| |
| | | | | 3992.13 in reply to 3992.10 | |
Apparently, many think the US Executive branch was up to its elbows in coordinating illegal activities with foreign terrorists. If this were true, there is some common ground. Those who believe such murderous acts might have been carried out by the government for the purpose of hoodwinking the American people would at least, presumably, be in accord with quite a few of us doubters for the need to keep these criminals from gaining additional powers of questionable value and dubious Constitutionality. Whether or not the government carries out "dirty tricks" domestically (and I, for one, believe that it does but that the 9/11/01 collapse of the twin towers just wasn't one of them), there is considerable evidence that it does so internationally rather frequently. Do we think our safety will be enhanced by giving these people additional unbridled powers? Whose interests will such dispensations serve? Or is the biggest threat to freedom for the average American come from its own government and not from outside agencies provoked into outrageous activities by our own government's interference in their affairs? I think places like Switzerland have proven that the best defense is a lack of offense coupled with making itself indispensible to other nations. Isn't it time the United States became (in reality) a "good neighbor" rather than the neighborhood bully? |
| |
|
| | | | | 3992.14 in reply to 3992.13 | |
Goodguy, I like what you said about the U.S. being the neighborhood bully. I may be naïve but I have always wondered why we are so big in making other nations not have nuclear bombs when our stock pile is probably bigger than ever. It’s like a parent telling their child to do something because they said so, and not giving any reason for it. I think we all know the reason for not having nuclear weapons. Are we really the “best” country in the world? I admit, I love being an American, although there are times I’m ashamed of being one. I have felt perfectly at home in Canada, Ireland, France and England, and maybe that is because that’s where my ancestors came from. But, who do we think we are, that we can tell other nations what to do or not to do? We have definitely screwed up so many numerous times in my lifetime. Of course, I didn’t know it at the time, but it all comes out in the end. I really don’t know who to believe anymore, and I’m sick and tired of people talking negative about our President. This Bible belt where I live is trying my patience. Just when I think I’m having a decent conversation with someone, and think well maybe I’ve found someone that thinks a little like me, out comes a statement or something that just turns me off. I’m tired of people putting down blacks, Hispanics, gays and people on welfare. It’s the same old story. . . I’ve heard it most of my life. I don’t get it! Judith |
| |
|
| | | | | 3992.15 in reply to 3992.6 | |
Hi Dave,
Let me chime in on this? You said:
"The motive for this crime doesn't justify its huge risks." Have you considered that possibly you're choosing the wrong Motive?
We've had eght years to think about this. The events continue to morph into their real reasons to gamble. One of these morphed entities is the Iraqi Constitution. A document we designed ,coerced and had forced on the Iraqi people by the Occupying forces that supported Paul Bremer's plan to creat a U.S. freindly, democratic Iraqi State in the Middle East, other than Israel, that we controlled. I read this Iraqi contitution. It is nothing that the Shi'a or the Sunni would've devised for themselves, yet they're expected to vote to instill this law of the land, which will give the U.S unparrelled access to the Oil in that country. What led me to read this constitution was the mention of the healthcare and educational systems this document contained that we insisted be placed in it.
Inview of the debates takin place here in congress on these subjects, It seemed a little Ironic to me that this government would/could devise systems of this sort for a Nation they're building and not feel that the people saddled with financing the deal, deserved at least as good of a system as the Iraqi people will enjoy. Would the Iraqi Constitution as written, have ever come into existence without the motivation caused by 9/11? As you contemplate this, also consider the mindset of the elites as to who is viewed as expendable and who isn't, in these debates about healthcare and education. It's estimated that at least 43,000 die each year from their lack of affordable healthcare. Yet this government demanded that the Iraqi Constitution provide a single-payer system for the Iraqis. Supporting this decision is the Faith and Credit of the coming generations of jobless, homeless and dupted-devout citizens of this Nation, saddled with the responsibility of repaying all of this borrowed money. Could this possibly be the real motive? I've done some research on the origins of this Selfish Mindset so prevelent in both houses of Congress, that's existed ever since and before the Teddy Roosevelt administration, You'll be shocked at what I discovered. See 4002.7&4002.8
The Juanster |
| |
|
| | | | | 3992.16 in reply to 3992.13 | |
Oh boy,
Dave, a little history is needed here, to answer this: http://www.amendment-13.org/press.html
"Or is the biggest threat to freedom for the average American come from its own government and not from outside agencies provoked into outrageous activities by our own government's interference in their affairs?"
One of our icon's image scattered around this Nation and on our fiat-alleged-legal- tender, is A. Lincoln, the signer of the Emancipation Proclaimation,aka The 13th amend. Lincoln, being an astute scholar of the Constitution, do you accept that he was unaware of a previously ratifed Article 13 amendment, prior to the one he signed into law? Ever hear of the http://www.apfn.org/apfn/13th.htm
In January, 1810, Senator Reed proposed the "Title of
Nobility" Amendment (History of Congress, Proceedings of the
Senate, p. 529-530). On April 27, 1810, the Senate voted to pass
this 13th Amendment by a vote of 26 to 1; the House resolved in
the affirmative 87 to 3; and the resolve was sent to the States
for ratification: By Dec. 10, 1812, twelve of the required
thirteen States had ratified as follows: Maryland, Dec. 25,
1810; Kentucky, Jan. 31, 1811; Ohio, Jan. 31, 1811; Delaware, Feb.
2, 1811; Pennsylvania, Feb. 6, 1811; New Jersey, Feb. 13, 1811;
Vermont, Oct. 24, 1811; Tennessee, Nov. 21, 1811; Georgia, Dec.
13, 1811; North Carolina, Dec. 23, 1811; Massachusetts, Feb. 27,
1812;New Hampshire, Dec. 10, 1812. Before a thirteenth State could
ratify, the War of 1812 broke out and interupted this very rapid
move for ratification.
No record has been found that the State of Connecticut ever acted
to either accept or reject this original 13th Amendment. Yet, it
was published in three separate editions of "The Public Statute
Laws of the State of Connecticut" as a part of the U.S.
Constitution in 1821, 1824 and 1835. Then, without record or
explanation, it mysteriously disappeared from subsequent editions
prior to the Civil War between the states. However, printing by a
legislature is prima facie evidence of ratification, and it has
been found to have been printed as part of the Constitution in
this and many other states until around the Civil War period -
when it mysteriously disappeared from subsequent printings. It
was found to have been printed by the legislature of this State in
the following: 1821 - The Public Statute Laws of the State of
Connecticut, as revised and enacted by the General Assembly in
May, 1821 pg. 19 1824 - The Public Statute Laws of the State of
Connecticut, as revised and enacted by the General Assembly in
May, 1824 pg.18-19 1835 - The Public Statute Laws of the State of
Connecticut, compiled in obedience to a resolve of the General
Assembly passed May, 1835, to which is prefixed the Declaration of
Independence & Constitution of the United States and the State of
Connecticut, published by the authority of the State of
Connecticut. The Marginal note in all three publications reads:
"Citizenship forfeited by the acceptance, from a foreign power, of
any title of nobility, office or emolument of any kind, &c." The
prima facie evidence of ratification of this Amendment is
overwhelming. Since the creditors of this bankruptcy are foreign
powers and this "unacountable committee of lawyers'" spoken of by
Robert H. Bork have accepted and retained the "office of trustee"
for these creditors and foreign powers, their Citizenship has
been forfeited by this acceptance.
http://www.calneva.com/money/lawsuit3.htm
So, as can be seen, we have been dupted by our government. Lincoln knew, but is it ever discussed why he ignored these facts? |
| |
|
| | | | | 3992.17 in reply to 3992.15 | |
OK. Let's take three possible scenarios: 1) The planes hit the WTC and the buildings do not collapse because the President's Men didn't plant explosives. 2) The planes hit the WTC and the buildings collapse from the results of the explosion of jet fuel inside the buildings. 3) The planes hit the WTC and the buildings collapse from explosives placed where the plane's impact could detonate them -- or they are set off remotely. Any of the three could incite Americans to invade Iraq and steal their oil. The added spectacle of ENSURING the collapse by staging fradulent collapses without detection and without leaving any evidence is NOT worth the risks. In scenario 1, the building would have to be demolished anyway. There's no way that the nine stories above the ruined part of the building could be removed without huge risks to life and huge risks to the lower floors. Effectively, it's the same as 2. Scenario 3 adds the risk of detection before and after the planes hit. It presumes to know WHERE the planes will hit. It presumes to TIME the explosion with the hit. And it presumes to leave NO EVIDENCE of the explosives used. The job is done when the plane hits. No other dramatics are required. |
| |
|
| | | | | 3992.18 in reply to 3992.17 | |
HI GG,
I hear what you're saying, but, here's a bit of circumstantial evidence that's managed to stay under the radar screen, far under;
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911security.html
"9/11 Security
Courtesy of Marvin Bush"
| "Marvin P. Bush, the president’s younger brother, was a principal in a company called Securacom that provided security for the World Trade Center, United Airlines, and Dulles International Airport." | If anyone could place explosives in any of those buildings, especially #7, what better opportunity could be had than to be in the position of this company, with this man as one of the decision-makers? |
| |
|
| | | | | 3992.19 in reply to 3992.18 | |
Juan, I'm not saying that it would be impossible for an American to have sabotaged the WTC. I'm saying that it would have been foolishly risky and would have provided few benefits for the immense risks involved. No sane despot would have contemplated it for long, no matter how desperate he was to have a "good" excuse to invade Iraq. The Arab suicide bombers (none of whom were Iraqi) did hijack the planes and fly them into the buildings. That much is incontrovertible...or at least unchallenged so far. There was a huge ball of flame when the airplane fuel tanks were ruptured during impact. That much I saw on television as it was happening. I'm sure considerable concrete was broken and a fair amount of reinforcing rod was melted and/or broken out of the concrete. Now I've worked with concrete and rebar quite a bit in the last 50 years. I know its properties pretty well. The concrete has little strength without the rebar and the rebar bends easily without the concrete. The rigidity of the concrete combined with the tension of the rebar in not allowing a break to occur is what gives concrete its strength. The rebar comes in sections with thin wire tying one overlapped section of rebar to the next. You and your sources postulate a crime. I will stipulate that the crime, while improbable and immensely risky might be possible. But I have shown on this website how physics will allow nine stories of intact building to start an unimpeded fall and that subsequent collisions would be inelastic and therefore unable to significantly diminish the energy of the large plummeting mass. The rigidity of the building materials might translate the energy of nine stories down from the point of impact to a point of greatest weakness, freeing significant vertical sections of the structure each time while slowing the drop only slightly. I'm also saying that there were investigators at ground zero who couldn't have been bought off -- not with lifelong buddies in the morgue and that NONE of them found any evidence of the explosives that were postulated. Further, I say that the collapse of the building wasn't necessary; that once the upper stories are not adequately and safely supported, there is no way to salvage the building and it would have to be torn down anyway. So what I argue is that there was no real benefit to this imagined crime and huge risks; therefore I cannot see even a seriously deranged person actually carrying out such an incredible stunt and coordinating it flawlessly with their avowed enemies.
Edited 10/17/2009 9:21 am ET by goodguy |
| |
|
| | | | | 3992.20 in reply to 3992.19 | |
Note: energy is force over time. The forces can be enormous, but if the time is milliseconds, the energy dissipated is insignificant. The dropping nine stories cannot stop immediately. They have to have a stopping force applied over a significant time period. If the building material doesn't "give" like rubber, the dropping nine stories just pulverize it or some weak spot in the structure below it and keep falling. Edited 10/17/2009 9:30 am ET by goodguy
Edited 10/17/2009 9:31 am ET by goodguy |
| |
|
| |
| From: | 888 | Oct-18 1:33 pm |
| To: | Juan |
(21 of 52) | | | | 3992.21 in reply to 3992.18 | |
Hiya Juan, The telling question still remains unaddressed by people who don't take the time to review the links and videos.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/011904wtc7.html
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/september112009/911_truth_9-11-09.php
http://www.ae911truth.org/supporters.php?g=_AES_
http://science.howstuffworks.com/building-implosion1.htm And many more. Interetingly, many important videos (which I had already seen) have been removed from the internet. Shocker.That's okay...many remain. Still the same question: Explain the 'pulling' of tower 7 within a few hours of the twin towers' collapse. Silverstein, who made billions from insurance $$$ from this gave a lame and untruthful excuse as to why 7 was pulled, claiming his concern for more lost lives. There were NO firefighters in that building. If that building was 'pulled' in a matter of minutes through controlled demolition (which in one video gives detail of methods and procedures) which takes days to accomplish....why were there explosives already in place to begin the demolition at the drop of a hat? How did this 'controlled demolition' of tower 7 have the same exact appearance of the collapse of the twin towers if the twin towers didn't also have explosives strategicly placed within them? They were obviously imploded, which doesn't happen spontaneously because a plane crashes into the top floors. The people in the videos are EXPERTS in their fields. (No offense to you, GG who are a brilliant man, but) an expert with years of experience in a field beats out a non-expert any day as far as I'm concerned. All people have to do is take the time to review the information presented. " Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance" Einstein. Kath
Edited 10/18/2009 1:34 pm ET by 888 |
| |
|
| | | | | 3992.22 in reply to 3992.19 | |
Hi Dave,
As you may remember I was one who supported the Loose Change documentary concerning 9/11. I have since learned that there is a lot more to this story than what was reported in the documentary....mostly behind the scenes.
As I said to Kathy recently I have become agnostic on this issue. I am not a conspiracy lover and don't think that there is a conspiracy behind every thing that happens. In fact I have developed a tendency to want to knock down a conspiracy theory if it is possible. This is because I believe that this is one of the unspoken issues that has begun to pit the left against the right and vice versa in this country. It has helped to fuel the culture wars that groups like FAUX NEWS and thier minions are capitalizing on. To our own detriment.
No one trusts anyone any more and it is steadily getting worse. There is a Boogie Man behind every bush in the yard now....and under evryones beds.
Since this discussion has begun in this thread I have decided to add whatever I can to nuetralize or atleast get folks to look at both arguements.
There are a lot of people on the internet making money from fostering all manor of conspiracy....regardless of who it hurts.
The following is a link to a website that does a very good job of uncovering some of the motives behind the folks who made Loose Change. This may in fact help bolster some of what you have been saying.
The link will take you to the whole page followed by another....I have copied portions of it and posted them below. If reading what is posted below seems to be disarticulated its because of the pasting of portions of the article.
Kelly
____________________________________________________________
http://www.cracked.com/article_15740_was-911-inside-job.html
Did the U.S. government plan and execute the 9/11 attacks?
Does one internet video hold the shocking evidence? If you own a computer, odds are you have seen Loose Change, a slickly-produced viral internet video making the case that the U.S. government planned and executed the 9/11 attacks. No, I don't know why it's called "Loose Change."
If you haven't seen it yet, you will soon. The Loose Changers will make sure of it. They sell this thing like they're getting a commission.
They've sold more than 100,000 copies of this thing on DVD. It's been downloaded millions of times.
But is it Bull Poop?
There are basically two views on the subject, and I intend to provide both equally. You can make up your own mind. One side says...
1. The 9/11 Conspiracy guys are liars.
Here's how it started.
There was a teenager named Dylan Avery.
Anyway, Avery wanted to be a movie director. At a party he seized the opportunity to buttonhole Gandolfini, and the two had this conversation:
Avery: Mr. Soprano! I'm a huge fan!
Soprano: That's great, kid.
(Glances at bodyguards)
Avery: You know, I want to be a director...
Soprano: Like I give a ####. The deformed kid who cleans my ####' gutters wants to be a director. You got an idea for a movie?
Avery: Well, no...
Soprano: Then what the #### are you comin' up to me talkin' about bein' a director?
Avery: I've always wanted to-
Soprano: Shut up. Listen to me...
(Nods toward bodyguards, who approach from across the room)
Soprano: ...Let me tell you the problem with kids like you. You don't wanna direct. You don't wanna tell stories. You wanna be a director. You wanna walk down red carpets with a ####' starlet on your arm. You ain't got nothin' to say to the world. For you, the movies, the work, it's just a means to an end. Limousines and cocaine, right?
Avery: Yes! That sounds great!
Soprano: People like you are a cancer. You're the most dangerous people in the world because you'll do anything for the spotlight. You'd tattoo a Swastika on your head if you thought it would get you a movie deal. The people who make it, the people who deserve to make it, the ones who get respect... they're the ones who got something to say to the world.
Avery: I don't under- Ooomph! My crotch!
(Soprano's bodyguards deliver several vicious blows to Avery's body, then dump him into an alley).
That's pretty much how Avery tells the story, if you read between the lines. Dylan Avery wanted fame. Badly. How far would he go to get it? With Loose Change, we would find out. He sat down and started writing a FICTIONAL SCREENPLAY about he and his buddies finding out 9/11 was a government conspiracy. Fictional. Sort of an The X-Files episode. Avery mentions this in every interview he does. Since he had no money to film his own movie, he started cutting together video and photos off the internet, creatively editing them to make them scary and ominous, cutting the visuals to fit the story, making a fake documentary. Like Spinal Tap, only about mass murder. So, for instance, in his screenplay, the Pentagon was hit with a missile and then was cove
Edited 10/18/2009 3:26 pm ET by KLATU |
| View Full Message |
| |
|
|
|
|
