The Conspiracies/politics thread [Archive]

teej

02-27-2009, 08:50 PM

You might not have time to watch the video but there and 100's of books that have been written since the attacks.
How's is it guy's in a cave can attack the strongest country in the world and their leaders get away? Bin Laden still hasn't been caught. How is it four planes can be high jacked and NONE, not a single plane is sent to intercept them till 80 mins after they were high jacked? That has never happened before, If your plane is of course for more then ten minutes they send Jets out to see whats wrong. How is it three buildings fall to the ground? When that also has never ever happened in the history of buildings. The towers were built with the idea a plane may hit them. Fire doesn't cause a building to fall straight down pancaking every level. Why did the Bush Admin. Try to stop the probe into what happened on 9-11.

Simple questions, Can you answer them? If not don't believe everything you see on the news. I promise you I can personally convince you this was a inside job...I promise.
First off, airport security was lax in 2001 and before, so high-jacking the planes is not an obstacle. we had no concrete evidence in any form that they were going to do anything. As far as getting people up there, the airlines had issues in getting to the govt and their communcation wasnt great from what i recall, but dont quote me on that. And courses arent pre-set totally, just generally, and they dont send jets after 10 minutes unless they suspect somethings wrong. And you cant fly jets in NYC, and we wouldnt have shot the planes down prior to that anyway. As far as buildings, I know my physics (just ask the state of NC) so I can tell you that When theres enough heat (like from jet fuel exploding) anything will become structurally weak, and in this case it was enough. As far as built in mind of plane crashes, they were thinking more of the type of '92, not airliners. Bush tried to stop the probe because he knew that would make his reasons for fighting his wars illegitimate, not because its a cover up. Could they have prevented it? Yes, but it wasnt going to happen becasue we didnt "need" any govt protection.

I'm guessing you also believe in the Kennedy conspiracy theories, and that we were never on the moon :rolleyes:

Ghost Kat

02-27-2009, 09:19 PM

First off, airport security was lax in 2001 and before, so high-jacking the planes is not an obstacle. we had no concrete evidence in any form that they were going to do anything. As far as getting people up there, the airlines had issues in getting to the govt and their communcation wasnt great from what i recall, but dont quote me on that. And courses arent pre-set totally, just generally, and they dont send jets after 10 minutes unless they suspect somethings wrong. And you cant fly jets in NYC, and we wouldnt have shot the planes down prior to that anyway. As far as buildings, I know my physics (just ask the state of NC) so I can tell you that When theres enough heat (like from jet fuel exploding) anything will become structurally weak, and in this case it was enough. As far as built in mind of plane crashes, they were thinking more of the type of '92, not airliners. Bush tried to stop the probe because he knew that would make his reasons for fighting his wars illegitimate, not because its a cover up. Could they have prevented it? Yes, but it wasnt going to happen becasue we didnt "need" any govt protection.

I'm guessing you also believe in the Kennedy conspiracy theories, and that we were never on the moon :rolleyes:

That stuff i have in bold print isn't true. They had alot of prior warning. Other countries even told us something big was going to happen. Bush got a report stating "Bin Laden Determined to attack inside the US" He ignored it. The fire you speak of wasn't hot enough and didn't burn long enough to melt the steal enough to make the buildings fall. The fire lasted about a hour...there have been buildings have burned for 20 hrs and didn't fall. The buildings were made to be able to take the biggest plane at the time Bowing 808 a bigger plane then what hit the towers. Yes, I believe in the Kennedy Cover up but not the fake Moon landing:biggrin:

BTW...A plane hit the Pentagon too supposely...Same type of plane...Why didn't that building fall down? WTC 7 Fell down and No plane at all hit it...What made it fall...Fire on two floors? Dont have to believe me but people much smarter then me with multiple degree's and training in this stuff say it's impossible for those buildings to have fallen.

spectre

02-27-2009, 09:28 PM

The towers were built with the idea a plane may hit them. Fire doesn't cause a building to fall straight down pancaking every level.

The firm I used to work for actually compiled the report on why the buildings went down. To make a long story short (and that report was huge) it was the fire. The steel wasn't designed to handle that much heat.

The pentagon is a totally different type of structure than the WTC (how high is it...like 2-3 stories?). I'd have to look it up, but that plane did penetrate thru a couple of walls when it hit.

Ghost Kat

02-27-2009, 09:32 PM

Bush tried to stop the probe because he knew that would make his reasons for fighting his wars illegitimate, not because its a cover up.

I forgot this one...You know the war started after 9-11 right? They atarted this so called investigation about a year or more before we sent the first troops to Iraq. The Bush family has been in business with the Bin Laden family for a long time..Maybe not Osama himself but his brothers and father ...cousins too maybe. This is all documented, Not something i just made up.

teej

02-27-2009, 09:34 PM

That stuff i have in bold print isn't true. They had alot of prior warning. Other countries even told us something big was going to happen. Bush got a report stating "Bin Laden Determined to attack inside the US" He ignored it. The fire you speak of wasn't hot enough and didn't burn long enough to melt the steal enough to make the buildings fall. The fire lasted about a hour...there have been buildings have burned for 20 hrs and didn't fall. The buildings were made to be able to take the biggest plane at the time Bowing 808 a bigger plane then what hit the towers. Yes, I believe in the Kennedy Cover up but not the Moon landing:biggrin:

BTW...A plane hit the Pentagon too supposely...Same type of plane...Why didn't that building fall down? WTC 7 Fell down and No plane at all hit it...What made it fall...Fire on two floors?

I said nothing about prior warning, I said concrete evidence. You can't do anything to stop an event if you only know THAT it is happening

As far as the fires, heat intensity and strength have more to do with structural integrity than time. If you light a match for 5 minutes or a bonfire for 30 seconds which is more powerful? You have to accept the Physics of it, but you can't do that unless you study it well. I don't know whether you never took Physics, or slept through it, but trust me on that one.

Which Kennedy story do you believe?

teej

02-27-2009, 09:36 PM

I forgot this one...You know the war started after 9-11 right? They atarted this so called investigation about a year or more before we sent the first troops to Iraq. The Bush family has been in business with the Bin Laden family for a long time..Maybe not Osama himself but his brothers and father ...cousins too maybe. This is all documented, Not something i just made up.

Yes I know, and his reasons for starting the war were immoral at best, unconstitutional at worst, and he didn't want people sifting through his files telling them as much

Ghost Kat

02-27-2009, 09:39 PM

The firm I used to work for actually compiled the report on why the buildings went down. To make a long story short (and that report was huge) it was the fire. The steel wasn't designed to handle that much heat.

The pentagon is a totally different type of structure than the WTC (how high is it...like 2-3 stories?). I'd have to look it up, but that plane did penetrate thru a couple of walls when it hit.

I have to go back and check the actual number but jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt that much steal in a hour. The buildings didn't burn long enough for that much damage to be done. Ok, The plane did hit the building hard as hell. But the Buildin was big enough for the whole plane to sit inside of it
. There's no way it broke through all that steal, then this weaken steal collapses straight down? Why didn't either building tilt and fall side ways since they had one side damaged? The plane basically broke up when it went into the building hit the steal and exploded so no way it could have done enough damage to knock the whole building down.

Not doubting your former Firm but I'm guessing they showed how it COULD happen not how it did happen

Ghost Kat

02-27-2009, 09:47 PM

I said nothing about prior warning, I said concrete evidence. You can't do anything to stop an event if you only know THAT it is happening

As far as the fires, heat intensity and strength have more to do with structural integrity than time. If you light a match for 5 minutes or a bonfire for 30 seconds which is more powerful? You have to accept the Physics of it, but you can't do that unless you study it well. I don't know whether you never took Physics, or slept through it, but trust me on that one.

Which Kennedy story do you believe?

Teej, if your quoting physics to me then you should know there's no way it's possible for juel fuel which alot of it burned up on impact, Thats where the big ass fire ball came from:g:. There's wasn't enough fuel left to heat that metal up so much that it caved in. The metal is tested for that type of heat. Buildings do catch on fire. And, Lets says the metal on the impact side did get that hot...how does that turn into a straight down pancake at free fall speed? Why not a tilt and break off or lean and fall?

This is kinda what I feared, I think way to many people just believed the story and stopped asking questions.

teej

02-27-2009, 09:48 PM

spectre

02-27-2009, 09:51 PM

I have to go back and check the actual number but jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt that much steal in a hour. The buildings didn't burn long enough for that much damage to be done. Ok, The plane did hit the building hard as hell. But the Buildin was big enough for the whole plane to sit inside of it
. There's no way it broke through all that steal, then this weaken steal collapses staright down. Why didn't either building tilt and fall side ways since they had one side damaged? The plane basically broke up when it went into the building hit the steal and exploded so no way it could have done enough damage to knock the whole building down.

Not doubting your former Firm but I'm guessing they showed how it COULD happen not how it did happen

Nah man, that was indeed the cause. Remember it was a long time ago (think the report came out like 2-3 years after) but from what I remember the heat far exceeded the steel's heat rating. The stuff literally melted and turned to a semi liquid. Pretty sure it was irrefutable evidence. That was one hot freaking fireball.

I bet that reports online somewhere...when I have some free time (maybe this weekend) I'll try and dig it up for ya.

Edit:

http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/wtcstudy.shtm

There it is. It wasn't the steel so much as the COATING on the steel. It also had to do with loading. Read thru that, and esp. check chapter 8.

I should have went to that before even commenting. I had nothing to do with the report and only gave it a cursory glance after it was completed...and it was long ago.

Ghost Kat

02-27-2009, 09:54 PM

The initial crash wasnt the major issue

the heat from the intense burning coupled with the poor design (if you call not designing for a fire the size of a volcano inside an office building bad) is why it collapsed. its pure physics kat, you have to accept that

Your saying it's physic's...But the Physic's them selves show that it's not possible for jet fuel to burn hot enough to melt that much steal. It's was a volcano for how long? You remember the video from that day? Alot of black smoke flowing out the building. Why do you get that much black smoke? The fire is weakened and trying to breath. If it was a volcano you would just see flames not smoke. And if it was so hot why can you see people on the video hanging out the windows just above where the plane hit? If it's a valcano shouldn't they be cooked?

Ghost Kat

02-27-2009, 09:58 PM

Nah man, that was indeed the cause. Remember it was a long time ago (think the report came out like 2-3 years after) but from what I remember the heat far exceeded the steel's heat rating. The stuff literally melted and turned to a semi liquid. Pretty sure it was irrefutable evidence. That was one hot freaking fireball.

I bet that reports online somewhere...when I have some free time (maybe this weekend) I'll try and dig it up for ya.

You both keep saying the same thing...FIREBALL...My point exactly, pretty much all the fuel burned out on impact. So what made the fire hot enough to melt that much metal in a hour? To me thats a damn good question. If you find the report I'll read it. But I'm guessing you remember enough from it to tell me where did that extra fuel come from to heat up that steal enough where the metal was so weak it collapse on top of it self pancake style at free fall speed.

teej

02-27-2009, 09:59 PM

Nah man, that was indeed the cause. Remember it was a long time ago (think the report came out like 2-3 years after) but from what I remember the heat far exceeded the steel's heat rating. The stuff literally melted and turned to a semi liquid. Pretty sure it was irrefutable evidence. That was one hot freaking fireball.

I bet that reports online somewhere...when I have some free time (maybe this weekend) I'll try and dig it up for ya.

Yea, it was wayyyyy too hot for the Towers to handle

thats physics kat...no other way to explain it, but we can try

as far as why it went straight down, thats because the unmelted steel on the lower levels "sucked" the liquid steel in, i guess thats the best way of describing it

spectre

02-27-2009, 10:01 PM

Kat just read thru that link. My posts were going from a 8-9 year memory. Those are the facts.

Ghost Kat

02-27-2009, 10:03 PM

Yea, it was wayyyyy too hot for the Towers to handle

thats physics kat...no other way to explain it, but we can try

as far as why it went straight down, thats because the unmelted steel on the lower levels "sucked" the liquid steel in, i guess thats the best way of describing it

Alright then....What made WTC 7 fall? Fire right? A regular fire cuz no plane hit that building and it fell pancake style and free fall speed too.

Hey, I love debating this sooner or later I might say something to make you think about things differently

Post #900....100 to go in 25 days...easy

Ghost Kat

02-27-2009, 10:06 PM

Kat just read thru that link. My posts were going from a 8-9 year memory. Those are the facts.

What link?

:confused:

Edited...Nevermind
Edited 2

FEMA??
Are you seriuosly asking to to believe what fucking FEMA says? You do know the Bush Admin. appointed the people in control of the final say so on that report. Is this the same FEMA that was on the WTC site the day of the attacks but takes a whole week to get to New Orleans? Browney your doing a heck of a job FEMA?

Ok, If i send you a link and i have to actually go look ... but if i send you a link from groups of scentists and metal workers who says it's impossible for jet fuel to melt that much steal in a hour...fire ball or not...Will those be facts too?

SWedd523

02-27-2009, 10:34 PM

teej, Would you not think that if they knew that the WTC's were going to be attacked--they'd bend their no jets rule? There were people calling from the airplanes saying they were hijacked.. yet they government didn't deploy any jets? That's weird...

Also, you keep bringing physics up and not really giving any concrete evidence for it. Sure there may have been a fireball, but that fireball would burn so instantaneously that the majority of the fuel would be gone.

Do you really think jet fuel burns as hot as volcanic liquid magma? Definitely not, and you have to accept the physics of that. If the buildings were designed to handle the blast of a volcano, why would they burn down from a severely lesser amount of jet fuel? A building even remotely designed to be that strong would not fall "pancake style". Controlled demolitions--maybe. Extremely fast burning jet fuel at a top floor--not so much.

There were people that survived in the stories above and below the impact point. People can die from overheating at football workouts in 115 degree weather. Would that jet fuel not be hot enough to kill them at extremely higher temperatures?

Back to the controlled demolitions: it was reported that the bomb dogs were removed from the buildings in the days preceding the attack. I've also seen a video that showed as the building collapsed, there were little explosions every few floors. This makes a lot of sense and you can't argue the "physics" of that either. If a building topples from one of its highest points, it will most assuredly not collapse straight down. The only type of collapse you see like that? You guessed it, controlled demolition.

Ever heard of the PATRIOT Act? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act

It was passed in 2001, within 3 months of the attacks on 9/11. Has ANY piece of legislature been passed that fast in history? The point is for them to legally monitor anything any citizen does, ever, and without notice or warning. In fact, this topic has probably already been put on their watch list. It was passed by a huge margin by both Democrats and Republicans. Do they ever agree that fast?

Players in the Bush administration have referred to the 9/11 attacks as the "new Pearl Harbor". They were looking for an excuse declare war on Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, etc. An attack on a major US landmark would be a great lead in to a new war...

Ghost Kat

02-27-2009, 11:57 PM

I cosign 100%

We were lied into these stupid wars in more ways then one. There are to many things that happened that day to ignore. Explotions in the basement of both WTC's. No parts that even look like they belong to a plane were found at the Pentagon or in Shanksville where the 4th plane went down. The fact that atleast 6 of the 19 hijackers are still alive..Thats documented. On Bin Laden's wanted poster thats says he's worth 25 million...It says nothing about the 9-11 attacks under the charges set against him. Nothing. How can he be the most wanted terrorist in the world and his wanted poster omit's his biggest crime?

We were set up and lied to, Every war from Pearl Hardor to this Iraq war We have been lied to and force into. But people just keeping going on... and it happens over and over and over and more innocent people die.

teej

02-28-2009, 01:31 AM

teej, Would you not think that if they knew that the WTC's were going to be attacked--they'd bend their no jets rule? There were people calling from the airplanes saying they were hijacked.. yet they government didn't deploy any jets? That's weird...

So if I get on a plane and call 911 saying its been hijacked they should immediatley send a jet up? What good does that do anyway? And its also called red tape

Also, you keep bringing physics up and not really giving any concrete evidence for it. Sure there may have been a fireball, but that fireball would burn so instantaneously that the majority of the fuel would be gone.

Do you really think jet fuel burns as hot as volcanic liquid magma? Definitely not, and you have to accept the physics of that. If the buildings were designed to handle the blast of a volcano, why would they burn down from a severely lesser amount of jet fuel? A building even remotely designed to be that strong would not fall "pancake style". Controlled demolitions--maybe. Extremely fast burning jet fuel at a top floor--not so much.

Of course jet fuel isnt as hot as magma...except the WTC wasnt designed to handle even jet fuel...

and if the part below is still sound (which it was) and the part above is sound (which it was) then its like melting the middle of the structure, and it collapses within the structure because the rest of the structure is sound, but the weight of the falling portion destroys the entire building. I don't know hw else to explain it, but if I can find a video I will post it, or I will ask my ex-physics teacher to better explain it, but trust me I know what I'm talking about.

There were people that survived in the stories above and below the impact point. People can die from overheating at football workouts in 115 degree weather. Would that jet fuel not be hot enough to kill them at extremely higher temperatures?

they were high enough/below enough that the heat/smoke/fire had not yet reached them. the rest of the building still had a/c until about 30 seconds before the collapse I believe...it didnt help much but theres something for ya

Back to the controlled demolitions: it was reported that the bomb dogs were removed from the buildings in the days preceding the attack. I've also seen a video that showed as the building collapsed, there were little explosions every few floors. This makes a lot of sense and you can't argue the "physics" of that either. If a building topples from one of its highest points, it will most assuredly not collapse straight down. The only type of collapse you see like that? You guessed it, controlled demolition.

WTC's had a new Chief of Security starting Sep. 1 I believe (he died in the attacks) who had them removed if i remember correctly.

As far as the vid, well, you and I both know that someone COULD have edited that in there, and I never saw it on tv.

Ever heard of the PATRIOT Act? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act

It was passed in 2001, within 3 months of the attacks on 9/11. Has ANY piece of legislature been passed that fast in history? The point is for them to legally monitor anything any citizen does, ever, and without notice or warning. In fact, this topic has probably already been put on their watch list. It was passed by a huge margin by both Democrats and Republicans. Do they ever agree that fast?

Players in the Bush administration have referred to the 9/11 attacks as the "new Pearl Harbor". They were looking for an excuse declare war on Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, etc. An attack on a major US landmark would be a great lead in to a new war...

Yes, which makes sense for my argument that Bush stopped the investigation to get ppl away from proving that the war was illegitimate.

Also, who here REALLY thinks Bush was smart enough to pull all this off :rolleyes:

Ghost Kat

02-28-2009, 02:50 AM

Teej...No.... No @ all of that you said....It wasn't just Bush. Thats the problem. Bush is was and forever will be a puppet. Please tell me if your plane gets highjacked you'd have enough sense to call 911 give them the flight number and say "I've Been Highjacked". What good does it do?? Maybe save your life:confused: Maybe save the lives of 100's or 1000's by letting someone know your plane is in trouble so they can send up jet's. What good does it do?? Your not serious....No....WTC was not designed to handle jet fuel, But as i stated most of the fuel burned up on impact. FIREBALL, remember....Oh and i remember the video from that day...it's still burned in my brain and yes people a couple floors above the impact zone were hanging out the window waving for help. I even saw a couple jump...I remember the video from that day very well. Those people, if there was this "valcano of heat" like you said would have been roasted. Because remember the metal is heating up because there's such a big fire going on. A/C, won't do jacksh*t against black smoke and fire. I'm pretty sure that smoke was getting pumped into the A/C unit anyway. A/C sure wouldn't do anthing against the Valcano of Heat needed to melt that much steal in a hour...ON BOTH TOWERS!!! But lets not forget WTC 7 which you have said nothing about yet.

The WTC Chief of Secruity...His name was John O'Neil...... http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=John_P._O'Neill ........Former head of the Bin Laden Task force that investigated the Cole Battle Ship bombing...strange the first day of his new job the planes hit...Thats crazy right? Or maybe something evil like he was asigned there since someone knew already the planes would hit and he'd probably die when the preplanned towers fell. :g:
Maybe...Maybe not

9-11 gave Bush the right to go to war with any country "harboring terrorists". That could be anyone we say has them or has worked with them. 9-11 happened becuase it was either planned or he just allowed it to happen. Look what he got out of it. Former Gas men Bush Jr. & Bush Sr. owned oil companies at one point. Who you think profits when gas prices shot up to $4.00 a gallon? His friends. Who profits from a never ending and unwinnable war? His friends. Who profits from taking our civil liberties away and tapping our phones? His friends. Who profits if they do take over Iraq and get control of their oil? His friends. Nothing the Bush people did since stealing the election has benefited me or you. Expect maybe some tax cuts, I don't know what your income is like, But they sure weren't coming to me.

Ghost Kat

02-28-2009, 03:20 AM

I'm going to change somebodies mind about what they think is true. I have asked alot of good questions and pointed out even more facts. If you can't honestly and educatedly answer them...Then you have to leave the door open to the possibility I'm right...Right? :g:

spectre

02-28-2009, 07:14 AM

What link?

:confused:

Edited...Nevermind
Edited 2

FEMA??
Are you seriuosly asking to to believe what fucking FEMA says? You do know the Bush Admin. appointed the people in control of the final say so on that report. Is this the same FEMA that was on the WTC site the day of the attacks but takes a whole week to get to New Orleans? Browney your doing a heck of a job FEMA?

Ok, If i send you a link and i have to actually go look ... but if i send you a link from groups of scentists and metal workers who says it's impossible for jet fuel to melt that much steal in a hour...fire ball or not...Will those be facts too?

Hey that's up to you...but as I said the firm I worked for wrote that report (not FEMA) AND I saw it before it was submitted. I suppose the big boys and all of the engineers who contributed could have been paid off...not to mention every credible engineer who has looked at it between then and now.

There's a huge difference between ineptness of FEMA in NOLA and a report that was contracted out to a very reputable firm.

If you want PM me and I'll give you a link to the firm who did it.

BETCATS

02-28-2009, 09:44 AM

i dont belive in conspiracy theories.

HOWEVER i do think the US government knew a big attack was comming but chose not to step up security in order to secure a gateway for a eventual war in Iraq.

Keetch

02-28-2009, 10:25 AM

I don't know what the government did or didn't do...but the Bushie's are corrupt as hell; and our congress is generally incompetent and on the take; that's all I need to know.

As for the building collapse...Spectre, just a 10-4 that I'm in agreement with you. That much heat energy expended on the interior of the building would most certainly melt the structure. Take out a few floors of columns below that much mass and you have a pancake-style progressive collapse. It cannot really tilt-over, as the frame below is built to resist "falling-over" from the large seismic and wind loads it was originally designed for. The mass above will come straight down taking out every floor it crashes into - one at a time. Horrifying.

I design steel buidling structures for a living. At dinner time on 9-11 I was in a local tv studio here trying to give my opinions; but prior to the interview while in the studio I had just seen the slo-mo of one of the planes literally disintegrating into the side of the building and was so shook up that I could hardly talk about it. The energy I saw hit that building, and the horrible results from it, left me physically sick. The comprehension of the structural "pancake" failure scenario hit me like a brick. All I can remember telling the interviewer at the time was something like...."whatever columns that weren't destabilized by the impact will then soften from the intense heat of the fire. That much load on those sticks just comes down...it pancakes down; one story at a time under the mass above." ...only I wasn't nearly that clear...more like it came out "meh, bleh...ack...phfffft!"

Ghost Kat

02-28-2009, 02:03 PM

I had just seen the slo-mo of one of the planes literally disintegrating into the side of the building "

Your words not mine...As soon as the plane hit it was basically no more so how'd it cut through so many core colums of steal? Do you know how much steal was there? All those core colums in the middle of the structure that held the building up... how the plane cut those those huge steal beams? Fire alone wouldn't cause that much steal to melt. Ya'll keep saying the fire did it... the fire did it...I'm telling you that fire was not hot enough to melt that much steal in a hour... But you keep saying the fire did it.. the fire did it. Teej quoted phyics to me.. well Phyic's tells me it's impossible for that much steal to melt in a hour. Those Beams are fire tested to withstand that type of heat for hrs before it fails. The company who made the steal beams for the trade center said the beams could withstand the temp. of the fire after most of the jet fuel was burned up on impact. The building was disigned to have multiple planes impacts from a Bowing 707, bigger then what hit the towers nd still keep standing....Those planes have jet fuel too, so common sense tells me the steal was designed to handle that heat.

Jet fuel is just like lighter fluid poured on a metal table. Nice big puff in the beginning burns for a second then is gone. There was not enough combustable material to create that much heat. Y'all are basically ignoring everything I said and keep coming back to...It was the fire. Thats untrue and just a lil reseach will say that.

Ghost Kat

02-28-2009, 02:21 PM

I suppose the big boys and all of the engineers who contributed could have been paid off...not to mention every credible engineer who has looked at it between then and now.

Couple of my engineers....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

http://stj911.org/

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletely Collapse.pdf

Why were the Fighter jets told to stand down by Cheney long before any plane hit a building they knew those planes were off course

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyBL9ETL5FY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sg_NRC8ozk

Those a short so you should have time to watch them

Ghost Kat

02-28-2009, 02:30 PM

i dont belive in conspiracy theories.

Thats the problem we forget or ignore the truth right in front of us for so long that it starts not to matter. Betcats, Just like that picture there's alot of stuff swept under the rug. The government basically dares us to ask it questions. They throw a lil bullshit out there and get enough so called educated people to back them till everyone just accepts it as true. Then they call you a terrorist of some kind or unamerican if you question the offcial word.

Germany did the same thing when Hitler came into power. He burned down an important building then blamed it on the enemy to get the country on his side and ready to fight. Then he got total power over the country and was given the right to go to war with the people he deemed EVIL. Then he shut down any news paper, tv station, or random person that disagreed with him, called them unloyal. He made special jails to hold "Enemy Combatants". The "Mission Accomplished" sign and remember Bush landing in a plane during the war...Hitler did that too...Faked documents showing the "enemy" had weapons that could kill the citizens....Torture...spying on the citizens...Murder or jailed citizens who are against the offical word...One of my ex girlfriends granddad fought for the Nazi's. He's was in the teenage Walfen SS. He was forced into fighting so i don't blame it for what he did...He's dead now but he told me the story of what Hitler did and damn if it doesn't sound alot like Bush. History is history.... We are doomed to keep repeating it if we just believe in bullshit

spectre

02-28-2009, 03:29 PM

Jones' paper has been the center of controversy both for its content and its claims to scientific rigor.[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones#cite_note-Chronicle-18) Jones' early critics included members of BYU's engineering faculty;[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones#cite_note-19) shortly after he made his views public, the BYU College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences and the faculty of structural engineering issued statements in which they distanced themselves from Jones' work. They noted that Jones' "hypotheses and interpretations of evidence were being questioned by scholars and practitioners," and expressed doubts about whether they had been "submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review."

Man, that dude's a nut.

Ghost Kat

02-28-2009, 03:34 PM

Man, that dude's a nut.

Thats what they always say when the offical word is questioned

I'd like to point out no one has ever disproven what he has said. Physic's are Phyisc's right, No one answered his very good questions they just said he was a "nut" and turned their back on him. Why is that? When your the only one sounding a alarm no one wants to help stand in the fire with you, Do they?

On September 7 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_7), 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006), Jones removed his paper from BYU's website at the request of administrators and was placed on paid leave. [29] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones#cite_note-Desert_Morning_News-28)
The university cited its concern about the "increasingly speculative and accusatory nature" of Jones' work and the concern that perhaps it had "not been published in appropriate scientific venues" as reasons for putting him under review.

Seems BYU didn't want to be linked to someone accusing the Gov't of crimes against it's citizens. Is'nt that what big compaines always do?...Fire the guy the gets in the news for making comments they don't agree with or could cause them to lose money.

I wouldn't call someone that educated, with that much training in his field a nut till you can shown why he's a nut.
But thanks just one example.......

spectre

02-28-2009, 04:12 PM

Did you read any of that report I linked to?

teej

02-28-2009, 04:17 PM

Did you read any of that report I linked to?
He isn't listening...I've told him so many times that the building couldnt withstand the jet fuel, but he still says it could. Oh well...:cool:

Ghost Kat

02-28-2009, 04:22 PM

He isn't listening...I've told him so many times that the building couldnt withstand the jet fuel, but he still says it could. Oh well...:cool:

I'm not listening??...You both have ignored every single question i have asked and ever fact I've pointed out. How many times do i have to say there wasn't enough fuel? Please both of you go back and answer some of my questions before you keep coming back to the same disproven arguement that it's was so hot it melt tons of steal in a hour.

spectre: Not yet, I'm getting to it, It's a rainy day here so i have time on my hands...How much of what i sent did you read and watch? If you want me to read your report your have to show the same respect and watch my video's and read my reports...Right?

teej

02-28-2009, 04:31 PM

SWedd523

02-28-2009, 04:34 PM

He isn't listening...I've told him so many times that the building couldnt withstand the jet fuel, but he still says it could. Oh well...:cool:can you blame him for not believing what a teenager learned from a high school physics teacher?:rolleyes:

Hate to say it guys but I agree with Kat. Do I want to believe all those lost lives were because f a government conspiracy? No. But I can't help but believe it.

I'm on my way to the mountains so I can't do it from my iPhone, but listen to Immortal Technique - the cause of death and look at the lyrics. Google some stuff he says in that song and it'll open your eyes.

For example (albiet not quite relevant): he mentions our government sponsored the 3rd Reich. If you don't know what that is then google it. George Bush's grandfather Prescott Bush IIRC had something to do with that.

Ps. You haven't really answered any of Kat's questions and keep going back to physics. I'm a year or two older than you and I was barely old enough to know what was going on at the time so if you can't expand your argument farther than "the metal got so hot that it caused the buildings to collapse" then please research the topic more.

Ghost Kat

02-28-2009, 04:35 PM

More...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-0Ms7mId34&feature=related

Pentagon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS2rlAoKiy4

These are rather short, So enjoy

spectre

02-28-2009, 04:49 PM

I'm not listening??...You both have ignored every single question i have asked and ever fact I've pointed out. How many times do i have to say there wasn't enough fuel? Please both of you go back and answer some of my questions before you keep coming back to the same disproven arguement that it's was so hot it melt tons of steal in a hour.

spectre: Not yet, I'm getting to it, It's a rainy day here so i have time on my hands...How much of what i sent did you read and watch? If you want me to read your report your have to show the same respect and watch my video's and read my reports...Right?

I read the link you countered with that addressed the building...which is the only thing I've been commenting about in this thread. I don't have to go thru all the other stuff just to get you to look at my original argument do I?

Either way...you're pulling out a lone conspiracy theorist. This report has the backing of the vast majority of the engineering field. This isn't some obscure technology here. For your BYU guy to be correct you'd almost have to be saying that the entire structural engineering field is in on it.

Ghost Kat

02-28-2009, 05:03 PM

I read the link you countered with that addressed the building...which is the only thing I've been commenting about in this thread. I don't have to go thru all the other stuff just to get you to look at my original argument do I?

Either way...you're pulling out a lone conspiracy theorist. This report has the backing of the vast majority of the engineering field. This isn't some obscure technology here. For your BYU guy to be correct you'd almost have to be saying that the entire structural engineering field is in on it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdQh18kvpRU

U see those core colums in the middle still standing up? There was nothing standing when the towers fell. Those core colums were not cut by the plane or the explosion, so if it pancakes because of fire and the floors fall the core is still intake.

I can find just as many people saying it couldn't happen , maybe more then you can find that say it could happen from a phyic's and science level. It's not a lone nut theory it's just ignored hard facts and really good questions thats are still unanswered.

G-Force for MVP

02-28-2009, 05:06 PM

watching those videos really make you think

Ghost Kat

02-28-2009, 05:14 PM

Not Willie Nelson too?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kh8lWF4iRP8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTk58sO6S24&feature=related

More?

Ghost Kat

02-28-2009, 05:17 PM

No one is safe........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IhnSEMoIIg

Ghost Kat

02-28-2009, 05:24 PM

Vice Prez. Cheney knew......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRJAI4-e7Xw&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2nbE0LdP3s&feature=related

Have I made my point yet?

BETCATS

02-28-2009, 06:33 PM

Ghost Kat

02-28-2009, 07:10 PM

I didnt watch and videos, so please dont yell at me if these answers are in them. Just tell me the answers. i'm just wondering, if their really is a grand conspiracy, why havent any conspirators come forward onto the national spotlight?

The fire fighters who 'blew up' the building?

The soldiers that 'fired the missile' into the Pentagon?

The people that 'planted charges'?

Why havent they stepped forward and 'told the truth'?

And what do you think happened to the people who were on the planes?

I didn't say firefighters blew up anything or soldiers fired any missles. The reason why the ones that did it wouldn't come forward is what do they have to gain? They commited War Crimes...They helped attack America.
Why would they snitch on themselves?

Y wuld Bush say " Yeah, I knew about theterrorist plan and the planes or He knew but didn't take it seriuosly"...If he said something like that he or anyone else in charge is asking to be sent to jail and executed.

BETCATS

02-28-2009, 07:17 PM

I didn't say firefighters blew up anything or soldiers fired any missles. The reason why the ones that did it wouldn't come forward is what do they have to gain? They commited War Crimes...They helped attack America.
Why would they snitch on themselves?

Y wuld Bush say " Yeah, I knew about theterrorist plan and the planes or He knew but didn't take it seriuosly"...If he said something like that he or anyone else in charge is asking to be sent to jail and executed.

hmm.

well i just read the 9/11 conspiracy wikipedia page, i just skimmed over your argument

Ghost Kat

02-28-2009, 07:25 PM

How's my arguement as a whole so far?

Am I convincing anyone yet?

BETCATS

02-28-2009, 07:32 PM

How's my arguement as a whole so far?

Am I convincing anyone yet?

you are intresting and thought provoking but i just cant agree with you.

Its like trying to sell toasters to a loaf of bread, you might be a great sales man and give the bread the toaster for free, but the bread does not want to be toasted since it knows that it would hurt too much.

That analogy was shitty but i hope you get the point.

BETCATS

02-28-2009, 07:36 PM

Ghost Kat

02-28-2009, 07:39 PM

you are intresting and thought provoking but i just cant agree with you.

Its like trying to sell toasters to a loaf of bread, you might be a great sales man and give the bread the toaster for free, but the bread does not want to be toasted since it knows that it would hurt too much.

That analogy was shitty but i hope you get the point.

I understood that perfectly. Your very right people in general are resistant to change. They set their minds on certain things being true. They refuse to believe it could be any other way cause that would effect their daily life and happiness to much. We allow ourselves as a society to be led... it's just easier and less stressful that way...I'll agree...But We also need to wake up sometimes and see when we have been lied to. I personally have stock in when my Gov't goes apesh*t and decides to send soilders out to fight a needless war. Just ask questions, You don't have to believe me just ask the questions :)

Ghost Kat

02-28-2009, 07:47 PM

1 thing i dont get, what is your opinion on the phone calls from Flight 93? All the family members of the people say that they were talking to their relatives who informed them that it was the Muslim extremist who hijacked the planes, not US agents.

I think it's in one of the video's i post'd but the Gov't does have technology that can morf or fake a person's voice. Those calls also could not be made in 2001 from as high as those planes were. Not on a cell phone. There were no air plane cell towers back then....they came two yrs later.

They may have been Muslim "extremist" but that desn't mean they wouldn't be US agents. Back when Kennedy was president behind his back we trained a whole army of "freedom fighters" to attack the Cuban Gov't. The point was to piss off Cuba enough they'd attack us and we could go to war with them... They have Oil and resources we want too....Would i put it past crazy folk to do that again...Never.

BETCATS

02-28-2009, 07:53 PM

I think it's in one of the video's i post'd but the Gov't does have technology that can morf or fake a person's voice. Those calls also could not be made in 2001 from as high as those planes were. Not on a cell phone. There were no air plane cell towers back then....they came two yrs later.

They may have been Muslim "extremist" but that desn't mean they wouldn't be US agents. Back when Kennedy was president behind his back we trained a whole army of "freedom fighters" to attack the Cuban Gov't. The point was to piss off Cuba enough they'd attack us and we could go to war with them... They have Oil and resources we want too....Would i put it past crazy folk to do that again...Never. The second part makes sense but i dont believe the first part.

Ghost Kat

02-28-2009, 08:01 PM

The second part makes sense but i dont believe the first part.

I've pushed this debate to six pages, I have plenty more edvidence then just the phone calls. But I'd say on a free day come back to this thread and watch the video's... most of them are short and you can skim through the long ones.

BETCATS

02-28-2009, 08:04 PM

I've pushed this debate to six pages, I have plenty more edvidence then just the phone calls. But I'd say on a free day come back to this thread and watch the video's... most of them are short and you can skim through the long ones.

well i am interested and skeptical.

Do you belive the other conspiracy too, like the one about the moon landings not actually happening?

Ghost Kat

02-28-2009, 08:11 PM

well i am interested and skeptical.

Do you belive the other conspiracy too, like the one about the moon landings not actually happening?

Both Kennedy's, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, alot of other political killings.... Yes.....Katrina & the Levee's blown up to save the rich part of town... they did it back in the 20's so....maybe....Oklahoma City bombing.... Yes...1st WTC bombing ...Yes... Moon landing not so much

BETCATS

02-28-2009, 08:37 PM

well thanks for answering my questions, i would give you rep points but the system wont let me.

Very interesting stuff, not sure if i have enough info to really state my opinion yet.

spectre

02-28-2009, 09:50 PM

Maybe we're all really in the Matrix. :cool:

Keetch

02-28-2009, 10:34 PM

Your words not mine...As soon as the plane hit it was basically no more so how'd it cut through so many core colums of steal?

Pardon the mistatement..."literally" is emphatically not true. "Appeared" is more accurate. What actually happened is that the wings, fuselage, wheels and engines cut threw the exterior columns pretty cleanly. In doing so, the wings were substantially fragmented and dispersed 10's of thousands of pounds of fuel into the impact area and the core. This ignited a large multi-story fire, not only of the fuel but also all of the massive amount of combustible materials within the building and from the jet itself. Both visual and test evidence confirms this. Long after the impact, the heat within the burning areas exceeded 1000 degrees Celsius.

Do you know how much steal was there? All those core colums in the middle of the structure that held the building up... how the plane cut those those huge steal beams?

Yes, I do know. The building perimeter columns are very closely spaced and form what we know as a "tubular" frame for lateral stability. In other words, all of the wind resistance for the structure is derived from the close spacing of the exterior columns and the fully welded connections of those columns to the short exterior beams spanning between them at each floor. There is no hard "core" to speak of, the interior is all just simple steel beams and columns. One other point though....the outer bays of framing; between the core and the exterior skin, was made of long span (over 60 feet) steel joists. These are essentially pre-engineered trusses with angles at the top and bottom and rod diagonals. They are very light, long span steel components.

Fire alone wouldn't cause that much steal to melt. Ya'll keep saying the fire did it... the fire did it...I'm telling you that fire was not hot enough to melt that much steal in a hour

The propagation of heat from a fire is dynamic. When fed with combustible materials and fresh air (from broken windows and open shafts) its grows and spreads. No part of the impacted building floors was spared from intense heat. The floor framing was spray-fireproofed for a 2-hour rating, while the columns were sprayed for 3 hours, but unfortunately, the direct abrasion of the dispersed impact materials as well as the vibration of the impact, caused much of the spray-fireproofing to come off of the steel structure. Its also been shown that the type of fireproofing used for the buildings (in my business, we consider it "the cheap stuff" seriously) did not have good adhesion anyway, especially since the steel was prime painted, which has also been shown (after the WTC was built) to greatly diminish adhesion. So the rated assemblies were not in fact intact during the fire, but left the steel structure mostly exposed.

It's been shown that the long-span steel floor trusses sagged under the heat of the fire, becoming catenaries and pulling-in the closely spaced exterior columns. This redistributed gravity load to the interior core, which was already greatly softened from the heat, and ultimately (after 90 to 100 minutes) began to buckle. This downward movement of the core, along with the loss of integrity of the long-span joists, pulled the exterior framework inward and destabilized it, leading to initial collapse at the impact face of the building. This caused the initial tilt of the building mass above the impact site. Upon collapse of the impact face, and the core, the building weight was redistributed to the other exterior sides, which directly buckled, completing the collapse progression.

I'll mostly stop there. Please understand that I in no way have any interest or gain in proving or disproving anyone's theories. I'm simply describing what I understand to be true and can vouch for the integrity of the information as it comes from independant observation and testing. It also complies with my own understanding of the engineering mechanics of structures; of which I have a great deal of experience. I am only writing all this to give anyone interested; an understanding of what happened that day, that is beyond speculation or hyperbole.

Ghost Kat

02-28-2009, 11:56 PM

About the Steel.....

http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/key_researcher.html

http://www.rense.com/general59/ul.htm

Firefighters on how hot the building was minutes before the collapse.....

http://www.911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/audiotape.html

Construction steel has an extremely high melting point of about 2,800° Fahrenheit (1535° Celsius).
Fires — even with jet fuel — create only 1,700°F maximum.
It wasn't hot enough......Remember your reasons have to be able to explain WTC 7 that fell at the same speed with no Jet Fuel and no plane hitting it

That was good though

Keetch

03-01-2009, 12:40 AM

Agreed; but it loses strength at much lower temperatures. Plus it's believed the heat actually reached 1800C. Honestly, that's enough.

I haven't studied in any detail the collapse of WTC7 but it appears that independant engineers and researchers have qualified that the collapse was of a progressive nature and was initiated by debris and heat upon critical non-redundant structural components. Again, in stick-built steel frame structures of that time; and even commonly today, that's enough.

For the work they do; these steel structures are very, very light; and not all that difficult to compromise.

Ghost Kat

03-01-2009, 01:19 AM

Plus it's believed the heat actually reached 1800C.

Please explain to me how it got that hot. :shrug:

Jet fuel is essentially refined kerosene.Kerosene burns without problem in millions of steel stoves, heaters and furnaces around the world every day. Gasoline burns at a much higher temperature than jet fuel does. Remember alot of it burned up on impact....."Fireball"

According to a BBC report on September 13, 2001 entitled "How the World Trade Center Fell", the WTC steel cores reached a temperature of 1472 degrees Fahrenheit, which, coincidentally, is the maximum temperature of jet fuel, but nowhere near the 2795 degrees needed to melt steel.

Fire has never caused a steel building to collapse. Ever! In the history of the world, fire has never caused a steel building to collapse, yet on the morning of 9-11, Three of them did!

Plus, WTC 7 had no jet fuel...What made it so hot in there it melted the steel to cause a callapse?
:g:

spectre

03-01-2009, 07:58 AM

Man...I can't believe you're going to keep arguing this without even going to my link. It's a freaking PDF, but since it's getting blown off I guess I'm left with typing it:

Chapter 1. Building Codes and Fire Standards

Observations and Findings

The decision to include aircraft impact as a design parameter for a building wiould clearly result in a major change in the design, livibility, usability, and cost of buildings. In addition, reliably designing a building to survive the impact of the largest aircraft available now or in the future may not be possible. These types of loads and analyses are not suitable for inclusion in minimum loads required for design of all buildings.

Chapter 2: WTC 1 and WTC-2

Observations and Findings

a. The structural damage sustained by each of the two buildings as a result of the terrorist attacks was massive. The fact that the structures were able to sustain this level of damage and remain standing for an extended period of time is remarkable and is the reason that most building occupents were able to evacuate safely. Events of this type, resulting in such substantial damage, are generally not considered in building design, and the ability of these structures to successfully withstand such damage is noteworthy.

b. Preliminary analyses of the damaged structures, together with the fact the structures remained standing for an extended period of time, suggest that, absent other severe loading events such as windstorm or earthquake, the buildings could have remained standing in their damaged states until subjected to some significant load. However, the structures were subjected to a second, simultaneous severe loading event in the form of the fires caused by the aircraft impacts.

c. The large quantity of jet fuel carried by each aircraft ignited upon impact into each building. A significant portion of this fuel was consumed immediately in the ensuing fireballs. The remaining fuel is believed either to have flowed down thru the buildings or to have burned off within a few minutes of the aircraft impact. The heat produced by this burning jet fuel does not by itself appear to have been sufficient to initiate the structural collapses. However, as the burning jet fuel spread across several floors of the building it ignited much of the building's contents, causing simultaneious fires across several floors of both buildings. The heat output from these fires is estimated to have been comparable to the power produced by a large commercial power generating station. Over a period of many minutes, this heat induced additional stresses into the damaged structural frames while simultaneously, softening and weakening these frames. This additional loading and the resulting damage were sufficient to induce the collapse of both structures.

That's all I'm typing. The report goes in depth on WHY the steel failed (the coating) and about the different loads that affected the buildings which caused the collapse.

You keep asking why it collapsed; the engineering community is surprised the buildings didn't collapse immediately and are amazed they stayed up any time at all.

spectre

03-01-2009, 08:00 AM

Let's do the Illuminati next...that's much more fun.

TattoodCatswife

03-01-2009, 11:50 AM

Ghost Kat

03-01-2009, 02:01 PM

Let's do the Illuminati next...that's much more fun.

U keep tossing your link out like it's the end all of edvidence. It was a Gov"n paid for study am i right? So the same people in charge on 9-11 were the same people who had the final say so on that report since they paid for it...Just like the 9-11 commission report which has plenty of holes left out info and lies...Keep quoting your report and ignoring what I've said...Thats what you have done this whole time. You quote a report you want me to read but have ignored every single thing I've said but i'm suppose to believe whole heartedly like you in this one report???...please

I keep arguing this cuz not one of you has answered a single question creditably...You pick and choose what you think is easy to answer then ignore that facts i present. You show me facts as you call them on WTC 1 & 2...What about WTC 7 ??...Ya'll just blatantly ignore that building falling to the ground.

Spectre, Tell me how Steel that only starts to melt at 2800 degrees without fire proofing can melt from a fire thats only 1472 degrees.

I read your link...Now go watch my videos and read my links then come back with something new. Yes, all of them, Everything is connected. When you ignore one fact it makes it so much easier to replace it with bullshit for people to believe.

This engineering community you speak seemed shoocked as hell on 9-11 that the buildings fell. Everyone was.....Fire has never... never... never...caused a building to fall. Like i said before there are buildings that burned for over 24 hrs on mutilpe floors...Fires so hot the firemen couldnt get close to them and it did not collapse. That wasn't the case on 9-11 with the WTC's 1 & 2. Firemen were inside, Were killed doing their jobs saying they could eventually handle the fire. Now if it was so hot it was melting the steel, I think since they were in there...There would be signs of it and they would pull back. For the Towers to fall the way they did the laws of nature would have to be bent or broken. Keep ignoring the building was designed to handle a bigger plane hitting it holding more jet fuel then what hit the towers on 9-11. I read your link, Now watch my video.

This isn't about fun...This is about peoples lives. This is about our freedom and more wars fought under false reasons.

Ghost Kat

03-01-2009, 02:13 PM

No matter what the statistics are if government did this or not I lived in New Jersey when it happened and it was quite scary to breathe/see all the smoke in the sky and have burnt paperwork blowing in the wind on my front lawn of my house from the WTC knowing that this was paperwork that those people were working on before the planes crashed thinking that it was just going to be a normal work day. I will never ever forget it. It was beyond sad....

your exactly right this whole thing is sad. All the lives lost of innocent people just doing their jobs that day or flying to see loved ones. It's beyond said, It's tragic.

I can see from just this single debate people haven't been reading their history books. I don't know what will doom this country more ignorance or just a lack of caring when you've been lied to. Probably both. This isn't the first time a leader has attacked his own country to get power, Lied to the people about what happened then started his own dictatorship. Hitler is one and there are atleast three more, I'll look their names up later. We as a country let this happened...If you voted for Bush in either election you have blood on your hands as far as I'm concerned.

Keetch

03-01-2009, 03:42 PM

wow for the upteenth time...the steel didn't melt the steel didn't melt the steel didn't melt. It didn't have to. It loses its load carrying capacity at lower temps long before it melts.

Really there ARE experts out there; many of them, who really care, who know what they are doing, and have spent a HUGE amount of time studying, modelling and recreating the 911 event. They're not Bush/Cheney stooges anymore than you or I.

Plenty of steel buildings have colllapsed in fires; what you're meaning to say is no other high rise steel buildings have collapsed in fires....no other steel high rise buildings have been crippled my Boeing jets either.

And WTC7 was hammered by the debris of the collapsing towers, which blasted open hazardous gas/oil pipelines and led to fires that burned out of control for over 7 hours before finally giving way.

Believe whatever you want to, I've found that most people do. But for anyone listening out there...THE FRICKING WTC BUILDINGS WERE NOT BLOWN UP BY DEMOLITION EXPERTS PAID BY THE GOVERNMENT; GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL AND CREATIONISM IS BUNK. Really spend your time elsewhere, hug your kids or something.

Now back to the Illuminati Expose on your favorite station.....

Kat this is your thread; go ahead and make your claims again and I'll for one, let it rest. There may be all sorts of conspiracies out there; but this specifically is not one of them. It's been destroyed.

Love you man.

spectre

03-01-2009, 04:15 PM

Yah, Kat...I'm not trying to offend you or anything, but as I said originally I was only going to touch on the structures as I had some small experience in that (I'm actually a roadway engineer, so Keetch is way more qualified than I am in regarding structures). It wasn't just the heat of the fire, but the load failure as well. Working in concert those two combined caused the collapse.

That's the culprit, and it's simple engineering. If you don't want to buy it then that's ok by me.

I'll sit with Keetch on the sidelines from here on out. That is, until the Illuminati thread gets started.

Ghost Kat

03-01-2009, 04:46 PM

Both of you have to sit on the sidelines because you know what your saying isn't making any sense....Keetch...No building has ever collapsed from a fire...The whole building falling to the ground at free fall speed....Never.... Find me one..please... none....planes have hit buildings all over the world...No . not a Bowing...But as i have stated numeruos times..Those buildings were designed to take mutiple hits from different angles from a larger sized plane...Stop ignoring that...Stop saying the steel was weakened...It doesnt lose strength till temp's reach close to 3000 degree's...Jet fuel doesn't burn long enough or hot enoughto even weaken that much steel..... Look it up since you don't believe me. If you two are engineer's then you honestly should know better. Please don't tell me I know more about your field then you do.

What you said about WTC 7 isn't true and you have NO edvidence to prove it.

This is not a fight between us just for arguement sake. I hold no ill will against you for believing what you believe. But simple commone sense and reserch tells me what your saying isn't true. Both of you need to go back and watch the live video from that day. Hear what the reporters themselves were saying. Hear what the Firefighters said....Dont just ignore that.

I bet you haven't watched one video i posted or link.

How has this theory been destroy'd? U haven't said anything yet... nothing. But what you are doing is ignoring the facts i have presented and have basically pushed me aside with the rest of the "nuts".

Everyone is entitled to believe what they want...But when you ignore the fact that several laws of nature have to be broken for WTC 1, 2, & 7 to fall......I'm not sure what to call that.:(

x2pacalypse

03-02-2009, 06:11 PM

here's my view of this thread...

tl;dr

ziggy

03-02-2009, 07:51 PM

...That is, until the Illuminati thread gets started.

Well, since you requested it... Boom goes the dynamite (http://bobcatsplanet.com/vb/showthread.php?t=8808)! :biggrin:

Ghost Kat

03-06-2009, 04:30 PM

New Video......Scientist's talk at 30mins into the video. Fast forward video if you don't have time...But it's a pretty good video.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3760797491142118919&ei=BcSwSZmtD4qsrAKE993bBA&q=september+11+revisited&hl=en

I'm going to start on the Bush connection and cover up next......

Ghost Kat

03-31-2009, 04:11 AM

I haven't undated this in a while, But I'm not done yet......:biggrin:

Deceased former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4U9QbTbgohU

Bin Laden part of CIA?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UGXVic15ho

Dick Cheney aka "The Devil" says Osama was never involved with 9-11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2xRLiRqb8M

millst2

04-06-2009, 10:46 PM

9-11 gave Bush the right to go to war with any country "harboring terrorists".

Former Gas men Bush Jr. & Bush Sr. owned oil companies at one point.

Who profits from a never ending and unwinnable war? His friends.

Who profits from taking our civil liberties away Nothing the Bush people did since stealing the election has benefited me or you. Expect maybe some tax cuts, I don't know what your income is like, But they sure weren't coming to me.

Damn man, Your seriously as far left as they get aren't you. Clinton knew of planned terrorist attacks before he ever left office, why not bash him??? I mean hell he had Bin Ladens location and refused to give the go ahead to let them kill his ass fearing that the american people would start hating him!! pretty Liberal point of view, let's just sit on our asses and do nothing.

The bush's also owned a Major League Baseball Team, so does that mean liberals now accuse them of being involved or behing the Steroid Scandal??

Noboday profits from WAR.. For you to say a war is unwinnable is just ignorant, you liberals would rather just stay in your own home and not do anything and watch 100's of thousands of people die by mass genocide by a brutal dictator than help them,, but whine about a fukn sea frog in san francisco possibly becoming extinct. makes no sense,, save the fags, hippies and raise taxes but don't get us involved in foreign affairs unless a democrat is at the helm.

And I am laughing my ass off right now.. Your asking who is taking your civil liberties away??? Are you serious??? Bush in 2005 tried to approach your liberal friends in the house and senate in regards to the housing crisis, but liberals said it was not an issue, they felt like it was only american to allow people who could not afford homes to get in them. The liberals are the ones who forced the banks to lower lending standards and give poverty stricken families with minimum wage jobs access to banks who were required by law to get them in a home. Hence the Mortgage crisis compiled year after year. Easy for liberals to blame the economic crisis on bush, except in his first 6 years the economy was fine then the dems to hook over the house and the senate,, then their plan launched to wreck the economy and take full control. Not saying they had a plan but looking back now it seems so, what 6yrs fine, then the last 2 yrs with dems in the house and senate = bad.

Either way, Liberals always want to shift blame and place blame on others. Your civil liberties are getting so jacked up right now you dont even see it. yeah maybe you drank the kool aid and feel like Obama is going to save your bank accounts. Not the case is it. What 70ish days into his presidency and all he can do is say " We were handed a deficit of a trillion dollars",, but he want say " We were handed a trillion dollar deficit but we are going to increase it 300%, and we aren't basing our budget on the NORMAL 10 year budget outlook, we are doing it on a 5 yr but we want mention this" The deficit will hit 800 billion at yr 5 then increase at 1.2 trillion dollars a year from 5-10 making the deficit 7 trillion dollars by 2019 barring the GDP stays on pace to what they predict.

Gun Laws are changing, Immigration is changing, Freedom of Speech is changing, A liberal making the country look weak is happening as we saw in the G20 this week, Taxes are going up and shockingly enough it is odd to know that people who make a paycheck are having their taxes rise, what happened to the 250k+ tax level? You make 200$ a week your taxes just went up, cigarette taxes are up 1$ a pack alone. Nice hidden tax.

Liberals are so quick to say " take from the rich and spread it out, they dont need all that money... when the fact is Liberals give less than Independents and Conservatives. Way Less. I run down the middle, consider myself more of a Southern Democrat, but dont fuck with my money and constitutional rights.

How ignorant can Mr. Obama-Prompter be,, we think companies and people making donations to charities should not be able to write as much off as they have in the past. Liberals are happy with it because they do not donate for shit anyways. Easier for them to take the other peoples money or raise taxes and feel like that is them doing their part.

Your conspiracy theories are shit! And you know it. The whole marxist crybaby ass persona of the president is garbage and his badmouthing and complaining to other countries how shitty america is is fukn pathetic.

When is Obama going to have to be held responsible for his moves? Or will the liberals just blame his one failed term on the past administrations??

Get rid of Any Hard Right or Hard Left politician and govern this nation by the damn constitution. Partisanship is going to kill this society. Hopefully Obama doesn't force all the big companies in the US to move elsewhere to keep Obamas hands out of their pockets and boardrooms.

Fuck Obama.:mad: And I say this because I myself will take a personal hit from his BS tax hikes, spread the wealth , socialist , Marxist mentality. I hope nobody reading these forums have parents who are close to the end of their road who busted their asses all their lives to leave something for their kids. A 45% estate tax is going to suck.

The big thing is Independents and Conservatives bust their asses to get what they have, and work hard to make cash. Liberals want it handed to them by the govt or taken from others and given to them. Kind of like a robinhood on crack persona. I want healthcare for free, homes for free, jobs for free. Move to Europe. They seem to really like the Model.

dnbman

04-06-2009, 11:15 PM

New Video......Scientist's talk at 30mins into the video.

The guy at 30 minutes is a theologian. He's not a scientist.

I saw a lot of unconvincing commentary about this years ago. I haven't seen anything new.

dnbman

04-06-2009, 11:19 PM

Damn man, Your seriously as far left as they get aren't you. Clinton knew of planned terrorist attacks before he ever left office, why not bash him??? I mean hell he had Bin Ladens location and refused to give the go ahead to let them kill his ass fearing that the american people would start hating him!! pretty Liberal point of view, let's just sit on our asses and do nothing.

I don't agree with anything that Carolina Kat says about the conspiracy. However, there are clear connections to Bush and his cohorts profiting off of an invasion on the Middle East. To the contrary, a lot of people profit from war. I'm not really sure why you made that comment, unless you meant it in a philosophical, moral, or spiritual sense, which isn't what Carolina Kat was implying.

BTW... I'm liberal and I don't want anything handed to me. That is a common misconception about liberals. Feel free to PM me if you have any other questions about liberals.

millst2

04-06-2009, 11:35 PM

I don't agree with anything that Carolina Kat says about the conspiracy. However, there are clear connections to Bush and his cohorts profiting off of an invasion on the Middle East. To the contrary, a lot of people profit from war. I'm not really sure why you made that comment, unless you meant it in a philosophical, moral, or spiritual sense, which isn't what Carolina Kat was implying.

BTW... I'm liberal and I don't want anything handed to me. That is a common misconception about liberals. Feel free to PM me if you have any other questions about liberals.

More of a philosophical point of view. I am not bashing anyone here in particular. Remember during the campaign trail when all of these people were talking about how obama was going to pay for their car payments, houses and give them checks. I mean their was a shitload of them. It I guess in fact isn't the fact they are Liberals ( although most represent themselves as such) but they were Uneducated voters.

The facts I see is we need to get away from the Left vs Right BS. I do not agree with Obama, with me being a vet I did agree with the fact of Bush taking out as many terrorists and regimes as need be to make sure the attacks on 9/11 or in Spain or anywhere else was ever repeated.

Obama is making our Great Country look weak. The Politicians in DC all need to be removed, and we need to govern by the constitution. Not by Idealogues.

I turned 33 in October and have busted my ass for 18-20hrs a day for 3 yrs to get where I am, only for the livelihood I built for my wife and 3 kids to be threatened by freeloaders. Spread the Wealth, Marxist mindsets is going to hurt this country. I do agree that oversight needs to be better in places but having the Govt attempting to run private companies and more of peoples day to day lives is bad news. They can't run the post office, amtrak or anything else they touch effectively, why should we just give free reign for them to do it now.

I have a lot of democratic, Independent and Republican friends in RTP and in Charlotte all business owners or working for banks, bcbs, IT companies and 250k is not a lot of money if your the type of person to bunker down and bust their asses and go the extra to make a good living.

Again, not throwing punches at CarolinaKat, we both know where each other stands. I have no issues with dems, or anyother affiliation as long as they are for keeping Govt in its place and keeping their hands out of our free economy.

Hope that clears up the pov i was attempting to make.

dnbman

04-06-2009, 11:53 PM

More of a philosophical point of view. I am not bashing anyone here in particular. Remember during the campaign trail when all of these people were talking about how obama was going to pay for their car payments, houses and give them checks. I mean their was a shitload of them.

Who? Where? I did not see this shitload. Don't get me wrong: I heard some really stupid comments about what Obama was going to do as president. However, the majority of what I heard about paying bills simply referred to the majority view that their needed to be a stimulus that helped the middle class and struggling Americans.

Obama is making our Great Country look weak. The Politicians in DC all need to be removed, and we need to govern by the constitution. Not by Idealogues.

The constitution was founded by idealogues. However, they were smart enough to realize that we might not have it exactly right. So, they created a system that could be altered to meet the needs of an unforeseeable future.

Capitalism and democracy are ideologies, though they happen to be mostly very good ones. However, they are not without problems that need often need to be addressed by various means. That's why we have an executive branch in the federal government and some socialistic leaning ideas attached to our form of capitalism.

millst2

04-07-2009, 12:28 AM

Who? Where? I did not see this shitload. Don't get me wrong: I heard some really stupid comments about what Obama was going to do as president. However, the majority of what I heard about paying bills simply referred to the majority view that their needed to be a stimulus that helped the middle class and struggling Americans. [quote=dnbman;124122]

There were tons of people all over the country claiming that obama was going to pay their bills, again I stated these were for uneducated voters ( not uneducated as in high school, college etc, but uneducated on what principles and convictions each candidate had), not saying you thought otherwise, just clarifying what i was saying about the voter pool.
--
The constitution was founded by idealogues. However, they were smart enough to realize that we might not have it exactly right. So, they created a system that could be altered to meet the needs of an unforeseeable future.

I agree the constitution was founded on idealogues, and they may have not have been exactly right but that shouldn't give one side of the aisle the rights to change it how they feel fit. Each side of the aisle is accused of this, but bad things happen when we start thinking the ammendments have no meaning. Freedom of Speech has been tested, Gun Laws etc. These were put in place to keep the government in check. Are you wanting the govt now to interpret them on how they see fit?
--
Capitalism and democracy are ideologies, though they happen to be mostly very good ones. However, they are not without problems that need often need to be addressed by various means. That's why we have an executive branch in the federal government and some socialistic leaning ideas attached to our form of capitalism.<--quote

What Socialistic Ideas are you refering to? The ones Obama has tried to get the ball moving on like Higher Corp taxes, Death Taxes, Cap on CEO pays, Cap and Trade? We are a capitalist society with govt oversight. A free Market society. As I said we in certain aspects need more regulation but we in no way shape or form need the govt trying to run any private corps.

Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Franks, Dodd etc have ZERO experience in the private sector. They are all Career politicians and Attorneys. No experience running a large corporation.

This administration is pulling the wool over everyone, even it's on party supporters. Taxes are going up for every income bracket not just the Rich.

The Obama Admin is saying they want raise taxes but the gorundwork is already set to do just the opposite. He let's the Bush Tax Cuts expire the average household pays more taxes ( but he doesnt look as if he raised them), Cap and Trade is a TAX ( companies raise prices to cover the tax to produce goods ). On the 26th of last month Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont. was trying to get the Bush Tax Cuts for low and middle class made permanent. He realizes that taxes on these groups will rise.

I agree times change and laws need to be modified, but there is no good reason to raise taxes in the state of our economy now. Why even let the tax cuts from the Bush yrs expire? No reason to. Sure Bush and Obama are no different in many ways. Obama has picked up economic and national and international policies that Bush had in Place. Obama is continuing the overseas fight against terrorism ( although under a new name ), he is providing stimulus to the citizens, trying to create jobs ( although taking over auto companies and require them to spend 100's of millions to retool to build cars the consumers do not want is idiotic).

More government is bad, we need to lower cap gains, forget about cap and trade, lower taxes as reagan did and instill in the american people that they can invest in start-ups, buy stock in major corporations and help us recover from the mess the lack of responsibility over the past 20 yrs has gotten us into. As it is now the majority of the bailout funds will not even hit the problem until a natural correction has already started.

dnbman

04-07-2009, 12:42 AM

Listen: I have no idea how to solve the economic mess we're in. But I know there are two big theories that are both ideologies:

1. Do nothing. Let the market correct itself. Though this might be extremely hurtful now, we will be better for it in the long run.

2. Pump stimulus money into the system. We take on massive debt, but hopefully salvage cornerstones of our economy and help people get by until we can really fix the problems. However, you have to pay for some of that money, so you have to raise some taxes. Since the poor people are the ones who need the immediate relief, the burden falls on the upper class.

Neither is a good option. But, that's they they call current economic situation "a problem." Otherwise, we'd have an answer.

As far socialism with our economy: our highway system, public education, medicare, medicade, etc.

There are plenty of people who take advantage of the system, but most of those programs have huge benefits.

millst2

04-07-2009, 01:07 AM

I agree for the most part on your above post, but do you really feel that making people dependent on the government is a beneficial quality?

I agree that medicare, unemployment, social security etc is beneficial and they help out. But i think the welfare states we have created are no good to society at all. I think the work first program they have in place is a step in the right direction, but allowing someone to become so accustomed to having the govt just handout money and requiring the recipient to do nothing in return is creating the wrong type of mentality.

I have no issues with allowing the government to help out when needed but do feel checks in balances need be in place to ensure the proper people get the help.

I have a few rental properties in Raliegh and Winston and the people that need that assistance I am more than happy to help with. One lady has 3 kids her husband died on 9/11. She needed assistance, one of the most gracious people I have ever met. But on the flipside of that coin...

My wife and I were in High Point walking around the mall and we were in this store and overheard a pregnant girl that was maybe 15-16 yrs old and she was laughing and telling her friends that she wanted to have the child she was carrying and 2 more by the time she was 18 and was telling the other girls how if she could do that she would get free housing and a bigger check every month. Now that is the type of mentality we have to keep in check when implementing these free govt programs to help people.

Again not saying all are bad, but the govt is creating a mentality instilled in young children today that they see that as an option, a free check. It is sad to think that someone would rather have the govt provide them with all their needs than for them to take some initiative, get off of their asses and try and make as much money as possible and create a better life for them and their family and community.

And the Share the Wealth mentality is just reinforcing these points of views held by a majority of the youth in our country today.

dnbman

04-07-2009, 02:06 AM

I agree for the most part on your above post, but do you really feel that making people dependent on the government is a beneficial quality?

I don't think the government makes people dependent on it. Rather, the government set up those programs because people were, for various reasons, dependent on somebody other than themselves.

Now, there have been the folks you mentioned that take advantage of the system. Hopefully we can reduce that number. However, I'd rather know that a few more people are taking advantage of the system than a few people dying because of care they legitimately needed.

davcbow

04-07-2009, 12:20 PM

I don't think the government makes people dependent on it. Rather, the government set up those programs because people were, for various reasons, dependent on somebody other than themselves.

Now, there have been the folks you mentioned that take advantage of the system. Hopefully we can reduce that number. However, I'd rather know that a few more people are taking advantage of the system than a few people dying because of care they legitimately needed.

I agree because there are people out there that legitimately need it...:cool:

Ghost Kat

05-11-2009, 07:29 PM

I'm not sure where to even start here.Thats just way to much to catch up to in one response. Millst2, You talked alot about Liberals this and the Liberals that. I'm not really sure why, It's not like the Right wing has alot to brag on these days. You talked about Clinton, Well Clinton didn't allow an attack on this country either. Bush did, after getting warning, he allowed an attack to happen. Then when he was told of the attack he sat in the school room for 7 minutes. What type of leader is that? Bush is the worse President ever. Nobody profits from WAR? Really? Who builds the Tanks, Planes, Bullets. Who gets the contracts to rebuild the stuff you just destroy'd? Who gets private contracts for sercurity protecting those supposed important people. Plus saying a WAR is unwinnable is very true. We are not the first people to attacks the Afgan's and get sent back packing. It's a horrible place to try to fight a war.

All of your comments were pointing the finger at Liberals. Whats a Liberal to you? That seems like a blancket statement for a certain type of person. What do Liberals believe in? Who are they? What do they want for this country? I'm not real sure you have a good idea of whats a Liberal is, So I just want to know. You did alot of Obama bashing But your defense for Bush was a bit lacking. Maybe on purpose, Since there is no defense for the things Bush has done to this country over the past 8 yrs.

Ghost Kat

05-11-2009, 07:34 PM

The guy at 30 minutes is a theologian. He's not a scientist.

I saw a lot of unconvincing commentary about this years ago. I haven't seen anything new.

I put the wrong time, The guy I was talking about came on at like 33 or 35 minutes, But if you watched you saw the next guy. You don't have to agree with me, But if you can't come up with a ratitional answer to my questions or the questions of the video, then you can't just blindly follow something that has big holes in it.

teej

05-11-2009, 07:44 PM

Ghost Kat

05-11-2009, 08:03 PM

Not even close. Would you rather have Herbert Hoover, or Richard Nixon. Seriously, what has Bush done (other than your alleged 9/11 "findings") that has pissed you off so much. The recession wasn't his bad, and the war was more Cheney. I'm not defending him, because he wasn't great, but calling him the worst ever is ignorant and emotional.

Really?

9/11
Iraq.
Torture.
Rendition.
Wiretapping.
Habeus corpus.
Detainee abuse.
Pre-emptive war.
The trade deficit.
The national debt.
The federal deficit.
Outing Valerie Plame.
Suppression of science.
The aftermath of Katrina.
Empowerment of enemies.
Creation of untold terrorists.
Alienation of traditional allies.
Subversion of the electoral process.
Perversion of the legislative process.
Overlooking system of checks and balances.
Undermining Constitutional separation of powers.
Allowing global warming to intensify at crucial time.
Refusing to fund stem cell research as millions suffer.
Enriching a small group of oil and petrochemical interests.
Appointing unqualified cronies in order to discredit governance.
Glibly estimating civilian deaths in Iraq at "30,000, give or take."
Signing statements that undermine laws even as they're signed into law.
Referring to the Iraq war and the death of our American soldiers as a "Comma."
"Not really thinking about" Bin Laden, the terrorist responsible for the 911 attacks.

I know you won't read it but....http://www.netrootsmass.net/hughs-bush-scandals-list/

Have you not lived in the same country as I have these past 8 yrs? Teej , your young right? Do you really even know anything about Nixon or Hoover other then what you read in a book? I find it funny you call my "findings" alleged when you haven't done your own reseach to see if I'm telling the truth. Bush and his people helped destroy this country from the ground up, Why don't you look for yourself instead of asking me what Bush has done that was so bad.

davcbow

05-11-2009, 09:00 PM

Dont forget Allen Greenspan; Bush fired him because he refused to support Bush's plans for the econemy... Greenspan warned him 1 week what was going to happen if he went ahead with his plan and he was replaced the next week....:cool:

teej

05-11-2009, 11:25 PM

I know you won't read it but....http://www.netrootsmass.net/hughs-bush-scandals-list/

Have you not lived in the same country as I have these past 8 yrs? Teej , your young right? Do you really even know anything about Nixon or Hoover other then what you read in a book? I find it funny you call my "findings" alleged when you haven't done your own reseach to see if I'm telling the truth. Bush and his people helped destroy this country from the ground up, Why don't you look for yourself instead of asking me what Bush has done that was so bad.

I looked over that list, and a lot of it is fluff that nearly every or maybe even every politician does (neglect of constituency, illegal donations, questionable hirings/firings (see Tim Geithner), debatable pardons/nonpardons). Was he inept, yes. Was he easily manipulated by the man who shoots his friends, yes. Was he bad? No. almost everything you listed and more can be put on Richard Nixon, and that's just what he basically admitted to. I'm not even looking at his additional warmongering. Herbert Hoover put this country in the great depression. John Tyler misused government powers and was more of a laughingstock than W. His own party expelled him. Ullyses Grant was involved in the Black Friday (gold/financial) and Whiskey Ring (stealing government funds) scandals. Andrew Johnson was impeached. Franklin Pierce was an indicisive man easily influenced by other politicians, and is one of two presidents to not be renominated by his own party. James Buchanon allowed a financial crisis to go unfixed, directly influenced the supreme court int he Dred Scott case, and allowed many states to secede with no action. Warren Harding allowed his friends to take office, and was rocked by many more scandals than Bush, including one of his advisors going to jail.

I'm not denying that Bush had wrongdoing, but there are many worse. And these guys came before the office was really monitered, before tv and radio in some cases. They wouldve been impeached for sure now. And let's not forget that Bill Clinton wasn't great either. And Jimmy Carter could rival Bush too.

I may be young, but I know what I'm talking about. My mom was a history teacher and my dad has a minor in US History, and I've been blanketed with his books and stories, and the History channel. It sucks, but I've learned a lot.

Ghost Kat

05-12-2009, 06:57 AM

I looked over that list, and a lot of it is fluff that nearly every or maybe even every politician does .

Fluff?
I see you left Reagan and Bush Sr. out of that list.

http://www.netrootsmass.net/category/hughs-bush-scandals-list/

There are 400 different acts on that list and your calling that fluff? How can you call him inept but still think he wasn't bad? By bad do you mean evil? I think starting a war for oil profits is evil. Plus plenty of other items on that list can be viewed as impeachable actions. Bush is clearly the worse president we have had on foreignand domestic issuse's. Bush helped destory this economy after coming in with a surplus and jobs in the 90's. I was your age then I remember. Bush has failed at every single job he has ever had. What good has Bush done? What's something good He will be remembered by? What landmark law did he pass? What has he done that will overshadow his illegal actions?

teej

05-12-2009, 11:14 PM

Fluff?
I see you left Reagan and Bush Sr. out of that list.

http://www.netrootsmass.net/category/hughs-bush-scandals-list/

There are 400 different acts on that list and your calling that fluff? How can you call him inept but still think he wasn't bad? By bad do you mean evil? I think starting a war for oil profits is evil. Plus plenty of other items on that list can be viewed as impeachable actions. Bush is clearly the worse president we have had on foreignand domestic issuse's. Bush helped destory this economy after coming in with a surplus and jobs in the 90's. I was your age then I remember. Bush has failed at every single job he has ever had. What good has Bush done? What's something good He will be remembered by? What landmark law did he pass? What has he done that will overshadow his illegal actions?

Every president we've ever had, with the possible exception of George Washington, did things to abuse his power and many things are on that Bush list. I'm calling it fluff because it doesnt seperate him from other politicians. And if I wanted to include his dad and Reagan, I would've included Clinton, too. I just wanted to give you some worse than him. Everyone I listed was prtested against in a similar or more passionate way than Bush. While you are free to say he was the worst on domestic issues, I would disagree. As far as foriegn policy, I'd have to look into it more, but no he wasn't good. Bush is no more guilty for this economy then all the arrogant, selfish people who bought houses, boats, and cars they could not pay for. That hurt the economy a lot, along with the gas-price gouging. Inept means he was incapable of some things, bad would mean he did them out of malice.

davcbow

05-12-2009, 11:42 PM

Every president we've ever had, with the possible exception of George Washington, did things to abuse his power and many things are on that Bush list. I'm calling it fluff because it doesnt seperate him from other politicians. And if I wanted to include his dad and Reagan, I would've included Clinton, too. I just wanted to give you some worse than him. Everyone I listed was prtested against in a similar or more passionate way than Bush. While you are free to say he was the worst on domestic issues, I would disagree. As far as foriegn policy, I'd have to look into it more, but no he wasn't good. Bush is no more guilty for this economy then all the arrogant, selfish people who bought houses, boats, and cars they could not pay for. That hurt the economy a lot, along with the gas-price gouging. Inept means he was incapable of some things, bad would mean he did them out of malice.

I voted for Bush (jr) both times only because I didnt like Al Gore or John Kerry, I blame Bush (jr) for letting the econemy get to this point and doing nothing to try to stop it from happening... The Congress and the Senate I also blame for they were all Inept. I sometimes wonder if it all isnt a ploy by the government to become a socialistic country. God help us all if it is...:cool:

x2pacalypse

05-13-2009, 12:06 AM

i have a dog named shiloh, he's funny

SWedd523

05-13-2009, 08:46 PM

I don't think Clinton was that bad of a President. Sure he made some dumb personal decisions, but he was a pretty solid President.

WarioVsMooChicken

05-14-2009, 03:33 PM

http://www.cracked.com/article_15740_was-911-inside-job.html

Just thought I'd put this here if anyone else hasn't.

Ghost Kat

05-14-2009, 11:57 PM

That link is actually funny if you really know anything about the guys that made Loose Change, But thankfully thats not my only source.

Wats funny to me is the Government is talking about setting up a "Truth Commission" on tuture. Every time they set one of those up it's never to send anyone to jail. Just like with JFK, Okalahoma City and the 9/11 attack. They just set those things up as show trials to make the people think they are trying to get down to the bottom of things. The Bush Administration clearly commited War Crimes. I'll be ashamed of this country if we let them get away with it. We have laws in this country for a reason, No single man or group is above those laws that government the whole country.

spectre

05-15-2009, 10:15 AM

i.e. torture...what good are the rules if you're the only one playing by them?

The CIA was criticized before 9-11 for not doing enough to keep us safe when Congress was the body who passed laws limiting what they can do. Now they're being scapegoated for doing MUCH LESS than the bad guys would do to us...when under their watch SINCE 9-11 we've not been attacked on the home front once.

Yeah...I did it again. :cool:

teej

05-15-2009, 04:19 PM

Ghost Kat

05-16-2009, 03:07 AM

when under their watch SINCE 9-11 we've not been attacked on the home front once.

You know what I was wondering? Why is it Bill Clinton never gets the type of credit your giving Bush for "protecting" the home front?

http://www.knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Ramsey_Youssef/

Ramsey Youseff entered the country under Bush 41's watch. In the late 90's he planned the bombing at the World Trade Center Youseff attacked with a truck bomb in the basement. The explostion was ment to bring the building down. The only reason it didn't work is the guy parked it to far away from the support column. No one ever say's Clinton keep us safe for 7 1/2 yrs....... up until W. on 9/11/2001.

Bush can not be praised for "keeping us safe" after allowing the worse terrorist attack on the "home front". Bush and his boys tortured people not to stop this ticking clock were all in danger nonsense. But to find a link to Saddam and Bin Laden so we could attack Iraq for their oil and treasure. They waterboarded that man 183 times in one month. 183 ? It's clear that wasn't working. I've seen on the news that he was spilling his guts before they started waterboarding him. Then he shut right up after they started. You don't get people to tell you the truth by making them think your going to kill them. They will tell you whatever you want to hear just to make you stop.

As far as 9/11 the CIA was used as a scapegoat with that "our intel was faulty" lie Bush was trying to tell after not finding the WMD's. He had to blame his failure to find something he knew wasn't there on somebody. Why not a group that his grandfather helped start plus his daddy used to be the man in charge over there. It's easier to say oh the CIA got it wrong then to admit you commited an impeachable offense buy lying and giving faulity edvidence for a war with Iraq.

spectre, I'm guessing you think whatever they did was ok as long as it kept the country safe right? Where is the news story that shows that one single time they actually did protect the country after 9/11? You know if they actually stopped an attack it would have made the news. They needed that good press with everything else going bad for them. They needed it to put fear and trust make into the Bush governemt. There is no edvidence of one time torture has lead to any type of stopped attack. They commited a crime.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes

spectre

05-16-2009, 06:17 AM

I didn't mention Bush one time...I gave the CIA credit for no attacks after 911. It's a documented fact that government put up a "wall" between the different agencies where they couldn't easily share information. This wall was reinforced by Gorelick in 1995...Clinton's own Attorney General's office said:

the procedures her memorandum put in place, for the investigation of the first WTC bombing "go beyond what is legally required...[to] prevent any risk of creating an unwarranted appearance that FISA is being used to avoid procedural safeguards which would apply in a criminal investigation." The wall intentionally exceeded the requirements of FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_Act) of 1978 for the purposes of criminal investigations, and the then-existing federal case law. These rules were, shortly after their creation, expanded to regulate such communications in future counter-terrorism investigations

The different agencies knew pieces of the conspiracy in 2001, but because of FISA and the added restrictions they wern't allowed to share information.

After 911 these restrictions were lifted...which IMO has contributed greatly to us not being attacked again. The FBI, CIA and others can now share information.

Haven't you heard that the FBI knew about Atta in Florida taking flying lessons, but because of FISA the CIA wasn't allowed to tell them what they knew?

BTW...you know Bush was only in office for about 9-10 months before 911 right? If you're going to blame him for that then you should also blame Clinton for the 1st WTC bombing. Both bombings were planned during the previous administrations (which you pointed out in the 1991 attack).

spectre, I'm guessing you think whatever they did was ok as long as it kept the country safe right? Where is the news story that shows that one single time they actually did protect the country after 9/11? You know if they actually stopped an attack it would have made the news. They needed that good press with everything else going bad for them. They needed it to put fear and trust make into the Bush governemt. There is no edvidence of one time torture has lead to any type of stopped attack. They commited a crime.

The CIA won't release the information as in their opinion it would risk their assets in the field. Considering what they do to protect us I think they have every right to do that. Bush might have needed the press, but the CIA absolutely doesn't want it.

Do you really think the extremists have given up? As much as those people hate us...they haven't tried to hit us again in 8 years?

Of course they have. That's what they do. The "evidence" is no attacks.

One last point...don't assume I am a "Bush Defender". Not that it's anyone's business, but I didn't vote him him once. The older you guys get the more you'll realize politics isn't about "you" vs. "them"...it's about "us" vs. "them". Democrats and Republicans main goal is to fool all of us and make it about the other party; it's about the ineptness of BOTH sides.

teej

05-16-2009, 07:54 PM

One last point...don't assume I am a "Bush Defender". Not that it's anyone's business, but I didn't vote him him once. The older you guys get the more you'll realize politics isn't about "you" vs. "them"...it's about "us" vs. "them". Democrats and Republicans main goal is to fool all of us and make it about the other party; it's about the ineptness of BOTH sides.

I agree with all of what you said, but I had to coment on this. I honestly can't remember the last time I have/would have felt comfortable with either candidate in office. Maybe Ross Perot in 92? Heck. It's been that long...and that's sad. Definately not anyone this century. It's been the lesser of two evils.

Ghost Kat

05-17-2009, 10:21 PM

BTW...you know Bush was only in office for about 9-10 months before 911 right? If you're going to blame him for that then you should also blame Clinton for the 1st WTC bombing. Both bombings were planned during the previous administrations (which you pointed out in the 1991 attack).

The CIA won't release the information as in their opinion it would risk their assets in the field.

Do you really think the extremists have given up? As much as those people hate us...they haven't tried to hit us again in 8 years?

The "evidence" is no attacks.

The older you guys get the more you'll realize politics isn't about "you" vs. "them"...it's about "us" vs. "them". Democrats and Republicans main goal is to fool all of us and make it about the other party; it's about the ineptness of BOTH sides.

Bush had clear warning of an attack.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CCjbmImBa6w

This video address exactly what we are talking about here. It explains who knew what and when. It wasn't a problem with FISA, Bush was warned in August of 2001.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NS_M6RvjTAQ

Obama is my 5th president. I was born in "81 the Reagan yrs. For the last 8 yrs I have watched this country fall off cliff. We started two wars with countries that did not attack us. That attack on 9-11 is suspect itself. Bin Laden still hasn't been caught. Katrina hit's and i have to watch people screaming and crying for a bottle of water. From the very start the Bush group of devils has been chipping away at this country. All the way till he left the White house on Jan. 20 2009. When that economic disaster hit he did nothing. Just passed the biggest bail out of the Banks ever, with no strings attached or records to be kept on what the money paid for. Bush should have been impeached.

I saw on the news that Germany just snatched up a 80 yr old man from America. He was a prison guard for Hitler at one of the death camps. He was here in America and had been fighting the courts for over 30 yrs some how. But He's a war criminal and they finally got him. Maybe my grand kids will have better luck then my generation is having.

Ghost Kat

06-10-2009, 07:18 PM

More Video edvidence the Bush people lied us into war and lend this country to the brink of destruction.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIBH7v_H6Zk

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

It's funny to me that Obama is getting blamed for owning car company's and insurence company's , who knows what's next. But people seem to forget it was under Bush's leadership that those companies failed. It was his policies that allowed banks to give away " free money". Bush went from a surplus of 800 billion to 10 billion in debt but Obama's ruining this country?

teej

06-11-2009, 12:20 PM

It's funny to me that Obama is getting blamed for owning car company's and insurence company's , who knows what's next. But people seem to forget it was under Bush's leadership that those companies failed. It was his policies that allowed banks to give away " free money". Bush went from a surplus of 800 billion to 10 billion in debt but Obama's ruining this country?

No, it was House and Senate Democrats that let banks and other financial institutions lend to those they knew couldnt pay back. The Congressional Republicans tried to stop it, but that didn't work. Don't say Bush let them make bad loans. Please. That's the least of his problems.

davcbow

06-11-2009, 03:25 PM

teej

06-11-2009, 03:44 PM

Seriously teej it was both sides Dem's and Rep's. Bush didnt do anything to try to stop it...nothing... I'm a Rep myself and I voted for Bush both times for certain reasons which I wont go into. But neither side tried to stop anything that was happening. Bush did however keep everybodies attention tied up with Afganistan and Iraq and "Patroitism" and "Hero" he made everybody think that if you didnt side with him you were a bad american. Im telling you they were all crooks out to pat their own pockets and thats all that mattered.... Bush and his crooks told more lies to the American people than any other clan in our history... I supported Bush and his gang until I had my eyes opened up by doing hard core research and reading the facts from many different sources from all over the country and the world... Im not just talking about the liberal media either. I know the difference.... If all you read is the "Love him" or the "Hate him" media in this country then you will never know the entire story.... Anyways Bush caved to the house and the senate to keep getting more money for his war.... :cool:

All politicians lie, no ifs, ands, or buts about it. Obama lied to us in the campaign. I don't know where, but at some, several, or many points he lied. Everyone does.

As far as the economy, many House and Senate Elephants tried to stop the deregulating of certain aspects of the loan industry. Some didn't, adding to their own coffers, but many did. As for Bush, even if he had tried, the majority in Congress would have overruled him since in was a Donkey Kong-ress from I believe '04? on.

The media tells a biased story, completely. I watch the Comedy Central News Crew, John Stewart and Stephen Colbert, because they tell you jsut as much important info as the "real" news stations and let you laugh your ass off while doing so. With some intelligent points, as well.

Ghost Kat

06-11-2009, 09:15 PM

Bush's Policies......just a small example I'm to lazy to research 2day.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28001417

By no means am I saying it was Bush alone and the Congress didn't help in this problem. But lets be clear where the orders came from here. The Bush administration was all about big business, big oil , and war. We can all point fingers at people to blame , but don't you think it's just a little silly to be blaming Obama already? He was given two wars, Torture commited by the last group so the world is looking to see if the USA will finally say we committed war crimes. Spain is already looking into the matter. Since we are apart of the league of nations they have that right. Anyway, Obama was given a horrible economy thanks to Bush doing NOTHING to fix the problem before he left. Obama has to now go over sea's and make the other countries respect us again. What is there really to honestly blame him for?

Clearly I'm a Obama supporter and not everything he has done so far have I agreed with. Like not releasing the pictures of the tortured prisoners. But I have no problem with him putting money in to buy GM. If that company goes out of business thats atleast 1 million more jobs nationwide lost. All he is doing is making sure shit doesn't get worse...Bush just let shit fall apart and pasted his problems to the next man.

davcbow, I'm not real sure what the "liberal media" is. I've heard the term plenty of times but it still confuses me. The media is the media... you have left wing, right wing and the middle.You said you listen to all side's, I do to so I respect that. Fox News talks about the liberal media alot. But thats coming from the best racist, bias, sexist station that clearly promotes propaganda.

teej

06-11-2009, 10:18 PM

Kat, liberal media is NBC, ABC/Disney, almost any New England newspapers, and occaisonally CNN. But CNN is usually good.

Conservative media is Fox, and most southern papers

Both need to shut up and get their facts straight.

Kat, you say you agree with buying all these companies (GM, Citigroup, Bear Stearns, AIG, etc.). IF they were somehow to miraculously turn a profit (which includes cutting costs by cutting jobs and that's part of what we don't want?), or just report minimal losses, what is the government going to do? Sell it? Who to? A foreign company who is just going to take the jobs away? Or just an American company (of which none can afford them, especially if they become valuable) who will send jobs overseas to pay for the government's bill? Swedd and I, and our kids are on the hook for all this spending, so it's up to us to keep the admin. that doesn't have to pay a dime in check.

You also say you support not releasing photos. Did you agree with him when he said he was going to release them during his campaign? Or what about the plan for closing Gitmo? How about that "abused" dog? Just wondering...

Ghost Kat

06-11-2009, 10:31 PM

Kat, you say you agree with buying all these companies (GM, Citigroup, Bear Stearns, AIG, etc.).

You also say you support not releasing photos. Did you agree with him when he said he was going to release them during his campaign? Or what about the plan for closing Gitmo? How about that "abused" dog? Just wondering...

I never said anything about agreeing with bailing out the banks. I said GM, More then just GM the company is affected if they go down. The bank bailout I'm not to happy about that but Obama didn't bail the banks out. That happened under Bush's watch just before Obama took office. Now he has to fix that problem too hopefully.

Obama never said anything about releasing them on the campaign trail. In office he said he would then changed his mind. The picture's show clear signs that we tortured people. They also show that it wasn't just those low level people in Abu Ghrib. That means the Bush people ordered it..That means War Crimes and Jail or Firing Squad.

Gitomo needs to be closed. It's a symbol to the terrorist just like the Towers are to Americans. Half the people there have never been charged with anything. I know your not one of those that say they can't be kept in US jails are you? If there's one thing the USA does well it's put people in jail and keep them in there.

Abused Dog?? :shrug: Lost me on that one....

teej

06-11-2009, 10:54 PM

I never said anything about agreeing with bailing out the banks. I said GM, More then just GM the company is affected if they go down. The bank bailout I'm not to happy about that but Obama didn't bail the banks out. That happened under Bush's watch just before Obama took office. Now he has to fix that problem too hopefully.

What's the difference? Both are arrogant, self-serving immoral corporate people and lower level people who work for them trying to earn an honest income. A LOT more than just citibank or AIG is affected. What about the people with bad loans. What about the compaines and small business insured and who have loans with these companies. Probably would be worse if AIG went out of business. Not that they don't deserve.

Obama never said anything about releasing them on the campaign trail. In office he said he would then changed his mind. The picture's show clear signs that we tortured people. They also show that it wasn't just those low level people in Abu Ghrib. That means the Bush people ordered it..That means War Crimes and Jail or Firing Squad.

My B on when he said it, but whenever he did, it's called waffling. I would bet Cheney or Rumsfeld ordered something, so that's not surprising at all. Maybe even Dubya. Lots of presidents do shameful things, and whether or not these people deserved this treatment, they want to kill you, and your family. I'm fine with non-permanent interrogation techniques to keep my family safe.

Gitomo needs to be closed. It's a symbol to the terrorist just like the Towers are to Americans. Half the people there have never been charged with anything. I know your not one of those that say they can't be kept in US jails are you? If there's one thing the USA does well it's put people in jail and keep them in there.

If they were charged with something, they'd be convicted. So what if we established a new place? I'm fine with that, as long as it's max security and not close to an urban center.

Abused Dog?? :shrug: Lost me on that one....

I know this came from the campaign trail. He promised to adopt an abused dog from a shelter, and instead he took in a senator's dog that the senator was allergic to.

SWedd523

06-11-2009, 11:47 PM

teej, you do understand you're completely wrong about GM right? They failed, just like Chrysler is and Ford did, because people don't have the money to afford buying a new car.

The government doesn't tax imports like other nations do. Effectively putting American automakers in a hole because foreign workers are paid for pennies on the dollar when union workers get paid 30+ dollars an hour to hardly work at all. They aren't getting an honest pay because they're getting overpaid. These unions are driving American automakers into the ground because the Ford Taurus starts out being $2,000 more expensive than the Toyota Camry. In other words, Toyota can put $2,000 more into their car to make it nicer and still sale it for the same price.

The American auto industry also takes a hit on negative publicity at the hands of the government and media. They tout Japanese and even German automakers as being super advanced and economic when they really aren't. Chevrolet has more cars averaging over 30mpg than Toyota. And all 3 of the major American automakers are developing electric and hydrogen powered vehicles at the same pace, if not faster, than their foreign counterparts.

Simply put, GM is a dependent company. We're in the midst of a recession right now, so nobody has money to spend on a new car when they have to pay bills and put food on the table. Don't hate GM for something they have no control over.

I guarantee that if they eliminate the crazy powerful unions then they'll see their profits rise. Even still, if the media stops brainwashing the masses into believing all of Pruis bullshit and try to show some loyalty to America for once, then they will also benefit mightily.

davcbow

06-12-2009, 12:08 AM

davcbow, I'm not real sure what the "liberal media" is. I've heard the term plenty of times but it still confuses me. The media is the media... you have left wing, right wing and the middle.You said you listen to all side's, I do to so I respect that. Fox News talks about the liberal media alot. But thats coming from the best racist, bias, sexist station that clearly promotes propaganda.

Maybe this site will help with that, and yes I know fox is clearly a conservative channel and nbc quite a bit more liberal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_media

Ghost Kat

06-12-2009, 01:21 AM

You know whats strange...If there are more liberal news stations, Why do the Republicans win so many elections? Seems if there was so much Liberal bias the news would be slated a little more in that direction especially around election time. If there was so much Liberal bias why did the entire news organization allow Bush to take us to war without asking a single question or running a single news report? Why haven't the news people asked a question about 9-11. Look at all the questions I've asked so far, Someone with a TV Show can't ask the same or better?

Teej,

U know what I could care less about that dog. It only matter if his little girls like the dog. He tried to get a shelter dog, maybe he found one his girl and his family would like better.

The problem with Gitmo is that no one has been charged. No one has been put on trial. They were snatched up and jailed...Some tortured. Now you have a place thats used as a symbol to terrorists that hurts the image of America. I said I wanted the photo's released. When people see what actually happen then maybe some questions on who ordered that behavior will start.

I'll give you the stuff about the Bank bailout's. Thats not something I have enough information on to defend. Any big business callapsing has negative effects on society. All I have is that not something Obama can be blamed with and neither is buying GM. It was planned to bailout or buyout GM when Bush was in office, He kicked the bucket over to Obama by putting a hold on deal. Obama didn't buy GM, but the right wing is trying hard to market that.

Ghost Kat

06-12-2009, 01:30 AM

fox is clearly a conservative channel and nbc quite a bit more liberal.

Let me ask you a personal question then....Which one do you think is hurting this country more?

Me...Fox News...It's watched by more people and the bias on that station is STRONG. They don't research facts. Most of their news anchors are racist, sexist, super bias towards big business big oil. Fox News is against equal rights for Gay people and Abortions. News stations aren't suppose to pick a side. They promoted the Bush White House with no negative news stories. With the things said on that station there's no wonder so many right wing people have gone crazy lately and shoot up innocent people. Why isn't the liberal biased media attacking right wing crazy folk like Fox attacks abortion doctors as murder's and the "so called" Terrorists and the President of Iran and Korea and Venezuela and the Soviet Union and Liberals. What those right wing folk have done is terrorism. Who's the last Liberal to shot something up?

davcbow

06-12-2009, 04:25 PM

Let me ask you a personal question then....Which one do you think is hurting this country more?

Me...Fox News...It's watched by more people and the bias on that station is STRONG. They don't research facts. Most of their news anchors are racist, sexist, super bias towards big business big oil. Fox News is against equal rights for Gay people and Abortions. News stations aren't suppose to pick a side. They promoted the Bush White House with no negative news stories. With the things said on that station there's no wonder so many right wing people have gone crazy lately and shoot up innocent people. Why isn't the liberal biased media attacking right wing crazy folk like Fox attacks abortion doctors as murder's and the "so called" Terrorists and the President of Iran and Korea and Venezuela and the Soviet Union and Liberals. What those right wing folk have done is terrorism. Who's the last Liberal to shot something up?

I agree, Id like to choke that entire staff on fox news.... thats the main reason I turn the channel so much....:cool:

teej

06-12-2009, 05:33 PM

teej, you do understand you're completely wrong about GM right? They failed, just like Chrysler is and Ford did, because people don't have the money to afford buying a new car.

Bullshit. They failed because they thought Americans wouldn't buy foreign cars and they thought Foreign cars wouldn't make inroads. And they thought nascar meant something.

The government doesn't tax imports like other nations do. Effectively putting American automakers in a hole because foreign workers are paid for pennies on the dollar when union workers get paid 30+ dollars an hour to hardly work at all. They aren't getting an honest pay because they're getting overpaid. These unions are driving American automakers into the ground because the Ford Taurus starts out being $2,000 more expensive than the Toyota Camry. In other words, Toyota can put $2,000 more into their car to make it nicer and still sale it for the same price.

Um, Let's see. Toyota makes 10 models in the US by Union workers, and Honda 6, by the same union workers, not counting the plenty of Acura's and Lexus/Scion models. Chevy, Chrysler, and Ford, on the other hand, have plants outside the US, including their main sedan models used in NASCAR. These are the very untaxed imports made by non-union workers you talk about, but they come from Detroit's showroom's, not Japan. If you want I'll look up other manu's but I know BMW has a plant in South Carolina, close to where you live.

The American auto industry also takes a hit on negative publicity at the hands of the government and media. They tout Japanese and even German automakers as being super advanced and economic when they really aren't. Chevrolet has more cars averaging over 30mpg than Toyota. And all 3 of the major American automakers are developing electric and hydrogen powered vehicles at the same pace, if not faster, than their foreign counterparts.

They do get a bad rap, but it's because they're never leaders, only followers. What have they done that's been both innovative an moderately succesful?

Simply put, GM is a dependent company. We're in the midst of a recession right now, so nobody has money to spend on a new car when they have to pay bills and put food on the table. Don't hate GM for something they have no control over.

I guarantee that if they eliminate the crazy powerful unions then they'll see their profits rise. Even still, if the media stops brainwashing the masses into believing all of Pruis bullshit and try to show some loyalty to America for once, then they will also benefit mightily.

I hate the Prius, it's not cost-effective, but my mom's Honda Ridgeline is compared to the Ford F-150, Dodge Ram, and Chevy Silverado. It's cheaper, gets better mileage, has a much nicer interior, and carries just as much cargo. It's a real image problem. My parents were pro-Detroit for the longest time, and had Chrysler products since they were married, but when they went to buy a new car, well, Detroit just couldn't compete.

KAT, I think that while NBC and Fox are both ruining politics, Fox is worse because they admit to taking sides. I think it was Tim Russert's Meet the Press on NBC/MSNBC that was the gold standard for excellence in fairness, so that's gonna gie them the edge. But NBC still is immoral and liberalized beyond belief. I refuse to watch their news coverage.

Ghost Kat

06-12-2009, 06:19 PM

KAT, I think that while NBC and Fox are both ruining politics, Fox is worse because they admit to taking sides. .

Fox say's everyday that they are " Fair & Balanced ".....:mad:...They haven't abmitted taking sides far as I can tell but if you watch Fox News their side is very clear. Fox is worse not because they admit to taking side it's the message they promote. It's the right wing view point thats dangerous. The abortion doctor that was killed last week...For monthes I watched Bill O'Reilly on Fox call him Tiller the baby killer. He repeatedly said something needs to be done to stop him.... then someone went and shot Dr. Tiller. Now when they do the same thing with President Obama, who's fault will it be when someone tries to shot him? If your primary news channel calls the president a nazi & socialist or other nonsense every single day....Whos fault is it really when one of those people goes out and shoot's up a couple people....( Or flies a plane into a building )

teej

06-12-2009, 06:28 PM

Fox say's everyday that they are " Fair & Balanced ".....:mad:...They haven't abmitted taking sides far as I can tell but if you watch Fox News their side is very clear. Fox is worse not because they admit to taking side it's the message they promote. It's the right wing view point thats dangerous. The abortion doctor that was killed last week...For monthes I watched Bill O'Reilly on Fox call him Tiller the baby killer. He repeatedly said something needs to be done to stop him.... then someone went and shot Dr. Tiller. Now when they do the same thing with President Obama, who's fault will it be when someone tries to shot him? If your primary news channel calls the president a nazi & socialist or other nonsense every single day....Whos fault is it really when one of those people goes out and shoot's up a couple people....( Or flies a plane into a building )

that's what I meant by saying they admit to taking sides, the network itself doesnt but everyone there does. except alan colmes, the poor guy haha. but even as a (moderate) conservative I agree that our activists are more dangerous than liberals, because the only deaths from liberal activists are via abortions. Conservatives are from all sorts of stuff.

Just so it's clear, I don't condone any non-peaceful protesting or activism, it's immoral, dangerous, and illegal. If those three don't get you, well, there's something wrong.

Ghost Kat

06-17-2009, 04:32 PM

because the only deaths from liberal activists are via abortions.

Now thats not exactly true...Females of all political parties have abortions. The liberals only want to give female the right to choose for themselves what they do. The Right wing says No...even if the mothers life is in danger or she gets raped. Conservative's complain so much about the Government doing this and that and buying company's but they never have a problem with telling people what drugs they can and can't take, Who they can and can't marry and telling people you should got to jail if you have an abortion.

I'm watching Fox News right now and I see alot of complain about the Liberal's and liberal polices. But it's clear to me and many americans that the Conservative right wing way of doing things hasn't worked. It didn't work under Nixon, Reagan, Bush one Bush two and even father back in history. That low taxes, go to war with everyone approach only lends to the destruction of the economy or World War 3.

WarioVsMooChicken

06-17-2009, 10:15 PM

I haven't read this topic, but can we all agree that people who believe in conspiracy theories are morons?

BETCATS

06-18-2009, 05:40 PM

I haven't read this topic, but can we all agree that people who believe in conspiracy theories are morons?

Not exactly, but sort of. Lots of conspiracy theroists are smart people who want to closer examify a situation, lots are 'wackos' (like you said), and lots are people simply looking for 'the truth'.

davcbow

06-18-2009, 09:29 PM

Not exactly, but sort of. Lots of conspiracy theroists are smart people who want to closer examify a situation, lots are 'wackos' (like you said), and lots are people simply looking for 'the truth'.

Exactly, I'm no moron believe me, but people that sit there and tell me that Bush didn't have an arterial motive are the morons....:cool:

Ghost Kat

06-24-2009, 09:12 PM

I haven't read this topic, but can we all agree that people who believe in conspiracy theories are morons?

Damn I guess this is directed at me since I started this thread and have defended it ever since. Wario, I've pointed out alot in this thread that you haven't even read but felt the need to comment on. I've asked alot of question's that the government hasn't answered yet. I have some more question's and Wario, If you can't give me an educated answer that makes sense then don't call me a moron for asking the question...

I invite everyone to Google: Able Danger, Who profited from 9-11, False Flag attacks and Operation Northwoods.

Some False Flag Events: Hitler burns down his own parliment building, Blames it on the "terrorists". Operation Northwoods, 1962, under Pres. Kennedy, plan to blow up ships and blame it on Cuba just to start a war. Pres. Lyndon B. Johnson, Gulf on Tonken, USA boats "supposely" blown up , " innocent american's killed" so we have to go to war with Vietnam. No USA boat was ever blown up. 1st Desert Strom war, Bush 43, One of the stories told was that Saddam ordered his henchmen to kill babies at the hospital. Never happened. It's happened in every country, South Africa, Europe on the 7-7 train attacks. Isn't it strange they were having a drill on 7-7 in London on the morning of the attacks. Just like the USA they had the exact same drill running as the attacks in the same spot in the area the drills are suppose to be held. All documented by the media and other officals.
BTW, Can't leave out the attack in OKC.

Couple Question's:

If 9-11 was an attack on the USA. Why, after hearing about the second plane did Bush just sit in the Florida classroom for 7 mins? Seems like they would have rushed him off to some undisclosed location for his safety.

Why didn't the Gov. or the 9-11 commission investagate who funded the 9-11. (Pakistan, Saudi's, others)

Why doesn't Bin Laden's wanted poster have anything about the 9-11 attacks on it? It's reports Osama was a CIA agent since the war against the Soviets. We trained him and funded him. Why haven't we caught him after 8 yrs? It's aslo been reported that he's dead, how is he still making tapes like Tupac?

Why did the USA give Visa's ( passports)for entry to this country to 15 of the 19 highjackers? Even though atleast 8 or 9 were on the terrorist watch list.

How is it four planes are highjacked, The Governemnt knows they've been highjacked and ZERO planes are sent to intercept them? That says that NORAL and the Air force are not dependable to protect us.

When the buildings fell, Why was everything turned into dust? A building falling over doesn't crush every single thing in the building into fine dust. Why did the Firefighters and Police and News people report "Bombs" going off?

Why is there no real video or pictures from 9-11 that show clear signs of a 757 crashing into the pentagon or in Shanksville. No dead bodies, blood, body parts, luggage, plane parts that match the supposely highjacked planes.

Thats enough for now...Now Wario, I was nice enough to listen to that webcast you made. It was about 30 mins, I have a 30 minute video for you to watch. Not the best but it does the job. So since I was nice enough to take time out to watch something you produced check out my video..please

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEr5hjmRe7E

teej

06-24-2009, 10:00 PM

If 9-11 was an attack on the USA. Why, after hearing about the second plane did Bush just sit in the Florida classroom for 7 mins? Seems like they would have rushed him off to some undisclosed location for his safety.

they were likely preparing his flight, those things take time, and none of the terrorist knew where he was.

Why didn't the Gov. or the 9-11 commission investagate who funded the 9-11. (Pakistan, Saudi's, others)

they probably all were briefed via the CIA or other means, Interpol perhaps.

Why doesn't Bin Laden's wanted poster have anything about the 9-11 attacks on it? It's reports Osama was a CIA agent since the war against the Soviets. We trained him and funded him. Why haven't we caught him after 8 yrs? It's aslo been reported that he's dead, how is he still making tapes like Tupac?

Pre-recorded tapes if he is dead, or maybe he's just using those CIA skills if he's alive? e train agents very well you know.

Why did the USA give Visa's ( passports)for entry to this country to 15 of the 19 highjackers? Even though atleast 8 or 9 were on the terrorist watch list.

My teacher's preteen son is on the watch list...plus there was probably bad communication between agencies.

How is it four planes are highjacked, The Governemnt knows they've been highjacked and ZERO planes are sent to intercept them? That says that NORAL and the Air force are not dependable to protect us.

Norad, not Noral. And by the time they figured out where they were it was too late.

When the buildings fell, Why was everything turned into dust? A building falling over doesn't crush every single thing in the building into fine dust. Why did the Firefighters and Police and News people report "Bombs" going off?[/qoute]

They didn't fall over, they collapsed. And it was from the materials in the building being crushed rapidly and reduced into much simpler states. Go crush an apple, and see how much juice and innards fly out. Or maybe a concrate block would be more your style, I don't know. And there was penty of steel and other stuff lying around Ground Zero. As for "bombs", what about flammable materials inside the towers being crushed, like a propane tank or such? I don't know what they had their, but those things make a bomb like sound when they get destroyed improperly.

[quote]Why is there no real video or pictures from 9-11 that show clear signs of a 757 crashing into the pentagon or in Shanksville. No dead bodies, blood, body parts, luggage, plane parts that match the supposely highjacked planes.

Because no one was there to videotape it? Cameraphones werent really around, and the news wasnt at the pentagon, so why should there be lots of video? And most of the cargo was probably liquefied on impact or fuel tank explosion...

millst2

06-24-2009, 11:00 PM

As far as 9-11, Not true millst2, It's not about sides. It's about the laws of nature being broken sayin jet fuel can weaken steal enough to cause the building to pancake. It's about Laws of our country clearly being broken. It's about a President becoming a Dictator and ruining this country from the top down. Hate on Obama all you want, Bush put him in the position to buy GM and those wall street companies.
.

HAHAHAHAHAHA He can only blame bush's little deficit so long. He had already Quadrupled it. And nobody makes someone buy a car company. WTF, It is a free market society, if they can not manage themselves let them fail. Bush didn't make him cram universal healthcare down anyone's throats. Bush has not made him break his campaign promises to you or others who drank the kool aid and voted for him. Bush didn't make him raise taxes on tobacco, cut military spending, go on a global apology tour. Bush did not make him take actions to redistribute my hard earned money to others who are to damn lazy to put down the doritos and get off the couch and get a job to better themselves.

As far as GM, it is done for anyways. Nobody wants to drive a Smart Car or little ass Fiat sized SUV. The Cap and Trade bill if it passes will raise Your taxes by 2k a year, add the bush tax cuts expiring on top of that and now your paying an extra 4k a yr in taxes and that is before he raises taxes on fast food, sodas, pizza delivery etc., if you smoke your already feeling the lie.

Taxing Health Benefits well theres another tax your needing to add now.. so if you make 30k a yr and your employers pay 90% of your health benefits then for easy math go ahead and claim now you make 36k a year, since your going to be taxed on it. And bush sure as hell isn't making them pass the agriculture bill raisng the costs of produce and meats and vegetables at the store.. ( wait! We can't chalk that one as obama's yet since other liberals are saying it is a stupid idea)..

But your right, blame it on bush and his inability to do anything the last 2 years he was in office due to the dems controling the houses.; But don't tell bawney fwankz he has been warned of the dems stupid POVs by bush, powell and many other politicians about the housing crisis that would rear it's head if laws weren't changed.

A one and done obama is what we have, a 20 pt swing in how people feel Obama knows more about how to handle the economy than they do. The biggest reason it wasn't higher than the 20pts was due to the majority of people earning 20k or less a yr still feels that Obama knows more about the economy than they do,, all other groups not the case. His honeymoon period is over and he can't keep reading the same stupid liberal BS off of his broken teleprompters and blaming bush for the mess he is creating.

Govt ran car companies, Banks, Healthcare, Regulating of how much one can donate to a church/ civic group/ research center etc, Cap and Trade, damn now that I think of it Bush must be the man if he can leave office and make Obama do all of this stuff. Especially after Obama admitted on TV that the country is broke... but ..umm... let's umm Talk about Universal Healthcare thats going to cost 1.6 trillion over the next 10 yrs ( CBO states best case scenario) and lets talk about How many jobs I saved *( umm no other president has ever made up that type of stupid BS,, but considering nobody can prove what was saved or not) unemployment will be 8% worst case scenario if we spend trillions more taxpayer dollars,,, OOPS,, its already reported at 9.4% ( real estimate since it is a lagging indicator is that it is closer to 12%)

Maybe he can get a few more taxcheats in his cabinet and they can figure out a way to fudge some more numbers.

But you did hit Obama's description right on the head... " It's about a President becoming a Dictator and ruining this country from the top down. " . Obama is hiring and firing execs, he is limiting caps not only now on wall street companies but they are trying to say business owners and execs should only be allowed to make X amount a yr. He is no different right now than Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro. Wait, I believe they even stated on camera here recently at a UN Meeting " Hugo Chavez told the reporters " Who would have thought that Venezula and Myself would be to the Right of Obama"

I mean seriously if your that blind to call bush a dictator,, what the hell is Obama?? Hitler Reincarnated.
Step away from the kool-aid and think for yourself, it's okay theres support groups out there for this.

teej

06-24-2009, 11:32 PM

I changed the name of the thread so it can be all inclusive and more accurate.

WarioVsMooChicken

06-25-2009, 01:20 AM

It's too absurd to happen. I don't need to be "educated" in every lil bit about this issue. there's no way thousands, tens of thousands, maybe even hundreds of thousands of people are gonna keep their mouths shut about something like this (you know, the people who would know the "truth").

Really, the 9/11 deal has almost became as bad as denying the holocaust.

I'm sure the government could have done more to prevent stuff and I'm sure they are trying to cover that up, but for them to plan and do all 9/11 is just too ludicrous to have more than a hundreth of a chance of actually happeneing.

Ignore all the typos and grammar mistakes I have made, I'm sure there are many, but I am ina rush for bed.

Ghost Kat

06-25-2009, 01:21 AM

Wario....you watch the video?

Thousands of people don't have to be involved just enough people up top to order a cover up. People that work for the Gov. and have access to the "proof" have signed paper work with the Gov. saying if they release that info they go to jail. Let's say the Gov. didn't plan the attacks, They knew it was planned and allowed it to happen. Which is really worse? If they allow it to happen Bush gets to pass laws like the Patriot Act that lets the Gov. Tap your phone..Your phone...not just the terrorist. Plus the Gov. can come all up in your house..No warrent...If they think your a terrorist. According to that law I'm a terrorist for starting this thread. Ya'll don't turn me in to Home Land security....:'(

WarioVsMooChicken

06-25-2009, 01:21 AM

And I didn't "single anybody out".

You mentioned me not reading this topic fully (which is true), but if thats true, how would I know to single you out?

Sort of making a paradox there.

Ghost Kat

06-25-2009, 01:55 AM

And I didn't "single anybody out".

You mentioned me not reading this topic fully (which is true), but if thats true, how would I know to single you out?

Sort of making a paradox there.

Ok...Maybe I over reacted...But I did start and defend this so you were calling me a moron since I of course believe in what I'm saying.

Right?

Ghost Kat

06-25-2009, 01:55 AM

they were likely preparing his flight, those things take time, and none of the terrorist knew where he was.

Now you know thats not true. His visit to that school was in the papers and on the news. It's was a photo op for Bush. That SOB sat there after hearing that two different planes hit both towers with in like 15 mins. You want to see the footage I have the video. The " Terrorist " just had to watch Fox News to know where Bush would have been. Preparing his flight? They didn't even try to hurry him out the room into the limo to go to the plane. He sat there for 7 whole mins reading My Pet Goat, Actually the kids were reading he was just looking off into space.

they probably all were briefed via the CIA or other means, Interpol perhaps.

I'm sorry wrong again. The 9-11 commission wrote in there report that it wasn't important who paid for it. Now does that make sense to you? The people funding the attack are very important >:(. Report's after 9-11 show that Pakistan & Saudi Arbia or people there helped wire money to some of the high jackers.

Pre-recorded tapes if he is dead, or maybe he's just using those CIA skills if he's alive? e train agents very well you know.
Bin Laden is dead...I posted a video about that like five pages back.

My teacher's preteen son is on the watch list...plus there was probably bad communication between agencies.

Wrong.... BTW your teacher's preteen son wouldn't & shouldn't be able to enter another country if he is on a terrorist watchlist. Plus after 9-11 alot of people were unfairly put on this so called watch list. I'm talking about before when the Government knew, repeatedly told, that these people posed a danger to the USA.

Norad, not Noral. And by the time they figured out where they were it was too late.

Sorry about the spelling glad you knew what I meant. And No, again, The Air force and ground control knew the planes were highjacked. You really need to watch some of my video's so you can hear the actual people talking to each other on that day.

They didn't fall over, they collapsed. And it was from the materials in the building being crushed rapidly and reduced into much simpler states. Go crush an apple, and see how much juice and innards fly out. Or maybe a concrate block would be more your style, I don't know. And there was penty of steel and other stuff lying around Ground Zero. As for "bombs", what about flammable materials inside the towers being crushed, like a propane tank or such? I don't know what they had their, but those things make a bomb like sound when they get destroyed improperly.

No....Propane tanks? Really? Why would a propane tank explode on the 23rd floor if the plane hit around the 78th floor? No fire down on the 23rd, if there was no one would have gotten out the towers.Why was the lobby blown out? What about the explostions reported in the basement of both WTC's? Propane tanks too? If the planes hit the top why is stuff in the basement blowing up? Fire didn't go down the Elevator shaft ever, Let me crush that excuse before any one uses it. The WTC elevator's were sealed air tight. They were made that way just so fires couldn't find a easy way to jump from floor to floor.

Because no one was there to videotape it? Cameraphones werent really around, and the news wasnt at the pentagon, so why should there be lots of video? And most of the cargo was probably liquefied on impact or fuel tank explosion...

Camera Phones?? :mad:...Seriously? The whole Media was there. They had a million camera's on WTC 1 about 15 minutes after the first plane hit and were live the rest of the day. The Media was at both crash sites min's after the pentagon attack and crash site of flight 93 there's are plenty of picture's and video footage. Look for your self, But no picture or film of anything that looks like a 757 full of people and 155 feet worth of plane. There are "plane parts" but nothing that comes close to a 757 and no people.

BTW, the pentagon has camera's everywhere...inside and out side...EVERYWHERE. They have weapon's on the roof to shoot down plane's just like the white house. Where's is the video footage of a plane actually hitting that building? You ever see it on the news?

BTW 2....Please find me one plane crash in the history of flight where everything was liquified on impact. People, Steal from the plane, the twin engine's which don't melt till 3000 degree's, The BLACK BOXES,Suitcases,Landing gear, everything but a few small scraps? Never..Never...Never. If everything was melted..How did they ID the bodies? How do they know people were even on the plane?

Eye A Pre She Ate U trying to answer my questions though.

Ghost Kat

06-25-2009, 02:36 AM

Millst2

HAHAHAHAHAHA He can only blame bush's little deficit so long. He had already Quadrupled it. And nobody makes someone buy a car company. WTF, It is a free market society, if they can not manage themselves let them fail. Bush didn't make him cram universal healthcare down anyone's throats. Bush has not made him break his campaign promises to you or others who drank the kool aid and voted for him. Bush didn't make him raise taxes on tobacco, cut military spending, go on a global apology tour. Bush did not make him take actions to redistribute my hard earned money to others who are to damn lazy to put down the doritos and get off the couch and get a job to better themselves.

As far as GM, it is done for anyways. Nobody wants to drive a Smart Car or little ass Fiat sized SUV. The Cap and Trade bill if it passes will raise Your taxes by 2k a year, add the bush tax cuts expiring on top of that and now your paying an extra 4k a yr in taxes and that is before he raises taxes on fast food, sodas, pizza delivery etc., if you smoke your already feeling the lie.

Taxing Health Benefits well theres another tax your needing to add now.. so if you make 30k a yr and your employers pay 90% of your health benefits then for easy math go ahead and claim now you make 36k a year, since your going to be taxed on it. And bush sure as hell isn't making them pass the agriculture bill raisng the costs of produce and meats and vegetables at the store.. ( wait! We can't chalk that one as obama's yet since other liberals are saying it is a stupid idea)..

But your right, blame it on bush and his inability to do anything the last 2 years he was in office due to the dems controling the houses.; But don't tell bawney fwankz he has been warned of the dems stupid POVs by bush, powell and many other politicians about the housing crisis that would rear it's head if laws weren't changed.

A one and done obama is what we have, a 20 pt swing in how people feel Obama knows more about how to handle the economy than they do. The biggest reason it wasn't higher than the 20pts was due to the majority of people earning 20k or less a yr still feels that Obama knows more about the economy than they do,, all other groups not the case. His honeymoon period is over and he can't keep reading the same stupid liberal BS off of his broken teleprompters and blaming bush for the mess he is creating.

Govt ran car companies, Banks, Healthcare, Regulating of how much one can donate to a church/ civic group/ research center etc, Cap and Trade, damn now that I think of it Bush must be the man if he can leave office and make Obama do all of this stuff. Especially after Obama admitted on TV that the country is broke... but ..umm... let's umm Talk about Universal Healthcare thats going to cost 1.6 trillion over the next 10 yrs ( CBO states best case scenario) and lets talk about How many jobs I saved *( umm no other president has ever made up that type of stupid BS,, but considering nobody can prove what was saved or not) unemployment will be 8% worst case scenario if we spend trillions more taxpayer dollars,,, OOPS,, its already reported at 9.4% ( real estimate since it is a lagging indicator is that it is closer to 12%)

Maybe he can get a few more taxcheats in his cabinet and they can figure out a way to fudge some more numbers.

But you did hit Obama's description right on the head... " It's about a President becoming a Dictator and ruining this country from the top down. " . Obama is hiring and firing execs, he is limiting caps not only now on wall street companies but they are trying to say business owners and execs should only be allowed to make X amount a yr. He is no different right now than Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro. Wait, I believe they even stated on camera here recently at a UN Meeting " Hugo Chavez told the reporters " Who would have thought that Venezula and Myself would be to the Right of Obama"

I mean seriously if your that blind to call bush a dictator,, what the hell is Obama?? Hitler Reincarnated.
Step away from the kool-aid and think for yourself, it's okay theres support groups out there for this.

Wow...I don't even know where to start on this. I'm glad you came back, You are TOO funny. You know those right wing talking point's by heart. Now before you hurl the Liberal insult at me, I'll tell you that your way of thinking is slowly dying out in this country.

Obama has been in office for 6 months. Bush was in office 8 yrs. Clinton left a 5 Billion $ SURPLUS when Bush stole the election and became Pres. We now are 10 billion or more in the hole. From plus to minus under Bush...Not Obama. BTW, You truely know nothing about history if your already calling Obama Hitler. I wouldn't go that far else you have some real historical edvidence to back it up. I have mine for Bush/Hitler. One talking point I'm truely tired of because it's a blatant lie is that people on welfare are all just sitting around eating chips and having more kids. That's proven to be so untrue, seriously stop using that nonsense.

You have the nerve to talk about 1.6 trillion in 10 yrs for health care but have no problem with the USA using that same amount in 7 yrs fighting two needless wars? Your talking about Obama bailing out the car company's and the banks...But you seem to forget those plans to bail the banks and car's out was put into effect under Bush... The economy collapsed because of Bush's policies and lack of regulation.....Now your trying to blame Obama for problems that were started under Bush and then He punted all the hard work over to Obama. Who was in office when the banks were bailed out the 1st time? When they started talking bout GM and everyone else needing money to stay alive who was the President? Who was on TV 1st telling the country these banks need money or the world will end? This stuff didn't just appear when we elected Obama.

You people are funny with that teleprompter shit...Bush couldn't even complete a sentence on his own without sounding retarded. Bush read from Teleprompters too. Obama's just does it way better. All of them use teleprompter's even the reports on TV and Fox News that make this nonsense up.

I'm done, I couldn't even cover all that stuff you said, It's to late at night. But you'll believe what you want to, I love how all your blame goes on Obama already but you seem to have ignored everything Bush did. That because you were one of the people that benefited from it. You complain about paying taxes, Fine don't pay and see what happens. Bush cut Taxes and then started two wars and wanted a 3rd with Iran... Where do you think we are getting the money to fund that shit? That might be a great reason why this country is in debt now.If you aren't paying Taxes then your child or his child or someone's child will be stuck with that debt to the Fed. Reserve and other countries. They will get their money either in Blood or Treasure.

BTW...If McCain had won we would be at war with Korea and Iran right now....that would have been four wars at once.

Ghost Kat

06-25-2009, 05:40 AM

I changed the name of the thread so it can be all inclusive and more accurate.

Yeah, I noticed. I'm not sure how I feel about this new title yet. My original one was pretty eye catching and also a quick link if the title was googled.

Free Advertisment for the site.....;D.....BCP your welcome

teej

06-25-2009, 01:16 PM

Yeah, I noticed. I'm not sure how I feel about this new title yet. My original one was pretty eye catching and also a quick link if the title was googled.

Free Advertisment for the site.....;D.....BCP your welcome

It should still show up as that in a search.

As for your other stuff, I was in 2nd grade when 9/11 happened, but I don't see how you can say we know 4 planes were highjacked and then turn around and say that two of them didnt crash where the media said they did? Where did they crash/land/end up?

And even if one didn't end up at the Pentagon, did they ship in plane parts to be put out on display after the "explosion"? Seriously? You constantly make fun of Bush, but you think he is smart enough to do all this? Hell, Clinton isn't smart enough to do all this.

also, until I see a body I won't believe Osama is dead. No way no how. There is too much you can do with computers today (just look at movies) for me to believe anything on the net that isn't confirmed by all major countries and news sources. It'd make headlines man.

As for reading your cameras comment, there is footage and stills of two jets flying into the towers in NYC. We KNOW that happened. And the heat from the jet fuel that caused the building to collapse also likely caused the contents of the jet to be destroyed. Same with the Pentagon and PA crash.

With the 9/11 commision, if they didn't go into who paid, that's their bad, but it's DC, they don't even have a list of all the levees in the country, so I'm not surprised. At all.

I'd watch your videos if I had time, but I really don't. Sorry man. But I'm sure some people are...

davcbow

06-26-2009, 03:00 AM

The last thing the government is going to do is make themselves look bad to the american people. They are like magicians "hey look what my left hand is doing" mean while the right hand is totally up to something else....:cool:

Ghost Kat

06-26-2009, 07:57 AM

As for your other stuff, I was in 2nd grade when 9/11 happened, but I don't see how you can say we know 4 planes were highjacked and then turn around and say that two of them didnt crash where the media said they did? Where did they crash/land/end up?

You were in 2nd grade and I was a freshman in college...which one of us has a better concept on what happened that day?

There are reports that flight 93 landed in Cleveland. I'll find the media link since you don't watch my video's. But it was on two of the video's I posted. Honestly I can't tell you exactly what happened, But I know the story the Gov. put out isn't true.

And even if one didn't end up at the Pentagon, did they ship in plane parts to be put out on display after the "explosion"? Seriously? You constantly make fun of Bush, but you think he is smart enough to do all this? Hell, Clinton isn't smart enough to do all this.

Have you ever heard of a drone plane? We usually use them for spy missions. No pilot, It's controlled either from the ground or the air. BTW, I stated before Bush is a puppet. He doesn't have to be smart enough to pull this off all by himself. His puppet masters like Cheney are one's with the evil master plan. Don't say that these folks aren't smart enough to pull this off. Bush stole the 2000 election that shows his people have some power in tricking the american people.

also, until I see a body I won't believe Osama is dead. No way no how. There is too much you can do with computers today (just look at movies) for me to believe anything on the net that isn't confirmed by all major countries and news sources. It'd make headlines man.

Watch something other then America news shows....:(

Until you see a body? No bodies were found at the Pentagon or Shanksville but you still believe that. The video i posted that says Bin Laden is dead is only 3 minutes long. Your telling me you don't have 3 mins in your day to watch it? You'd rather go on living a lie then educate yourself? You seem like a smart person so it just seems disrespectful to say "Don't have time". BTW the person that confirmed Bin Laden was dead was Benzir Bhutto ,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto , The lady that was running for president of Iraq before she was murdered. But she's not someone you'd believe right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnychOXj9Tg

She say's it at the 2:25 mark or close to that time.

Bhutto's allegations regarding Osama bin Laden's murder

In an interview given to David Frost (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Frost) in November 2007, Benazir Bhutto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto) states that Osama bin Laden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden) was killed by Omar Sheikh.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Omar_Saeed_Sheikh#cite_note-19) Some say this proves a knowledge base that would have given many people reasons to assassinate her, and her assassins are still free today.[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Omar_Saeed_Sheikh#cite_note-20) Omar Chatriwala, a journalist for Al Jazeera English, claims that he chose not to pursue the story at the time because it was an apparent slip of the tongue and that Bhutto had meant to refer to Omar Sheikh as the killer of Daniel Pearl.[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Omar_Saeed_Sheikh#cite_note-21) A month before the Frost interview, in Oct 2007, Bhutto stated in an interview that she would cooperate with the American military in targeting Osama bin Laden.[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Omar_Saeed_Sheikh#cite_note-22)

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Omar_Saeed_Sheikh#cite_note-22)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Omar_Saeed_Sheikh#Bhutto.27s_allegations_reg arding_Osama_bin_Laden.27s_murder

How does a person confuse the name of Daniel Pearl with Bin Laden?

Cover up!!!!!!!

As for reading your cameras comment, there is footage and stills of two jets flying into the towers in NYC. We KNOW that happened. And the heat from the jet fuel that caused the building to collapse also likely caused the contents of the jet to be destroyed. Same with the Pentagon and PA crash.

I have never ever said planes didn't hit the WTC. But you nor the Gov. can prove people were actually on those planes. I have proven time after time jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to weaken that much steal in less then a hour to make those buildings collapse. If Jet fuel burned that hot why hasn't the wreakage from any other plane crash melted into nothing? We find people, parts, all kinds of shit when planes crash. Where were those parts at the Pentagon and in Shanksville?

With the 9/11 commision, if they didn't go into who paid, that's their bad, but it's DC, they don't even have a list of all the levees in the country, so I'm not surprised. At all.

I'm sorry, but they didn't investagate because they knew the actual truth didn't go with the cover stroy they already broadcast to the media. We know now who and where the money came from. But the actual people put in charge of looking into that stuff said..Well it's just not that important. The 9-11 commission after all that "work" didn't put blame on a single person. How can four planes be highjacked by people we know to be terrorist and no one is blamed? It's a cover up. Plain and simple.

I don't know if people are watching my video's or not. But since people are using the same old excuses that IMO i have disproven in this thread, I'm changing my game plan. I'm posting the actual pictures next. Crime scene photo's basically.

No offense to anyone reading this, I'm not saying I'm smarter then any of you. But ya'll don't want any of me on this subject. I know to much. I read, watch videos and have common sense. I started and have defended my thread pretty damn good IMO. I will happily stand here toe to toe against any of you that think I'm a "nut job" or whatever name you choose to give me. I think you people know what I'm saying is true, You just don't want to believe it. 14 pages and 1900's views later and I'm still stabbing holes in the Gov.'s offical weak ass story

teej

06-26-2009, 03:47 PM

I know a lot about Benazir and she would have made that a big deal, saod ot repeatedly, etc. because that was one of her big goals before she was killed.

I don't think you're a nut job, but I just want you to realize you have neither persuaded anyone to your point of view, or do you have anyone with a vast knowledge of science and/or politics on your side. There are conspiracies with everything today, but the only time in the last 50 years in the US I can honestly say the government lied over something this big was the Kennedy assasination, becasue of what I know about Jack Ruby's connections to J. Edgar Hoover. But that can't be proved.

As for the bodies, there are other flights that have liquiefied, I remember one over the Pacific Ocean in the 80's where they only had a few fuselage parts left, no bodies or anything. And no one important was on that plane to be covered up...This is just straight up science Kat...it CAN happen.

Drone planes are smaller than my bed...

There are reports Elvis is working at a Doughnut shop in Dayton Ohio too...the passengers of Flight 93 all had funerals, and their spouses are on documentaries all the time. No way all of them are alive.

Ghost Kat

06-26-2009, 07:27 PM

Your funny...Sometimes i'm not real sure if your making a joke or being serious. Please don't say i haven't persuaded anyone to my point of view. I have opened plenty of peoples eyes to the truth, Just not you...Yet.

I have pointed out to you atleast five or six cases of the US starting False Flag attacks on it's own citizen's.All documented and in the public record. Meaning it's a provable fact. All you have to do is google it or read a book. Oh I forgot I do have people with "vast knowledge" on my side that I get some info from. I have a Uncle thats a Pilot. One of my cousin used to be on Secert Servive detail protecting Clinton. I personally have studied History and Sociology. My mother is a criminal justice major and works as a criminal law teacher. My sister used to work for Homeland Security doing medical work preparing hospitals to be ready if there's another 9-11 style mase attack.. I have family and friends in all branches of the military. Those are a couple of my personal sourses and they all feed me good intel. My sister is the one that told me to watch the Loose Change video, the 1st video I posted in this thread.

Ok, about the bodies and the flight you mentioned over the OCEAN. If a plane crashes in a large body of water of course bodies and parts of the plane can go missing... But Never has it liquiefied. If you can find me one plane that liquiefied that I'll say i'm sorry for doubting you. But I can't find a single one, maybe you do research better, So please take a look. On 9-11 those planes crashed on land. No deep water for stuff to disappear in. No sharks or other fish to eat the bodies. There was no were for it to sink, No waves or currents to carry it hundreds of miles in any direction.

Teej, You don't have to believe a single word I say. But I can back up my answer's and statements. Every question you have rasied I have answered. The answer's you have given to my questions , I have corrected you when you've been wrong. You say you know who Bhutto is, You've said you know about Hitler and various other things i've pointed out but yet it's still so hard for you to believe this Gov. could have play'd a role in the 9-11 attacks? I mean damn at this point whats left for me to say? If I tell you there's no Santa Claus and show you how it's impossible to fly to every good little boy and girls house on christmas and after everything I say you still believe in Santa thats sounds like it's your problem not mine. I've done my job proving my point, You just haven't done a good job disproving it.

But thanks you for not thinking I'm a nut job...Guess thats a start

teej

06-27-2009, 12:29 AM

davcbow

06-27-2009, 01:28 AM

Ghost Kat

06-27-2009, 05:45 AM

Kat, watch this http://www.digital-apex.com/files/concreteplane1.wmv

Also, I watched the tape the govmt. released about the Pentagon, it shows something flying in to hit it, and no eyewitnesses say they saw plane parts being brought out, only seeing plane parts there. Not that many people would lie.

I just fail to see how this is logical for the government, it's wayyyyyy to risky if they did try it, and enough people died that no one would keep their mouth's shut after Bush was gone...

Damn..I'll give it to you thats a pretty cool explostion but I wouldn't go so far as to say it was liquified. I have to agree with davcbow, Thats a fighter jet, Lets see them fly 155 feet and 30 tons of an entire boeing 757 full of luggage and dummies into the wall at 500 miles per hour. I bet you there's still going to be parts left over.

http://flyaow.com/planes/757aircraftspecifications.htm

The twin engines alone made by Pratt and Whitney are made out of material that doesn't start to melt until over 3000 degrees. Jet fuel doesn't burn hotter then 1400 degree's.

Here is how it's logical for the Gov. to attack it's own people....MONEY. You attack your own people, Get them scared enough and you can pass any law you want to as long as it's for "national defense". Now the Gov. can tap your phones, go in your house, arrest you without a warrent or cause. It's basically domestic terrorism that can be enforced by the police , army and other officals of the law. Bush started two wars....Those wars bring alot of money to certain people. Guns,bombs, tanks, planes...all that shit has to be made and marketed by someone. You think the Gov. wouldn't kill 3000 innocent people on 9-11? How about more then 500,000 dead Iraq's and 4,000 dead soldiers in a needless war? If you actually do win the war, You have a land rich with OIL , we americans do love our oil and gas. The 9-11 attacks accured like 8 or 9 monthes into Bush's 1st term and before that he was being viewed as a lame duck Pres. He was on vacation atleast 4 out of the 9 monthes he was in office. Now with the attacks Bush is turned into some damn super hero here to save us from the big bad Bin Laden and his gang of merry men.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor"

Basically what they are saying is this country is weak in the eyes of the right wing. They think we need to control more natural resources in other countries like oil in Iraq to become the only real super power nation. The only way you get the citizens to go along with that is if this counrty is attacked and there's is a "New Pearl Harbor". That document was written in 2000. 9 -11 is exactly what these people had been waiting for and they clearly put their plan into action after the attacks.

Member's of this group....

Elliott Abrams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliott_Abrams)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#cite_note-PNACSOP-4)
Gary Bauer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Bauer)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#cite_note-PNACSOP-4)
William J. Bennett (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Bennett)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#cite_note-PNACSOP-4)
John Ellis "Jeb" Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeb_Bush)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#cite_note-PNACSOP-4)
Richard B. Cheney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#cite_note-PNACSOP-4)
Eliot A. Cohen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_A._Cohen)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#cite_note-PNACSOP-4)
Midge Decter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midge_Decter)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#cite_note-PNACSOP-4)
Paula Dobriansky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Dobriansky)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#cite_note-PNACSOP-4)
Steve Forbes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Forbes)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#cite_note-PNACSOP-4)
Aaron Friedberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Friedberg)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#cite_note-PNACSOP-4)
Francis Fukuyama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Fukuyama)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#cite_note-PNACSOP-4)
Frank Gaffney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Gaffney)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#cite_note-PNACSOP-4)
Fred C. Ikle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Ikle)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#cite_note-PNACSOP-4)

Donald Kagan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Kagan)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#cite_note-PNACSOP-4)
Zalmay Khalilzad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zalmay_Khalilzad)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#cite_note-PNACSOP-4)
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Libby)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#cite_note-PNACSOP-4)
Norman Podhoretz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Podhoretz)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#cite_note-PNACSOP-4)
J. Danforth Quayle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Quayle)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#cite_note-PNACSOP-4)
Peter W. Rodman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Rodman)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#cite_note-PNACSOP-4)
Stephen P. Rosen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Peter_Rosen)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#cite_note-PNACSOP-4)
Henry S. Rowen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Rowen)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#cite_note-PNACSOP-4)
Donald Rumsfeld (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Rumsfeld)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#cite_note-PNACSOP-4)
Vin Weber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vin_Weber)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#cite_note-PNACSOP-4)
George Weigel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Weigel)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#cite_note-PNACSOP-4)
Paul Wolfowitz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wolfowitz)[5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#cite_note-PNACSOP-4)

Over half of these people ended up working in the Bush Gov. Same people that wanted a " New Pearl Harbor "

More later, I'm sleepy got to visit my grand dad in the hospital in 4 hrs...He had a heart attack and is on a breathing machine...If ya'll r prayin folk drop a line to God for my Grand Dad

teej

06-27-2009, 02:25 PM

Damn..I'll give it to you thats a pretty cool explostion but I wouldn't go so far as to say it was liquified. I have to agree with davcbow, Thats a fighter jet, Lets see them fly 155 feet and 30 tons of an entire boeing 757 full of luggage and dummies into the wall at 500 miles per hour. I bet you there's still going to be parts left over.

http://flyaow.com/planes/757aircraftspecifications.htm

The twin engines alone made by Pratt and Whitney are made out of material that doesn't start to melt until over 3000 degrees. Jet fuel doesn't burn hotter then 1400 degree's.

Here is how it's logical for the Gov. to attack it's own people....MONEY. You attack your own people, Get them scared enough and you can pass any law you want to as long as it's for "national defense". Now the Gov. can tap your phones, go in your house, arrest you without a warrent or cause. It's basically domestic terrorism that can be enforced by the police , army and other officals of the law. Bush started two wars....Those wars bring alot of money to certain people. Guns,bombs, tanks, planes...all that shit has to be made and marketed by someone. You think the Gov. wouldn't kill 3000 innocent people on 9-11? How about more then 500,000 dead Iraq's and 4,000 dead soldiers in a needless war? If you actually do win the war, You have a land rich with OIL , we americans do love our oil and gas. The 9-11 attacks accured like 8 or 9 monthes into Bush's 1st term and before that he was being viewed as a lame duck Pres. He was on vacation atleast 4 out of the 9 monthes he was in office. Now with the attacks Bush is turned into some damn super hero here to save us from the big bad Bin Laden and his gang of merry men.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century

Section V of Rebuilding America's Defenses, entitled "Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force", includes the sentence: "Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event––like a new Pearl Harbor"

Basically what they are saying is this country is weak in the eyes of the right wing. They think we need to control more natural resources in other countries like oil in Iraq to become the only real super power nation. The only way you get the citizens to go along with that is if this counrty is attacked and there's is a "New Pearl Harbor". That document was written in 2000. 9 -11 is exactly what these people had been waiting for and they clearly put their plan into action after the attacks.

Member's of this group....

Elliott Abrams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliott_Abrams)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#cite_note-PNACSOP-4)
Gary Bauer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Bauer)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#cite_note-PNACSOP-4)
William J. Bennett (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Bennett)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#cite_note-PNACSOP-4)
John Ellis "Jeb" Bush (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeb_Bush)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#cite_note-PNACSOP-4)
Richard B. Cheney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#cite_note-PNACSOP-4)
Eliot A. Cohen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_A._Cohen)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#cite_note-PNACSOP-4)
Midge Decter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midge_Decter)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#cite_note-PNACSOP-4)
Paula Dobriansky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Dobriansky)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#cite_note-PNACSOP-4)
Steve Forbes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Forbes)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#cite_note-PNACSOP-4)
Aaron Friedberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Friedberg)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#cite_note-PNACSOP-4)
Francis Fukuyama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Fukuyama)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#cite_note-PNACSOP-4)
Frank Gaffney (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Gaffney)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#cite_note-PNACSOP-4)
Fred C. Ikle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Ikle)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#cite_note-PNACSOP-4)

Donald Kagan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Kagan)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#cite_note-PNACSOP-4)
Zalmay Khalilzad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zalmay_Khalilzad)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#cite_note-PNACSOP-4)
I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Libby)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#cite_note-PNACSOP-4)
Norman Podhoretz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Podhoretz)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#cite_note-PNACSOP-4)
J. Danforth Quayle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Quayle)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#cite_note-PNACSOP-4)
Peter W. Rodman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Rodman)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#cite_note-PNACSOP-4)
Stephen P. Rosen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Peter_Rosen)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#cite_note-PNACSOP-4)
Henry S. Rowen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Rowen)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#cite_note-PNACSOP-4)
Donald Rumsfeld (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Rumsfeld)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#cite_note-PNACSOP-4)
Vin Weber (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vin_Weber)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#cite_note-PNACSOP-4)
George Weigel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Weigel)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#cite_note-PNACSOP-4)
Paul Wolfowitz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Wolfowitz)[5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#cite_note-PNACSOP-4)

Over half of these people ended up working in the Bush Gov. Same people that wanted a " New Pearl Harbor "

More later, I'm sleepy got to visit my grand dad in the hospital in 4 hrs...He had a heart attack and is on a breathing machine...If ya'll r prayin folk drop a line to God for my Grand Dad

Why would he create a police state (which didnt happen) if he was going to be out of office in 7 years? The office of president is nearly impossible to compromise, and we all saw he didn't. They made our lives a pain if we flew, but that's about it. Not like nazi Germany or Stalin Russia.

What they said was exactly right, they just happened to have a "new pearl Harbor" on their hands...

I'd believe osama was hired before I'd believe they pulled all this off, Kat.

davcbow

06-27-2009, 09:54 PM

Why would he create a police state (which didnt happen) if he was going to be out of office in 7 years? The office of president is nearly impossible to compromise, and we all saw he didn't. They made our lives a pain if we flew, but that's about it. Not like nazi Germany or Stalin Russia.

What they said was exactly right, they just happened to have a "new pearl Harbor" on their hands...

I'd believe osama was hired before I'd believe they pulled all this off, Kat.

Teej you arent talking of a government cover up and conspiracy are you? :p

teej

06-27-2009, 10:35 PM

Teej you arent talking of a government cover up and conspiracy are you? :p

I could see them hiring Osama, I don't think it happened, but it'd explain why we haven't "found" him.

davcbow

06-28-2009, 03:55 PM

They havent found him because they dont want to find him, he is the best excape goat on the list. You know "call to arms"...:cool: You really should watch the film "Zeitgeist" ..... http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

Ghost Kat

07-12-2009, 03:16 AM

It's late and I had a long day at work. But I'm sitting here reading over this thread and thinking to myself, Where the fuck is Bin Laden? Why is it after 8 whole years not one person has laid eye's on him? With all the eye's the USA is in control of either by hook or by crook, We still can't find him? Osama Bin Laden is a damn ninja. Has to be, How else can he just sneak around for 8 yrs , unseen. If he's dead like I've reported already, Why hasn't the Government told the people. Is it cause they still need to throw his name out to scare people? He only comes out with a tape when something else big is happening in the news.

SWedd523

07-12-2009, 11:43 AM

I wouldn't call him a ninja.

He's more of a dirty wizard or a homeless Santa. :p

teej

07-13-2009, 05:48 PM

He's, like I said, either dead and being used to pull the wool over congress' eyes to continue funding stuff, or he's one damn good CIA trained agent.

davcbow

07-13-2009, 08:42 PM

He's, like I said, either dead and being used to pull the wool over congress' eyes to continue funding stuff, or he's one damn good CIA trained agent.

I choose the 2nd choise....:cool:

teej

07-15-2009, 02:37 PM

Ghost Kat

07-17-2009, 01:36 AM

Hey kat, I just read this...this is from you wondering about bodies. This is the iranian plane crash the other day.

http://news.aol.com/article/iran-plane-crash/505399?icid=main|hp-laptop|dl4|link4|http%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2Fartic le%2Firan-plane-crash%2F505399 (http://news.aol.com/article/iran-plane-crash/505399?icid=main%7Chp-laptop%7Cdl4%7Clink4%7Chttp%3A%2F%2Fnews.aol.com%2 Farticle%2Firan-plane-crash%2F505399)

I'm going to make a quick reply before reading the posted link. I'm sure they found parts of that plane, engines, luggage, stuff to big for a couple dozen people to carry off by hand. Thats what happened on 9-11, when whatever hit the pentagon. The FBI and CIA boxed off the area and their agents picked up the piece's. The pictures and news footage are all in the public record. You can clearly see that a big ass 757 plane couldn't have hit the pentagon. Maybe a fighter jet or Drone plane, But there weren't enough piece's to equal 30 plus tons of Boeing 757, people and luggage.

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/image/mcintyre-pentagon.jpg&imgrefurl=http://thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/&usg=__DkqIt8pZIqnSUBrT217n-XppcsI=&h=240&w=352&sz=61&hl=en&start=42&um=1&tbnid=L8tXno9g2QcvMM:&tbnh=82&tbnw=120&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dpentagon%2B911%2Bphotos%26ndsp%3D18%2 6hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26start%3D36%26um%3D1

http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o179/bucktown1999/8083.jpg

http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o179/bucktown1999/aircraft_parts_lawn_pentagon_911.jpg

http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o179/bucktown1999/PentagonAirViewAP.jpg

http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o179/bucktown1999/pentagonxox3.jpg

http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o179/bucktown1999/pentagon.jpg

http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o179/bucktown1999/pentagon-aerial-546x400-1.jpg

http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o179/bucktown1999/physics911pentagon.jpg

Blue is the offical story.
http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o179/bucktown1999/6a00d8341c0ac653ef01156fb40f3f970b-.jpg

http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o179/bucktown1999/fligh_path_pentagon_911.jpg

http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o179/bucktown1999/757_size_pentagon911.jpg

To make that impact damage the plane had to fly less then 20 feet off the ground. It didn't slide into the building it flew like a 100 feet over open area 15 feet from the ground. Pilots have said thats almost impossible. The supposed terrorist pilot was a horrible pilot say's the people that trained him at american flight schools in Arizona. Why wouldn't the plane just dive bomb into the middle? Easier target. That plane took the most difficult route just to hit the only part of the Pentagon that was almost empty of people and was made for the impact of a missle. For the most kills you dive bomb right in the middle or atleast land into the roof . You don't swing around and ram the most fortified wall on the opposite side from where the plane was flying. What sense does that make? If your smart enough to hijack an passager plane then fly that big ass thing at 500 miles per hour 20 ft off the ground, I's assume you'd be smart enough to know where and how to kill the most people.

teej

07-17-2009, 02:29 PM

To make that impact damage the plane had to fly less then 20 feet off the ground. It didn't slide into the building it flew like a 100 feet over open area 15 feet from the ground. Pilots have said thats almost impossible. The supposed terrorist pilot was a horrible pilot say's the people that trained him at american flight schools in Arizona. Why wouldn't the plane just dive bomb into the middle? Easier target. That plane took the most difficult route just to hit the only part of the Pentagon that was almost empty of people and was made for the impact of a missle. For the most kills you dive bomb right in the middle or atleast land into the roof . You don't swing around and ram the most fortified wall on the opposite side from where the plane was flying. What sense does that make? If your smart enough to hijack an passager plane then fly that big ass thing at 500 miles per hour 20 ft off the ground, I's assume you'd be smart enough to know where and how to kill the most people.

I understand that, but there's no guarantee he knew exactly where he was going, and how do we know a group of passengers didn't do something?

Ghost Kat

08-30-2009, 03:22 AM

9-11 was an Inside Job!!!!!!!!!

:kingofpop: George Bush killed Micheal Jackson....Bush also shot JFK, Talks to Aliens daily, Plays golf with Big Foot, and stabbed Jesus in his side with a spear.

davcbow

08-30-2009, 05:16 AM

Has anyone noticed how Bush has laid low since he left the white house? I dont think he has even been invited to give a speech. The Bush family has been involved in controversies since the very early 1900's. Once again watch the movie Zeitgeist you can find it at Google or Yahoo it tells about everyone of the Bush's and a lot more from his great grand father all the way up to the present...:cool:

Ghost Kat

10-11-2009, 01:04 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xs4eHvD-BrE&feature=related

Ghost Kat

11-16-2009, 11:00 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAp6YAPtC2c

ziggy

11-17-2009, 08:52 AM

I'll jump back into this conspiracies/politics thread.

It's been said that what we see on the evening news, what we read in the paper, what we hear from the talking heads on cable and what we read on mainstream sites on the internet is only about 5% of what is actually going on behind closed doors that we ( the common man ) will never, ever know about. Knowledge of the remaining 95% of what is really going on is so secret and so locked down that we'll never find out about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hFjkqYLXhA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzlTjhGxr7Y

teej

11-17-2009, 01:26 PM

^We need that, when Gary Powers was being tortured by the Russkies, they were able to find out everything he was told to keep away in the New York Times.

I'm fine with not knowing, actually. Probably for the better.

Ghost Kat

11-18-2009, 12:34 PM

I think the fact that there is so much out there that goes unreported is amazing. Fox News talks all day long about how Obama is destroying the country. The secret service, people who protect the President, themsevles said threats have shot up 400%. The right wing and it's hate is going to provoke some dumb ass to try and kill Obama. To save the country of course....Just like JFK.

I think the fact the people don't even want to know whats going on behind the curtain is dangerous and lazy. People just want to live there life. As long as it isn't affecting their life it doesn't matter. I tried to show in this thread that if you let them get away with it, They will test the water to see what else they can get away with.

Today's mainstream media is shameful. The things they report on compared to the real stories, the real news that effects people, They ignore that. I've clearly shown the reasons given for going to the Iraq war were False. If I can do it why can't the mainstream media?

Crazy Right Wing nuts wishing death on Obama

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jhlz3hvxpwg

davcbow

11-18-2009, 01:49 PM

What they do is show you whats going on in the right hand, mean while the left hand is totally under the table having a secret field day....:cool:

Ghost Kat

11-18-2009, 09:37 PM

Anyone nervous about having terrorist on trail in civl court instead of military court?

teej

11-18-2009, 09:40 PM

Anyone nervous about having terrorist on trail in civl court instead of military court?

Yeah. Some left-wing nut is going to have a guilt trip and set those bastards free.

Some liberals can't even say "terrorist" they're so scared...

ziggy

11-19-2009, 06:36 AM

Yeah. Some left-wing nut is going to have a guilt trip and set those bastards free.

Some liberals can't even say "terrorist" they're so scared...

The terrorists will never see a day of freedom. Can't possibly happen

teej

11-19-2009, 11:19 AM

The terrorists will never see a day of freedom. Can't possibly happen

Wanna bet? The guy who planned a plane crash in Europe just got set free because he has cancer...

Ghost Kat

11-19-2009, 02:34 PM

Wanna bet? The guy who planned a plane crash in Europe just got set free because he has cancer...

That guy is getting released because it is about to die anyway, No point in wasting federal dollars feeding and housing him.

IF...Big Oprah fat If.....If a terrorist gets found not guilty, The FBI will just rearrest them in the court room. These people are wanted for mulitple offenses. No terrorist is going to be set free to wonder the street and jihad all over the place. It's silly that the Right Wingers even bring up that idea. Its just to strike fear in the public, thats all they ever do.

Side Note: A judge just ruled that the Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for the failed Levee's in New Orleans. 4 years late, But justice is justice.

teej

11-19-2009, 03:27 PM

It's silly that the Right Wingers even bring up that idea.

:confused:

I'm a right winger? Then what the hell is Rush Limbaugh?

Ghost Kat

11-19-2009, 03:35 PM

:confused:

I'm a right winger? Then what the hell is Rush Limbaugh?

Satan >:D

I wasn't calling you a right winger, Only if the shoe fits. I'm saying the Right Wing powered by Fox News is turning this into a show trail. The US has already convicted terrorists, So how is this any different?

Bush had this man locked up for 6 yrs and did nothing. Now someone actually wants to convict his sorry ass in civil court or military court and I could care less how or where they do it...It just needs to be done.

ziggy

11-19-2009, 08:01 PM

Speaking of the The Rush Limbaugh types of the world, they don't want to admit it but there are 2 reasons that they are having a caniption over the trial being held in NYC.

* a quick conviction and execution will be seen as a win for Obama
* theres a chance that the whole George Bush torture issue could make its way into the trial and bring up that whole "war crimes" issue

Ghost Kat

11-21-2009, 03:27 AM

Looks like the Right Wing is starting up the Muslim hate again. They are all for labeling the shooter at Fort Hood a Terrorist. Like his Terrorist attack equals up to Bush's complete failure to protect this country.

I know we have some Right Wingers or Republican's on this site.

I know you read these threads. Don't hide come defend your point of view.

Where's Millst2, haven't heard from he/she since they last time he/she dropped off that page full of nonsense.

Where are you BCP Right Wingers, I'm calling you out cowards.

We are suppose to discuss and debate here. Both sides of topic, Pros and Cons. Basically the only people that say anything are the ones that kinda sorta already agree, just a little bit.

I'm waiting with a fresh Litter Box.

PS: Teej, Can you set me up a poll on this thread asking the readers if they believe 9-11 was a inside job?

Chef

12-08-2009, 03:01 PM

That guy is getting released because it is about to die anyway, No point in wasting federal dollars feeding and housing him.

that guy is getting released because western europe and much of the united states are too afraid of the pc police to name our enemy. a bullet to the head costs what, a nickle.

Chef

12-08-2009, 03:06 PM

Side Note: A judge just ruled that the Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for the failed Levee's in New Orleans. 4 years late, But justice is justice.

judges are far from impartial or non-politically motivated. every supreme court ruling can be predicted down to 1 vote. for years federal judges upheld that a black vote only counts as 3/5 of a man. judges will grant constitutional rights to foreign combatants/non-citizens.

side note: didn't hear you mention how nagin and past mayors as well as the state of la squandered/embezzled millions of federal dollars over multiple years that were to be used to shore up the levees. there is lots of blame to go around.

Ghost Kat

12-08-2009, 06:25 PM

judges are far from impartial or non-politically motivated. every supreme court ruling can be predicted down to 1 vote. for years federal judges upheld that a black vote only counts as 3/5 of a man. judges will grant constitutional rights to foreign combatants/non-citizens.

side note: didn't hear you mention how nagin and past mayors as well as the state of la squandered/embezzled millions of federal dollars over multiple years that were to be used to shore up the levees. there is lots of blame to go around.

I'll agree that as far as the levee's go there are plenty of people to blame. But the Army made those levees. And from the very start they were never meant to be a permanent barrier. They did a sub par job, then never went back to fix the problem. It's been known for years that if a major strom hit that New Orleans would fill up like my dog's water bowl.

About shooting some suspected terrorist in the head....That kinda comment makes you no better then the person you want to shoot. The American idea's I hear so many people say we are fighting for don't really include shooting people we disagree with....Or does it?

So since He's a terrorist we should just kill him? Don't you think that type of attitude is why so many people in other countries hate "America". Their idea of us as Cowboys is exactly what your nickel bullets bring.

Chef

12-08-2009, 10:50 PM

About shooting some suspected terrorist in the head....That kinda comment makes you no better then the person you want to shoot. The American idea's I hear so many people say we are fighting for don't really include shooting people we disagree with....Or does it?

So since He's a terrorist we should just kill him? Don't you think that type of attitude is why so many people in other countries hate "America". Their idea of us as Cowboys is exactly what your nickel bullets bring.

1. we didn't agree with the british and we shot them

2. so many people in the world don't like us because we are the most free, most wealthy and best place to be from in the world. the islamic terroists don't like us because we don't believe in allah. their goal is to convert or kill everyone. the only thing they respect, respond to or understand is force. weakness = a target.

WarioVsMooChicken

12-09-2009, 01:37 AM

How are we more free then most other palces in the world? I've traveled all over Europe and to Canada. Nothing involving freedom is any different there. People believing our country is the best is just ignorant. All countries have their goods and bads.

The same way the Christians had the Crusades and the Spanish Iquisition and the Witch trials. MOST religions cause violence. Don't act like Muslims are the bad guys. Christians and msot other religions are just as bad with the violence and such.

Ghost Kat

12-09-2009, 01:21 PM

1. we didn't agree with the british and we shot them

2. so many people in the world don't like us because we are the most free, most wealthy and best place to be from in the world. the islamic terroists don't like us because we don't believe in allah. their goal is to convert or kill everyone. the only thing they respect, respond to or understand is force. weakness = a target.

1. By war wit the Brit's i'm guessing you mean the Revolutiionary war. That was about money and power not disagreement. America had it's own money system, We didn't need them any more we were independent. They didn't like that and tried to attack and "enslave" us again.

2. That might be one of the craziest things I've heard this week. People don't like us because of our freedom? People all around the world want to come to America because it is the most free, most wealthy, best place on earth. They don't hate us because of it. You know why they hate us? Cuz we drop bombs on innocent people during a "war on terror". We snatch people from their home then lock them up in Gitmo for nothing, where they get tortured and killed. They hate us because we protect oil over people. We care more about our debt to china then human rights. They hate us cuz we in Amercia can't even get along with different races or sexual orientation, But we think we have the right to tell other people how to live. Thats why they hate us.

I said I would play nice, So i'm going to agree with Woo. Christians have killed just as much in the name of God as Muslims. Americans just needs someone to hate I guess. Someone to be scared of. Before Muslims it was Soviets & Communists, Before that it was somthing else just as stupid.

WarioVsMooChicken

12-09-2009, 01:37 PM

As long as it's not about basketball, it seems I can agree with you, Kat >.>

Dunk

12-09-2009, 08:06 PM

2. so many people in the world don't like us because we are the most free, most wealthy and best place to be from in the world. the islamic terroists don't like us because we don't believe in allah. their goal is to convert or kill everyone. the only thing they respect, respond to or understand is force. weakness = a target.

I'm sorry, bro, but that's not true at all. First, how do you even measure what's "the best"? In my opinion, it's because the US goes around trying to force everyone else to do what it wants. We have bad foreign policy, we try and push around every international organization we're a part of. We act like idiots when it comes to sciences (see climate change, evolution). We have a cocky attitude. We have army bases in a shitload of countries - I don't even know how many. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like it if the US had 30,000 guys living in a facility, virtually immune from local law, with guns, tanks, battleships, and F16 flying around would ya?

Most Islamic scholars agree that the interpretation of the Koran that Al Qaeda is using is wrong. Thomas Friedman hasn't written quite a bit about why those guys hate us. I think it makes sense. They're mad at their lack of opportunity. They're gov'ts are corrupt. Their is a huge problem of income inequality. That sets them off.

Chef

12-09-2009, 08:51 PM

i was not implicating the entire muslim religion. my point is that many in this country and most of europe refuse to name the enemy. there is a portion of muslims who kill in the name of islam. thus, we are at war islamic terrorists.

and yes, it is a very valid point that political people in power have twisted religion to drive people to war. i am not implying the christianity or judaism or any other religion is superior or less guilty. but, because men have disgraced religion and used it for personal gain does not negate the hope it gives people or the good it does for people inside and outside of that religion.

i stand by my statement that the united states is the most free country in the world. yes, there are some things that we can't do here (legal drugs, etc) that are legal in other countries, but by in large we are the most free socially and economically. there is no other country where one can improve their station in life unhindered or over burdened with excessive taxes. it is very difficult to successfully start a business, acquire land, etc in europe. in the united states if you have a good idea and a hard work ethic, you can start a business and make as much money as you want regardless of education, family or past mistakes. that is why so many people want to come here. that is also why our enemies hate us so much. our freedoms offer hope and success where their ideas of government oppress and enslave their populations under force or economic reliance on the government.

the revolutionary war was fueled by taxation, but if you read the words of the founding fathers it is very much apparent it had very little to do with money.

WarioVsMooChicken

12-09-2009, 11:18 PM

How is USA more free than England, Canada, France, Japan, or Iceland? >.>

Chef

12-10-2009, 09:16 AM

this article sums up my previous post fairly well. again, our freedoms vs europe and other western countries revolves around economic freedoms. we are free to spend our money how we like (for the most part, social security, medicare etc excluded) we aren't required to have health insurance, we don't have to have to follow rules made by a North American Union.

as for the social freedoms, i believe it to be a great hypocrisy in this country that we are free economically and the prevailing philosophy is great freedom but deal with the consequences, yet we don't extend the same to social freedoms. do i think it is the gov't's job to rule on gay marriage, no. should the gov't declare drugs illegal, no (but we should spend no money on rehab programs, needle exchanges and all drug related crimes should be punished to the fullest extent of the law). should 18 year olds be able to drink, absolutely (if you are an adult, you are an adult period).

http://draginol.joeuser.com/article/9555/USA_vs_Europe_Freedom_vs_Fairness

USA vs. Europe: Freedom vs. Fairness
A look at the philosophies behind two great cultures
Published on March 4, 2004 By Draginol In International

Blogs occasionally seem to have a Europe vs. United States mentality. I've seen it since the beginning of blogging. Why is that? Why is so much scorn reserved for Americans from Europeans? Why is such contempt shown for Europeans? I think I have the answer: Drastically different philosophies on life.

Europeans are focused on fairness. Americans are focused on freedom. Europeans look at Americans as a bunch of uncultured barbarians running amok in their country and worse, through the world spreading their vulgar culture around. Americans see Europeans as a bunch of sissies whose people meekly except regulations and massive taxation in an effort to make life more "fair" for everyone. The American response would typically be "Hey, life ain't fair!" to which the European might answer "But it should be!" And so it goes from there.

But because so many Europeans like individual Americans (and vice versa) the argument usually gets shifted to the "administrations" of the various countries. The typical American is a nice guy right? It's not his fault that the United States is full of gun toting, capital punishment supporting, SUV driving, CO2 producing zealots. What do you expect with Bush in charge? And "Old Europe" is a mess not because of the typical Belgian or German or Frenchman, it's cynical and corrupt politicians like Chirac or Schroeder that make it seem so crummy to us.

What both fail to realize that in a democracy, the people get what they want. Sometimes it takes awhile but eventually their cultures will get a government that represents them. Some people are aghast that the United States has capital punishment. But an overwhelming majority of Americans supports capital punishment. So we elect leaders who support it. Both Kerry and Bush support capital punishment. They have to. They wouldn't get elected otherwise. But why do Americans support capital punishment? Because we're a bunch of "Cowboys"? No. It's because we believe in having a great deal of freedom in our lives but we also believe that freedom comes with a price -- personal responsibility.

Great freedom requiring personal responsibility is one of the cornerstones of American culture. And it is a relatively foreign concept to Europeans (not personal responsibility but the relationship between the two). We pretty much allow people to do what they want here. You can own a gun with few exceptions. There are few regulations in being an entrepreneur. But at the same time, there are few regulations to keep a company from simply bombing on its own. People in the United States aren't taxed very much relatively speaking. They're free to make decisions on how they want to spend the money they earn. But on the other side of the coin, they also are free to make poor choices and end up in the gutter.

I don't mean this as a criticism of Europe but Europeans have never had the kinds of freedoms Americans have. Even today. It was, after all, a big reason why so many Europeans came to the United States in the first place. The US government is formed on the basis of the federal government essentially providing a handful of essential services. It's actually the weakest central government in the industrialized world in terms of its domestic power. But Europeans have not demanded the kinds of freedoms Americans want. A European might correctly point out that too much freedom leads to chaos and anarchy. And that Europeans have chosen to pull back a bit from the brink that Americans seem so readily to jump over in order to try to create a more just society.

Remember, the French revolution cry was not freedom or death as it was in the United States. It was split amongst 3 principles: liberty, equality, fraternity. Much of "old Europe" could be described in this way. The government exists to help make things more fair -- more equal. It's not fair for some people to be incredibly rich while others are incredibly poor. A European would look at the gap between the richest Americans and the poorest Americans as evidence that the American system isn't working. An American would look at the same evidence and point out that it is working as designed. The only concern Americans would have is if the rich got rich from cheating the system in some way. Americans, generally, do not envy the rich because they believe they have a shot at being one of them if they play their cards right. And even if they don't, odds are they'll end up doing pretty well.

The descendants of Europe who live in the United States have a significantly better standard of living than anywhere else in the world. And the American system works so well that descendents from Africa have the highest standard of living of any people with African heritage in the world -- despite having been slaves only a bit over a century ago. But there's a catch (isn't there always?) The poorest Americans live pretty darn poorly compared to people in similar situations in Europe. If life were an obstacle course where 90% of the people were able to compete it and 10% didn't, the 90% in the US are rewarded far more than the 90% in Europe. But at the same time, the 10% who can't do it suffer more in the US than they do in Europe. So which path do you take?

As an American, I've been instilled with its cultural values. So I prefer freedom to fairness. I have sympathy for those who haven't been able to make the cut in American society but I also don't want to see our freedoms further eroded in order to prop them up. I don't like the way things are in "old Europe". My views aren't shared by all Americans. But they are shared by most Americans. And vice versa in Europe. And the result of democracy in action (or representative government if you're anal retentive) is that the system is set up to reflect our values -- just like the French and Germans and Belgians and so on have governments that reflect theirs. And that's a good thing.

Ghost Kat

12-10-2009, 03:10 PM

My views aren't shared by all Americans. But they are shared by most Americans.

Out of all that you said this stuck out to me the most. Why is it so many people seem to think "most of america" shared your mindset. Doesn't seem you can even get agreement on this simple website.

Simple question: If you don't think it's right for the Government to rule on Gay marriage, Was it ok for them to give Blacks and Women the right to vote? How about when they said it was illegal to ban interracial marriage? What about when they said if you kill someone because they are,gay,women, black, muslim, Etc. That is a HATE crime, Were they overstepping their bounds ?

It's all about civil rights, Thats what this country is suppose to be about. Freedom.

Dunk

12-10-2009, 06:58 PM

I'd also argue that this country is becoming one of 'have' and 'have nots'. Some countries - virtually all industrialized ones - have put in more safety nets. The Right calls it socialism. I would argue that they are protective measure for when folks lose their jobs, parents can stay home for a year with young children, and people have access to doctors regardless of the ability to pay (it's a right). Sometimes good governance is stepping in and protecting the rights of the minority. We did that with slavery, people with disabilities, with race, and so forth. Government, rules, and cooperation can be the answer sometimes. We can't run around like crazy doing whatever the fuck we want - consuming resources like crazy, building roads everywhere, spending like drunken sailors. It's not sustainable. At some point folks have to step in and put limits on it because it is in the best interests not only of the country but of the world.

I also think that religion should play no part in gov't and, unfortunately, the U.S. is quite a conservative Christian country. Disturbingly so.

If you look at the GINI index which measures income equality, the US ranks much closer to a 3rd world country like Brazil than it does to places like Switzerland, Sweden, and Canada (some of the best places to live in the world). That's a problem because it causes a lot of dissatisfaction and the economy can be more affected swings when all the money is in the hands of a few (there's less diversity and more risk). One of the reasons why we're so late to bounce back.

Anyway, I basically just disagree with the premise entirely that the US in economically or socially more free. I just don't see any argument to support that relative to other first world nations.

Chef

12-10-2009, 09:58 PM

Out of all that you said this stuck out to me the most. Why is it so many people seem to think "most of america" shared your mindset. Doesn't seem you can even get agreement on this simple website.

Simple question: If you don't think it's right for the Government to rule on Gay marriage, Was it ok for them to give Blacks and Women the right to vote? How about when they said it was illegal to ban interracial marriage? What about when they said if you kill someone because they are,gay,women, black, muslim, Etc. That is a HATE crime, Were they overstepping their bounds ?

It's all about civil rights, Thats what this country is suppose to be about. Freedom.

Those are the article's words not mine.

as for the hate crime laws they are ridiculous. a murder is a murder and should be punished accordingly. if i preemptively decide to kill a gay man because he is gay it is murder 1 just the same if he was straight. we should not get into the practice of punishment by thought. intent is one thing whether you killed in blind rage vs. cold planning, but thought is another thing. singling out groups as more valuable than others is not a good idea.

one of the main differences between american liberals/europeans and conservatives (fiscally speaking) is that conservatives believe you start a business to make money (if it serves a greater good that is a bonus) and the money you make is yours to keep. liberals think the money is the government's and they decide how much you keep and they will decide who needs the rest for safety nets, etc.

i guess we just have fundamental disagreements on this country. which is why i stayed away from this part of the b-planet. i guess it is more productive to stick with sports. which is one of the reasons i like sports so much. it can bring people who agree on very little together in community.