 02:59 PM
C'mon, be fair. All he's said is "It's interesting". Which it is.
it is interesting, and I will also state that it is very important to keep re-examining the facts of any major event like this to make completely sure that any assumptions we make about what happened remain valid in light of any new evidence that may arise. however, even though I have yet to watch the video, based on whats been posted here, I'm not convinced that the original story has been invalidated.

lets be clear here. even 'experts' can make mistakes, and are subject to their own biases when examining the evidence. Any expert worth his salt though knows this, and should know his own biases, and should be able to show that he is right in spite of those biases, not because of them. this is why good science takes so long to produce. you have to spend a great deal of time and effort to make sure you haven't fooled yourself. and the easiest person to fool is yourself.

12
2/24/2006, 03:00 PM
Geeze... this guy is a math major.

Mjcpr
2/24/2006, 03:01 PM
There is some footage from 911 in this link that I think most people should see. Sweeping this day under the rug does our country little good.

And there is mucho conspiracy gold to be shared with all.

Can somebody clip it out for us or something? As much as I like actual footage, I don't like it enough to look for it in a video that is an hour and a half long.

JaminT
2/24/2006, 03:04 PM
:) I sh** you not.:)

This is good, this is good. You guys are smart, level-headed people with opinions that I respect. Again, I find peoples skepticism to this video very high, while peoples skepticism twards the 9/11 commssions seems very low. I have just started researching this for school, and it would seem that there are several theories floating around and this is but one of them.

Now that we have concluded that a 767 can bring down a building with fire (the only time a skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire in history) Can someone enlighten me on exactly why the they haven't released the video capturing the pentagon attacks. And how the cell phone calls were placed at 32000 feet.

Once again, not trying to offend anyone, in reality I'm just curious about how this whole thing went down.

12
2/24/2006, 03:07 PM
Kid, you give us way too much credit.

OKC Sooner
2/24/2006, 03:08 PM
I just finished watching the whole thing. Personally, I think it should be shown on all three networks and CNN at the same time. Raises definite and troubling questions. Does the film prove every point it tries to make? Probably not. But it will definitely get you to thinking, and thinking is usually a good activity.

12
2/24/2006, 03:09 PM
I can't believe you left out SciFi.

Harry Beanbag
2/24/2006, 03:10 PM
Now that we have concluded that a 767 can bring down a building with fire (the only time a skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire in history)

I would say it was a little different than your normal trash can fire gone awry.



Can someone enlighten me on exactly why the they haven't released the video capturing the pentagon attacks.

No, but I have heard the theory that it was actually a missile, not a 757 that hit it.



And how the cell phone calls were placed at 32000 feet.

I've always wondered about that.



The conspiracy theory out there that I come closest to believing is the one that says fighter planes actually shot down Flight 93.

Mjcpr
2/24/2006, 03:11 PM
No, but I have heard the theory that it was actually a missile, not a 757 that hit it.

So where's the plane?

OklahomaTuba
2/24/2006, 03:12 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/images/2006/01/19/imageNY19001191530.jpg

I blame this guy instead of the Government.

But maybe thats just me.

Stoop Dawg
2/24/2006, 03:12 PM
even 'experts' can make mistakes, and are subject to their own biases when examining the evidence. Any expert worth his salt though knows this, and should know his own biases, and should be able to show that he is right in spite of those biases, not because of them. this is why good science takes so long to produce. you have to spend a great deal of time and effort to make sure you haven't fooled yourself. and the easiest person to fool is yourself.

Well said. Let's examine this "point" from one of the links:


The Pentagon conducted a training exercise called "MASCAL" simulating the crash of a Boeing 757 into the building on 24 October 2000, and yet Condoleezza Rice, among others, has repeatedly asserted that "no one ever imagined" a domestic airplane could be used as a weapon. How is this possible?

Well, airplanes crash accidentally far more often than they are hi-jacked and flown into the ground (or a building). In fact, pre-9/11 one could argue that hi-jacked airplanes are NEVER flown into the ground. The hi-jackers don't want to die, and they don't want the passengers to die. They want to hold the passengers hostage until their demands are met. So, pre-9/11 I would say that MASCAL represented an effort to see what would be the consequence of an ACCIDENTAL crash of an airliner into the Pentagon.

Attempting to draw the conclusion that the Pentagon was responsible for intentionally flying an airplane into itself because it simulated a (probably accidental) crash a year earlier is dubious, if not absurd.

Then there's this:


Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, in an underground bunker at the White House, watched Vice President Cheney castigate a young officer for asking, as the plane drew closer and closer to the Pentagon, "Do the orders still stand?" The order cannot have been to shoot it down, but must have been the opposite. How is this possible?

So, let's forget the fact that we have no idea what "the order" was and let's bite at the implication that it was "do not shoot down the airplane". For all we know it was "I don't want sugar in my coffee", but let's go with the more interesting version. The question, then, is how is it possible that Cheney ordered the military NOT to shoot down a commercial airliner carrying U.S. citizens? Are they serious? The military followed that golfer's plan (what's his name? Payne Stewart?) half way across the country without shooting it down. Did the Pentagon also orchestrate that one?

Sorry, but the leaps of logic are simply too great and ignore what I consider to be the obvious answers.

Ike
2/24/2006, 03:14 PM
:) I sh** you not.:)

This is good, this is good. You guys are smart, level-headed people with opinions that I respect. Again, I find peoples skepticism to this video very high, while peoples skepticism twards the 9/11 commssions seems very low. I have just started researching this for school, and it would seem that there are several theories floating around and this is but one of them.

Now that we have concluded that a 767 can bring down a building with fire (the only time a skyscraper has ever collapsed due to fire in history) Can someone enlighten me on exactly why the they haven't released the video capturing the pentagon attacks. And how the cell phone calls were placed at 32000 feet.

Once again, not trying to offend anyone, in reality I'm just curious about how this whole thing went down.

there isn't that much skepticism toward the 9/11 commission, because their results jive with what people wanted to believe about the event in the first place. its unfortunate that this is why there is little skepticism, but this is the way human nature works. we often don't question things we are told if what we are told re-affirms the initial assumptions we have made. good for these people for questioning it....even though I think they are wrong.

as for the pentagon, when was the last time the feds released any video to the public regarding any major event. if it wasnt seen by the news media or some joker with a hand-held video cam, we never get it. even if we think it should be released, the gov't probably won't because they like to keep secret every little detail that they can, even the completely inoccous ones, because thats the way they like to operate. doesn't nessecarily mean there is a coverup though.

as for the cell phones, I don't know. were they definately from cell phones, or were they from the plane-phones. how do those work? how far does a cell-signal go? I can see the possibility of getting a bar or two of service over populous areas...

JaminT
2/24/2006, 03:15 PM
Here's another good one:


Summarizing:

We have assumed that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat.

Then it is impossible that the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor more than 257° C (495° F).

Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse.

It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media.

"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."

Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A).

Recalling that the North Tower suffered no major structural damage from the intense office fire of February 23, 1975, we can conclude that the ensuing office fires of September 11, 2001, also did little extra damage to the towers.

Conclusion:

The jet fuel fires played almost no role in the collapse of the World Trade Center.

So, once again, you have been lied to by the media, are you surprised?

Link (http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/small/how-hot.htm)

This guy disguieses his propaganda with "science":)

OklahomaTuba
2/24/2006, 03:16 PM
Can someone enlighten me on exactly why the they haven't released the video capturing the pentagon attacks. And how the cell phone calls were placed at 32000 feet.

Once again, not trying to offend anyone, in reality I'm just curious about how this whole thing went down.

I've seen the time lapsed video on TV. Not sure what you mean.

Beyond that, I think this idea that the WTC was blown up by the US government is beyond dumb. Its the same filth that Howard Dean, Micheal Moore and some of the libz tried to float before the 2004 election.

Harry Beanbag
2/24/2006, 03:16 PM
So where's the plane?


It's not my theory, but IIRC it was being used in smuggling operations in Madagascar or something like that.

I **** you not. These people are insane.

Mjcpr
2/24/2006, 03:17 PM
It's not my theory, but IIRC it was being used in smuggling operations in Madagascar or something like that.

I **** you not. These people are insane.

So is there nobody alive that had a relative that died on that flight?

1stTimeCaller
2/24/2006, 03:18 PM
The History Channel interviewed the architect of the WTC. He said that it was engineered to withstand that size plane crashing into it (and it did) and to withstand the temperatures of the jet fuel used at the time (I forget what year they designed it). But he said the jet fuel used these days burns much hotter and it melted the steel.

I thought that they used the 707 or the 727 as the size of aircraft used during the design. I'm probably wrong but I don't think the 767 wasn't in service when the building was designed.

Stoop Dawg
2/24/2006, 03:18 PM
And how the cell phone calls were placed at 32000 feet.

How did the planes hit the WTC if they were flying at 32000 feet? Obviously, they weren't.

JohnnyMack
2/24/2006, 03:18 PM
Ninjas were involved.

Somehow, someway.

Book it.

Ike
2/24/2006, 03:19 PM
I blame this guy instead of the Government.

But maybe thats just me.


do you have this photo bookmarked for every thread on here that 'libz' post in. maybe a funny one of hillary too?


cause if you don't you may want to consider it, it would save you a lot of time and google searching. you probably wind up on the feds 'let's track his phone calls list' if you google search it too much....

just sayin ;)

Harry Beanbag
2/24/2006, 03:20 PM
I thought that they used the 707 or the 727 as the size of aircraft used during the design. I'm probably wrong but I don't think the 767 wasn't in service when the building was designed.


It was a 707. The link in post #19 on this thread talks about the differences between a 707 and 767.

Harry Beanbag
2/24/2006, 03:21 PM
How did the planes hit the WTC if they were flying at 32000 feet? Obviously, they weren't.


I think he was talking about all the phone calls on Flight 93.

Stoop Dawg
2/24/2006, 03:21 PM
I thought that they used the 707 or the 727 as the size of aircraft used during the design. I'm probably wrong but I don't think the 767 wasn't in service when the building was designed.

The point I got was that it was the difference in jet fuel that caused the collapse, not the size of the plane.

JaminT
2/24/2006, 03:23 PM
Oklahoma Tuba, you are the first person who should see this video!

Ike
2/24/2006, 03:23 PM
Here's another good one:



Link (http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/small/how-hot.htm)

This guy disguieses his propaganda with "science":)

doing a quick search on jet fuel, there are many kinds, with many different properties. from the link, this guy takes one of those kinds ("fuel oil #1") for his experiment(s). Nowehere does it mention that he actually checked that this was indeed the same fuel being carried by the 767.

OklahomaTuba
2/24/2006, 03:23 PM
Of course this is all assuming the towers were designed and built well to begin with.

JohnnyMack
2/24/2006, 03:24 PM
I think he was talking about all the phone calls on Flight 93.

Wasn't that flight bouncing around from 10 to 20k feet or so?

Stoop Dawg
2/24/2006, 03:25 PM
I think he was talking about all the phone calls on Flight 93.

Sorry, I don't remember all the flight numbers. However, all of them ended up at lower than 32000 feet. :(

The question, then, is when were the calls placed and do we *know* that the planes were at 32000 feet at that exact time? I have no idea, I'm asking.

OklahomaTuba
2/24/2006, 03:26 PM
Oklahoma Tuba, you are the first person who should see this video!
Hell no am I going to watch this. I waste enough time as it is.

This sounds a lot like the dumbass "theory" that some idiots had about the corp of engineers exloding the levies before hurricane katrina, so Bush could kill more black people.

SCOUT
2/24/2006, 03:26 PM
Well, airplanes crash accidentally far more often than they are hi-jacked and flown into the ground (or a building). In fact, pre-9/11 one could argue that hi-jacked airplanes are NEVER flown into the ground. The hi-jackers don't want to die, and they don't want the passengers to die. They want to hold the passengers hostage until their demands are met. So, pre-9/11 I would say that MASCAL represented an effort to see what would be the consequence of an ACCIDENTAL crash of an airliner into the Pentagon.

Actually, using a plane as a weapon had been thought of and even tried before. Samuel Byck tried to commandeer an airliner and crash it into the White House to kill President Nixon.

http://www.rvv.com/peacemaker/Samuel_Byck.htm

12
2/24/2006, 03:30 PM
Well duh.

Harry Beanbag
2/24/2006, 03:30 PM
Sorry, I don't remember all the flight numbers. However, all of them ended up at lower than 32000 feet. :(

The question, then, is when were the calls placed and do we *know* that the planes were at 32000 feet at that exact time? I have no idea, I'm asking.


93 is the plane that the hijackers were late taking action on and ended up crashing in Pennsylvania.

And I'm not sure the exact altitude really matters. I don't know if you can make a cell phone call at 30,000 feet, or 5,000 feet for that matter. I've never tried it.

1stTimeCaller
2/24/2006, 03:32 PM
The testing of the steel beams in post #46 perplexes me. Why is it code to apply fireproofing to beams in buildings if temperatures of a an ofice fire can get nowhere close to the temperature to weaken the steel?

And we're not talking secondary beams in the WTC, we're talking about a seriously compromised structure to begin with and the main supports failing, not secondary. The secondary beams don't carry near the load as a main beams.

Another thing, the WTC was not built like 99% of the traditional steel structures are.

Ike
2/24/2006, 03:32 PM
Actually, using a plane as a weapon had been thought of and even tried before. Samuel Byck tried to commandeer an airliner and crash it into the White House to kill President Nixon.

http://www.rvv.com/peacemaker/Samuel_Byck.htm
didn't someone also try to fly (don't remember if he succeeded) a small private plane into the white house during the clinton administration as well?

12
2/24/2006, 03:32 PM
Our posts are numbered?

12
2/24/2006, 03:33 PM
I SEE THE NUMBER!!!!

1stTimeCaller
2/24/2006, 03:34 PM
didn't someone also try to fly (don't remember if he succeeded) a small private plane into the white house during the clinton administration as well?

yep. A guy stole a small Cessna type prop plane and did hit the WH.

SCOUT
2/24/2006, 03:35 PM
didn't someone also try to fly (don't remember if he succeeded) a small private plane into the white house during the clinton administration as well?

Yes there was.

There was also an attempt with a stolen helicopter too. That one is referenced at the bottom of the link I provided if you want more info.

Ike
2/24/2006, 03:38 PM
Here's another good one:



Link (http://guardian.150m.com/wtc/small/how-hot.htm)

This guy disguieses his propaganda with "science":)

lots of propaganda and bull**** gets disguised with science, unfortunately. lots and lots. and a lot of good scientists take quite a bit of time and effort to explain why it is utter bull**** (time that takes them away from doing real science). however, the debunking is hardly ever as widespread as the initial myth itself, because news thrives on sensationalism, and the debunking of some bull**** is rather anticlimactic. there is also just so much bull**** out there, that its hard to get to all of it.

Harry Beanbag
2/24/2006, 03:38 PM
doing a quick search on jet fuel, there are many kinds, with many different properties. from the link, this guy takes one of those kinds ("fuel oil #1") for his experiment(s). Nowehere does it mention that he actually checked that this was indeed the same fuel being carried by the 767.


That guys uses a ton of assumptions, especially regarding the actual construction of the buildings. Did he take into account the near unstoppable force of the pancaking effect? It's not difficult for me to believe at all that the floors immediately devastated by the plane would be a hot spot, not to mention the structural damage caused by the blunt force of the plane crash itself, which would cause a weak point with thousands of tons of weight sitting on top of it.

Ike
2/24/2006, 03:41 PM
That guys uses a ton of assumptions, especially regarding the actual construction of the buildings. Did he take into account the near unstoppable force of the pancaking effect? It's not difficult for me to believe at all that the floors immediately devastated by the plane would be a hot spot, not to mention the structural damage caused by the blunt force of the plane crash itself, which would cause a weak point with thousands of tons of weight sitting on top of it.

good points. I only addressed what was the most glaring assumption to me. Since I am hardly an expert on building construction and materials, I didn't address those assumptions because I just don't know enough about them.

Harry Beanbag
2/24/2006, 03:43 PM
good points. I only addressed what was the most glaring assumption to me. Since I am hardly an expert on building construction and materials, I didn't address those assumptions because I just don't know enough about them.


Oh I'm no expert either, just trying to apply some common sense. :)

Stoop Dawg
2/24/2006, 03:46 PM
Some more propaganda, or is it science? I can't keep it all straight:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/


A professor of materials engineering and engineering systems at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Eagar went on to write an influential paper in the journal of the Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society entitled "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation" (JOM, December 2001).

NOVA: You've said that the fire is the most misunderstood part of the World Trade Center collapse. Why?

Eagar: The problem is that most people, even some engineers, talk about temperature and heat as if they're identical. In fact, scientifically, they're only related to each other. Temperature tells me the intensity of the heat -- is it 100 degrees, 200 degrees, 300 degrees? The heat tells me how big the thing is that gets hot. I mean, I could boil a cup of water to make a cup of tea, or I could boil ten gallons of water to cook a bunch of lobsters. So it takes a lot more energy to cook the lobsters -- heat is related to energy. That's the difference: We call the intensity of heat the temperature, and the amount of heat the energy.

NOVA: How high did the temperatures get, and what did that do to the steel columns?

Eagar: The maximum temperature would have been 1,600°F or 1,700°F. It's impossible to generate temperatures much above that in most cases with just normal fuel, in pure air. In fact, I think the World Trade Center fire was probably only 1,200°F or 1,300°F.

Investigations of fires in other buildings with steel have shown that fires don't usually even melt the aluminum, which melts around 1,200°F. Most fires don't get above 900°F to 1,100°F. The World Trade Center fire did melt some of the aluminum in the aircraft and hence it probably got to 1,300°F or 1,400°F. But that's all it would have taken to trigger the collapse, according to my analysis.


I guess it's good that there is more than one scientist.

Ike
2/24/2006, 03:50 PM
Some more propaganda, or is it science? I can't keep it all straight:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/



I guess it's good that there is more than one scientist.


yes it is. if there were only one, science would be useless. scientists miss things all the time. all the time. the fact that there are other scientists around to re-examine each others work ususally ensures that we at least get as close to the truth as is possible with our current understandings and technologies. not always, but usually.

Stoop Dawg
2/24/2006, 03:52 PM
Another intersting quote:


NOVA: There's a theory that the aluminum of the planes caught fire.

Eagar: Yes, a number of people have tried to reinforce that theory. Now, the aluminum of the planes would have burned just like a flare. Flares are made out of aluminum and magnesium, so are fireworks, and they burn hot enough to melt steel in certain cases.

However, they have had people sorting through the steel from the World Trade Center, and no one has reported finding melted steel, which means that we didn't have that aluminum flare.

Conflicting reports.

Ike
2/24/2006, 03:58 PM
Another intersting quote:



Conflicting reports.
very interesting indeed!

Pricetag
2/24/2006, 04:04 PM
The conspiracy theory out there that I come closest to believing is the one that says fighter planes actually shot down Flight 93.
I sure wish our government would have enough faith in us to tell the truth if this is what actually happened. It does nothing to cheapen the sacrifice of the passengers onboard.

Harry Beanbag
2/24/2006, 04:23 PM
I sure wish our government would have enough faith in us to tell the truth if this is what actually happened. It does nothing to cheapen the sacrifice of the passengers onboard.


No it doesn't. And if that is what happened, it was most certainly the correct decision.

salth2o
2/24/2006, 04:47 PM
The guy interviewed at the 41:23 mark.

"It was a big explosion and everything got dark, real dark like snow."

Snow is dark? Who knew?

JaminT
2/24/2006, 04:50 PM
I don't like "need to know basis" and "Top Secret"

Take a look at this unclassifed document that certainly proves the government is capable of devising a plan like 9/11 against an enemy. (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf)

Oh, and Oklahoma Tuba, if anyone has accused you of ever being openminded, I can speak for the group and collectivly apologize.


GO BUSH!!!

JaminT
2/24/2006, 04:54 PM
The aformentioned link in post #83 outlines using a drone civilian aircraft to blow up and blame on Cuba during the 1960's, they were looking for a way to gain public support of the conflict. It's interesting to see the parallels, although I don't think this means our government did anything out of line, except for that whole Iraq thing.

soonerscuba
2/24/2006, 04:57 PM
I think most people that have even looked at 93 come to the conclusion that it was shot down, which was indeed the right thing to do. I can fully understand the government not admitting it though, the PR of trying to explain why the government is in the business of shooting down civil aircraft is more trouble than it is worth.

As for the other flights, the families seem pretty committed to the lie.

OKC Sooner
2/24/2006, 05:27 PM
A few quotes, you can file them under Food For Thought, or ignore them entirely :cool:

"If you are going to tell people the truth, you had better make them laugh or they will kill you." --Oscar Wilde

"Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. --James Bovard

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Winston Churchill

"The great masses of people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one. Especially if it is repeated over and over." -- Hitler

"The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth becomes the greatest enemy of the State." -- Hitler

"Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th.." --President Bush, speaking to the United Nations.

"The biggest government conspiracy of all is the claim that there are no government conspiracies!" -- Michael Rivero

"News is what someone wants to suppress. Everything else is advertising"--former NBC news prez Rubin Frank

"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." -- Mark Twain

Stoop Dawg
2/24/2006, 05:29 PM
The aformentioned link in post #83 outlines using a drone civilian aircraft to blow up and blame on Cuba during the 1960's, they were looking for a way to gain public support of the conflict. It's interesting to see the parallels, although I don't think this means our government did anything out of line, except for that whole Iraq thing.

Fair enough. But I'm not sure how one draws any parallels at all between the events of 1962 (namely, the Cuban Missile Crisis and the events leading up to it) and the state of the world in 2001.That's going to be a pretty hard sell.

Stoop Dawg
2/24/2006, 05:32 PM
"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." -- Mark Twain

That one is fantastic!!

OklahomaTuba
2/24/2006, 05:51 PM
I think most people that have even looked at 93 come to the conclusion that it was shot down, which was indeed the right thing to do. I can fully understand the government not admitting it though, the PR of trying to explain why the government is in the business of shooting down civil aircraft is more trouble than it is worth.

As for the other flights, the families seem pretty committed to the lie.

And that lie would be????

JaminT
2/24/2006, 05:52 PM
Using a staged tragedy to advance a political adgenda?

Blowing up a drone aircraft and blaming it on the "enemy" using this as a catylist for war?

Fighting a "war on terrorism" instead of a "war on communism"

Both are wars against idea's, not people. Both are increadibly difficult to sell without a tragedy. In selling this tragedy to America, we in turn allowed a war built on haste. My brother has been over there, it isn't pretty.

Our government doesn't work, what makes you think our puppet govt of Iraq will.

Stoop Dawg
2/24/2006, 06:03 PM
Hmmm, if you don't think the Cuban Missile Crisis was real then there's really no need to debate any further.

I'm as big a critic of big govt as the next guy. I'd really like to reduce the size and number of programs run by the govt. I'd really like for them to stay the heck out of our business with only a few exceptions. But to say "our govt doesn't work" is simply not an observable fact.

Stoop Dawg
2/24/2006, 06:04 PM
And that lie would be????

I think scuba was referring to the supposed lie purported by the original post. And I think there was a touch of sarcasm in there.

SCOUT
2/24/2006, 06:07 PM
Our government doesn't work, what makes you think our puppet govt of Iraq will.

I would be curious to hear how you would measure this. Which country do you think we should emulate in order to obtain a properly functioning government?

Stoop Dawg
2/24/2006, 06:16 PM
I would be curious to hear how you would measure this. Which country do you think we should emulate in order to obtain a properly functioning government?

I would say we should emulate the most prosperous country in the world. Oh wait.......

Octavian
2/24/2006, 06:56 PM
Can someone enlighten me on exactly why the they haven't released the video capturing the pentagon attacks.


No, but I have heard the theory that it was actually a missile, not a 757 that hit it.

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main

Came across this vid several months ago.

It's about 3 or 4 minutes long.

It contains video clips of an object crashing into the Pentagon. Could be doctored...I dunno. It raises some interesting points though.

If this was in the vid in the first post of this thread, then sorry in advance...I didn't watch it all.

soonerscuba
2/24/2006, 07:01 PM
I think scuba was referring to the supposed lie purported by the original post. And I think there was a touch of sarcasm in there.

right-o.

JaminT
2/24/2006, 07:11 PM
I'm not saying the cuban missle crisis wasn't real. I am saying that communism was the target and unjustly villified just as terrorism is the target and unjustly villified.

Most prosperous country? 8 trillion dollars in debt and counting. Every man woman and child in america's share is a little over $27000.00. We are the fattest nation in the world. We are the biggest consumers in the world. We have the tools to kill more effieciently than any nation in the world. We are the most aggressive in the world.

The homer glasses we so quickly accuse people of looking through when dealing with texas fans extend far beyond college football. Look at the world as a world stage and you may gain a new perspective on success.

SCOUT
2/24/2006, 07:20 PM
I'm not saying the cuban missle crisis wasn't real. I am saying that communism was the target and unjustly villified just as terrorism is the target and unjustly villified.

Most prosperous country? 8 trillion dollars in debt and counting. Every man woman and child in america's share is a little over $27000.00. We are the fattest nation in the world. We are the biggest consumers in the world. We have the tools to kill more effieciently than any nation in the world. We are the most aggressive in the world.

The homer glasses we so quickly accuse people of looking through when dealing with texas fans extend far beyond college football. Look at the world as a world stage and you may gain a new perspective on success.

Wow.

Terrorism is unjustly villified

The fact that we are armed, well fed and have money are a problem. (the aggressive comment is a stretch)

Just wow.

Octavian
2/24/2006, 07:23 PM
I'm not saying the cuban missle crisis wasn't real. I am saying that communism was the target and unjustly villified just as terrorism is the target and unjustly villified.

Most prosperous country? 8 trillion dollars in debt and counting. Every man woman and child in america's share is a little over $27000.00. We are the fattest nation in the world. We are the biggest consumers in the world. We have the tools to kill more effieciently than any nation in the world. We are the most aggressive in the world.

see...this is the stuff that gives right-wing radio all its ammo.

Ever been outside the States? Bitching about living in America is absurd.


The homer glasses we so quickly accuse people of looking through when dealing with texas fans extend far beyond college football. Look at the world as a world stage and you may gain a new perspective on success.

dude, lay off the shwag...it dulls the dome.

JaminT
2/24/2006, 07:30 PM
I have been caught up in this argument, issue, cause for the last couple of days. I love this country, and hate to see it in it's current condition. It's not an arguement that can be won, and it's unlike me to engage in such an aggressive stance. I appriciate each of you, and your opinions and I hope that we can let this go.

Terrorism is perspective based, there is certainly a group of people in this world that don't agree with our way of life. It is not our world just as it is not theirs. We have no right to push our way of life on the world. This equates to christians being intolerant of muslims and visa versa.

I conceed the argument to my friends scout and stoop dawg and can only hope that through this thread one or two people have been exposed to another perspective.

OUinFLA
2/24/2006, 07:36 PM
Most prosperous country? 8 trillion dollars in debt and counting. Every man woman and child in america's share is a little over $27000.00.
.


I am a simple farmer, not an economist, but it seems to me if you want to spread the 8 trillion in debt around amongst the citizens, then
you might as well spread around the sales income that would be realized if all the govt's properties were sold.

I dont know how that would exactly effect the 27K figure mentioned, but I seem to remember reading somewhere that it would put us into positive cash position.

I know I would like to own Yellowstone Park and charge admission.
Or, how much money could be made selling off items in the Smithsonian?

Stoop Dawg
2/24/2006, 11:59 PM
I'm not saying the cuban missle crisis wasn't real. I am saying that communism was the target and unjustly villified just as terrorism is the target and unjustly villified.

Communism may have been unjustly villified. The USSR was not. They were a real "enemy" and had real missiles.


Most prosperous country? 8 trillion dollars in debt and counting. Every man woman and child in america's share is a little over $27000.00. We are the fattest nation in the world. We are the biggest consumers in the world. We have the tools to kill more effieciently than any nation in the world. We are the most aggressive in the world.

Who is more "prosperous"? You failed to name one. Yes, this country's govt is deep in debt. Yes, it's a problem. But the finances of the govt is not the measure of wealth. You've confused GNP with National Debt. The avg citizen in the U.S. far surpases the wealth and privilege afforded those in other countries.


The homer glasses we so quickly accuse people of looking through when dealing with texas fans extend far beyond college football. Look at the world as a world stage and you may gain a new perspective on success.

I wear homer glasses. It's true. I love this country and would never live anywhere else. I have no interest in even investigating the possibility of living somewhere else. I live under the impression that I was damn lucky to have been born in Oklahaoma City, OK, USA. I know precious little about other countries. What I do know is that I read news stories proclaiming the U.S. to be the lone "super power" in the world. It seems like common sense that it's true, but I've been lied to before. So, what country is superior and why? Educate me.

Stoop Dawg
2/25/2006, 12:06 AM
I love this country, and hate to see it in it's current condition.

One can argue for a better America without degrading the current "condition" of America. America is far, far from perfect. But I still believe it is the best the world has to offer.


Terrorism is perspective based, there is certainly a group of people in this world that don't agree with our way of life. It is not our world just as it is not theirs. We have no right to push our way of life on the world. This equates to christians being intolerant of muslims and visa versa.


Having different views, beliefs, opinions is valid. Intentionally targeting civilians and using civilians as cover is roundly rejected as a military tactic world-wide. Differing ideology is fine. Targeting civilians is not. That's where *I* draw the line.

To wit, "terrorists" target civilians (WTC) while the U.S. military spends BILLIONS (and racks up enormous debt, as you mentioned) in technology specifically designed to target military and SPARE civilians. That makes ALL the difference.

SCOUT
2/25/2006, 12:24 AM
One can argue for a better America without degrading the current "condition" of America. America is far, far from perfect. But I still believe it is the best the world has to offer.



Having different views, beliefs, opinions is valid. Intentionally targeting civilians and using civilians as cover is roundly rejected as a military tactic world-wide. Differing ideology is fine. Targeting civilians is not. That's where *I* draw the line.

To wit, "terrorists" target civilians (WTC) while the U.S. military spends BILLIONS (and racks up enormous debt, as you mentioned) in technology specifically designed to target military and SPARE civilians. That makes ALL the difference.

YMSSRABGITSDA

Terrorism is not a perspective it is a means to your end. The problem is that it involves killing, maiming and generally disrupting the lives of as many people as possible. It doesn't even matter if your victims disagree with you or not.

I always enjoy varying viewpoints, but I would recommend a little more thought in your wording if you want a quality discussion.

JaminT
2/25/2006, 01:06 AM
These individuals didn't name themselfs "terrorists", we call them that because their views differ. Thier mode of attack is unusual to us because it is unconventional. If you pick a fight with me and you are better armed with more resources, I will be forced to result to alternative actions to win the battle. (see the revolutionary war)

Germany, Iceland, and Costa Rica were countries that Jarod Diamond spoke about last night in Stillwater (I Know, I know, on a lighter note, they do have a "we love you Eddie" billboard on the highway into town").

link (http://www.grist.org/advice/books/2005/02/08/kavanagh-collapse/)


Can anyone guess why there were so many put options placed on American Airlines (11 times the daily average) and Boeing (4 times the daily average) if someone wasn't aware of what was going on.

How did the attack on the pentagon disintigrate titanium and at the same time it leaving the DNA used to identify the victims?

How did Keroseen melt high grade steel?

Why is Bin Ladens confession tape totally inconsistent with the CIA's own factbook? (gold ring strictly against islam rule, and writing with his right hand instead of his left)

Why are 9 of the 19 9/11 hijackers reported as being alive and well?

Ike
2/25/2006, 01:11 AM
what stoop and scout said. Terrorism has not been unjustly villified. by its very definition, it deserves every last drop of villification we can throw at it! Now, if you had said that Islam had been unjustly vilified by all of this, you may have a point.

terrorism is not perspective based. terrorism is madness based...these people are barbarians. if somebody hates America and all that she stands for, or is ****ed about some forigen policy decision(s) that we have made, and wanna start a fight about it, they can do so without purposely targeting defenseless civillians. But when your intended targets are any and everybody not directly fighting for 'your side', whatever that is, then you've not only officially gone stark raving mad, but you've also insured that you are the type of person that the rest of the 6.5 billion people here on earth can, and would prefer, to live without.

Ike
2/25/2006, 01:16 AM
These individuals didn't name themselfs "terrorists", we call them that because their views differ. Thier mode of attack is unusual to us because it is unconventional. If you pick a fight with me and you are better armed with more resources, I will be forced to result to alternative actions to win the battle. (see the revolutionary war)


woah there...alternative tactics are all fine and good, but there's a certain line that nobody is allowed to cross. targeting people going about their day just to inspire fear is way across that line. yeah, its unconventional. its also dead wrong. if you wanna get unconventional thats fine. you should use unconventional tactics against a better equiped enemy. you shouldn't go around killing the folks just trying to live their lives.

HoserSooner
2/25/2006, 01:33 AM
The video certainly raises some interesting points, and quite a bit of it should be given some serious thought.

But like everything, you have to take it with a grain of salt. I don't know that I buy the whole story mind you, but there are many holes in the "official" explanation of the events of 911 from the government.

I usually take what the government says, and then what the "liberals" or conspiracy theorists say, and split it down the middle.

Dio
2/25/2006, 08:04 AM
JaminT, maybe you'd be better off staring at boobies all day.

JaminT
2/25/2006, 08:23 PM
what stoop and scout said. Terrorism has not been unjustly villified. by its very definition, it deserves every last drop of villification we can throw at it! Now, if you had said that Islam had been unjustly vilified by all of this, you may have a point.

terrorism is not perspective based. terrorism is madness based...these people are barbarians. if somebody hates America and all that she stands for, or is ****ed about some forigen policy decision(s) that we have made, and wanna start a fight about it, they can do so without purposely targeting defenseless civillians. But when your intended targets are any and everybody not directly fighting for 'your side', whatever that is, then you've not only officially gone stark raving mad, but you've also insured that you are the type of person that the rest of the 6.5 billion people here on earth can, and would prefer, to live without.

woah there...alternative tactics are all fine and good, but there's a certain line that nobody is allowed to cross. targeting people going about their day just to inspire fear is way across that line. yeah, its unconventional. its also dead wrong. if you wanna get unconventional thats fine. you should use unconventional tactics against a better equiped enemy. you shouldn't go around killing the folks just trying to live their lives.



Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

JaminT
2/25/2006, 08:26 PM
And yes Dio, boobys do dull the pain :)

BajaOklahoma
2/25/2006, 08:32 PM
Our debt - get the countries that we have loaned money to in the past to pay up, with interest. Should take care of a significant amount, hmmmmm.

usmc-sooner
2/25/2006, 08:58 PM
Hiroshima and Nagasaki?


are you freakin kiddin me?

the Japanese attack us at Pearl Harbor, and committed various attrocities during WWII including the Bataan Death March not to mention siding up with the Nazi's and you post that crap.

Vaevictis
2/25/2006, 09:18 PM
And how the cell phone calls were placed at 32000 feet.

FWIW, some cell phones run in the 800MHz range, and can transmit at up to three watts of power. By comparison, according to my understanding, a 900MHz transmitter at 1W can acheive line-of-site distances of 20 miles with a +3dB antenna. (Keep in mind that it's harder to transmit higher frequencies, requiring even more power)

Being that you're in an airplane, you basically have LOS to any number of cell phone towers, which greatly increases the maximum transmission range. Depending on the cell phone transmission power and the antenna configurations, I can see it being possible to make such calls at 32000 feet without too much trouble.

JaminT
2/25/2006, 09:26 PM
The U.S. government has killed civilians for well over a century. During the Civil War, General William Tecumseh Sherman waged war on civilians in Atlanta. During the Philippine Insurrection at the turn of 20th century, U.S. forces killed about 200,000 civilians, and even had a policy to shoot anyone more than 10 years old who dared to resist the U.S. occupation of the Philippines. During World War II, the Allies ruthlessly firebombed Dresden and Tokyo and other cities in Germany and Japan, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent noncombatants.

(On Hiroshima and Nagasaki) it was terrorism on an incredibly large scale. Hundreds of thousands of innocent Japanese were instantaneously wiped off the earth on August 6 and August 9, 1945. Many more died in the following years from the radioactive climate left behind by the bombings.

Truman has been quoted as saying, “The atom bomb was no ‘great decision.’… It was merely another powerful weapon in the arsenal of righteousness." He also called the bomb the “greatest achievement of organized science in history,” and wondered aloud about how “atomic power can become a powerful and forceful influence toward the maintenance of world peace.”

Since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the U.S. government has continued to treat civilians and combatants as roughly indistinguishable. During the Vietnam War, Richard Nixon carpet-bombed Cambodia, killing hundreds of thousands of peasants. The first Bush and Clinton administrations devastated the lives of Iraqi civilians, bombing civilian infrastructure and imposing UN sanctions with the express policy goal of destroying civilian water treatment facilities and starving the Iraqi people into submission, in hopes to incite them to rise up and overthrow Saddam.

On 60 Minutes in May 1996, Leslie Stahl asked Clinton’s UN Ambassador, Madeline Albright, point blank: “We have heard that a half million children have died [from the sanctions]. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And — and you know, is the price worth it?”

Albright replied, “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price — we think the price is worth it."

Perhaps there has never been a clearer case of a U.S. official rationalizing the targeting of countless foreign civilians in the context of what happened at Hiroshima. The precedent had been set, and what decades ago may have been considered an immeasurable but necessary evil to stop Imperial Japan has more recently been invoked as a proper way of dealing with as negligible a threat to the United States as Saddam Hussein.

Surely, Albright’s words were well publicized in the Islamic world, where Muslims saw little concern whatever on the part of U.S. officials for the civilian lives of Middle Easterners, as long as expending such lives achieved “higher” policy goals. Reciprocally, Islamist terrorists have had little concern for American civilian lives in their quest to change U.S. policy.

Three years after Albright’s frightening admission, Clinton went on to drop cluster bombs on Serbia, knowing full well that civilians would endure the most suffering. In regard to Gulf War II, the U.S. government has shown a complete apathy toward civilian dead in Iraq, refusing even to keep and publicize an accurate body count.

Some Americans have celebrated Hiroshima, as though it was a necessary end to the madness of World War II in which 50 million people lost their lives. They perceive the atomic bombings the way one might look at a peace treaty. Several years back, the Post Office even commemorated the event with a stamp depicting the image of the mushroom cloud that took hundreds of thousands of lives.

Instead, Hiroshima and Nagasaki should be remembered with solemn and thoughtful reflection as atrocities that reinforced collectivist attitudes toward war and sparked the beginning of a fearful era of cold and hot war with the United States and its proxies against the USSR and its proxies.

Instead of making excuses for past U.S. war crimes, we need to remember them for the great evils that they indeed were. We cannot undo history, but with determination, we might possibly prevent such horrendous crimes from ever again being done in our name. The worst way to guarantee a brighter future is to look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and draw the lesson that sometimes the government needs to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians for the sake of humanity. Indeed, it is that conventional lesson that has helped solidify the United States in a state of perpetual war since the end of World War II, and that dangerously faulty lesson might still one day be invoked to facilitate such terror and atrocity that we can now hardly imagine.

Link (http://www.fff.org/comment/com0408b.asp)
I guess it's all in how you look at it.

Vaevictis
2/25/2006, 09:33 PM
These individuals didn't name themselfs "terrorists", we call them that because their views differ. Thier mode of attack is unusual to us because it is unconventional. If you pick a fight with me and you are better armed with more resources, I will be forced to result to alternative actions to win the battle. (see the revolutionary war)

We call them terrorists because they use something called "terrorism" as their primary tactic. We call this tactic "terrorism" because it primarily uses fear as a vehicle to promote a political agenda. The name follows logically, because "terror" is a slightly stronger synonym of fear.

Terrorism is a form of unconventional warfare -- usually called "assymetric" -- that USUALLY targets civilians in order to maximize the fear effect.

The Revolutionary War was not a terroristic campaign. It did not attempt to use fear and intimidation as the primary vehicle for change. It did not deliberately target civilians. They used, in some cases, guerilla tactics which is another form of assymetric warfare -- but the fact is, even though terrorism implies assymetric warfare, the opposite is not true.

(Now, if you want to talk about some of the things the Sons of Liberty did, that may be a different story. But the Continental Army was mostly a conventional force, with the detached militias generally acting as a guerilla force against MILITARY targets)


How did Keroseen melt high grade steel?
In the same way steel always melts -- provide enough net increase in heat, and it will melt. Do keep in mind that steel was melted with nothing but simple wood for centuries.

JaminT
2/25/2006, 09:35 PM
and here is a great read on the cell phones that doesn't really take a side, but it does show these calls faced overwhelming odds and should be considered miracles!!!

Link (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO408B.html)

Vaevictis
2/25/2006, 09:42 PM
Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

My grandmother was Japanese. She lived in Japan during WWII. She saw the Mushroom cloud over Hiroshima from many miles away.

I once asked her about it. She explained to me that while the bomb was a horrible, horrible thing, it was not entirely unjustified. I asked her why. Her comment was that there were no real civilians in Japan.

She explained that the military ran the whole country, and deliberately moved legitimate military targets amongst the civilian populace, putting them INSIDE of civilian homes, next to schools, etc. The government DELIBERATELY militarized everyone in the country.

My grandmother was sent to a camp at the age of 13 and was taught hand to hand combat and guerrilla tactics. All of the civilians were told by the government -- an extension of the Emporer, a god on Earth -- that the Americans landing were barbarians who would rape and pillage them all, and that it was necessary -- and was their duty -- to fight to the last breath, man, woman and child.

There is no doubt that the bombs were horrible, horrible things. But you have to understand that the American understanding at the time was the same as my grandmother -- that there were effectively zero civilians in Japan -- and further, that the expected "civilian" body count of the invasion was expected to be far, far higher than those resulting from the bombs, to say nothing of the legitimate military combatants on both sides.

As horrible as those bombs were, lives were actually saved by using them. The Japanese were NEVER going to surrender prior to that. It just wasn't going to happen. We would have had to fight a war of annihilation on their home ground. It was bad news either way, and I think the bomb was the lesser of the two evils, as terrible as it was.

Vaevictis
2/25/2006, 09:54 PM
and here is a great read on the cell phones that doesn't really take a side, but it does show these calls faced overwhelming odds and should be considered miracles!!!

Link (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO408B.html)

Um, yeah. The guy also has an article titled "Is the Bush Administration Planning a Nuclear Holocaust" on the front page of www.globalresearch.ca right now. You'll forgive me if I fail to give him credit in good faith.

Here's what I know from my experience in my EE capstone class:
1. Higher frequencies require more power to transmit the same distance.
2. Obstructions reduce range. Line of sight is ideal.
3. At 900MHz and 1W power it is possible to transmit data 10 miles with line of sight. (our project required the ability to transmit 20 miles LOS, and our solution used a chip that did so at 900MHz with a +3dB antenna.)

Here's what I know from various facts I've gathered:
1. Cell phones transmit at frequencies as low as 800 MHz.
2. Cell phones transmit at powers as high as 3W.
3. The planes were flying in the air, implying line of sight to cell phone towers.

Draw your own conclusions.

Octavian
2/25/2006, 09:57 PM
My grandmother was Japanese. She lived in Japan during WWII. She saw the Mushroom cloud over Hiroshima from many miles away.

I once asked her about it. She explained to me that while the bomb was a horrible, horrible thing, it was not entirely unjustified. I asked her why. Her comment was that there were no real civilians in Japan.

She explained that the military ran the whole country, and deliberately moved legitimate military targets amongst the civilian populace, putting them INSIDE of civilian homes, next to schools, etc. The government DELIBERATELY militarized everyone in the country.

My grandmother was sent to a camp at the age of 13 and was taught hand to hand combat and guerrilla tactics. All of the civilians were told by the government -- an extension of the Emporer, a god on Earth -- that the Americans landing were barbarians who would rape and pillage them all, and that it was necessary -- and was their duty -- to fight to the last breath, man, woman and child.

There is no doubt that the bombs were horrible, horrible things. But you have to understand that the American understanding at the time was the same as my grandmother -- that there were effectively zero civilians in Japan -- and further, that the expected "civilian" body count of the invasion was expected to be far, far higher than those resulting from the bombs, to say nothing of the legitimate military combatants on both sides.

As horrible as those bombs were, lives were actually saved by using them. The Japanese were NEVER going to surrender prior to that. It just wasn't going to happen. We would have had to fight a war of annihilation on their home ground. It was bad news either way, and I think the bomb was the lesser of the two evils, as terrible as it was.

exactly.

don't start ****, there won't be no ****. ;)

Stoop Dawg
2/25/2006, 10:07 PM
Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

I did read Vaevictis' post before posting this reply, but I still think those bombs - and especially the second one - were acts of terrorism. Not only did they target civilians, but they were intended to strike fear into Japan and force them into submission. And they did.

It's interesting that you chose the atom bombs, since from what I've heard the napalm dropped on Japan killed far more people.

The rest of it I call bull**** on. The U.S. spends a ton of money avoiding civilians. I don't believe sanctions are terrorism. You can't **** people off then expect them to take care of you. Withholding trade <> terrorism.

JaminT
2/26/2006, 01:31 PM
A Cell phone breakdown from a sceintific view. Link (http://www.physics911.net/projectachilles.htm)

or this one: Link (http://www.physics911.net/cellphoneflight93.htm)

A view of 9/11 from a world perspective.


General Leonid Ivashov is the vice-president of the Russian Academy on geopolitical affairs. He was the chief of the department for General affairs in the Soviet Union's ministry of Defense, secretary of the Council of defense ministers of the Community of independant states (CIS), chief of the Military cooperation department at the Russian federation's Ministry of defense. General Leonid Ivashov was the Chief of Staff of the Russian armed forces when the September 11, 2001, attacks took place. Ivashov, who lived the events from the inside, offers an analysis which is very different from that of his American colleagues. As he did during the Axis for Peace 2005 conference, General Ivashov now explains that international terrorism does not exist and that the September 11 attacks were the result of a set-up. What we are seeing is a manipulation by the big powers; this terrorism would not exist without them. He affirms that, instead of faking a "world war on terror", the best way to reduce that kind of attack is through respect for international law and peaceful cooperation among countries and their citizens.

Link (http://www.physics911.net/ivashov.htm)

Is it so hard to believe that our leaders have a hidden agenda?

The very power that bush is wielding was handed to him by his father. And where did senior bush get his power. Well his daddy made a ****load of money from Germany Link1 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html)

Link2 (http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=detail&catalogno=NN_Bush_Nazi_2)

Link 3 (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3255.htm)

Our first family has ties to the Bin laden family and Nazi Germany. These facts are impossible to dispute.

usmc-sooner
2/26/2006, 05:00 PM
A Cell phone breakdown from a sceintific view. Link (http://www.physics911.net/projectachilles.htm)

or this one: Link (http://www.physics911.net/cellphoneflight93.htm)

A view of 9/11 from a world perspective.


Link (http://www.physics911.net/ivashov.htm)

Is it so hard to believe that our leaders have a hidden agenda?

The very power that bush is wielding was handed to him by his father. And where did senior bush get his power. Well his daddy made a ****load of money from Germany Link1 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html)

Link2 (http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=detail&catalogno=NN_Bush_Nazi_2)

Link 3 (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3255.htm)

Our first family has ties to the Bin laden family and Nazi Germany. These facts are impossible to dispute.

this is retarded and paranoid

my 12 year old daughter has more common sense than this. It's pathetic.
So this was the whole motive behind this stupid *** thread.

Stoop Dawg
2/26/2006, 07:13 PM
The very power that bush is wielding was handed to him by his father.

And here I thought he was elected.

OKC Sooner
2/26/2006, 09:21 PM
And here I thought he was elected.
Opinions vary :rolleyes:

Cam8755
2/26/2006, 11:24 PM
usmc-sooner, do you think that name calling strengthens your position? Retarded, paranoid, pathetic... If this thread is so stupid, how did it get up to 125 posts and over 1000 views in just a couple of days? There is nothing retarded about asking pertinent questions about publicly available knowledge. What are you saying is pathetic? I think it is completely pathetic to resort to name calling rather than disputing the information that is presented. There is no motive in what you quote. Just statements and links to articles that support the statements. Maybe you can let your 12 year old daughter type the next response; I will be looking forward to reading some common sense.

soonerscuba
2/26/2006, 11:42 PM
usmc was rough around the edges but I think the point still stands. Listen, I really don't like Bush's foreign policy, and there isn't a way to describe his domestic "policy", I use quotes because he doesn't actually have a domestic policy apparatus, he really just relies on politics (i.e. all tax cuts are good, so let's have another, is creationism polling well with the base? Then let's teach it!). If I had to pick a word it would be "short-sighted incompetence" see Katrina: Hurricane, Wiretapping: NSA, Healthcare: Plan D, etc, etc, etc.

But, Bush wasn't handed power by his father, he was handed power by the Supreme Court, and the 2nd time by the electorate. Lots of people made lots of money from the Nazis, and as terrible as that is, there is no reason to fault his grandson for it. I would love it if all politicians got elected by sheer brains and charisma, but the cold, hard, fact of life is that people like Bush get a huge head start in life, and each and everyone of us would do the exact same thing he did if born into the opportunity.

Cam8755
2/27/2006, 12:00 AM
Rough around the edges, yes. Point still stands... what point?? I agree with you about Bush's policies. Short sighted puts it very well.
I believe when JaminT was referring to W's wealth/status/opportunity when he said it was handed to him. If George W. Bush's name was Jamal Lichtenstein (arbitrary) and he was born of middle lower class parents, he would not be in the powerful position he is in today. I know, I know "If ifs and buts were candy and nuts..."

I don't fault GWB for taking advantage of his situation. All I ask is that we don't exclude certain ideas from open, rational discussion based on some false sense of sacredness.

soonerscuba
2/27/2006, 12:12 AM
The point was the post was somewhat simple and paranoid, I agree with that. But political life will be easier to swallow if you realize that lower and middle class prodigies like Reagan and Clinton are exceptions, not the norm.

I agree that open discussion on 9/11 is a good thing, I doubt many would disagree with that. When you say that Bush knew or bring family history in, it becomes irrational.

usmc-sooner
2/27/2006, 11:58 AM
usmc-sooner, do you think that name calling strengthens your position? Retarded, paranoid, pathetic... If this thread is so stupid, how did it get up to 125 posts and over 1000 views in just a couple of days? There is nothing retarded about asking pertinent questions about publicly available knowledge. What are you saying is pathetic? I think it is completely pathetic to resort to name calling rather than disputing the information that is presented. There is no motive in what you quote. Just statements and links to articles that support the statements. Maybe you can let your 12 year old daughter type the next response; I will be looking forward to reading some common sense.

if you can't find fault in Bush other than what he posted you shouldn't talk politics. You can debate about his economic policy, his defense policy, his handling of Mexico but if all you got is wand wielding power from the Nazi's you're just being stupid and that's just how it is. BTW I said this idea was retarded not him. But if you're going to be so ignorant as to post that don't get your feelings hurt if someone thinks your idea is stupid.

Go and neg spek if that makes you feel better. You can call me all the names you want and it won't bother me it's a message board about as real life as the wand waiving Nazi's.

Vaevictis
2/27/2006, 11:59 AM
And here I thought he was elected.

Wasn't he appointed by that Constitutionally mandated tie-breaker, the Supreme Court?

Vaevictis
2/27/2006, 12:16 PM
Actually, what buggers me about this administration is how very close it is to facism. I found a "list" of the defining characteristics of facism:

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.

Check. (Really no explination needed)

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights.

Check, or very nearly a check. (Gitmo, Abu Grahib, extraordinary rendition, etc)

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.

Check. (Terrorists)

4. The supremacy of the military or avid militarism.

Check. (You don't support the war? Why do you hate America?)

5. Rampant Sexism.

Okay, no evidence of this that I'm aware of.

6. A controlled mass media

Okay, not really. Was a really subservient media post-9/11 for awhile there at least.

7. Obsession with national security.

Check.

8. Religion and the ruling elite tied together.

Republicans and the religious right? Like *this* (crosses fingers). Check.

9. Power of corporations protected

Check.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated.

Debatable. I'll call this "not check" for now.

11. Disdain and supression of intellectuals and the arts.

Probably debatable. Let's just say that there's a long, long list of scientists who think so.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment.

Check.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption

Check on the cronyism for sure.

14. Fraudulent elections.

Debatable.

So, 9 of 14 definate checks, 3 of 14 can be argued, and 2 of 14 not so much. That's a lot of qualities that this administration shares with facism.

usmc-sooner
2/27/2006, 12:27 PM
Actually, what buggers me about this administration is how very close it is to facism. I found a "list" of the defining characteristics of facism:

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.

Check. (Really no explination needed)

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights.

Check, or very nearly a check. (Gitmo, Abu Grahib, extraordinary rendition, etc)

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.

Check. (Terrorists)

4. The supremacy of the military or avid militarism.

Check. (You don't support the war? Why do you hate America?)

5. Rampant Sexism.

Okay, no evidence of this that I'm aware of.

6. A controlled mass media

Okay, not really. Was a really subservient media post-9/11 for awhile there at least.

7. Obsession with national security.

Check.

8. Religion and the ruling elite tied together.

Republicans and the religious right? Like *this* (crosses fingers). Check.

9. Power of corporations protected

Check.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated.

Debatable. I'll call this "not check" for now.

11. Disdain and supression of intellectuals and the arts.

Probably debatable. Let's just say that there's a long, long list of scientists who think so.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment.

Check.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption

Check on the cronyism for sure.

14. Fraudulent elections.

Debatable.

So, 9 of 14 definate checks, 3 of 14 can be argued, and 2 of 14 not so much. That's a lot of qualities that this administration shares with facism.


you guys would do a lot better if you criticized Bush on specific points, instead of this stupid Nazi, facism crap. But if that's all you got.

soonerscuba
2/27/2006, 12:33 PM
you guys would do a lot better if you criticized Bush on specific points, instead of this stupid Nazi, facism crap. But if that's all you got.

Which sounds more fun?

Bush is a fascist, and came to power because of the Nazis!

or...

Bush doesn't have a domestic policy apparatus, he simply does what he thinks will sink with a platform, regardless of data in front of him!

usmc-sooner
2/27/2006, 12:38 PM
President Bush cheered for Apollo Creed, that makes him a Nazi.. this is undisputable. :D

Vaevictis
2/27/2006, 01:03 PM
Maybe I did criticize on specific points: Specifically, that his policies border on facism. I then provided a list of characteristics of a facist government, and pointed out those characteristics which I thought applied.

Do you disagree with my assessment? Your response was about as valid as the comments you critisize. There is very little difference between the hyperbolic labelling of someone as a Nazi and calling someone's argument hyperbolic just *because* they name someone Nazi or facist-like.

If you want specific criticisms:

1. WMD. No matter which way you look at it, disaster. If he lied or manipulated intelligence, disaster. If the intelligence was bad, then we got into a war on bad intelligence, which is also a disaster. If the WMD really did exist, then we utterly failed in our primary objective to recover them. Disaster, disaster, disaster.
2. Handling of Iraq post-war. Disaster. Convince the locals that we're there to help them? Best way to do that is to secure the oil ministry first, right? And, now that we've gotten off on the wrong foot, let's make it better with Abu Grahib. Hurrah! And, for the trifecta, let's ONLY prosecute enlisted and low grade officers for the crimes. Way to win hearts and minds, Mr. President!
3. "I don't think that anyone anticipated the breach of the levies." Well, maybe not anyone in your administration... which seems to be the only group in the nation that DID NOT anticipate it.
4. Bravo on mobilizing the guard post-Katrina. Except that mobilizing it AFTERWORD was too late. Even my 12 year old cousin was asking why the guard in neighboring states wasn't mobilizing before the hurricane landed.
5. Bravo on cutting taxes during a war we're reminded of EVERY DAY. I guess deficits don't matter anymore, do they? So much for the Republicans being the party of fiscal responsibility.
6. Bravo to the Republican Congress for ceding their Constitutionally mandated responsibility to check the executive.
7. Bravo on leaking CIA agents names, denying knowledge, and promising the head of any persons "involved", and then quietly changing your statement to "convicted of" when it's found that your political hack was "involved."
8. Bravo to ignoring the law and snooping on people in violation of it, claiming that the oversight is too much of a problem. How can being able to retroactively apply for a warrant, in total secrecy, be too restrictive? Oh, that's right, it can be if you have no probable cause.

Need I continue?

usmc-sooner
2/27/2006, 01:07 PM
Need I continue?


please don't

btw
if you think you're living in a close to facist state under Bush then your probably a little to sheltered and slow to enter into a debate,

I'm sure all the other facist state kids are on their computers openly criticizing their facist leaders on Monday morning

GrapevineSooner
2/27/2006, 01:19 PM
Fascists also believe in gun control and state-controlled healthcare.

So I guess that's where...uhh...the fascism argument...uhhh...falls apart, no?

Vaevictis
2/27/2006, 01:55 PM
btw
if you think you're living in a close to facist state under Bush then your probably a little to sheltered and slow to enter into a debate,

You're one to speak, frag-bait. I said the Bush administration's POLICIES border on facism, not that our government was fascist.

See, we've got this thing called the Constitution. Maybe you've heard of it? It tries to curb some of the more outlandish abuses of governmental power, and it generally does a pretty good job. I think it's doing a reasonably good job now, and will do a better one if/when Congress decides to step up to the plate and do its job as a check on the executive.

Vaevictis
2/27/2006, 01:57 PM
Fascists also believe in gun control and state-controlled healthcare.

So I guess that's where...uhh...the fascism argument...uhhh...falls apart, no?

Hey, you don't have to have ALL of the items on the list to "border on", you know :)

Stoop Dawg
2/27/2006, 02:14 PM
Wasn't he appointed by that Constitutionally mandated tie-breaker, the Supreme Court?

Oh yeah, I forgot about that. I guess he was handed power by his father after all. His father does control the Supreme Court, right? I'm sure I saw that in the Enquirer one time.

Stoop Dawg
2/27/2006, 02:25 PM
So, 9 of 14 definate checks, 3 of 14 can be argued, and 2 of 14 not so much.

While you are certainly welcome to your opinion on what is a "definite check", suffice it to say that I don't agree.

And if you'd like to discuss "fraudulent elections" we can. It's the Dems that counted and re-counted and threw out votes and counted again trying to get their man in. Unfortunately for them, no amount of legal wrangling was able to reverse the reality of the results. Every time votes were counted, Bush won. Every. Time.

Cam8755
2/27/2006, 03:18 PM
Every time votes were counted, Bush won. Every. Time.

A consortium (Tribune Co., owner of the Times; Associated Press; CNN; the New York Times; the Palm Beach Post; the St. Petersburg Times; the Wall Street Journal; and the Washington Post) hired the NORC (National Opinion Research Center, a nonpartisan research organization affiliated with the University of Chicago) to view each untallied ballot and gather information about how it was marked. The media organizations then used computers to sort and tabulate votes, based on varying scenarios that had been raised during the post-election scramble in Florida. Under any standard that tabulated all disputed votes statewide, Mr. Gore erased Mr. Bush's advantage and emerged with a tiny lead that ranged from 42 to 171 votes. Donald Lambro, “Recount Provides No Firm Answers,” Washington Times, November 12, 2001.

Is anybody interested in getting back to the topic of the video? Either way, This thread is quite interesting...

GrapevineSooner
2/27/2006, 03:24 PM
A consortium (Tribune Co., owner of the Times; Associated Press; CNN; the New York Times; the Palm Beach Post; the St. Petersburg Times; the Wall Street Journal; and the Washington Post) hired the NORC (National Opinion Research Center, a nonpartisan research organization affiliated with the University of Chicago) to view each untallied ballot and gather information about how it was marked. The media organizations then used computers to sort and tabulate votes, based on varying scenarios that had been raised during the post-election scramble in Florida. Under any standard that tabulated all disputed votes statewide, Mr. Gore erased Mr. Bush's advantage and emerged with a tiny lead that ranged from 42 to 171 votes. Donald Lambro, “Recount Provides No Firm Answers,” Washington Times, November 12, 2001.

Then there's this (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/04/03/florida.recount/). BTW, did Michael Moore help you find this evidence?



The Miami Herald conducted a comprehensive review of 64,248 ballots in all 67 Florida counties. Their count showed that Bush's razor-thin margin of 537 votes would have tripled to 1,655 votes if counted according to standards advocated by his Democratic rival Al Gore.

"In the end, I think we probably confirmed that President Bush should have been president of the United States," said Mark Seibel, the paper's managing editor. "I think that it was worthwhile because so many people had questions about how the ballots had been handled and how the process had worked."

As for myself, I don't think we'll ever know what the true intention of the electorate was on that fateful November night in 2000.

Part of that is due to the stupidity of some voters. Let's face it, my three-year old could have done a better job deciphering some of those ballots than some of those voters. Much of the blame also goes to diferring standards from one Florida county to the next.

If anything, that whole exercise revealed some flaws in our voting process which, by and large, seem to have been addressed not only in Florida, but elsewhere in the country in the hopes that something like this doesn't happen again.

Ike
2/27/2006, 03:55 PM
If anything, that whole exercise revealed some flaws in our voting process which, by and large, seem to have been addressed not only in Florida, but elsewhere in the country in the hopes that something like this doesn't happen again.


don't let florida off the hook that easy. while the problems that gave rise to the 2000 debacle (lemme tell ya, that was one crappy way to spend a birthday too...being forced to watch election returns in a goddamn bar!) may have been addressed, the methods that have been employed to address them (primarily e-voting machines), have been shown to have some pretty damn serious flaws, and amongst techies like myself, its not even clear that these machines don't introduce more problems into the voting process than they were supposed to fix in the first place. yet still they continue to gain 'market share' around the country.

here is only one recent article about some e-voting machine irregularites in palm beach county during the 2004 election...
http://www.bbvforums.org/cgi-bin/forums/board-auth.cgi?file=/1954/19421.html

JaminT
2/27/2006, 04:04 PM
Does anyone believe the official story about the pentagon?

KABOOKIE
2/27/2006, 04:10 PM
Does anyone believe the official story about the pentagon?


I never believed it had 5 sides.

HoserSooner
2/27/2006, 04:15 PM
Does anyone believe the official story about the pentagon?

No.

There is something that just doesn't seem right about the whole Pentagon collapse, but I doubt that we will ever know any different.

I don't have a theory what it was or what it wasn't that caused the explosion, but I don't buy the "official" story.

Stoop Dawg
2/27/2006, 04:23 PM
Then there's this (http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/04/03/florida.recount/). BTW, did Michael Moore help you find this evidence?




As for myself, I don't think we'll ever know what the true intention of the electorate was on that fateful November night in 2000.

Part of that is due to the stupidity of some voters. Let's face it, my three-year old could have done a better job deciphering some of those ballots than some of those voters. Much of the blame also goes to diferring standards from one Florida county to the next.

If anything, that whole exercise revealed some flaws in our voting process which, by and large, seem to have been addressed not only in Florida, but elsewhere in the country in the hopes that something like this doesn't happen again.

What if we throw out the votes of our service men and women serving overseas? Then I bet Gore woulda won!!

What a pitiful attempt at a power-grab.

Cam8755
2/27/2006, 04:32 PM
...service men ...

Service men... see here (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/24/soldiers.charged/)!

JaminT
2/27/2006, 04:33 PM
or just the hallibuton employee's

Vaevictis
2/27/2006, 04:33 PM
Oh yeah, I forgot about that. I guess he was handed power by his father after all. His father does control the Supreme Court, right? I'm sure I saw that in the Enquirer one time.

Did I claim he was handed power by his father? No. You're thinking of someone else here :)

Mostly I claim that the election in Florida was dodgy, and the Supreme Court getting involved was doubly so. Even the deciding vote ON the Supreme Court (O'Connor) ON that issue has come out and said it was a mistake to have done so, iirc.


And if you'd like to discuss "fraudulent elections" we can. It's the Dems that counted and re-counted and threw out votes and counted again trying to get their man in. Unfortunately for them, no amount of legal wrangling was able to reverse the reality of the results. Every time votes were counted, Bush won. Every. Time.

Actually, it's the Dems that tried to get votes that HAD been thrown out counted; it's the Republicans that tried to keep those same votes out. Not coincidentally, those votes were in strongly Democratic areas.

Personally, I think the Dems calling for recounts in ONLY the Dem-dominated areas was dodgy also; do it state-wide, with consistent guidelines.

(And FWIW, the Miami Herald (referenced in the CNN link) came down on both sides of the issue. There was a bit of a stink down in Miami about that at the time. One article said Bush, and the very next day, they ran an article saying Gore. It really boiled down to which "standard" you decided to use. Bush won some standards, Gore won others. So, no. Bush did not win "every time" as you say. Read the Wikipedia article, which is fairly reasonable about the subject. It was just a cluster-f*ck no matter which way you look at it.)

BeetDigger
2/27/2006, 04:35 PM
I am not saying that I believe the "official" story or that we are not being told the truth and that something else happened. What I do know is that we are a society that likes conspircy stories and in all likelihood, the stories about other people being involved will continue to grow in the coming years. There will be a number of people from now until eternity that believe that Oswald was not the killer.

Again, I am not saying what I believe, just saying what the general public will always think that there is more to the story than what we have been told.

JaminT
2/27/2006, 04:36 PM
Those were the seven guys that voted for dem's out of our nations military!

JaminT
2/27/2006, 04:40 PM
Again, I am not saying what I believe, just saying what the general public will always think that there is more to the story than what we have been told.

So by not taking a side/stand, you continue to get what you have/got.

JaminT
2/27/2006, 04:41 PM
I love my avatar, even I can't take myself seriously with those pups by my statements :)

Vaevictis
2/27/2006, 05:25 PM
and amongst techies like myself, its not even clear that these machines don't introduce more problems into the voting process than they were supposed to fix in the first place. yet still they continue to gain 'market share' around the country.

No kidding. Technology is not the solution. Simple ballots and paper trails are. I'm a big technophile, but this is one problem that technology will only muck-up, not make easier. It's too goddamn easy to screw up in a million lines of code, and it's too goddamn easy to hide corruption amongst a million lines of code.

usmc-sooner
2/27/2006, 05:31 PM
The only way to get to the bottom of this is we need someone to find a list of facism and then put checkpoints by all the things that remind them of Bush.

This compilation of groundbreaking research could then be pulled out at any time and shall we declare it as undisputable.

Stoop Dawg
2/27/2006, 06:22 PM
Did I claim he was handed power by his father? No. You're thinking of someone else here :)

I follow precisely, thanks. :)

1. JaminT claims that "W" was given power by his father.

2. I claim that "W" was given power by the people (i.e. elected).

3. You point out that "W" won by tie-breaker.

I think it's reasonable, given the context, for me to assume that you were attempting to invalidate my point - and therefore validate the original. If your intent was merely to invalidate my point (and remain silent on the original point), you still failed. I've got no problem conceeding that it was a crazy-close election. Even if you could prove without a doubt that the election was rigged and AG really won, you'd still have to conceed that a freakin' large percentage of the population voted for the guy. In no case can I see where power was "handed to him by his father". That's all I was trying to say. I'll try to be more clear in the future. ;)

Stoop Dawg
2/27/2006, 06:24 PM
Service men... see here (http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/24/soldiers.charged/)!

:eek:

Stoop Dawg
2/27/2006, 06:31 PM
Actually, it's the Dems that tried to get votes that HAD been thrown out counted; it's the Republicans that tried to keep those same votes out. Not coincidentally, those votes were in strongly Democratic areas.

http://veterans.house.gov/news/106/11-22-00.htm


Stump said he was especially outraged at reports that a Gore campaign lawyer sent out a five-page memo on technical ways to disqualify military absentee ballots. Those ballots are expected to favor Governor George W. Bush by a significant margin. Democrats challenging the military ballots have cited the absence of postmarks. But Stump pointed to the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act of 1986 (42 USC section 1973ff) which does not allow states to disqualify absentee ballots of military personnel simply because they are not postmarked.

Vaevictis
2/27/2006, 06:40 PM
I follow precisely, thanks. :)

(snip)

I think it's reasonable, given the context, for me to assume that you were attempting to invalidate my point - and therefore validate the original. If your intent was merely to invalidate my point (and remain silent on the original point), you still failed. (snip)

To be completely honest, it was mostly just reflexive sarcasm ;) But even so, I think that the election in Florida at large was a cluster****, with both sides displaying inordinate amounts of sleaze.

And I was not aware of Gore trying to invalidate the military ballots. Again, both sides displaying inordinate amounts of sleaze.

(Personally, I'd be quite satisfied with one party in Congress and the other in the White House; if the parties have to, you know, compromise, then a lot of the more extreme crap is a non-starter. That whole oppositional branches of government thing was a pretty smart move; it works when it actually is happening.)

Stoop Dawg
2/27/2006, 06:50 PM
To be completely honest, it was mostly just reflexive sarcasm ;)

I get that too. :O

usmc-sooner
2/27/2006, 07:57 PM
[QUOTE=Vaevictis]
And I was not aware of Gore trying to invalidate the military ballots. Again, both sides displaying inordinate amounts of sleaze.

QUOTE]

yep this was a big deal to a lot of military people like myself at the time.

picasso
3/2/2006, 12:27 PM
How bout that molten steel below the WTC's, that blew my mind all but confirming that something resembling a demolition charge was set to take them down. I checked that out and it certainly is well documented. Plus all the witnesses hearing/seeing/experiencing several explosions in the WTC's preceding the collapse. I can't imagine how people can just accept the innaccuracies of the official story and pay it no mind. This is a BIG story, whatever the truth turns out to be!
ya know, you don't have to be a structural engineer to notice on the tapes that the buildings collapsed from the top.

box of hammers comes to mind.

Tear Down This Wall
3/2/2006, 12:40 PM
This film clip proves one thing...there are now amateur Michael Moores running around.

picasso
6/27/2006, 03:01 PM
Using a staged tragedy to advance a political adgenda?

Blowing up a drone aircraft and blaming it on the "enemy" using this as a catylist for war?

Fighting a "war on terrorism" instead of a "war on communism"

Both are wars against idea's, not people. Both are increadibly difficult to sell without a tragedy. In selling this tragedy to America, we in turn allowed a war built on haste. My brother has been over there, it isn't pretty.

Our government doesn't work, what makes you think our puppet govt of Iraq will.
oh my. our government may not be perfect but it's the best around the neighborhood Junior.

picasso
6/27/2006, 03:05 PM
A Cell phone breakdown from a sceintific view. Link (http://www.physics911.net/projectachilles.htm)

or this one: Link (http://www.physics911.net/cellphoneflight93.htm)

A view of 9/11 from a world perspective.


Link (http://www.physics911.net/ivashov.htm)

Is it so hard to believe that our leaders have a hidden agenda?

The very power that bush is wielding was handed to him by his father. And where did senior bush get his power. Well his daddy made a ****load of money from Germany Link1 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1312540,00.html)

Link2 (http://www.nhgazette.com/cgi-bin/NHGstore.cgi?user_action=detail&catalogno=NN_Bush_Nazi_2)

Link 3 (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3255.htm)

Our first family has ties to the Bin laden family and Nazi Germany. These facts are impossible to dispute.

Al Gore's family has ties to communist Russia. go read up on Occidental Petroleum.
:rolleyes:

Stoop Dawg
6/27/2006, 03:23 PM
Al Gore's family has ties to communist Russia.

Not to mention Heinz Ketchup. Have you tasted that stuff???

49r
6/27/2006, 04:40 PM
We call them terrorists because they use something called "terrorism" as their primary tactic. We call this tactic "terrorism" because it primarily uses fear as a vehicle to promote a political agenda. The name follows logically, because "terror" is a slightly stronger synonym of fear.

Terrorism is a form of unconventional warfare -- usually called "assymetric" -- that USUALLY targets civilians in order to maximize the fear effect.

The Revolutionary War was not a terroristic campaign. It did not attempt to use fear and intimidation as the primary vehicle for change. It did not deliberately target civilians. They used, in some cases, guerilla tactics which is another form of assymetric warfare -- but the fact is, even though terrorism implies assymetric warfare, the opposite is not true.

(Now, if you want to talk about some of the things the Sons of Liberty did, that may be a different story. But the Continental Army was mostly a conventional force, with the detached militias generally acting as a guerilla force against MILITARY targets)


In the same way steel always melts -- provide enough net increase in heat, and it will melt. Do keep in mind that steel was melted with nothing but simple wood for centuries.

I'm kinda surprised that the "a5s" part of the words assymetric above made it past the naughty filter. Oh yeah, and the word is asymmetric. FYI. Great post though otherwise. Makes lots of sense.

jeremy885
6/27/2006, 05:13 PM
Actually, what buggers me about this administration is how very close it is to facism. I found a "list" of the defining characteristics of facism:



Do you not remember Janet Reno and the FBI and ATF raids during the 90's? Some one with time on their hands could put up a list saying that any adminstration in the last 60 years was close to facism.

soonerscuba
6/27/2006, 05:42 PM
I've worked in too much government to ever believe that the government could launch such a massive secret undertaking. You are off your rocker if you think anybody but whacked out durkas did this.

The only, and I mean ONLY theory that even begins to make any amount of sense is that 93 was shot down, once again because of crazies that would fly that plane into another target.

C&CDean
6/27/2006, 05:44 PM
WTF is wrong with you people?

Scott D
6/27/2006, 06:07 PM
WTF is wrong with you people?

people can't get enough of dredging up old threads is my guess.

lefty
6/27/2006, 06:08 PM
Conspiracy theories are fun. :D

picasso
6/27/2006, 06:10 PM
people can't get enough of dredging up old threads is my guess.
somebody linked in n8v indians thread. bitch at them.:)

Scott D
6/27/2006, 06:11 PM
somebody linked in n8v indians thread. bitch at them.:)

I'll blame Oklahoma Red who held a whole conversation with himself in 3 posts over a 2 year old thread :D

Stoop Dawg
6/27/2006, 08:15 PM
somebody linked in n8v indians thread. bitch at them.:)

Hey, I figured it was better than having a whole 'nother thread with exactly the same posts in it. :)

Harry Beanbag
7/17/2006, 08:00 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8&search=flight%2077

StoopTroup
7/17/2006, 08:18 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8&search=flight%2077
Good Link. Spek.

afs
7/17/2006, 08:20 PM
Our new Base / Wing Commander spoke to the officers today, turns out that he was outside the Pentagon when Flight 77 hit on 9/11. He told us that he saw the plane lower it's landing gear, heard the engines rev up and the plane actually hit the ground first and "skipped" upwards when it impacted the building.

Dio
7/17/2006, 09:37 PM
"Those airplane chunks were planted by Israeli spies working for Bu$hitler"