I used to like Ron Paul, but lost a huge amount of respect for him yesterday when I saw that he was supporting Cynthia McKinney (among other independents). She is one of the most useless pieces of shit on the planet. I used to live in her congressional district and so can speak credibly on how absolutely worthless she is.
Don't throw him out with his bathwater. He's sure as hell not going to support McCain, Dems are out of the question, so he's just simply got to go with the next strongest choice that has a prayer of earning the percentage of votes they need to be considered a national ticket in 2012. I forget if it's 5% overall or something like that, but Nader was after that when he was Green earlier this decade.
thor just to let u know "we the people" dont actually have a vote all the congress and senate vote for us in electoral colleges so actually if u think about it "we" can't elect assholes theyre government friends do
Thor, just because I have less to bitch at Bush and his goobers about, at the moment, doesn't mean I'm a right-winger. If you want me to be totally even handed here, I have just as much disgust for Ann Colter and her hate filled fanatical supporters and lackeys. They're basically the Michael Moore's of the far right.
Your explanation of the oil issue virtually all boils down to possessing an uninterupted supply of the commodity. The price of that commodity is set on the world stage and is primarily influenced by supply and demand at the macro level (with fluctuations in price due to speculation). It doesn't matter where that oil comes from, or who is consuming it. It can effectively be considered as one big supply. Now, there are countries that can turn off the spigot and limit supply, but they need the money and can't use that tactic for very long. In general, only Saudi Arabia is a swing producer (and Iraq COULD be if they had the infrastructure).
The US army isn't controlled by oil companies or their investors. We didn't invade Iraq to suppress oil supply to make those guys rich, because Iraq wasn't a player in the oil market in the first place, because of all the trade embargos.
If anything, the only reasonable explanation of a possible ulterior motive for being over there is to be poised to deny Iran the capability of blocking the Straits of Hormuz and to keep them from destabilizing the region. That is entirely possible, because I'm sure the news organizations don't have the whole story, and the people I know that DO have the whole story aren't allowed to give it to me.
Dan, I don't mean to completely discount Ron Paul...I'm just very disappointed that he would allow his name to be printed in the same sentence as that woman.
Thor, on that issue, I don't recall that McKinney actually had competition. There was a fairly devisive political machine that responsible for running the show in that district. It was very corrupt, and fucked up.
On the oil issue, you'd be shocked. Even a 1 or 2% drop in global production can see prices increase by 10% or more. Now if you or your cohorts are not selling the oil that gets held back, that means that you profit a ton more, with no increase in your own production, and you lose nothing. It's win/win, other than the consumer of course.
"Iraq is pumping 900,000 barrels per day--considerably less than the pre-war production level of 2.2 million-2.4 million barrels per day."
That's what I was trying to get at. Iraq is way down the list on production (before and after the war started), but they're near the top of proven reserves. There is oil to be had there eventually, but it's been underutilized since, well, forever.
Most producers can't afford to hold off selling the oil the produce. Very few of them have the storage infrastruction in place to just "turn off the tap".
Hell, Russia CAN'T turn off the tap or their Siberian wells will congeal and freeze up.
The irony in what OPEC is up to (or Iran, in particular), is that they make their own fuel more expensive since we ALL pay the same price for oil (gasoline is a separate issue). Iran has no refinery capacity at all, and then has to turn around and import the more expensive gasoline and in turn subsidize to prevent public outcry against the exhorbitant pricing.
As someone educated in structural engineering believe me when I say that those buildings fell down for the exact reasons published.
For the main towers: creep from the heat of the fire caused the crashed-in floors to collapse. Then, the 10-20 floors above fell suddenly and pancaked all of the floors below them on the way down. I guess you never saw video of the urban canyons during the collapse, but there was a tremendous amount of energy released by the collapse, and tons of debris flying around. All perfectly capable (as demonstrated) of collapsing the surrounding buildings.
As someone educated in structural engineering believe me when I say that those buildings fell down for the exact reasons published.
For the main towers: creep from the heat of the fire caused the crashed-in floors to collapse. Then, the 10-20 floors above fell suddenly and pancaked all of the floors below them on the way down. I guess you never saw video of the urban canyons during the collapse, but there was a tremendous amount of energy released by the collapse, and tons of debris flying around. All perfectly capable (as demonstrated) of collapsing the surrounding buildings.
When all planes on the planet were grounded I saw a plane flying north to south probably regular altitude for a passenger plane. Jet streams and all this was no fighter it was a passenger size plane.
I can speak with some authority on the issue when I say that the government DID NOT orchestrate some absurd conspiracy involving the death of 1000's of civilians on our home soil. If you actually believe that kind of ridiculous shit, why would you even stay in a country that you thought was capable of doing that to its own people?
It's equally uninformed to believe our government is above such tactics.
Below is a desclassified NSA document (the link is to the NSA Archives at GWU) detailing the staging of very similar acts of terrorism, including the destruction of passenger planes, to justify military intervention in Cuba. The Joint Chiefs of Staff were requested to engineer these various pretexts that could be covertly executed by American agents in the event it was decided to wage war on Cuba without sufficient pretext. These acts of terrorism would help bolster public support of such an intervention, similar to the way the destruction the USS Maine created support for the Spanish-American War, and Pearl Harbor created support for WWII.
Not so ridiculous when you consider the DOD has considered ochestrating this kind of attack as a prelude to war for half a century.
The Gulf of Tonkin incident was falsely reported just two years after this document was prepared and signed, an incident that fueld the run-up to the Vietnam War.
Than you need to review your physics. If you knew anything about structural engineering you'd know that buildings that burn burn in a cone. If anything would collapse it would have been the areas above the fire and that would have burnt in to a cone. Full collapse isn't phsyicaly possible. Do some demolitions research and take a look at the empire state building crash and every single other incident where a large plane has nailed a sky scraper. Buildings just don't fall like that unless it's controlled, especially not buildings that were only hit by falling debris. Find me some proof that a passenger airline is even capable of penetrating 3 steel reinforced walls that ends in a point. Or any pentagon footage showing aircraft wreckage. All of the facts are right there yet people are too lazy to do the research which is why 99.9% of this country is totaly retarded.
...All of the facts are right there yet people are too lazy to do the research which is why 99.9% of this country is totaly retarded.
best quote ever!!!
as for the "explosions" seen in the building before it actually fell, I was told it was a precaution set up incase something ever did happen to the towers, and frankly I can see the purpose, if a 110 story building were to fall like a tree being cut down, its gonna knock a whole lot of shit out of commission,
where if the building was set up with explosive devices amongst the pillars throughout the building it would pancake the building sending most of it straight down instead of off at an angle
^When an aluminum plane hits 100+ft thick concrete structure at speed, and turns into a fireball nothing in the rubble is going to be distinguishable, there simply won't be significant peices of anything left. The few peices shown on the lawn were spared because they sheared off before impact when hitting light posts etc.
Several huge blocks of office space were destroyed in the impact, yet no one is asking where the desks and chairs and filing cabinets are. Does that mean it was never an office building?
Buildings don't fall like trees that are cut down. The metal on the burning floors succumbed to creep and failed. This caused the 20 or so floors above to collapse onto the lower floors. By the time they made it to street level there was tremendous amount of energy that was released.
NickyP you should probably do a little less research on conspiracies and a little more research into engineering. Obviously you have no formal education on the matter. I'll take my two degrees in Aerospace Engineering over whatever you claim your credentials are in the mattter.
EDIT To add: Why would you think that full collapse isn't possible? That's absolutely ridiculous. They built those buildlings to support a certain dead load from the building weight and occupant weight, and then a safety factor for live loads and wind loading on the buildling. That would not entail the ability to arrest 20 floors in free fall, which was the case after the vertical supports on the burning floors gave out from the metal heating up and creeping....I'm guessing you haven't had a material science education either.
Buildings don't fall like trees that are cut down. The metal on the burning floors succumbed to creep and failed. This caused the 20 or so floors above to collapse onto the lower floors. By the time they made it to street level there was tremendous amount of energy that was released.
NickyP you should probably do a little less research on conspiracies and a little more research into engineering. Obviously you have no formal education on the matter. I'll take my two degrees in Aerospace Engineering over whatever you claim your credentials are in the mattter.
EDIT To add: Why would you think that full collapse isn't possible? That's absolutely ridiculous. They built those buildlings to support a certain dead load from the building weight and occupant weight, and then a safety factor for live loads and wind loading on the buildling. That would not entail the ability to arrest 20 floors in free fall, which was the case after the vertical supports on the burning floors gave out from the metal heating up and creeping....I'm guessing you haven't had a material science education either.
You don't need a degree to know when the impossible is passed off as terrorist tragedy. Buildings don't fall like that when they burn or have extra weight added. THAT IS A FACT. I did my research and the facts are right there. Stop being a lemming and imagine for a moment that people aren't as nice as you want them to be. Especially a bunch of wealthy scumbags that see you as a means to an end. Never in history have any buildings fallen like that and there have been more disastrous situations on a sky scraper than what they claimed took those trade towers down. And as far as the pentagon plane? I have personally sent a missile through a building. I was an MRLS scout in the army for 5 years. That hole in the pentagon was a missile hit and that my friend is a FACT. No plane wreckage. No bodies. No black box. A jetliner would have hit that building like a slinky not pierce it's way through 3 seperated steel reinforced buildings ending in a point. Don't even get me started on flight 93. Who the hell calls their mother and says their full name? The only terrorists we need to be afraid of are the rich cock suckers that morons vote in to office. By the way, I'm a republican.
You don't need a degree to know when the impossible is passed off as terrorist tragedy. Buildings don't fall like that when they burn or have extra weight added. THAT IS A FACT. I did my research and the facts are right there.
who gives a flying fuck. this world is messed up. we all know this. shit happens. people suck. all in all, just move on with your life and quit guessing at what happened, cuz nothing can change the past.
Nicky...what do you think an airplane with a couple hundred thousand pounds of Jet-A on board is? It's a missile! Of course the hit on the pentagon looked like a missile struck it...a large object, full of an explosive medium, at high speed crashed into the building.
Never in history has a builidng that tall fallen down, and never in history has one fallen down because of a massive fire on an upper floor due to an aircraft strike. You really should cite a CREDIBLE source if you're going to ignore the fact that I'm better educated on the subject, and actually UNDERSTAND the mechanism behind the entire event. I happened to be taking an advanced structures course during the semester that the tragedy occurred, and we spent a couple of weeks breaking down the whole event and learning about how the whole thing played out....let me guess, my professor was in on the conspiracy right?
EDIT to add: by the way, black boxes are durable...but NOT invincible. Generally, a plane crash happens in the open and allows debris to spread over a large area, keeping the cockpit and black box away from the burning aircraft. In the case of the Pentagon, all of it was condensed into a very small area and allowed to burn at high temperatures for a long period of time. That would involve a much higher impact loading than anything on an aircraft is rated for anyway. EVERYTHING would be destroyed and completely unrecognizable in that event.
I was eating breakfast I think when I saw it go down. I was going to the University of Windsor at the time-- Windsor Ontario, I mean. The TVs in the dining hall were always on, so I saw it pretty early on. I sat there and watched like everyone else for a while, but after a few hours, I couldn't help but wonder what else was on. (Nothing else was on. Anywhere.)
So I decided to try to get some banking done, but couldn't because all the tellers were watching TV. I think I had two classes that day, and they were were centered around "talking about it" like some sort of weird version of AA. That night, everyone I saw in the commons was shitting their pants that the terrorists would go after the Windsor/Detroit bridge next. And of course, they were still all watching the news. I certainly wouldn't say I didn't care at that point, but I was definitely sick of watching people freak out. And after watching news anchors say literally nothing for hours upon hours I would have been happy with a little update now and then in stead of the nonstop "coverage".
So, I just recently finished reading 1984, and then I watched the RNC. There were some VERY "Big Brotherish" things that went on there involving the attacks. If you've read the book, you can't say there aren't similarities to the 2 minutes of footage shown on 9/11 at the RNC and the 2 minutes of hate in the book.
Comments
I used to like Ron Paul, but lost a huge amount of respect for him yesterday when I saw that he was supporting Cynthia McKinney (among other independents). She is one of the most useless pieces of shit on the planet. I used to live in her congressional district and so can speak credibly on how absolutely worthless she is.
Don't throw him out with his bathwater. He's sure as hell not going to support McCain, Dems are out of the question, so he's just simply got to go with the next strongest choice that has a prayer of earning the percentage of votes they need to be considered a national ticket in 2012. I forget if it's 5% overall or something like that, but Nader was after that when he was Green earlier this decade.
thor just to let u know "we the people" dont actually have a vote all the congress and senate vote for us in electoral colleges so actually if u think about it "we" can't elect assholes theyre government friends do
good point
Your explanation of the oil issue virtually all boils down to possessing an uninterupted supply of the commodity. The price of that commodity is set on the world stage and is primarily influenced by supply and demand at the macro level (with fluctuations in price due to speculation). It doesn't matter where that oil comes from, or who is consuming it. It can effectively be considered as one big supply. Now, there are countries that can turn off the spigot and limit supply, but they need the money and can't use that tactic for very long. In general, only Saudi Arabia is a swing producer (and Iraq COULD be if they had the infrastructure).
The US army isn't controlled by oil companies or their investors. We didn't invade Iraq to suppress oil supply to make those guys rich, because Iraq wasn't a player in the oil market in the first place, because of all the trade embargos.
If anything, the only reasonable explanation of a possible ulterior motive for being over there is to be poised to deny Iran the capability of blocking the Straits of Hormuz and to keep them from destabilizing the region. That is entirely possible, because I'm sure the news organizations don't have the whole story, and the people I know that DO have the whole story aren't allowed to give it to me.
Dan, I don't mean to completely discount Ron Paul...I'm just very disappointed that he would allow his name to be printed in the same sentence as that woman.
Thor, on that issue, I don't recall that McKinney actually had competition. There was a fairly devisive political machine that responsible for running the show in that district. It was very corrupt, and fucked up.
On the oil issue, you'd be shocked. Even a 1 or 2% drop in global production can see prices increase by 10% or more. Now if you or your cohorts are not selling the oil that gets held back, that means that you profit a ton more, with no increase in your own production, and you lose nothing. It's win/win, other than the consumer of course.
"Iraq is pumping 900,000 barrels per day--considerably less than the pre-war production level of 2.2 million-2.4 million barrels per day."
Blah.
A friend of mine was in the WTC, NIck Brandemarti, he died that day.
well since everyone else is bitching about our idiotic baffoon of a president,
i'm sorry to hear that
Most producers can't afford to hold off selling the oil the produce. Very few of them have the storage infrastruction in place to just "turn off the tap".
Hell, Russia CAN'T turn off the tap or their Siberian wells will congeal and freeze up.
The irony in what OPEC is up to (or Iran, in particular), is that they make their own fuel more expensive since we ALL pay the same price for oil (gasoline is a separate issue). Iran has no refinery capacity at all, and then has to turn around and import the more expensive gasoline and in turn subsidize to prevent public outcry against the exhorbitant pricing.
A friend of mine was in the WTC, NIck Brandemarti, he died that day.
well since everyone else is bitching about our idiotic baffoon of a president,
i'm sorry to hear that
I'm sorry to hear that, too. I didn't mean to drown out the more important topic of today
Didn't know anyone involved thank god.
Paranoid as fuck nowadays.
Its gotta be a conspiracy to take away rights. Just watch the crimping on the smaller building as it came down - definate use of demolitions.
For the main towers: creep from the heat of the fire caused the crashed-in floors to collapse. Then, the 10-20 floors above fell suddenly and pancaked all of the floors below them on the way down. I guess you never saw video of the urban canyons during the collapse, but there was a tremendous amount of energy released by the collapse, and tons of debris flying around. All perfectly capable (as demonstrated) of collapsing the surrounding buildings.
As someone educated in structural engineering believe me when I say that those buildings fell down for the exact reasons published.
For the main towers: creep from the heat of the fire caused the crashed-in floors to collapse. Then, the 10-20 floors above fell suddenly and pancaked all of the floors below them on the way down. I guess you never saw video of the urban canyons during the collapse, but there was a tremendous amount of energy released by the collapse, and tons of debris flying around. All perfectly capable (as demonstrated) of collapsing the surrounding buildings.
Than we saw physics proven wrong.
I can speak with some authority on the issue when I say that the government DID NOT orchestrate some absurd conspiracy involving the death of 1000's of civilians on our home soil. If you actually believe that kind of ridiculous shit, why would you even stay in a country that you thought was capable of doing that to its own people?
It's equally uninformed to believe our government is above such tactics.
Below is a desclassified NSA document (the link is to the NSA Archives at GWU) detailing the staging of very similar acts of terrorism, including the destruction of passenger planes, to justify military intervention in Cuba. The Joint Chiefs of Staff were requested to engineer these various pretexts that could be covertly executed by American agents in the event it was decided to wage war on Cuba without sufficient pretext. These acts of terrorism would help bolster public support of such an intervention, similar to the way the destruction the USS Maine created support for the Spanish-American War, and Pearl Harbor created support for WWII.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf
Not so ridiculous when you consider the DOD has considered ochestrating this kind of attack as a prelude to war for half a century.
The Gulf of Tonkin incident was falsely reported just two years after this document was prepared and signed, an incident that fueld the run-up to the Vietnam War.
I think you need to review your physics, then.
Than you need to review your physics. If you knew anything about structural engineering you'd know that buildings that burn burn in a cone. If anything would collapse it would have been the areas above the fire and that would have burnt in to a cone. Full collapse isn't phsyicaly possible. Do some demolitions research and take a look at the empire state building crash and every single other incident where a large plane has nailed a sky scraper. Buildings just don't fall like that unless it's controlled, especially not buildings that were only hit by falling debris. Find me some proof that a passenger airline is even capable of penetrating 3 steel reinforced walls that ends in a point. Or any pentagon footage showing aircraft wreckage. All of the facts are right there yet people are too lazy to do the research which is why 99.9% of this country is totaly retarded.
...All of the facts are right there yet people are too lazy to do the research which is why 99.9% of this country is totaly retarded.
best quote ever!!!
as for the "explosions" seen in the building before it actually fell, I was told it was a precaution set up incase something ever did happen to the towers, and frankly I can see the purpose, if a 110 story building were to fall like a tree being cut down, its gonna knock a whole lot of shit out of commission,
where if the building was set up with explosive devices amongst the pillars throughout the building it would pancake the building sending most of it straight down instead of off at an angle
I don't know, just speculating from what I heard
Several huge blocks of office space were destroyed in the impact, yet no one is asking where the desks and chairs and filing cabinets are. Does that mean it was never an office building?
Buildings don't fall like trees that are cut down. The metal on the burning floors succumbed to creep and failed. This caused the 20 or so floors above to collapse onto the lower floors. By the time they made it to street level there was tremendous amount of energy that was released.
NickyP you should probably do a little less research on conspiracies and a little more research into engineering. Obviously you have no formal education on the matter. I'll take my two degrees in Aerospace Engineering over whatever you claim your credentials are in the mattter.
EDIT To add: Why would you think that full collapse isn't possible? That's absolutely ridiculous. They built those buildlings to support a certain dead load from the building weight and occupant weight, and then a safety factor for live loads and wind loading on the buildling. That would not entail the ability to arrest 20 floors in free fall, which was the case after the vertical supports on the burning floors gave out from the metal heating up and creeping....I'm guessing you haven't had a material science education either.
Buildings don't fall like trees that are cut down. The metal on the burning floors succumbed to creep and failed. This caused the 20 or so floors above to collapse onto the lower floors. By the time they made it to street level there was tremendous amount of energy that was released.
NickyP you should probably do a little less research on conspiracies and a little more research into engineering. Obviously you have no formal education on the matter. I'll take my two degrees in Aerospace Engineering over whatever you claim your credentials are in the mattter.
EDIT To add: Why would you think that full collapse isn't possible? That's absolutely ridiculous. They built those buildlings to support a certain dead load from the building weight and occupant weight, and then a safety factor for live loads and wind loading on the buildling. That would not entail the ability to arrest 20 floors in free fall, which was the case after the vertical supports on the burning floors gave out from the metal heating up and creeping....I'm guessing you haven't had a material science education either.
You don't need a degree to know when the impossible is passed off as terrorist tragedy. Buildings don't fall like that when they burn or have extra weight added. THAT IS A FACT. I did my research and the facts are right there. Stop being a lemming and imagine for a moment that people aren't as nice as you want them to be. Especially a bunch of wealthy scumbags that see you as a means to an end. Never in history have any buildings fallen like that and there have been more disastrous situations on a sky scraper than what they claimed took those trade towers down. And as far as the pentagon plane? I have personally sent a missile through a building. I was an MRLS scout in the army for 5 years. That hole in the pentagon was a missile hit and that my friend is a FACT. No plane wreckage. No bodies. No black box. A jetliner would have hit that building like a slinky not pierce it's way through 3 seperated steel reinforced buildings ending in a point. Don't even get me started on flight 93. Who the hell calls their mother and says their full name? The only terrorists we need to be afraid of are the rich cock suckers that morons vote in to office. By the way, I'm a republican.
You don't need a degree to know when the impossible is passed off as terrorist tragedy. Buildings don't fall like that when they burn or have extra weight added. THAT IS A FACT. I did my research and the facts are right there.
Cite your sources, then.
Nicky...what do you think an airplane with a couple hundred thousand pounds of Jet-A on board is? It's a missile! Of course the hit on the pentagon looked like a missile struck it...a large object, full of an explosive medium, at high speed crashed into the building.
Never in history has a builidng that tall fallen down, and never in history has one fallen down because of a massive fire on an upper floor due to an aircraft strike.
You really should cite a CREDIBLE source if you're going to ignore the fact that I'm better educated on the subject, and actually UNDERSTAND the mechanism behind the entire event. I happened to be taking an advanced structures course during the semester that the tragedy occurred, and we spent a couple of weeks breaking down the whole event and learning about how the whole thing played out....let me guess, my professor was in on the conspiracy right?
EDIT to add: by the way, black boxes are durable...but NOT invincible. Generally, a plane crash happens in the open and allows debris to spread over a large area, keeping the cockpit and black box away from the burning aircraft. In the case of the Pentagon, all of it was condensed into a very small area and allowed to burn at high temperatures for a long period of time. That would involve a much higher impact loading than anything on an aircraft is rated for anyway. EVERYTHING would be destroyed and completely unrecognizable in that event.
EDIT to add: by the way, black boxes are durable...but NOT invincible.
Tell me about it,Mint Black Boxes are a BITCH to find.
So I decided to try to get some banking done, but couldn't because all the tellers were watching TV. I think I had two classes that day, and they were were centered around "talking about it" like some sort of weird version of AA. That night, everyone I saw in the commons was shitting their pants that the terrorists would go after the Windsor/Detroit bridge next. And of course, they were still all watching the news. I certainly wouldn't say I didn't care at that point, but I was definitely sick of watching people freak out. And after watching news anchors say literally nothing for hours upon hours I would have been happy with a little update now and then in stead of the nonstop "coverage".
EDIT to add: by the way, black boxes are durable...but NOT invincible.
Tell me about it,Mint Black Boxes are a BITCH to find.
hahaha i love this response chad!