blackascoal

Russia and China have more global respect around the world now than America does. In fact, a majority of british people think the best thing they can do to avoid terrorism is to distance themselves from America. The BRITS .. who are America's closest ally. Additionally, my comment had nothing to do with ethics. But, I'm coming to recognize your "style" of debate .. which is to avoid issues actually germaine to the conversation. Let me help you out my brother. My comment was in response to the previous post regarding an attack in Iran. .. I commented about Russia and China because they are exactly who America has had to run and appeal to for any resolutions on Iran. Additionally, Russia and China are forming an even stronger alliance and attacking Iran may ultimately mean confronting an allied Russia and China. Given the fact they we have gotten out ass kicked in small virtually unarmed nations .. would a confrontation with a united Russia, China .. and a whole lot of other nations .. including many of them who have the oil ... and that China owns the US debt .. would a confrontation with Russia and China be a wise thing to do? If you could focus on the real adult aspects of this issue, it could make for really good conversation. We killed Saddam and his sons and replaced his gvt with a new one? We took the capital in 2 months. Who got thier *ass kicked in the actual fighting in open war? In short, you're a F'en moron! That's dumb. We won a lot of battles in Vietnam too .. but who won the war? If you aren't aware that we are about to face another Saigon moment in Iraq .. and that Bush is desperately seeking a way out .. evident by the "need" to send additional troops to Iraq .. and that the rest of the world has abandoned us in Iraq .. then please talk to someone else on your obviously huge and exciting intellectual level.

I'm not sure that democrats could possibly be viewed as more hypocritical than they already are. Impeachment will never happen and the democrats, in thir typical hypocritical fashion, have backed off all the talk of impeachment that they spouted during the campaign .. even John Conyers, who I previously had much admiration for and was the first political campaign I ever worked for, has backtracked on all the volumes of evidence he has acquired over the years.

For someone who has just arrived at this forum, you should seem to think you know the rules. Here's a tip, head the advice of forum veterens like M.Dancer - they know what they're talking about. blackascoal's post was an obvious copyright infringement - if you read the rules you'd know that. I suggest you take a hard look before posting again. The error was mine entirely as I did not know the posting rule and assumed it to be the same as most other forums where posting an article is not against the rules. I hope I addressed that in the second excerpt from an article that I posted. Now that I have read he rules more closely, I have no problem adhering to them. My problem was with the threatening manner in which this was originally pointed out .. followed by the mind-boggling foolish demand that I should "get a grip on Bush".

Dick Cheney wasn't Vice President in 1999. As well I like how you take all of those quotes out of context so we can't see the full article. You didn't answer the question .. and pardon me if I assume you have a brain and a computer. If you want to see the full context of what was said you can EASILY find them with the quotes. Do you need me to show you how?

Russia and China have more global respect around the world now than America does. In fact, a majority of british people think the best thing they can do to avoid terrorism is to distance themselves from America. The BRITS .. who are America's closest ally. Additionally, my comment had nothing to do with ethics. But, I'm coming to recognize your "style" of debate .. which is to avoid issues actually germaine to the conversation. Let me help you out my brother. My comment was in response to the previous post regarding an attack in Iran. .. I commented about Russia and China because they are exactly who America has had to run and appeal to for any resolutions on Iran. Additionally, Russia and China are forming an even stronger alliance and attacking Iran may ultimately mean confronting an allied Russia and China. Given the fact they we have gotten out ass kicked in small virtually unarmed nations .. would a confrontation with a united Russia, China .. and a whole lot of other nations .. including many of them who have the oil ... and that China owns the US debt .. would a confrontation with Russia and China be a wise thing to do? If you could focus on the real adult aspects of this issue, it could make for really good conversation.

This has been a lot of fun .. but it's getting a bit boring. I can rest in the knowledge that like the fraud of Saddam with WMD, the fraud of "mushroom clouds in 45 minutes", the fraud of the Niger documents, the fraud disclosed in the Downing Street Memo, the fruad of the aluminum tube "evidence", the fraud of the toppling of Saddams statue, the fraud of Jessica Lynch, the entire fraud of the invasion of Iraq, and various other frauds uncovered during the fake "war on terror" ... This too will come to light. This issue is a wonderful examination of human fraility. thanks

Canadian Blue, About the same effect a bomber crashing into the Empire State Bulding had .. which was not as well constructed. And your degree is in ..... ? That would be none of your business, although I'd have no problem discussing that with a poster I respected, as I have many times.

I've not asked you to believe anything I say. I don't even care if you believe what YOU say. Are you suggesting that you cannot look at a video of an event and determine the speed of that event? Wouldn't that be a silly thing to say? The speed of the collapse of all three buildings is well-known, documented, and unchallenged by anyone, including the Bush Administration. Post comment that challenges the conclusion that WTC7 fell in just over 6 seconds, 1/10 of a second slower than if you dropped a 1,000 lb weight from its roof. Yes it will, and again demonstrates your lack of knowledge of the science. The towers collapsed from the top which would not have created a "supertanker collidong with a sailboat scenario" .. in fact it would have been the other way around. My brother .. I can cite many fires in high-rise buildings .. RAGING fires that burned for many hours without collapsing or buckling in the slightest. An addition problem for the cartoon theory is that the relatively small fires were LOCALIZED .. does that mean anything to you? Even if one were to believe the cartoon theory, how would localized fires distribute melting/weakening properties throughout the entire building? Assuming the cartoon theory, wouldn't localized fires cause weakening in the columns nearest the fires thus causing the building to collapse towards the sides where the fires were .. instead of a controlled uniform pancaking equally througout the building. What you suggest cannot be replicated. What scienctific law or theory supports such an occurance?

I have a degree in IT. What do you have? A witty sense of humour. Cool !!!

I have a degree in IT. What do you have?

Your capacity for the US congress? Isn't posting on a Canadian political message board a bit off the beaten path for you?In any case, there are only really two possible explainations for why the beams look like that. They were either cut during construction or they were cut during the collapse. If you know that they were not cut during construction then it must have happened during the collapse. You cannot prove otherwise. The good thing about being me is that I can do whatever the hell I want, including posting on a Canadien message board. The GLARING failure in your "weakened structure" cartoon theory is the rate of speed of all three collapses. Neither you, nor NIST, nor Popular Mechanics can address the free-fall speed of all three buildings, particularly the collapse of WTC7. It does not take rocket scientist intelligence to recognize that mass meeting mass slows the rate of speed of the colliding mass. It's 8th grade science covered by the Law of Falling Objects .. which you obviously are unfamiliar with. In fact, there is NO science that supports the cartoon theory. 9/11, if seriously considered with the cartoon theory, would have been the greatest failure of science and engineering in modern history. It would be a scientific, engineering, and physics anomaly that has never before happened. But according to the cartoon, it happened THREE TIMES on the very same day with different impacts and causes. As I've repeated many times .. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Just supporting what I believe.

Can you prove that the only way a beam could end up like that is by deliberate 'cutting'? Not a chance There are so many variables in the collapse of a huge structure that you could never prove that they were cut before the building collapse. Have you gone over the detailed architecture designs for the WTC? Can you prove that not one piece of steel in the entire structure was cut at an angle during construction? I doubt you have access to the plans that would allow you make such a claim. So don't bother wasting time with claims you can't prove. I can "bother" doing whatever the hell I want. What you can do is not "bother" to talk to me if you choose .. and that is all you can do. And yes, I have indeed seen the detailed architecture .. which is not difficult to obtain. You haven't because your opinion is unstudied. I have also attended a plethora of hearings and commissions on the subject in my capacity for the US Congress.

You have made the unproven assertion that the job could be carried out with the collaboration of a small number of people. However, there were hundreds of people involved in the clean up and any one of these people would have noticed any cover up. Furthermore, you have to explain the 100s of people that were on those missing planes. They have already started to update fire codes to accommodate what was learned from the WTC collapses. Here is a broucher from the UL that describes what they are doing to improve the safety of buildings. When they build the new freedom tower they are planning on encasing all of steel supports in concrete to provide maximum protection in the case of a similar fire.In any case, you are wasting your time babbling about how fires melt buildings. Nothing was melted - it was weakening of structures caused by overheating. A weakening that would not have caused the collapse if there was not additional structural damage caused by the plane impact. Yes. A UL brochure? That's your evidence of a massive re-examination of building engineering all over the world?

The Bush Administration is desperately trying to provoke Iran into a conflict as justification to do the bidding of Israel. Russia, China, and the trest of the world clearly see through the ruse. As the adage goes .. If you want to stop terrorism .. stop using it.

Tell me .. where is all the furor and acknowledgement by the same community of experts you allude to .. to the new found knowledge that small fires, any fires, can melt buildings? Such knowledge would cause a monumental change in the way the buildings are designed and constructed. Governments all over the world would demand and require radical changes in building construction and there would be a flurry of activity surrounding the massive examination and modification of existing buildings.

It is evidence of nothing. A 500,000 tonne building that collapses on itself is going to have a lot of random damage to components. That random damage could easily include beams that look like they have been cut at an angle. Furthermore, it is possible that is simply the original shape of the beams when they were installed in the building. You cannot know if they were 'cut' during the collapse or during construction.All of the truthie 'evidence' is like this. Inconclusive and would only mean something if there wasn't any evidence that directly rules out the possibility of a controlled demolition. It is only "inconclusive" to those who don't know what they're talking about. "That random damage could easily include beams that look like they have been cut at an angle." Mind-boggling uneducated response. "it is possible that is simply the original shape of the beams" WOW "You cannot know if they were 'cut' during the collapse or during construction" AMAZING Let me guess .. you have no idea why columns would be purposefully cut in this manner which would only weaken anything it supports. Don't worry, neither does anybody else. INCREDIBLE

Same here. While I think democracy is a great thing, pretending that the establisment of democracy there as a fall back from the WMD raison d'etre was wrong. There was too much totalitarian baggage to think everyone would accept a democratic solution. "Democracy" is nothing more than a smoke screen. America doesn't give a damn about democracy in the middle east and elsewhere ... and we naver have. We have and will overthrow a democracy and install a dictator in a heartbeat if it fits our purposes and couldn't care less what that dictator does to his own people .. Iraq, Iran, Chile, etc.

So where are the collaborators that help pull the job off? There would have to be thousands. Yet none of them have had twinge of conscious and a desire to cash in big time. So where are the real experts (i.e. the ones with actual expertise in building construction) that agree with your analysis? The deafing silence from the serious academic communitity tells us that the real experts are satisifed with the official explaination. I've already demonstrated how the fraud happened without tipping off "thousands" to the trick .. which you ignored. With all sincerity, please feel free to continue to ignore what you don't want to hear. Interesting, but seriously flawed theory. .. Silence means that you're right .. even though ooposition by experts is far from silent. Tell me .. where is all the furor and acknowledgement by the same community of experts you allude to .. to the new found knowledge that small fires, any fires, can melt buildings? Such knowledge would cause a monumental change in the way the buildings are designed and constructed. Governments all over the world would demand and require radical changes in building construction and there would be a flurry of activity surrounding the massive examination and modification of existing buildings. You see any of that happening? Does the silence of the construction and engineering community all over earth also suggest that you're right?

Any idea what these are ... http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/t...nwtccolumns.jpg http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/wtc_anglecut. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/w...tter_debris.jpg Of course you don't. This is what they are ... http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/IMAGES/cutter_opposite.jpg What they are is evidence of shaped cutter charges .. and they are not caused by fire or collapsing debri.

My daughter and I have a great relationship and who gives a damn if you don't believe anything I say. I don't need, nor did I come here for your validation, nor do I give a damn about what you feel. Did Cheney say what is quoted? What year did he say it? Amazing.

So you want it both ways? The restored power, status, and hegemony of a post WW2 superpower, complete with imperialism, domination, interventions, proxy wars, globalism, bombings, etc. etc. while pretending that the Bush Administration frittered all those "good times" away? Are you high? Where did you read any comment of mine saying I want "imperialism, domination, interventions, proxy wars, globalism, bombings, etc. etc."? Read slower.

For those putting forth the "great impact causing giant buildings to melt" theory ... go here ... http://thepowerhour.com/images/911_wtc_images/stool.jpg Exposed side of the impact area .. what is that inside? Not only are the walls unblemished and show no sign of heat damage, soot, or smoke .. but also ... Notice a green file cabinet with a plastic computer monitor sitting on top. Two floors below that, an open book sitting on a wood stool. .. So a plane carrying 8,000lbs doesn't burn the pages of an open book nor burn or melt a wooden stool or a plastic monitor only a few feet away ... but melts giant buildings .. Even though a 757 is almost as tall as the Pentagon, the roof didn't collapse after the impact until nearly a half-hour later and left only a 16 x 14ft. hole .. didn't samage the manicured lawn at all .. left no burn or skid marks on the lawn even though the plane HAD to be flying at ground level. http://thepowerhour.com/images/911_wtc_images/rpt2.jpg Roof still intact .. notive firefighters are already on the scene .. but the roof is still intact. http://web.archive.org/web/20020321022743/...ncrustation.jpg Superimposed 757 on the Pentagon .. which left a 16 x 14 ft hole .. and no evidence of a plane .. no evidence of wing damage on the building whatsoever .. and couldn't melt a plastic monitor..

Excuse me .. YOU are more accomplished than Col Bowman? YOU have more expertise on any subject regarding this issue than Col. Bowman? YOU were/are a fighter pilot .. closely involved with NORAD? I doubt that .. and so do you.

Excellent.....you have effectively defeated your own argument....all things "superpower" were true before President Bush was ever elected. All of the "good will" built during and after WW2 involved many more millions dead than in Iraq or NYC. Cold War trillions laugh at puny WoT billions. Sure. America is in the same position globally as it was before the Bush Administration. Sure we are. I'd imagine that is the same "logic" that caused you to support the worst president in history .. who has been completely rejected by the American people and planet earth. Sure.

NORAD was unusually prepared on 9/11, because it was conducting a week-long semiannual exercise called Vigilant Guardian. On 9/11, North American Aerospace Defense Command's (Norad) Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) was fully staffed, its key officers and enlisted supervisors already manning the operations center "battle cab." [Aviation Week] COLONEL ROBERT MARR, US AIR FORCE: We had the fighters with a little more gas on board. A few more weapons on board. [...] We had 14 aircraft on alert, seven sites, two aircraft at each site. [ABC News] That's a ratio of 3.5 'hot' fighter jets per hijacked airliner. . * Bush clearly and undeniably had advance knowledge of a terrorist attack on US soil using planes as weapons by 9:05 am on September 11. * NORAD had it by 8:45 in an unprecedented simultaneous hijacking of four planes. * The Pentagon had it, as did everyone in DC by 9:05 as well, and the Pentagon began to evacuate the building, as did the White House and Capitol. * EVERYONE had advance knowledge of Flight 77 coming towards DC for 40 minutes.Yet, there was a complete defensive stand-down. Interceptors from distant Langley AFB took off late and flew at subsonic speeds to arrive 5 minutes too late. Planes from nearby Anacostia Naval Air Station, Andrews Air Force Base, and the 73rd Air Wing at Atlantic City, NJ never took off. Scramblers in the air already at 9:05 from Otis AFB turned to target Flight 77 and were called off, despite a formal shoot-down order from Bush/Cheney "moments after" the 9:05 crash -- which had ended any speculation of accident or coincidence or hijacking motives. By that moment they undeniably knew in advance what was coming and where it was headed. Local news announced that DC was the destination. Surface-to-air missiles at the White House and Pentagon remained sheathed in their silos. Despite the planes having turned off communications with ground control towers and their identifying transponders (which also shuts off their own near-range radar screens to avoid mid-air collisions), they were clearly visible to all external radars, they were being tracked by NORAD and DC towers, and they were somehow being navigated directly to their target. So where is the Stand-Down order ... Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction CJCSI 3610.01A (dated 1 June 2001) was issued for the purpose of providing "guidance to the Deputy Director for Operations (DDO), National Military Command Center (NMCC), and operational commanders in the event of an aircraft piracy (hijacking) or request for destruction of derelict airborne objects." This new instruction superseded CJCSI 3610.01 of 31 July 1997. This CJCSI states that "In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference d, forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval.". Reference D refers to Department of Defense Directive 3025.15 (Feb. 18, 1997) which allows for commanders in the field to provide assistance to save lives in an emergency situation -- BUT any requests involving "potentially lethal support" (including "combat and tactical vehicles, vessels or aircraft; or ammunition") must be approved by the Secretary of Defense. http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysi...ercept_proc.pdf Thus, responsibility for scrambling NORAD was stripped from commanders in the field, which had worked successfully for 40 years, to the Secretary of Defense, who never gave the order until it was too late and then sent fighters from distance, not Andrews, even though Andrews is there for just such purposes, and even though he KNEW what was going on. Why was the orders for hijacking response changed after 40 years of successful intervention only MONTHS before the attack on 9/11? In the words of Col Robert Bowman, former head of the Star Wars program .. If our government had merely done nothing - and I say that as an old interceptor pilot and I know the drill, I know what it takes, I know how long it takes, I know what the procedures are, I know what they were and I know what they changed them to - if our government had merely done nothing and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the twin towers would still be standing and thousands of Americans would still be alive. My sisters and brothers, that is treason! Don't you guys do any research?