posted August 28, 2007 12:17 PM            

Talk's cheap but I notice he is a plaintiff in a civil lawsuit who hopes to profit from the 9/11 attacks.

Not everyone is comfortable in the real world Johnny and some prefer the fantasyland version of reality.

You know LLT, when bin Laden admitted al-Qaeda attacked the United States...took credit for the attacks and when I've posted video of some of the hijackers celebrating the coming attack AND writing their wills...well then LLT, it's time to drop the bullshiiit and come to grips with the reality Islamic terrorist forces attacked the United States on 9/11. It's also true affilliated terrorists attacked the WTC in 1993, attacked 2 US embassies in Africa, attacked the Kobar Towers in Saudi Arabia and attacked the USS Cole.

Wanting to believe the worst makes one vulnerable to the worst kind of bullshiiit.

Bush did not need a reason to attack Iraq. Got that LTT? Bush did not need an attack on the WTC to parley that into an attack on Saddam Hussein.

Saddam was in default on his agreement with the UN Resolution...the so called "ceasefire agreement" and had been since it's inception in 1991. Saddam was in default of the 16 UN Resolutions which followed...each and every one of which demanded Saddam live up to his agreement. Saddam had not and did not.

Further LLT, a "joint resolution" of Congress in 1998 specified it was the policy of the United States that Saddam Hussein be removed from power in Iraq.

Bush had all the tools he needed and did not need another incident to trigger either the war on terrorists, the war on terrorism or war on terrorist nations.

posted August 28, 2007 04:51 PM              

This is the world of illusion.

posted August 28, 2007 06:39 PM            

quote:

---

You know Johnny, you only have this guys word that anyone offerred him anything at all....that he could turn down to prove what a straight arrow he is.

---

Oh please! You know perfectly well he was held up as a hero after 9/11 - do you really find his statements that he was offered book deals, etc. so hard to believe?

For myself, knowing that the guy risked and almost lost his life trying to get people out of those buildings casts his character in a pretty decent light.

quote:

---

Talk's cheap but I notice he is a plaintiff in a civil lawsuit who hopes to profit from the 9/11 attacks.

---

There's more than one reason to file a lawsuit. Just for the sake of the argument, suppose that what Rodriguez is saying is true; can you think of a better way to call attention to it? If elements of our government did have a hand in the 9/11 attacks (and I know you know history, so why you find this so implausible escapes me) then a lawsuit can bring the issue to the fore like nothing else.

Bush, on the other hand, has used 9/11 like a bludgeon to batter all sorts of unconstitutional measures through Congress. 9/11 is the rallying cry of this entire administration! Who is really profiting from it?

Note, now, that the only way Rodriguez can profit by this lawsuit is in the event that he can win it. And what will that mean?

quote:

---

Not everyone is comfortable in the real world Johnny and some prefer the fantasyland version of reality.

---

Which leads to ignoring things like the molten steel in the rubble, I guess. What energy source in the official version accounts for the molten steel? The official report neglects to even mention it. As does the NIST report and the PM article.

Have you seen the pictures of the beams immediately after the collapse? Cut diagonally, thermite-demolition style, with cooled droplets of steel encrusted around the edges? Holy sh*t, how can you not have questions?!

quote:

---

You know LLT, when bin Laden admitted al-Qaeda attacked the United States...took credit for the attacks and when I've posted video of some of the hijackers celebrating the coming attack AND writing their wills...

---

Oh, a video! If it's on TV, it must be true!

Not even to mention that the bin Ladin in the video looks markedly different from other bin Ladin we've seen... It isn't hard to forge a video. Much easier than answering the unanswered questions of 9/11, at any rate.

quote:

---

Wanting to believe the worst makes one vulnerable to the worst kind of bullshiiit.

---

So does wanting to believe the best. But beliefs are for people either incapable or afraid of critical thinking.

quote:

---

Bush did not need a reason to attack Iraq. Got that LTT? Bush did not need an attack on the WTC to parley that into an attack on Saddam Hussein.

---

Sure, he can just pretend they have nuke programs. But playing on the nation's emotions, harping on the tragedy over and over and over and then saying that Saddam was in league with the 'evildoers' and is in fact harboring and funding them now doesn't hurt at all.

The Pres. can launch an unpopular war, sure, but it's political suicide. Make people want the war and you're good to go.

quote:

---

Bush had all the tools he needed and did not need another incident to trigger either the war on terrorists, the war on terrorism or war on terrorist nations.

---

Read: the war on anyone he damn well chooses. Remember what his approval ratings were like before 9/11, after the recount scandal and everything? 9/11 was the deciding event in his presidency; for you to imply that it was irrelevant is a a bit of a reach.

What is a 'War on Terror,' anyway? Can you explain to me how we can ever win a war on an abstract, Jwhop? Doesn't it sound a little bit (or a lot bit) Orwellian to you? "War is Peace?" Does it bother you that our attack on Iraq has only fueled the fire of Islamic fundamentalism? That the report these days is that Al Quaeda is stronger than ever?

You sound like you trust our government implicitly. I'd love to get in on that.

posted August 28, 2007 06:56 PM              

I'd rather not see pain and suffering in this life, but closing my eyes to another's suffering won't make it go away.

I only want to stand for truth and love until the day I die or 'ascend'.

posted August 29, 2007 01:36 PM            

Are you engaged in the same enterprise Johnny? It might be true, it's possible it's true. Hey Johnny, it's possible the cow jumped over the moon but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

So, is it the seriousness of the consequences of the allegation which makes it necessary to probe, to speculate, to defame, to slander, to libel the President? Because Johnny, if that's true, I can make some allegations which are just as serious or more so and they ARE true. However leftists aren't the least interested in exploring those.

To slander, to defame, to libel...on the basis of speculation and profit is not the way we do things in America. If the President were not a "public figure" all those making those allegations would quickly find themselves in a court of law where their only defense would be to prove the allegations are "in fact true"...and Bush would not have to "prove" they are untrue.

So, as I said Johnny, enjoy your conspiracy theory safe in the knowledge that no matter what bullshiiit you post about Bush, you are protected from any legal consequences.

However there are other consequences for those who spread loony tunes conspiracy theories. That's the loss of their credibility and even perhaps the possibility some will come to the point of doubting their sanity as well.

Are you one of those I have previously asked to state "how" Bush violated the Constitution Johnny? Or whose rights...specifically..Bush has violated?

posted August 29, 2007 07:50 PM            

quote:

---

It might be true, it's possible it's true. Hey Johnny, it's possible the cow jumped over the moon but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

---

Except, the problem is that the official story of 9/11 is simply impossible. Not just from the physics side (molten steel, freefall collapse, concrete pulverized in midair etc.) but from a logistical perspective as well. It has gaping holes that, instead of being addressed, are being ignored and glossed over so that the 'terrorist' hypothesis can be used to promote dubious wars and unconstitutional bills.

In science, one doesn't have to offer an alternative hypothesis when disproving a theory. All one has to do is show where the theory fails, and that has been done.

quote:

---

So, is it the seriousness of the consequences of the allegation which makes it necessary to probe, to speculate, to defame, to slander, to libel the President?

---

The presidency is a political office, a position of civil service. In running for and accepting such an important office, one necessarily exposes their self to criticism. Slander? It's not slander if its provable. At the very best, Pres. Bush is guilty of negligence, and that is not tolerable in a president.

quote:

---

Because Johnny, if that's true, I can make some allegations which are just as serious or more so and they ARE true.

---

More serious than government complicity in the 9/11 attacks? You mean Clinton selling military secrets to the Chinese? For the record, I am not a fan of Clinton.

quote:

---

However leftists aren't the least interested in exploring those.

---

I'm not a leftist. Shoot away.

quote:

---

To slander, to defame, to libel...on the basis of speculation and profit is not the way we do things in America.

---

There is no speculation involved in saying that jet fuel cannot account for the molten steel pools. There was another energy source, and the government is pretending that there wasn't.

There is no speculation in saying that the only faction capable of neutralizing America's air defense network is the American government itself. There is no speculation in saying that so many unanswered questions in a matter this serious and this heavily exploited is cause for alarm.

Criminals are charged when evidence is brought against them. There is a mountain of evidence that 19 Arabs, directed from a cave in a backwards, 3rd world country, could not have done this without help.

quote:

---

If the President were not a "public figure" all those making those allegations would quickly find themselves in a court of law where their only defense would be to prove the allegations are "in fact true".

---

And this court situation is just where Rodriguez and others are trying to get, because the proof goes far beyond a reasonable doubt. If you discarded your preconceived notions and really looked at this, Jwhop, I think you'd agree.

It's not really so implausible. The Gulf of Tonkin thing was just the most recent example that I'm aware of. To say that our government just wouldn't, couldn't do this is naive.

quote:

---

So, as I said Johnny, enjoy your conspiracy theory safe in the knowledge that no matter what bullshiiit you post about Bush, you are protected from any legal consequences.

---

Our Constitution protects me and other dissenters, yes. Watching the Constitution being disintegrated is quite scary.

I voted for Bush in '04, when I had just turned 18, believed the official story, and was as die-hard Republican as anyone. This isn't borne out of some fanatic, anti-Bush hatred, as you seem to imply.

quote:

---

However there are other consequences for those who spread loony tunes conspiracy theories. That's the loss of their credibility and even perhaps the possibility some will come to the point of doubting their sanity as well.

---

No offense, but I hardly think it's any indication of superior mental faculties to outright deny something one is largely ignorant of.

You stated that no one had offered any unified hypothesis or even any motive to explain government involvement. Transparently false, but you won't even acknowledge that there might be a possibility that you're wrong.

"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." — Mark Twain

quote:

---

Are you one of those I have previously asked to state "how" Bush violated the Constitution Johnny?

---

I don't think so.

quote:

---

If I haven't asked you before, I'm asking you now and please be specific...unlike all the others who tried to generalize but couldn't back up a word they said...and let the US Constitution be your guide.

---

Certainly. First and most obviously, the Patriot Act, written up PRIOR to 9/11 and forced through Congress in a panicked rush. Bush passed it, and after swearing an oath do defend the Constitution, at that. But you want specifics, so I'll post the two Supreme Court cases so far that have declared provisions of the Patriot Act unconstitutional.

quote:

---

In Doe v. Ashcroft, a federal district court struck down a “national security letter” records power expanded by the section 505(a) of the Patriot Act, noting that the failure to provide any explicit right for a recipient to challenge a such a broad national security letter search order power violated the Fourth Amendment. It also held that the automatic rule that the recipient can tell no one that the recipient has received the order or letter, including any attorney with whom they may want to consult, violated the First Amendment. Judge Marrero, who handed down the decision, noted as an example of the kind of abuse now authorized by the statute that it could be used to issue a NSL to obtain the name of a person who has posted a blog critical of the government, or to obtain a list of the people who have e-mail accounts with a given political organization. Doe struck down in its entirety the national security letter statute that was amended by the Patriot Act, rendering all of section 505(a) inoperative if the decision is upheld on appeal.

In Humanitarian Law Project v. Ashcroft [18], the court held that specific phrases in Title 18 Section 2339A, as amended by the Patriot Act section 805(a)(2)(B), violated First Amendment free speech rights and Fifth Amendment due process rights. Section 2339A criminalizes providing "material support or resources" to terrorists and defines material support as including, inter alia, "expert advice or assistance." [19]The plaintiffs in the case sought to provide support to lawful support to organizations labeled as terrorist organizations. The court agreed with the plaintiffs’ argument that the phrase “expert advice or assistance” was vague and it prohibited protect speech activities, such as distributing human rights literature or consulting with an attorney [20]. The court noted that the Patriot Act bans all “expert” advice regardless of the nature of the advice, [21] which assumes that all expert advice is material support to a terrorist organization. Moreover, the court held that the phrase violated due process by failing to give proper notice of what type of conduct was prohibited.

---

According to the media, Bush had this to say when it was time to renew the Patriot Act.

quote:

---

"I don't give a godd@mn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."

"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a godd@mn piece of paper!"

---

That's, er, the godd@mn piece of paper that you swore to uphold, Mr. President, that has made America a rare place of liberty in a world infested with despots and oppressive regimes.

Those are only the provisions of the Patriot Act that have been declared unconstitutional so far, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were more to come. I hope there will be.

I know you write off the cases of the men being held at Guantanamo Bay without charge, the men who were tortured at Abu Ghraib, and all the other non-Americans who are having their rights ('that all men are endowed by their creator' with) violated as simply of no consequence, as they are not US citizens. But don't you think that allowing these things to go on sets a dangerous precedent?

posted August 29, 2007 08:06 PM            

quote:

---

let the US Constitution be your guide. If the right isn't found there, it's not a right at all.

---

I'd like to add that this is untrue. Untrue to the point of being scary - you actually believe this? The Constitution never 'gave' us anything; it only recognized that which we already have.

The very word 'right' implies this. Not a gift or a boon or an allowance, but a right.

You believe that governments give rights to the people? God, Jwhop. No, governments are by their nature corrupt and powerhungry, necessary evils at best.

The violation of the God-given rights of anyone on this planet should horrify all free peoples. I very much disagree with allowing torture or illegal imprisonment simply because the victim is not protected by our U.S. Constitution.

quote:

---

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it

---

posted August 29, 2007 10:49 PM              

Thank you.
Peace and Hugs,
GG

posted August 30, 2007 08:38 AM              

quote:

---

Taking your mindset into consideration LLT...."Only an omnipresent mind can truly see things from every side, and therefor as they truly are."...then it naturally follows you are sure about nothing. Does that then confer the right upon you to speculate, to defame others with inflammatory postings...because they might be true? Even if you don't know...and cannot know for sure?

---

posted August 30, 2007 10:35 AM              

We Need a War

We need a war
We need a war to show‘em
We need a war to show‘em that we can
We need a war to show‘em that we can do it
Whenever we say we need a war…

If they mess with us
If we think they might mess with us
If we say they might mess with us
If we think we need a war, we need war

We need a war,
If we think we need a war.
We need a war.
If we think we need a war.

A war to make us feel safe,
A war to make‘em feel sorry.
Whoever they are…..

If they mess with us
If we think they might mess with us
If we say they might mess with us
If we think we need a war, we need war

We need a war,
If we think we need a war.
We need a war.
If we think we need a war.

A war to make us feel safe,
A war to make‘em feel sorry.
Whoever they are…..

Can we do it?
Sure we can.

We need a war.
We need a war.
We need a war.

posted August 30, 2007 11:01 AM              

'Fraud-free zone': Willis (center) in Iraq with two CPA colleagues, preparing to pay a contractor in 2003

Watchdogs are warning that corruption in Iraq is out of control. But will the United States join efforts to clamp down on it?

By Michael Hirsh
Newsweek

April 4 issue - By many accounts, Custer Battles was a nightmare contractor in Iraq. The company's two principals, Mike Battles and Scott Custer, overcharged occupation authorities by millions of dollars, according to a complaint from two former employees. The firm double-billed for salaries and repainted the Iraqi Airways forklifts they found at Baghdad airport—which Custer Battles was contracted to secure—then leased them back to the U.S. government, the complaint says. In the fall of 2004, Deputy General Counsel Steven Shaw of the Air Force asked that the firm be banned from future U.S. contracts, saying Custer Battles had also "created sham companies, whereby [it] fraudulently increased profits by inflating its claimed costs." An Army inspector general, Col. Richard Ballard, concluded as early as November 2003 that the security outfit was incompetent and refused to obey Joint Task Force 7 orders: "What we saw horrified us," Ballard wrote to his superiors in an e-mail obtained by NEWSWEEK.

Yet when the two whistle-blowers sued Custer Battles on behalf of the U.S. government—under a U.S. law intended to punish war profiteering and fraud—the Bush administration declined to take part. "The government has not lifted a finger to get back the $50 million Custer Battles defrauded it of," says Alan Grayson, a lawyer for the two whistle-blowers, Pete Baldwin and Robert Isakson. In recent months the judge in the case, T. S. Ellis III of the U.S. District Court in Virginia, has twice invited the Justice Department to join the lawsuit without response. Even an administration ally, Sen. Charles Grassley, demanded to know in a Feb. 17 letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales why the government wasn't backing up the lawsuit. Because this is a "seminal" case—the first to be unsealed against an Iraq contractor—"billions of taxpayer dollars are at stake" based on the precedent it could set, the Iowa Republican said.

Why hasn't the administration joined the case? It has argued privately that the occupation government, known as the Coalition Provisional Authority, was a multinational institution, not an arm of the U.S. government. So the U.S. government was not technically defrauded. Lawyers for the whistle-blowers point out, however, that President George W. Bush signed a 2003 law authorizing $18.7 billion to go to U.S. authorities in Iraq, including the CPA, "as an entity of the United States government." And several contracts with Custer Battles refer to the other party as "the United States of America." Pressure has been building on the administration to join the case — or at least to file a brief saying publicly if it believes defrauding the CPA is the same as defrauding the United States. The judge's latest deadline for that brief is this Friday. But a Justice Department spokesman said last week the government "could" still refuse to take part. "I'll bet you $50 they will not show up," says Richard Sauber, a lawyer for Custer Battles, which is still operating in Iraq. (He also rejects the charges of fraud and incompetence.)

The administration's reluctance to prosecute has turned the Iraq occupation into a "free-fraud zone," says former CPA senior adviser Franklin Willis. After the fall of Baghdad, there was no Iraqi law because Saddam Hussein's regime was dead. But if no U.S. law applied either, then everything was permissible, says Willis. The former CPA official compares Iraq to the "Wild West," saying he delivered one $2 million payment to Custer Battles in bricks of cash. ("We called Mike Battles in and said, 'Bring a bag'," Willis told Congress in February.) Willis and other critics worry that with just $4.1 billion of the $18.7 billion spent so far, the U.S. legal stance will open the door to much more fraud in the future. "If urgent steps are not taken, Iraq ... will become the biggest corruption scandal in history," warned the anti-corruption group Transparency International in a recent report. Grassley adds that if the government decides the False Claims Act doesn't apply to Iraq, "any recovery for fraud, waste and abuse of taxpayer dollars ... would be prohibited."

More than U.S. money is at stake. The administration has harshly criticized the United Nations over hundreds of millions stolen from the Oil-for-Food Program under Saddam. But the successor to Oil-for-Food created under the occupation, called the Development Fund for Iraq, could involve billions of potentially misused dollars. On Jan. 30, the former CPA's own inspector general, Stuart Bowen, concluded that occupation authorities accounted poorly for $8.8 billion in these Iraqi funds. "The CPA did not implement adequate financial controls," Bowen said. U.S. officials argue that it was impossible, in a war environment, to have such controls. Yet now the Bush administration is either ignoring or stalling inquiries into the use of these Iraqi oil funds, according to reports by Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman, and others.

In one case, the Pentagon's own Defense Contract Audit Agency found that the leading U.S. contractor in Iraq, Halliburton subsidiary KBR, overcharged Iraq occupation authorities by $108 million for a task order to deliver fuel. Yet the Pentagon permitted KBR to redact—or black out—almost all negative references to the company in this Oct. 8, 2004, audit. These included any mention of the $108 million in alleged overcharges and the audit's clear conclusion that KBR's price-supporting data were "not adequate." The Defense Department then forwarded this censored version to a U.N. monitoring board that Washington had agreed to under U.N. Resolution 1483. Normally, an audited company is allowed to censor its proprietary or personal information, but "these redactions went beyond anything U.S. law would allow," says Tom Susman, a Washington expert. Halliburton spokeswoman Wendy Hall insists that the company had the right to make such redactions because the audit was "predecisional" and "represented only one side of the case." Hall also denies the company overcharged.

The U.N. audit team, called the International Advisory and Monitoring Board, is angry over these heavily censored reports, officials tell NEWSWEEK. The board last fall asked that a special auditor be hired. But the Pentagon has yet to award that contract after six months of delays. A Pentagon spokeswoman says the U.N. audit team "agreed that the [KBR] information provided was responsive to their request." A U.N. spokesman says this is untrue.

The administration's seemingly detached approach to these cases could have other implications. NEWSWEEK has learned that federal prosecutors plan to indict several U.S. contractors in Iraq on criminal charges but that these could be undercut if the court rules in the Custer Battles case that the CPA was not a U.S. government arm. "If you make the CPA a U.S. entity, you open the door to all sorts of liability claims. But if it's not a U.S. entity, then you can't parade these people through the court," says Jim Mitchell of the CPA inspector general's office. And that could mean Custer Battles and other companies will ultimately answer to no one.

posted August 30, 2007 02:31 PM            

You simply don't know what the hell you're talking about when you say it's impossible for 9/11 to have happened the way the official version reads.

It's impossible for it to have happened the way the loony tunes conspiracy theorists say it happened. All the proof needed to blow their contentions out of the water has already been posted...HERE.

There is no unified theory of how and why the US government or Bush attacked the WTC on 9/11. If I'm wrong, then lay it all out...the who, the how and the why. While you're about it, lay out where those missing civilian aircraft are...and where those hundreds of missing passengers are. While you're about that, tell me how many 9/11 conspirators there would need to be...including those who were not directly involved but were aware...or must have of necessity become aware..and who never uttered a peep. I estimate a number in excess of 50,000..some of whom are Canadians which would also involve the Canadian government...if the loony tune conspiracy theroy were actually true.

Excuse me Johnny, I asked you to not attempt to generalize about violations of the Constitution...and you start right out with a generalization. So, how does the Patriot Act violate the Constitution. Please be specific. What Articles/Sections and or paragraphs are violated by the Act?

The court case you cite does not state the Patriot Act is unconstitutional. It merey states some of the language was vague.

The Constitution is not a document granting rights to individuals. It's a document granting power to organize a government...within the confines of the limitations stated within the document. The states would not accept the document UNTIL the first 10 Amendments were added..which were termed the Bill of Rights.

As to the contention...that murderous terrorist thugs who were captured fighting against US forces in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iraq, who are now being held at Gitmo...that these terrorists have the same rights as US citizens and are therefore to be brought before US Criminal Courts for trials...up yours.

Never, never in the history of the United States have captured soldiers of an enemy or enemy combatants either legal or illegal been tried in the criminal courts of the US....unless they were ALSO citizens of the United States which then gave the criminal courts jurisdiction.

This is the treachery and treason of leftists that they are attemping to give US Constitional rights of US citizens to foreign enemies of the US...including terrorist illegal combatants who fight under the flag of NO nation.

These bast@rds are right where they deserve to be. The idea they would be tried within the jurisdiction of the US courts with full citizenship rights of American Citizens makes reasonable people want to barf.

If a search is "reasonable" then no warrant need be sought. The 4th Amendment only speaks to "unreasonable" searches and seizures.

The problem with leftists is that they think their "rights" are unlimited and they are not.

posted August 30, 2007 06:34 PM            

Like Bill, you apparently never learned that being loud =/ being right.

I'm not trying to convince anyone to believe anything, only to look at the facts for themselves, and most importantly, to question. If you'd rather play to emotions by calling names and inferring ridiculous crimes on the part of those who do, it only reflects poorly on you, Jwhop.

You never answered my question, as to whether you agreed with the statement by Tucker Carlson that alleging government complicity in 9/11 is 'blasphemous.' It's pretty apparent, though, from your head-in-the-sand attitude, that you do. It's a trend toward belligerent nationalism that seems disturbingly prevalent in this country these days.

True patriots, Jwhop, are not those who rabidly support the party line, who divide America into two groups and focus their energy on attacking the perceived opposition. True patriots are the dissenters, who love their country enough to ask tough questions, and who realize that the the government and the country it governs are not the same thing.

quote:

---

As to the contention...that murderous terrorist thugs who were captured fighting against US forces in Afghanistan, Pakistan or Iraq, who are now being held at Gitmo...that these terrorists have the same rights as US citizens and are therefore to be brought before US Criminal Courts for trials...up yours.

---

Maybe I was wrong... maybe you don't know history. You walk a very dangerous line, decreeing that some people have rights and others do not. When did I say anything about US courts? Straw-man fallacies and loud-mouth bluster on your part, Jwhop. I said that I disagreed with torture and detainment without charge. Read that again if you didn't get it. I'd further say that international war conventions were set up for a damn good reason, and to ignore them does worse things than hurt our image.

How are we so sure that everyone in that camp is a murderous terrorist? Are you so certain of our government's infallibility? Don't you worry about the precedent this sets? Most importantly, do you trust the government to never, ever abuse this power, to name someone an 'illegal combatant' and then imprison them without any rights whatsoever?

That's an awful lot of trust.

quote:

---

The problem with leftists is that they think their "rights" are unlimited and they are not.

---

So that's the problem with those darn leftists, is it? Gettin' too uppity, are they? Best remind them that they take their freedoms at our pleasure!

"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."

-- President Abraham Lincoln

Talking at you is tiresome, Jwhop. I'd love to feel like something I was saying was registering, or even being acknowledged, but you seem to prefer to ignore the difficult facts I bring up and focus on just 'winning' the conversation. I've answered your questions and addressed your accusations, but you haven't much returned the favor. Unless you have something radically new to say, I'm signing out now.

posted August 30, 2007 06:46 PM            

quote:

---

Follow the Money

---

No kidding. Did you know that Silverstein, the guy who leased the WTC three months before the attacks and then insured them for substantially more than the price of the lease, collected on the insurance not once but twice?

Roughly 7.2 billion dollars.

He said that there were two attacks, and that he should collect his insurance, therefore, twice!

Talk about profiteering from a tragedy. But how dare anyone who was physically injured in the attack, who breathed the asbestos-laced dust, or who lost family, file suit against the administration when evidence emerges that factions of it were involved. Honorless leftist traitors, all of them.

posted August 30, 2007 10:13 PM              

I'll meet you there at the docks...same time as last week right?

Peace and Hugs,
GG

posted August 30, 2007 11:28 PM            

quote:

---

The problem with leftists is that they think their "rights" are unlimited and they are not.

---

So leftists are Republicans now?

Republican quotes:

Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels - men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.
Dwight D. Eisenhower

How far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without?
Dwight D. Eisenhower

posted August 31, 2007 01:29 PM            

To those who say no one is above having misdeeds brought to light or protested; I agree.

However, if conspiracy minded individuals have to use lying rhetoric, theories which are directly and positevely refuted by a range of scientific specialties or anything whatsoever which is not true in order to make their brain dead theories fly then that is not legitimate protest, political or otherwise. It's lying plain and simple.

Those engaged in such activities should never go out of their way to tell others how enlightened they are...or how patriotic they are. They're just the usual lying leftist hacks which are the base of the degenerate far left demoscat party.

Save your flag waving for the suckers. This is not honest dissent.

quote:

---

Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels - men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion.
Dwight D. Eisenhower....acoustic

---

posted August 31, 2007 03:48 PM            

quote:

---

However, if conspiracy minded individuals have to use lying rhetoric, theories which are directly and positevely refuted by a range of scientific specialties...

---

Talk about lying rhetoric.

Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth:
http://www.ae911truth.org/

Pilots for 9/11 Truth:
http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/

BYU Physics Professor Steven Jones, who's written at least one peer-reviewed paper on the subject that I'm aware of:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/jones/StevenJones.html

Shall I go on?

The Twin Towers were built to withstand the impact of multiple Boeing 707s, the largest commercial airliners of the time. Frank D. Martini, chief engineer of one of the towers, described such an impact with the heavily redundant structures as being like "a pencil through mosquito netting."

He was one of those killed in the collapse of the towers he helped design.

There were 47 massive steel columns in the core of the building (over 200 around the perimeter). Even if the ridiculous 'pancake' theory was correct, these core columns would have been left standing, or would have at least toppled over. Unable to explain why they were instead mostly cut during the collapse into neat little segments, conveniently ready to be loaded onto trucks and shipped overseas (which they promptly were, in violation of air-accident regulations) the 9/11 commission instead pretended that they didn't exist, asserting that the core of the towers was 'hollowed out.'

The nicely cut steel columns, which should have been examined to scientifically determine the cause of their failure, where instead loaded up and shipped away to be recycled by a company called, ironically, Controlled Demolitions.

Ooh, craaaazy conspiracy theory alert!

There were elevator shafts and stairwells between those 47 enormous support columns, but they were hermetically sealed, intended never to function as chimneys in the event of a fire. The 9/11 Commission neglects to mention this, as well.

Underwriters Laboratory certified the steel in the WTC to 2,000 degrees for 6 hours, and later said that, conditions in the towers being what they were, the steel columns affected by the fire likely never reached more than 500 degrees. Yet both towers fell, the first in history to do so due to fire damage. And then WTC 7 quietly collapsed a few hours later, burying all sorts of interesting things, such as:

CIA Offices
IRS Regional Council
U.S. Secret Service
Securities & Exchange Commission

And of course, the Mayor's command bunker for Emergency Management, designed for just such events as 9/11, and renovated to the tune of 15 million dollars, including independent and secure air and water supplies and bullet and bomb resistant windows designed to withstand 200 MPH winds. Curious, then, that on that day, Giuliani and his retinue abandoned that bunker and set up headquarters somewhere else!

And there are dozens more questions, just from the perspective of pure physics! Why did almost all the concrete pulverize itself in midair, coating lower Manhattan in dust several inches thick? What energy source turned it into fine powder before it ever hit the ground??? Why were pools of molten steel found beneath the rubble weeks later? What energy source brought the steel to 3,000 degrees, it's melting point? No hydrocarbon did that. Why were traces of thermate, a patented, demolition steel-cutting device that leaves as its byproduct molten steel, found on one of the few pieces of the steel to survive the cover up (by Dr. Steven Jones, above)?

Pfft, no evidence, Jwhop? Brain-dead theories, Jwhop? Really?

We spent $40,000,000 investigating the Clinton sex-scandal. How much did 9/11 get? About $600,000. There needs to be a real, independent investigation.

Not really posting this for Jwhop's benefit, but just to illustrate that the propaganda he's repeating is demonstratively false.

posted August 31, 2007 04:12 PM            

Seems to me, that in any conspiracy theory, it's likelihood is directly related to how many people would have to be involved to carry it off, and thus how many people would be required to keep their mouths shut.

So many people would have to have been involved if 9/11 were a conspiracy, that I find it highly unlikely it's even possible. Humans can't keep secrets well - esp when they stand to make money from NOT keeping them.

And for every conspiracy theory re: 9/11, there is one to debunk it - so how anyone can believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy as surely as there is a sun in the sky, I will never understand... Just seems straight up illogical to me, to not even consider that perhaps there was NO conspiracy. Perhaps it was just a bunch of angry fanatic islamists...what's so difficult to believe about that? They blow stuff up all the time...