I've said a lot of idiotic things in my life, but at least I usually have the class to apologize. As I've written an umpteen bajillion times, to make comparisons between [insert perceived problem here] and Communist and/or Nazi attrocities is immoral. First Dick Durbin makes this idiotic comparison (hat tip to dozens of readers and other bloggers, but I grabbed the quote from Frank J.):

If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime--Pol Pot or others--that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.

On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold. ..... On another occasion, the [air conditioner] had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night. On another occasion, not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room, and had been since the day before, with the detainee chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor.

And one time my sadistic Scoutmaster, who would make Stalin's head of the KGB Lavrenti Beria blush, made us camp next to the Colorado River out by Needles, and it was like 100 degrees at night!

The only thing more morally inept then comparing what is happening at Guantanamo to the tens of millions of people killed in the gulags, is to not back down once you've been called on it.

Via Bill Quick this news that Dick the Dick Durbin won't back down from his disgusting comments:

CHICAGO Illinois Senator Dick Durbin says he won't apologize for comments comparing American interrogators at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to Nazis and Soviet gulags.

News of the Democrat's comparison created a buzz around the Internet today, fueled by sound bites of yesterday's Senate floor speech on radio talk shows. By this afternoon, Illinois Republican Party Chairman Andy McKenna asked Durbin to apologize.

Durbin says the Bush administration should apologize for abandoning the Geneva Conventions.

Dick Durbin ought to be immediately censured by the U.S. Senate for his disgusting remarks. Any comparisons to the mass murders committed by the Soviet Communists is an insult to the memory of the tens of millions who died.

Paul says Durbin should resign:

Dick Durbin is ignorant of history, a complete jackass, and owes everyone in uniform an apology -- then he should resign.

Baldilocks agres Durbin should resign.

Mike over at Froggy Ruminations has the same idea, "I want DurbinÂ’s job, and I want it now."

UPDATE: Charles Johnson notes that Al Jazeera resoundingly approves of Durbin's remarks. An important note here is that the jihadis fight because they actually believe that the U.S. is no different than the Nazis. Durbin's idiotic words do not help in the war on terror. It's the kind of stuff the jihadi propogandists like to use, "See, even your Senator Durbin believes you are just as bad as the Nazis......" Nice going, jackass.

Related:
The Gulag Archipelego vs. Amnesty International's 'Gulags'
Hithchens: AI's Broken Moral Compass
The Horrors of the Gulags
Amnesty International Calls for Arrest of Bush, Bono to be named Czar of World
MSM Ignoring Real Human Rights Abuses

Posted by: Rusty at 10:58 AM | Comments (28) | Add Comment
Post contains 758 words, total size 6 kb.

I have a friend who spent some time living as a missionary in Thailand. Whenever the subject of Southern Thailand came up, he would just say, "Oh, no, couldn't go there. They're Muslim." He couldn't even travel to that area for fear of life and limb. This was before there was any sort of organized Islamist rebellion from Southern Thailand. Among the Buddhist majority, though, he was perfectly safe. All religions are basically the same, huh?

BBC:

A Buddhist man has been found beheaded in the majority Muslim province of Pattani in southern Thailand.

A note found next to the man's head claimed the murder was carried out in response to last week's arrest of a prominent Muslim student leader.

It was the fifth decapitation in a conflict that has claimed more than 700 lives in the past 18 months.

The note next to the severed head of retired teacher Kamol Chuneth carried a message obviously intended for police.

The note said that the authorities had arrested the wrong man.

Posted by: Rusty at 10:29 AM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 183 words, total size 1 kb.

1 "All religions are basically the same, huh?" Exactly. Only a fool believes this.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 16, 2005 10:33 AM (x+5JB)

2 I don't see any muslims rioting over this.

Posted by: Carlos at June 16, 2005 11:33 AM (8e/V4)

3 I was a missionary in Thailand about 15 years ago, and Southern Thailand was too dangerous for Christians back then, too.

Posted by: JB at June 16, 2005 12:40 PM (ZIRtj)

4 Start sarcasm Makes sense to me. The perfect response to arresting someone and giving them 3 squares a day along with expert medical care is a beheading. End sarcasm

Posted by: Oyster at June 16, 2005 01:20 PM (fl6E1)

5 He must have done something to offend the local muslims. Like being alive.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 16, 2005 01:33 PM (0yYS2)

6 Correction...south thailand is too dangerous for Western missionaries but that's another story altogether. The boob.....ooops beeb, says there's 5 beheadees. This was Kamol Chuneth (65). I also managed to google up Boonjan Saiphet(59), Kaew (60) and Jaran Torae (5 . Can anyone who knows who the fifth is kindly click on the link and leave a comment so I can update this post. By the way, they were ALL senior citizens. Maybe the brave jihadis of the religion of peace are waging a jihad on old people now.

Posted by: Maobi at June 18, 2005 11:37 AM (jgG2T)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

A man described as a leader of al Qaeda in Iraq has been captured in Mosul. The image to the right is from Evan Kohlmann's organizational chart of al Qaeda in Iraq which can be found here. Abu Talha seems to have been al Qaeda's key man in the city of Mosul, long a strong hold for the terrorists. Notice that he was turned in by locals and that although he sent suicide bombers to their deaths he wasn't so brave himself. CNN:

The U.S. military on Thursday reported the capture of a man described as al Qaeda's leader in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul.

Air Force Brig. Gen. Donald Alston identified him as Abu Talha -- whose actual name is Muhammad Khalaf Shakar -- and said he was captured on Tuesday.

"Talha has been one of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's most trusted operations agents in Iraq," Alston said. "This is a major defeat for the al Qaeda organization in Iraq."

"Numerous reports indicated he wore a suicide vest 24 hours a day and stated that he would never surrender. Instead, Talha gave up without a fight," Alston said.

Talha surrendered to multinational forces in a quiet neighborhood in Mosul, Alston said, after information from Iraqi civilians contributed to his capture.

Civilians providing such information indicates they are taking steps against the "increasingly unpopular insurgency," he said.

Posted by: Rusty at 09:51 AM | Comments (26) | Add Comment
Post contains 240 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Very good news. A relative is going over there soon and this is one less freedom fighter with whom he has to deal.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 16, 2005 10:03 AM (x+5JB)

2 YBP: Wish them best of luck for me will ya.

Posted by: Howie at June 16, 2005 10:18 AM (D3+20)

3 >>>"Numerous reports indicated he wore a suicide vest 24 hours a day and stated that he would never surrender. Instead, Talha gave up without a fight," Alston said." That's because these people aren't freedom fighters, they're cowards. They'll send other people's kids to blow themselves up, but not their own kids, and heaven forbid they go themselves. These are the people idiotic muslims all over the world admire.

Posted by: Carlos at June 16, 2005 10:20 AM (8e/V4)

4 Rusty, read you every day and have never commented, but have to say I have a problem with you referring to suicide (or homicide, which they are) bombers as "brave".

Posted by: Megan at June 16, 2005 10:26 AM (XuEkS)

5 Howie: Will do, thanks.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 16, 2005 10:28 AM (x+5JB)

6 Megan : I can assure you it's to point out the cowardice of the leader not the bravery of fools.

Posted by: Howie at June 16, 2005 10:30 AM (D3+20)

7 Megan, Point well taken, but it is bravery nonetheless. It's the problem we have in our culture that we believe many good characteristics have some sort of inherent good quality to them. I do not. Bravery in the pursuit of evil is evil, yet remains bravery.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at June 16, 2005 11:03 AM (JQjhA)

8 Yeah Megan, Like "good gay" and "bad gay".

Posted by: Editor at June 16, 2005 11:06 AM (adpJH)

9 My husband is a US soldier in Iraq and right or wrong, I refuse to accept those out to kill him as brave. I just refuse.

Posted by: Megan at June 16, 2005 11:16 AM (XuEkS)

10 In any conflict, there is an overall right side and an overall wrong side. To say there can't be (misguided) bravery on the overall wrong side is tantamount to saying that there couldn't be cowarice on the overall good side. I know, Osama--VERY black and white.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 16, 2005 11:24 AM (x+5JB)

11 The Nazi SS troopers were extremely brave, and extremely evil. A terrible combination.

Posted by: Carlos at June 16, 2005 11:36 AM (8e/V4)

12 Megan has a point though, some (parts) of these guys are found cuffed to the wheel. I hope that your husband comes home to you safely. Best of luck.

Posted by: Howie at June 16, 2005 11:40 AM (D3+20)

13 Thank you for the well wishes, Howie. I really appreciate it.

Posted by: Megan at June 16, 2005 01:50 PM (XuEkS)

14 Carlos, from his Mountain of Wisdom, wrote: "That's because these people aren't freedom fighters, they're cowards." Which is why liberals love them so. Birds of a feather and all that... "They'll send other people's kids to blow themselves up, but not their own kids, and heaven forbid they go themselves." Kinda like Dhimmicrat politicians. "These are the people idiotic muslims all over the world admire." And liberals too, they just adore them, especially Michael Moore.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 16, 2005 03:36 PM (0yYS2)

15 Megan: You are quite welcome.

Posted by: Howie at June 16, 2005 03:51 PM (D3+20)

16 First to Megan and YBP, I to hope that not only do yours, but all of our troops will come home safe, well, and whole. To IM, who are you calling a coward. I am an avowed liberal, and I am far from being a coward. I served in both the US Army and the US Marine Corp. Both Robert and John Kennedy were Dem Liberals and both showed more courage then you hiding by a key board. Also, JFK served himself in the military and did not get his daddy, to get him out of the military when it cramped his partying time. As for admiring Muslims, I admire them as much as I do the Catholics. Some are good people, most are your average joes, a few are evil incarnate, while a very few are heaven on earth. This I believe goes for most religions, cultures, and races. What we really need to get rid of in this world is fanatics. The so stupidly blind idiots who believe what they will and will and can not entertain a new idea. So next before you go off lumping all liberals as cowards and now good, you should look at youself first.

Posted by: Butch at June 16, 2005 05:09 PM (Gqhi9)

17 Two corrections, it should be too, not to. and no good not now good.

Posted by: Butch at June 16, 2005 05:12 PM (Gqhi9)

18 Butch: Thanks for your well wishes. Glad to hear that all Catholics are not condemned by you! As a practicing Catholic, I can't admire all religions, or else, out of conscince, I'd have to join them all. IM, who states that he is an athiest, should have more in common with you, but we've found common ground in wishing our country to prevail over terrosts who wish to kill non-combatants and combatants alike. I think you fit in with this position, no?

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 16, 2005 06:19 PM (WA3Vo)

19 YBP, My beliefs are really quite simple. The main tenet of my belief comes from the first two words of the Lord’s Prayer, “Our Father”. I truly believe that there is a supreme being that created all of us on earth. (To much logical and specifics laws to be random.) I believe we all pray to the same god but uses different methods and names. And as any caring father loves each of his children differently but the same, so does God. As a loving and caring God, I do believe that all of us will eventually get to heaven. Now some of us will be “grounded” in Purgatory a lot longer than others, but I can't see God casting out a soul for ever. I admit the God I believe in has a lot more love than I ever could, but that is why he is God and I am just a soul trying to live and learn. Now I know there are probably going be many who state that Hitler and Stalin don’t deserve to go to heaven. And being Mortal like everyone else, I happen to agree. But I then think of a devoted father who has a serial killer as a son. Even though the father may hate what the son has done, will he stop loving his son? And if this father could love him, what would God do? So although I think we will all eventually end up in heaven, some may get just one or two smacks with a bamboo cane, while others will receive 20 or 6 millions.

Posted by: Butch at June 17, 2005 10:54 AM (Gqhi9)

20 Butch: Purgatory! More common gound! I agree that there are different names for peoples gods, but I don't believe they are all the same god. They can't all be right. God (I'm speaking as a Catholic) states that He is a God of order. The various practices of religion do not lend themselves to order, as they are oftewn at odds with each other and in many areas, vastly contradict each other. The Bible states that indeed some go to "eternal hellfire," so Christians--and I'm not saying that's what you are or that's what you say you are--must believe that some people send themselves there. God doesn't send them. They send themselves by wanting to be their own god. He offers forgiveness and salvation to those who want it. Some people don't. But we can repent and make things right as long as it's not too late. Reagrding Hitler or Stalin--my own opinion is that it's doubtful they "saw the light" in time, but it's just my opinion. I may be wrong. I may end up there, too. All we can do is keep trying to do the right thing. The Catholic Church doesn't teach that any specific person is in hell. Cool to discuss things with you. Hey, you are the same "Butch" that sometimes was verbally sparring with Greyrooster, yes?

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 17, 2005 11:23 AM (x+5JB)

21 Yes, its me.

Posted by: Butch at June 17, 2005 11:27 AM (Gqhi9)

22 Welcome back, friend. Hey, I honestly think that you guys got off to a bad start with SOMETHING someone said and just kept at it. You probably have a few things in common with him. We all might, to some degree. I don't think ANY people on this board are carbon-copies. That would be frightening!

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 17, 2005 11:37 AM (x+5JB)

23 I take issue with the bravery comment about the suicide bombers. It would be brave if they didn't believe they were going to a lustful paradise full of free booze and unattended children, but as it is, they're just pathetic losers who've been duped by a psychopathic ideology. Horatio at the bridge was brave because he stood alone against an army and was willing to fight to the bitter end. The suicide bomber's way is the way of the coward. Of course, this goes a long way to explain why liberals love them so much, they are cowards too. This also explain why muslims and liberals hate Jooooooooooos. The Jooooooooooos have always been a brave people, persevering in the face of adversity, and it is the nature of the coward to hate the brave.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 18, 2005 09:37 AM (0yYS2)

24 Bitch, er, Butch, in a fit of near-lucidity, wrote: "To IM, who are you calling a coward. I am an avowed liberal, and I am far from being a coward. I served in both the US Army and the US Marine Corp." Let's see, where to begin... First, an "avowed" liberal would not likely serve in the Army and Marine "Corp", but I'll bite; name your MOS's duty stations, dates of service, etc.. By the way, you misspelled Corps, dumbass. Faux pas? I don't think so, no Marine would ever, ever, EVER, misspell that. Unless he was a complete dumbass. "Both Robert and John Kennedy were Dem Liberals and both showed more courage then you hiding by a key board." First, the word is "than", not "then", moron. Who learned you yer English? Second, they were hardly courageous, as neither distinguished themselves in any way. Except for John, who was possibly the most incompetent boat commander in naval history, getting his small, fast PT boat run over by a Japanese destroyer. invoking the Kennedys is hardly the way to impress anyone with a knowledge of history. They were New England white trash whose dad made his money as a bootlegger. Hardly a noble pedigree. "Also, JFK served himself in the military and did not get his daddy, to get him out of the military when it cramped his partying time." No, his dad just had to buy him a commission because he was a FAILURE as a naval officer, so the Navy put him in the one place where he could have a command without getting too many of his people killed. "As for admiring Muslims, I admire them as much as I do the Catholics." And therein lies part of your problem. I'm an atheist myself, but I would rather live nextdoor to the Vatican than a hundred miles from a muslim. Catholics are less likely to spontaneously explode. "Some are good people, most are your average joes, a few are evil incarnate, while a very few are heaven on earth." True, but can you tell the ones that want to kill you from the ones that simply like the idea of killing you? "This I believe goes for most religions, cultures, and races." Such a bold statement. "What we really need to get rid of in this world is fanatics." Hence the war on terror. "The so stupidly blind idiots who believe what they will and will and can not entertain a new idea." They're called "liberals", ironically enough. "So next before you go off lumping all liberals as cowards and now good, you should look at youself first." Look at myself? Okay. I see a veteran with ten-years of service who loves his country and all peaceful people, and hates any who would harm his country or any innocent people. Now your turn. Do you see someone who has bought into a twisted idology where black is white and emotion overrules reason? 'Cause that's what we see. Either you support terrorism or you don't. If you don't, then stop trying to help them, because your actions belie your true loyalties.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 18, 2005 09:54 AM (0yYS2)

25 Impedance Maximus, where shall we start? Probably the same one who taught you yours, “nextdoor”, “youself”. I wrote my post at quitting time, and I admit I was in a bit of a hurry. So what is your excuse Ignorant Maximus? As for my credentials, I served in the US Army from July of 82 – July of 84. Boot camp at Fort Sill, and stationed at Bamburg, Germany with the 1/75th field artillery. I started off in Charlie battery then move to HQ when I became XO driver. For more proof, 1/75 was a self propelled 8” artillery unit. With HE rounds weighing 200 lbs and powder weighing in around 100. I admit, the best shape I have ever been in was due to toting those rounds around. As for the Marine Corps, I started to boot camp in May of 1986, at San Diego, aka a Hollywood Marine. I was what was called a data dink, which is what I do today, and that is program computers. (So once again I spend over 8 hours a day writing in short hand code and languages not 100% English. What is your excuse for your poor English skills again?) I served 3 years in Agony, Ga. (aka Albany), the Marine Corps Supply base. I then went to Okinawa, by way of Alaska with the great stuff polar bear in the airport, in April of 1989. I was there for the full 365 days, with only one exception. I was in the Philippines at Suebic Bay (spelling?) for 3 months. It was only to be a two week exercise, but the natives got restless and rebelled, so our mission was cancelled. This was during December of 1989. I was station at Camp Kinser, with the derelict tanker run aground. As for both Robert and John, they have far more courage then the booze guzzling, drug taking occupant who sits the greatest seat of the world. Robert distinguished himself by going after the mob, and that is what got him killed, and John for at least going out in his boat against real enemies. Now Bush, not only go against people, like his pop, but didn’t bother to even go up at all. As for pedigree’s, who’s one father does not determine the amount of courage one will have. Once again, which one is a better example of courage and a patriot, one who gets his parents to get him into the military or one who gets his parents to get him out. As for impressing some one who knows history, well it is only to obvious you are not one who does. I still remember you lame post about WWI. You did not get anything right on it. So don’t even consider yourself to be EVEN “Summertime” history buff. As for my admiring Muslims, or any other religion, I see you can at least see the truth that I see, and that is Every race, religion, culture, and creed, have their Saints and Satans. This statement is not that bold, it is only obvious. It is the clueless morons who can’t see that. And when I said we should get rid of all fanatics, which I defined as those who refuses to even listen to any other view but their own, the cleansing should go for not only Muslims, but Christians, Jews, Blacks, Whites, Men and women. Anyone who is to stupid to at least listen to a view point, should be culled out to improve the human gene pool. I am not saying you have to agree, but everyone should at least listen. Once again you error Idiot Maximus, those who will not and can not entertain a new idea would be consider a conservative, because they fear everything, good or bad, that changes the status quo. So lets look at you, Illogical Maximus, you stated “I see a veteran with ten-years of service who loves his country and all peaceful people, and hates any who would harm his country or any innocent people”, and I point out innocent people part. You would have us kill all Muslims, even children, because you can’t tell who are the terrorist and who are not. Oh, I forgot according to you, all Muslims are terrorist or want to be terrorist right? “but can you tell the ones that want to kill you from the ones that simply like the idea of killing you?” As for emotion over ruling reason, I believe that is the right wing domain: It is good to kill an INCAPACTIATED combatant. It is good to kill all Muslims, because some commit atrocities. It is good to torture prisoners, because we can get some information. It is good to make new laws and but into clearly state rights, because we don’t like what is happening to the body of a woman who has left the building 15 years ago. It is okay to deny the right of two citizens based solely on their sex. It is okay to go against almost everything in the Constitution, because we are making a better place to live, for the Bush’s cronies. As for my supporting terrorism, I never have and never will, but I do support “TRUTH, JUSTICE AND THE AMERICAN WAY”. That means the even filthy scum sucking terrorist should receive full protection of the Law. The reason for that, which you terrorphobes (literary licenses) tend to forget, is not for them, but for us. If we let the law slide on this issue, and that, soon we will not longer have any laws at all. That is the price of having a truly free society. As for the military we have in the field right now, and those who did serve, I give them my full support. It is the man that is their Commander in Chief, that I hold in contempt.

Posted by: Butch at June 20, 2005 01:00 PM (Gqhi9)

26 Errat sheet for last post . should read "not only did he not go against people, like his pop" not longer should be no longer

Posted by: Butch at June 20, 2005 01:34 PM (Gqhi9)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

A few newer readers may not know that for a few brief months The Jawa Report was a Google News Source. Why not now? We were kicked off for alleged 'hate speech' violations.

Since then a number of blogs have noticed a definite Left leaning bias in the way Google does it's business. For instance, dozens of terrorist supporting publications are listed as Google News sources, including The Electronic Intifada and worse-- such as Jihad Unspun.

Google also disclaims any bias in which political advertisors to reject and which to accept, which is clearly not the case.

Google, you guys are full of crap.

Posted by: Rusty at 09:40 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 122 words, total size 1 kb.

We've been saying all along that the Grand Mufti of Australia is more than a little full of shit. Over and over we were promised by him that Douglas Wood's release was imminent and that it was all his doing. So when he comes out and claims it was he that got Douglas Wood released, excuse us for being a little skeptical. Mad Dog Vinnie notes about Taj Aldin Alhilali:

It's starting to seem as thought the mufti has been studying at the University of Al Sharpton, with a major in Jesse Jackson Publicity Stuntism. All in the name of making the Religion of Peace seem, well, peaceful, I bet.

Posted by: Rusty at 09:27 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 134 words, total size 1 kb.

Ok, every once and awhile you have to ignore our usual Blame Canada attitude and give our neighbors in the Great White North some credit where credit is due.

First this from The Toronto Star (via James Joyner):

The RCMP and Canadian military believe they've discovered a vital cache of information on Al Qaeda that includes the whereabouts of wanted members and details of attacks on coalition forces in Afghanistan.

The information is allegedly contained in a laptop, dozens of DVDs, audiocassettes and the pages of diaries, seized by the RCMP officers who met Zaynab Khadr at Pearson airport with a search warrant as she arrived back in Canada in February, court documents state.

Zaynab Khadr claims she didnÂ’t know that terrorist Osama bin Laden would attend her wedding in Pakistan....

"I mean we donÂ’t even write invitations for weddings," Khadr told the Toronto Star in a sympathetic interview shortly after her return to Canada. "We just say thereÂ’s a wedding and everybodyÂ’s invited and everybody passes it on."

Now the 25-year-old says she didnÂ’t know clips of bin LadenÂ’s voice calling for the killing of Americans were on the laptop computer seized by the RCMP at Pearson airport when she returned to Canada last February.

And check out what else is on her computer. I mean, is it possible that she somehow broke into my office and swapped out my C drive? Cause, it's like a freakish coincidence that we have all the same files on our computer:

Alleged to be among Khadr’s RCMP-confiscated possessions are downloaded clips of bin Laden’s voice and songs–one entitled "I Am a Terrorist". On the laptop is also a video clip of a 2003 attack on a compound used by Westerners in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and cassettes about insurgent attacks in Afghanistan. Canada, Khadr’s adopted country has troops stationed in Afghanistan.

Oh, and about all those innocent victims down there in Guantanomo. Yep, how could this not be an al Qaeda post without some sort of reference to Camp X-Ray?

When a chador-clad Khadr quietly slipped back into Toronto on February 17, 2005, she said she had returned to Canada to lobby for the rights of her two brothers, 18-year-old Omar, who is CanadaÂ’s only known detainee at Guatanamo Bay and her brother, Abdullah, whose whereabouts have been unknown since October, 2004.

Oh, and it's not just her brother. It seems jihadism runs in the family:

Her father, the late Ahmed Said Khadr, officially identified as CanadaÂ’s highest-ranking member of Al Qaeda, was sprung from a Pakistani prison when former Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien successfully intervened on his behalf through then Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto

Oh, and just in case you want to e-mail Zaynab Khadr you can reach her at: zak79up@yahoo.ca

Posted by: Rusty at 03:56 PM | Comments (10) | Add Comment
Post contains 589 words, total size 4 kb.

Good news, some of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's buddies from back in the day when he was kicking it old school style with the Ansar al-Islam crew have been arrested in Spain. I'd say send them to Gitmo, but these guys might just be into Christina Aguilera. More here.

Posted by: Rusty at 03:16 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 60 words, total size 1 kb.

Morality cannot exist without choice. One who is compelled to do good is a slave. As Aristotle argued, slaves cannot be citizens of a society because they are not autonomous and therefore not moral agents. The good society is the one which is given the choice between good and bad, yet chooses the good.

Utopian societies are evil because they force men to do what is seen as proper action. Communism compelled redistribution of wealth by murdering millions. Islamists compel proper religious duty through force of law and penalty of death.

What makes America the last best hope on Earth is that we compel so little of our proper action. As Dinesh D'Souza so forcefully argues in What's So Great About America:

The radical Islamists hate us not because they misunderstand us, but because they understand us all too well. They know that "America is a subversive idea" -- and that the spread of American ideals such as democracy, capitalism, and individual rights will undermine their efforts to establish theocracy. [source]

The Senate may be within one or two votes of passing a constitutional amendment to ban desecration of the U.S. flag, clearing the way for ratification by the states, a key opponent of the measure said Tuesday.

The flag is a symbol. A powerful and sentimental symbol, but ultimately a symbol none-the-less. If people feel the need to make statement by destroying that symbol, then so be it. Its a rather ludicrous statement because the symbol theyÂ’re destroying stands for the very freedom that allows them to destroy it in the first place. After all, such open dissent against the government would not be tolerated in a lot of places on the globe. But whatever, thatÂ’s their stupidity and not mine.

Posted by: Rusty at 02:33 PM | Comments (31) | Add Comment
Post contains 421 words, total size 3 kb.

1 It definitely is a bad idea. I say let the moonbats parade their hate before the world for all to see.

Posted by: Carlos at June 15, 2005 02:36 PM (8e/V4)

2 Yes. Why make a martyr out of some flag-ripping twerp.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 15, 2005 03:06 PM (x+5JB)

3 It would take us one step closer in the wrong direction. Muslims treat desecration of the Koran as a criminal offense. This would be no different. Do we know who sponsored this legislation? I'll have a look. It's probably a damn Republican.

Posted by: Oyster at June 15, 2005 03:26 PM (fl6E1)

4 "It would take us one step closer in the wrong direction. Muslims treat desecration of the Koran as a criminal offense. This would be no different." I agree, but it's not a perfect analogy, though. It depends on what a person is desecrating.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 15, 2005 03:29 PM (x+5JB)

5 Why make a martyr out of some guy in flag boxers?

Posted by: actus at June 15, 2005 03:35 PM (UkIRz)

6 Yep, Congressman Don Sherwood (R-PA).

Posted by: Oyster at June 15, 2005 03:35 PM (fl6E1)

7 A ploy for votes from the outraged???

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 15, 2005 03:45 PM (x+5JB)

8 Just a flag. What's the big deal? Already desecrated completely anyway, it's even used as an underwear pattern. Thousands of people have it stuck in their buttcrack everyday. If someone is stupid enough to start ripping or burning flags, then charge them for littering or for endangering stuff with fire.

Posted by: A Finn at June 15, 2005 03:56 PM (lGolT)

9 Im very torn on this issue thats for sure....yes, the American flag is juat that, a flag, made of cloth with colors and stripes and stars...a symbol of the United States of America....but, i guess like what the good Dr mentioned is how much do you allow it to happen, how do you know hen they {those who burn the US flag} are testing to see how far they can push the envelope???....i mean, its like kids, give em an inch, they take a yard....do we allow Islamicnazis to see how far they can push us before we act???...what if these idiots start burning them all over the US, what do we, the citizens, do???....stand there and let these assholes do it or do we intervene and let them know we arent going to take it anymore???....i find it all very hard on what is proper to do on this issue....wont these idiots who do burn the flag, wether they be liberal American idiots or Muslim idiots who live in the US, see us as weak if we give them their "rights" to burn the flag while we say and do really nothing, and wont that provoke them to do even more harm???....i dont know....i would like some input on this from the other people here, the deep thinkers...i was never one too think too deep, im more of an action person though i do try hard these days to think more....anyone???

Posted by: THANOS35 at June 15, 2005 03:58 PM (CagjM)

10 Deep thinkers? Big Guy is over on that other thread.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 15, 2005 04:01 PM (x+5JB)

11 Arggh, this makes me so mad. I need some help from you all on this one. There are already rules out there on how to treat a flag and those rules are not being enforced. For example- only one person in this country can have a US flag flying on his car- any guesses? You cannot leave a flag outside over night, it should never touch the ground, etc. I am sure Carlos or any other vets know these rules by heart. And interestingly, what is one to do if a flag does touch the ground? Burn it. Yup. Seems a bit confusing that our government is trying to make illegal what is required. Obviously at issue is intent, which is a useless thing to try and legislate. Seeing as it was just Flag Day, you think someone in the MSM would have addressed this, but no. Did see a guy teaching his grandson how to properly fold a flag though- made my day.

Posted by: Max at June 15, 2005 04:05 PM (HFKAk)

12 So it's okay to desecrate the flag but not the koran eh? Why didn't someone tell me we'd lost the war?

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 15, 2005 04:07 PM (0yYS2)

13 My point earlier, IM. They're NOT the same thing. One is a symbol of our country, the other a justification for hatered, murder, and terrorism. (And I know what the Lefties are going to say now.)

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 15, 2005 04:14 PM (x+5JB)

14 Big Dud???....uuuummmmm, nope , ill take a pass on that....ive seen his posts and he must be a crack baby.....ill wait for someone a little less, ummmmm, insane

Posted by: THANOS35 at June 15, 2005 05:10 PM (CagjM)

15 I say banning burning flags is a bad idea. The military burn flags that are to be destroyed, because they have been damaged, or rendered unusable. After seeing some of the scum that actual burn the flag, they've already been damaged irrepairable by their mere touch anyway.

Posted by: dave at June 15, 2005 05:11 PM (fsJ2z)

16 As a christian, I'm accostomed to Liberals desecrating christian symbols, and though offended, would not ask that it be illegal to do so. So I'm even less inclined to see flag burning made illegal. What are these people thinking?

Posted by: Carlos at June 15, 2005 05:24 PM (8e/V4)

17 I'm sure there are many Muslims that hope it's made illegal or that a bunch of us will go crazy and tear up a town and kill people over its desecration. It'll give them the satisfaction they want and every anti-American idiot in the world will scream hypocrisy. We can't act like they do. YBP: I know it's not the perfect analogy, but it'll do. I'm talking more about the repercussions than the act itself or the object being abused.

Posted by: Oyster at June 15, 2005 06:56 PM (YudAC)

18 Our flag is a million times more than just a piece of cloth. Yes, it's a symbol, but of what? If the flag represents anything at all, it represents the freedom to burn it. Ironical, I know, but that's my take.

Posted by: Leopold Stotch at June 15, 2005 07:46 PM (ftZB8)

19 As an ex-Marine captain (yes there is such a thing...) serving (sic.) in Vietnam on 3 combat tours, I can really go for the "gung-ho" attitude for not disgracing/desecrating of our flag, a cloth rectangle representing an idealism countless souls have lost their lives over. I display the flag and respect it, just as I do the Dutch, French, U.K., Belgium, Jamaica, etc. etc... flags. Victors in battle lower the flags of their defeted foe have the option of stomping, spitting on, stabbing, urinating on, setting fire to and raising there own. Billions have died over flags.....for what?....Certainly not for the goverments to tell these survivors meant to reap the freedom from sacrifices of their peers. Hell no.....let them burn it, rip it, tear it and whatever else they feel to do. It's not the freedom of an action here, it's the freedom of thought at question here. I have the freedom to ignore the actions and thoughts of the desecrating person(s) commiting these displays of thought, therefore I do. And I honor mine, salute in sometimes, fly it half staff at befitting times and otherwise would never harm mine , but may burn, mutilate and desecrate an Al Qaeda flag. Oh well sue me, but NEVER try taking away my fredom of thought, I may just ram ya with my flag and pole defending my freedoms. Mad Dog in Poquoson, Virginia

Posted by: Mike at June 16, 2005 06:40 AM (lR+wE)

20 The fact that they want to desecrate the flag says something about its status. That's why I'm against destroying Korans. We shouldn't put them on the same level as our flag. Destroying them does.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 16, 2005 08:03 AM (x+5JB)

21 For me, Burning the flag should only be illegal if such an action would cause physical harm, much like yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater and freedom of speech. There are many times when I think it would be nice if a group or idea would just go away, (the kkk, neo nazis are some examples), but I do feel they have the right to their own ideas. Now I would like to see all flag burners ( protest flag burners) that resides in the US to vacate. If the US is so bad, get the hell out. Max, I believe there is one exception to the flag overnight, and that is if the outpost is under siege,then it remains up until the siege is lifted or the outpost surrenders or are killed. One more interesting fact about the US and State flags, all state flags should be flown at a lower level the the US flag except for one. Any Guess? That's right, Texas, since it earned the right because it was it's own nation for 10 years. As for Carlos, what Christian symbols have been descrated? I know there have alot of effort to reduce these symbols from public offices, which is the way it should be. With US culture today being more and more influnce by non Christian people (like Hindi, Buddist) I believe we should respect their rights as well as ours. If you would like to have a stone tablet of the 10 Commandments in a court house, would it be okay to have a mural of the Indian Gods in a Federal building? Or even worse, a tablet of Commandments from a satanic bible?

Posted by: Butch at June 16, 2005 05:34 PM (Gqhi9)

22 "know there have alot of effort to reduce these symbols from public offices, which is the way it should be. With US culture today being more and more influnce by non Christian people (like Hindi, Buddist) I believe we should respect their rights as well as ours. If you would like to have a stone tablet of the 10 Commandments in a court house, would it be okay to have a mural of the Indian Gods in a Federal building? Or even worse, a tablet of Commandments from a satanic bible? " Butch, old friend: I think the solution is not to step aside and beg pardon, but to assert the Judaeo/Christian principles upon which the country was founded.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 16, 2005 06:06 PM (WA3Vo)

23 But if assert the Judeao/Christian principles we will be denying the political aspects that was the main reason for coming to America, Freedom of Religion, and Seperation of Church and State. Now I do not mind a moment of silence in schools, because everyone can pray or sleep if they want for that moment. But to force a Buddist to say the lord's prayer would only be right by forcing Christians to recite several Buddist mantras. I do believe that one should not mix politics and religion.

Posted by: Butch at June 17, 2005 11:34 AM (Gqhi9)

24 Butch: It's hard to imagine laws concerning theft, physical abuse, murder, etc., that don't involve morality to some extent. And I agree, as does the Catholic faith, that no one should be forced to pray (or belong to its organization, for that matter). I can deal with a moment of silence. Hey, what are your thoughts on having kids say "The Pledge of Allegiance"? Should that be voluntary? Forced? Done at all?

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 17, 2005 11:46 AM (x+5JB)

25 Why, WHY exactly do you need to burn the flag? You realise your opinions on these blogs don't actually ever reach the real world, it's just a bunch of punk-unappreciative democrats saying that "I don't have free speach unless I can burn the flag!" Well then I don't have free speach unless I can punch you multiple times for burning the flag. Have you ever seen a picture of soldiers raising a flag on top of a hill? Men gave their lives and rushed into battle just so they could raise that flag. It DOES represent America, and if you don't like America, just move. Find another country that gives you as many freedoms as you have here- or quit complaining. If you're so smart and you can use your huge words, then take it somewhere that matters. Contact CNN or something, they'll agree with you. Or contact Fox if you want a fight. Let's put it like this- our flag is like our avatar for our name. It just goes along with it. The only reason you want to burn the flag is because you don't believe that you have free-speach if you can't. Try doing HALF of the stuff you do here in America in any other country, and I guarantee you you won't be able to. It's not like America's forcing you to stay here. Anyways, one last time so one of you can answer with some sort of bullshit response ----> Why do you want to burn the flag?

Posted by: *sigh* at June 20, 2005 12:46 AM (xIUtJ)

26 If you want the freedom to destroy the flag which REPRESENTS the very freedom that you have, then you would be destroying your very own freedom (in a sense) which would be saying that you do not WANT this freedom, so why would you be against banning it in the first place? No one's forcing you to stand up and pledge ot the national anthem (although 85% of the people there may hate you for it) you still have your own opinion on it. You can ignore constitution and the flag and all the stuff that you hate for giving you freedom and go start an anarchyst colony in Brazil and have your own Anarchist flag (with the Circular A thing) and then burn it and everyone will say 'man, why'd you burn that it represents our complete and total disregard for anything civilized in the world, I'm gonna fucking kill you!' but then you're not really accomplishing anything better than this ammendment. In fact it's worse. If you're an anarchist (I'm sure 60% of you are) then why do you have a symbol? Would you burn it if it were on a flag? No, because it represents all that you were for. Grow up and realise the fact that you can't be proud that you live in the greatest country in the world is wrong. Thousands of people died just so you could live at home, go wherever you want, and eat whatever you want. You won't know how painful it is to be shot in the chest or have your leg cut off without any anesthetics until you actually do. I've been shot before (in my leg) and it is impossible to describe the intense amounts of pain you feel surge through your leg when an inch long 500 degree piece of metal lodges itself in your thigh. Try it out, it's loads of fun.

Posted by: w00 at June 20, 2005 01:01 AM (xIUtJ)

27 YBP, when it comes to morality and laws, I get most of my believes from the idea of the social contract. I'm sure you have heard of that. As such, it is not so much the morality I am looking for from society but the protection that society brings. That is why I feel church and state should be seperate. As for the Pledge, I feel it should be voluntary. My reason is because I can feel that the United States has enough people who love it, that we don't need to force anyone to pretend to. And because it is our country, I think we should have the right to say it if we want. As for the under god part, I also feel that if a person wants to leave that part out, fine, but I am going to say it. Another reason I thing it should be voluntary is I imagine a foreign national who loves his country, but his/her parents are here for an extended business stay. The student may want to leave and return to his home country one day. (It could happen : ) )

Posted by: Butch at June 20, 2005 01:15 PM (Gqhi9)

28 Corrections Beliefs not believes think nto thing

Posted by: Butch at June 20, 2005 01:17 PM (Gqhi9)

29 Interesting comments, Butch--Thank you.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 20, 2005 01:37 PM (x+5JB)

30 Any Constitutional amendment against flag desecration is bad. State laws already dictate a pledge of allegiance to the flag daily in many schools. Why is it that flag fetishists who tout flag laws don't chant the pledge every day? Their hypocrisy masks the old dark desire to make children and adults worship government daily at the ring of a government bell. Please oppose the amendment, and educate everyone about these new historical discoveries: 1. The original Pledge of Allegiance to the USA's flag used a straight-armed salute and it was the source of the salute of the monstrous National Socialist German Workers' Party (Nazis). The gesture was not an ancient Roman salute. http://rexcurry.net/pledgesalute.html 2. The Pledge began with a military salute that then extended outward toward the flag. Due to the way that Francis Bellamy (the Pledge's creator) used the gestures, the military salute led to the Nazi salute. The Nazi salute is an extended military salute. http://rexcurry.net/pledge2.html & http://rexcurry.net/pledge_military.html 3. Bellamy was a self-proclaimed socialist in the nationalism movement and his dogma influenced socialists in Germany, and his pledge was the origin of their salute. Many people forget that "Nazi" means "National Socialist German Workers' Party." A mnemonic device is the swastika (Hakenkreuz in German). Although the swastika was an ancient symbol, it was also used sometimes to represent "S" letters joined for "socialism" under the German National Socialists. Hitler altered his own signature into the same stylized "S" letter for "socialist." http://rexcurry.net/bookchapter4a1a4.html How the discoveries were made is a fascinating story in itself. I made the discoveries by accident during legal research involving litigation about the pledge. As a libertarian lawyer, I do pro bono work educating students and others about the right to reject the ritualism. Fight the flag hags and their flag fetish. Government's schools should not teach kids to verbally fellate flags each morning. It is like a brainwashed cult of the omnipotent state. For adults it is childish. Remove the pledge from the flag, remove flags from schools, remove schools from government. A flag desecration amendment would be a desecration of the Constitution. Our leviathan government and its schools, and Bellamy and the Department of Education could inspire a comatose person to desecrate the flag, to pledge disallegiance, and to recite the declaration of independence. The Bellamy dogma was the same dogma that led to the "Wholecaust" (of which the Holocaust was a part): 62 million killed under the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; 35 million under the Peoples' Republic of China; 21 million under the National Socialist German Workers' Party. It was so bad that Holocaust Museums could quadruple in size with Wholecaust Museums to document the entire slaughter. In the USA, the Bellamy dogma supported a government takeover of education. The government's schools imposed segregation by law and taught racism as official policy. The USA's behavior was an example for three decades before the Nazis. As under Nazism, the Jehovah's Witnesses, and blacks and the Jewish and others in the USA attended government schools that dictated segregation, taught racism, and persecuted children who refused to perform the straight-arm salute and robotically chant the pledge. Some kids were expelled from government schools and had to use the many better alternatives. There were acts of violence. When Jesse Owens competed in the 1936 Olympics in Germany, his neighbors attended segregated government schools where they saluted the flag with the Nazi salute. The U.S. practice of official racism even outlasted the horrid party. And the schools and the Pledge still exist. The Pledge is still the most visible sign of the USA's growing police state. Stop the USA's flag Nazis. Listen to a new talk-show appearance by RexCurry.net about the flag and the pledge http://rexcurry.net/rexcurry4.mp3 A more detailed version of the article above is at http://rexcurry.net/book1a1a1pledge-ch8a1a2.html

Posted by: RexCurry.net at June 21, 2005 08:11 AM (oz3x5)

31 Section 176 Respect for flag No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of America; the flag should not be dipped to any person or thing. Regimental colors, State flags, and organization or institutional flags are to be dipped as a mark of honor. (a) The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property. (b) The flag should never touch anything beneath it, such as the ground, the floor, water, or merchandise. (c) The flag should never be carried flat or horizontally, but always aloft and free. (d) The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery. It should never be festooned, drawn back, nor up, in folds, but always allowed to fall free. Bunting of blue, white, and red always arranged with the blue above, the white in the middle, and the red below, should be used for covering a speaker's desk, draping the front of the platform, and for decoration in general. (e) The flag should never be fastened, displayed, used, or stored in such a manner as to permit it to be easily torn, soiled, or damaged in any way. (f) The flag should never be used as a covering for a ceiling. (g) The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature. (h) The flag should never be used as a receptacle for receiving, holding, carrying, or delivering anything. (i) The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever. It should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper napkin or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard. Advertising signs should not be fastened to a staff or halyard from which the flag is flown. (j) No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform. However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of military personnel, firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic organizations. The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing. Therefore, the lapel flag pin being a replica, should be worn on the left lapel near the heart. (k) The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning. SO WHEN I SEE A BUNCH OF IDIOTS BURNING THE FLAG I THINK TO MYSELF, HUM, THE FLAG DOES NOT LOOK LIKE A FITTING EMBLEM FOR DISLPLAY, SO THESE PEOPLE MUST BE DESTROYING IT, PERFERABLY BY BURNING

Posted by: Dale at June 22, 2005 04:53 PM (nrYPg)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

If a TV reporter can interview a guy who says he knows where bin Laden is, why can't the CIA?

Bin Laden alive and well (thanks readers):

Osama bin Laden is alive and in good health, as is fugitive Taliban chief Mullah Mohammed Omar, a purported senior commander of the ousted Afghan religious militia said in a TV interview broadcast Wednesday. Pakistan's Geo television broadcast the interview with a man it identified as Taliban military commander Mullah Akhtar Usmani, a former Afghan aviation minister who said he still receives instructions from Omar.

Posted by: Rusty at 01:26 PM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 101 words, total size 1 kb.

This is almost indescribably sick: "An Indian woman who was allegedly raped by her father-in-law is now being ordered by a Muslim council of community elders to marry him."

Posted by: Rusty at 01:24 PM | Comments (20) | Add Comment
Post contains 43 words, total size 1 kb.

By Demosophist

It's compelling to compare the analyses of two popular bloggers who are frequently at odds, and both of whom think the current effort in Iraq may be falling short of expectations: Wretchard, at The Belmont Club and Larry Johnson, at the Counterterrorism Blog. These represent, at least superficially, somewhat differing perspectives on strategic policy. On the one hand Johnson depicts US policy in the Middle East as a "looming debacle." These are words that we tolerate only if their justification is obvious and irrefutable, for good reason: because they can become a self-fulfilling prophesy. We might be better disposed to such language if the ideas they expressed contained clear alternatives that led to some conclusion other than "debacle," but we still tend to distrust them because they belie what appears to be a short-sighted insensitivity to the public good, whether that perception is actually true or not. more...

Posted by: Demosophist at 12:50 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1171 words, total size 8 kb.

Is this guy for real?? Washington Times:

former Bush team member during his first administration is now voicing serious doubts about the collapse of the World Trade Center on 9-11. Former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds comments that the official story about the collapse of the WTC is "bogus" and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7. Reynolds, who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas and is now professor emeritus at Texas A&M University said, "If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9/11, then the case for an 'inside job' and a government attack on America would be compelling." Reynolds commented from his Texas A&M office, "It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause of the collapse of the twin towers and building 7. If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either. The government's collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings."

Of course to really earn his tin-foil hat he has to attempt to make the case that no planes hit the twin towers, or the Pentagon, or the field in Pennsylvania

UPDATE: Goldstein: "“Which, where do think the technology for the universal remote came from—humans? Please...”

Ace: "She's on the roof."

Posted by: Rusty at 10:00 AM | Comments (248) | Add Comment
Post contains 309 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Yeah, this was almost not worth commenting on... This guy is going to get some play in the media, no doubt with the headline "BUSH ADMINSTRATION OFFICIAL SAYS 9/11 AN INSIDE JOB" and without ever mentioning that he's an ECONOMIST. I'm sure he was a Clinton holdover, too.

Posted by: Editor at June 15, 2005 10:08 AM (adpJH)

2 The more these fruitcakes come forward with their Black Helicopter™ theories, the less credible they look. As I've said before, freedom of speech is so crucial to a free society because it allows everyone to show themselves for what they truly are.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 15, 2005 10:43 AM (0yYS2)

3 There are plenty of real engineering studies that chronicled how the buildings collasped. The studies were conducted to find ways to make future and retro-fitted construction survive similar attacks. These are real engineering studies, not moonbat guano -- which is obviously what fills this former officials cranium cavity.

Posted by: 10ksnooker at June 15, 2005 10:44 AM (7evkT)

4 i know, it was the keebler cookie elves who did it!!!!.....they are so small who would even see em???....they could tunnel right underneath and there ya go!!!!....collapsed building.....proffesional demolition......what the liberals and the media wont latch onto to try and disgrace the Bush administration....sheesh!!!!

Posted by: THANOS35 at June 15, 2005 10:46 AM (CagjM)

5 So if I come up with some wild conspiracy stories, can I get national press coverage? Just asking, because I have an active imagination.... This reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Bart is on "Focusin" and thinks that Major League Baseball is using satellites to spy on us....but you know....he was right....OMG! BushHitlerChimpy blew up the World Trade Center, invaded Kuwait, beheaded aid workers, blew up the USS Cole, planted the 1st World Trade Center bomb, blew up Pan Am flight 103, drove the truck bomb into the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, held Americans hostage in Iran, and killed the Israeli Olympics athletes... No, I am mistaken, all those were committed by our enemy...Militant Islomo-fascists... Time to get a grip people. Call a spade a spade. This guy is a nut case and should not be provided a platform to spew his lunatic ravings....

Posted by: WunderKraut at June 15, 2005 10:51 AM (gU92I)

6 Now I know I'm old. In my day that dude would get some swift Aggie Justice.

Posted by: Mr. Kurtz at June 15, 2005 11:03 AM (dHy0h)

7 Where's G*** when you need 'em?

Posted by: Editor at June 15, 2005 11:05 AM (adpJH)

8 When in doubt, blame the JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOS!

Posted by: Filthy Allah at June 15, 2005 11:19 AM (yBHNA)

9 I'll bet if we examine his phone records we'll find several calls from Greg.

Posted by: Oyster at June 15, 2005 11:24 AM (fl6E1)

10 Yeah, just an economist - in the mold of Duncan Black and Paul Krugman.

Posted by: Mark at June 15, 2005 11:29 AM (XSi5N)

11 When the facts can't be beaten, resort to name calling! Please continue thinking that cave dwelling ay-rabs did this all by their whittle wonesome. It makes for great comedy.

Posted by: undercooked_chicken at June 15, 2005 11:50 AM (V/7r2)

12 Anyone see the Fontline report "Why the towers fell"?? It's pretty good.

Posted by: Howie at June 15, 2005 11:55 AM (D3+20)

13 Well, we know that buildings like this commonly collapse due to fire, and in their own footprint, too. There are examples enough. There's....uh.....3 of them. All in the same place on the same day.

Posted by: microm1 at June 15, 2005 12:09 PM (AfCna)

14 How did WTC # 6 and 7 collapse? Where number 6 was, there is was a large hole in the groud. The video analysis of WTC 7 never showed any raging inferno's either. What happened to there 2 buildings? What caused them to fall in their own foot print? What caused the hole in the groud from number 6? Why did the bUSH administration recycle all the structural steel right away?

Posted by: wilburcarp at June 15, 2005 12:18 PM (6Af01)

15 "Why did the bUSH administration recycle all the structural steel right away?" They needed it for those hangars to hide alien spacecrafts.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 15, 2005 12:39 PM (x+5JB)

16 Why did they find molten pools of steel 70 feet below ground several weeks after the demolition? Why was the second building that was hit, collapse first, when most of the jet fuel exploded outside of the building. Why did the 80 some odd undamaged floors offer no resistance to the collapse? You people are fucking ignorant!

Posted by: managedchaos at June 15, 2005 12:40 PM (wiEEg)

17 No, we're IDIOTS! Right, Carlos?

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 15, 2005 12:41 PM (x+5JB)

18 Looks like G***gy must have sent a few of his freinds this way. Hey Friends-of-G***, give him our regards.

Posted by: Editor at June 15, 2005 12:48 PM (adpJH)

19 Wilburcarp: Having been there and seeing them fall firsthand, I'll tell you that there was indeed a raging inferno. I've never seen so many people bail out for any other reason. I'd do the same: a quick death after a base jump rather than burning alive or choking to death on the highly toxic smoke. Firemen I know who were there have told me that the jet fuel infiltrated elevator shafts and many other areas, concentrating the heat so intensely that support beams just buckled under the immense pressure. Also, just so you know...most buildings in NYC have a parking garage or basement for a building to collapse into below. In some cases, there are other enormous underground cavities from subway stations (new and old) etc... The force of the explosions, fallout and collapse was enough to destroy nearby buildings permanently as well. There was even a girl at a college near my place in Brooklyn that had her head chopped off from a chunk of plywood that flew over the East River, leveled down and took the top of her head clean off as she was walking outside. Anyway, I think it's absurd to think Bushie rigged any explosives. Oh, and Managedchaos, you're the fucking idiot, hombre. That whole building was full of material to smolder and high temperatures for a very long time. I could smell it miles away for months after... And as far as resistance? PLEASE...don't tell me your so dumb as to think that those structures were supposed to withstand billions of pounds dropping at that speed with that kind of force.

Posted by: osamabinpostin' at June 15, 2005 12:51 PM (buka0)

20 Uh try fire. Uh try watching frontline. Uh try lower floors not designed to catch pancaking upper floors. Uh try one set of bolts that held the whole outside supporting structure to the center of the building. Uh try insulating foam that was blown off the support beams. Really frontline has frame by frame analysis. I know PBS is pretty much left oriented but still has some good science at times. Jet fuel started the fire and also spread it around but was not the hottest burning fuel in the fire. That's carpet, furniture, paper, etc..... The collapses also started high in the building while demo teams always blow the foundation as well as the corners of each floor at the same time. The second one hit collapsed first because of the way it was struck. Both collisons did not do identical damage. It took out a corner. Do you understand how a corner is more impartant than a flat wall? theoretical quote of demo super to team. "Guys I know we usually spend about 90 days planning and setting up charges but a plane just hit WTC and we need to take it down in about 45 more minutes. Never mind all the firefighters and people inside. Plus let's remember these things usually fall right where they stand anyway so just put the charges anywhere except where a camera can see the foundation blowing out. And Shhhh this is a secret". Thanks for the insult I'm so hurt.

Posted by: Howie at June 15, 2005 01:02 PM (D3+20)

21 I love all these moonbats who were not there when the towers fell give their expert opinion. Planned explosions. Suck my balls hippies-

Posted by: filthy allah at June 15, 2005 01:05 PM (yBHNA)

22 What was the point in blowing up WTC anyway? Statue of Liberty and Empire State Building are bigger Usa-symbols even if WTC-towers were bin Ladens fixation and a symbol of the greatest evil, globalisation.

Posted by: A Finn at June 15, 2005 01:17 PM (lGolT)

23 I want to compliment all the above posters with their first-hand accounts of the tower collapses! filthy allah: "I love all these moonbats who were not there when the towers fell give their expert opinion." osamabinpostin' "Having been there and seeing them fall firsthand, I'll tell you that there was indeed a raging inferno..." -----It was not the 50000-degree "raging inferno" that prompted the "base jumping"...it was the SMOKE!!! As one who has dealt with fires I know smoke kills more people than fire! Check this link and you'll see how those people were struggling to survive in that 5200000000000-degree infrerno! http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_fire.html "When the facts can't be beaten, resort to name calling! " Motto of the government-loving slaves. Mr. Kurtz: "Now I know I'm old. In my day that dude would get some swift Aggie Justice. -----Yup yup! America, land of free speech, but if your speech don't follow the company line, WHOP THE CRAP out of him! Hmmm...a fire so hot it can melt structural steel but not even singe a paper passport...sheesh, the things you'll believe! WunderKraut: "This reminds me of the Simpsons episode..." -----Can't use facts?? Use some FICTICIOUS television show! Say bud...The Simpsons is a TEEVEE show. It's a bunch of drawings. It's NOT REAL! It's a story...like the one George Bush read as "America was under attack" Now there's a LEADER!

Posted by: Big Guy at June 15, 2005 01:35 PM (T7rcm)

24 managedchaos, you tinfoiler types have put the moonbats to shame in your utter fruitloopiness. It's true that moonbats are self-loathing and wrong, but you people are just plain scary. You're crazy and I would sooner try to reason with a homeless madman under a bridge than you.

Posted by: Carlos at June 15, 2005 01:36 PM (8e/V4)

25 '"When the facts can't be beaten, resort to name calling! " Motto of the government-loving slaves.' Dear Fellow Government-loving Slaves: We must come up with a new motto. He's stolen our M.O.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 15, 2005 01:46 PM (x+5JB)

26 Dear Moonbats. We expect you to blame 911 on Bush. We expect you not to be rational. We don't expect you to hold down a job. We expect you to be blithering idiots and so far, you have not let us down! Keep up the good work

Posted by: Filthy Allah at June 15, 2005 02:04 PM (yBHNA)

27 I blame Celine Dion. She is the cause of all that is bad with the world. She must be punished.

Posted by: Obsnooks at June 15, 2005 02:06 PM (yBHNA)

28 This guy's been peddling this nonsense for years, but it seems he recently got a better press agent. Yet if you read through some of his stuff, he's actually not brave enough to carry his wacky theories to their logical conclusion, i.e. Bush deliberately murdered over three thousand people and destroyed two economically significant buildings. The reason is obvious: if he did that he'd actually have to provide a more believable motive than "oil."

Posted by: MartiniPundit at June 15, 2005 02:12 PM (fLdsW)

29 Hey Little Guy...I was fucking there, and that is a fact. Where the fuck were you? Maybe you were inside where no photos were taken taking the temperature with your mom's turkey thermometer? Just what are you saying brought down the towers, eh? CIA agents kicking the support beams? Or was it those explosions we never saw or heard that were rigged up there? Do you think I'd trust your hypothesis over the phone calls I got from my friends in those towers? Maybe I should trust what you say happened over what I SAW happen? I suppose I'm supposed to discard the saying "Where there's smoke, there's a fire" now? Do you know how goddamn huge that cloud of smoke was that was billowing out of each building? Nope, no fire there! Just a little smoke! Little Guy, I think the only smoke you know about is wafting out of the crack pipe you took a huge hit off of before writing your post.

Posted by: osamabinpostin' at June 15, 2005 02:16 PM (buka0)

30 A whatreallyhappened.com reference... Yep - G***'s spirit is alive and well.

Posted by: Editor at June 15, 2005 02:28 PM (adpJH)

31 "Hey Little Guy...I was fucking there, and that is a fact."... "...the phone calls I got from my friends in those towers? " Let's see...you were there...no wait a minute...I got phone calls...no, er I WAS THERE...or was it those phone calls...c'mon now GET YOUR STORY STRAIGHT!

Posted by: Big Guy at June 15, 2005 02:29 PM (T7rcm)

32 See what is happening!! Celine Dion has divided you and now you fight amongst yourselves rather than fight the true enemy, Celine!

Posted by: OB Snooks at June 15, 2005 02:41 PM (yBHNA)

33 I knew it was those Damn Canadians all along. French Canadians!! BTW 2 for 1 on Reynolds wrap with your safeway card today only.

Posted by: Brad at June 15, 2005 02:47 PM (3OPZt)

34 Big Guy: Planes hijacked by dirty muslim terrorists run into wtc. Fuel burns, people burn, walls burn, metal burn, paper burn...building fall down. Why is it always got to be some loonie plot involving the gubbamint and the Jooooooooos?

Posted by: Filthy Allah at June 15, 2005 02:47 PM (yBHNA)

35 Little Guy, you are more stupid than I imagined...let me explain very clearly to you: I DID NOT SAY I WAS IN THE BUILDING, IDIOT. I WAS FUCKING OUTSIDE WATCHING MY FRIENDS DIE. THEY CALLED ME AND TOLD ME WHAT WAS GOING ON. *phew* Does that help? Now if you want to lecture us about your fantasy world, why don't you start by actually trying to prove something based on fact?

Posted by: osamabinpostin' at June 15, 2005 02:48 PM (buka0)

36 There I was, naked and alone, shivering in the cold wind as the waves swept over the sides of the life boat.....nothing to warm me but my endless hatred of Celine. I would survive to take her down....somehow...

Posted by: Ob Snooks at June 15, 2005 02:51 PM (yBHNA)

37 "Gubbamint"...damn filthy, you always make me laugh. Can you believe this guy? This is so unreal. Sort of like his posts...

Posted by: osamabinpostin' at June 15, 2005 02:56 PM (buka0)

38 "I WAS FUCKING OUTSIDE WATCHING MY FRIENDS DIE. THEY CALLED ME AND TOLD ME WHAT WAS GOING ON." Where were you exactly? What buildings and what floors were your friends on? Did they tell you the heat was sooooooo intense that it would cause the steel columns to melt and collapse the building?

Posted by: Big Guy at June 15, 2005 02:57 PM (T7rcm)

39 Big Guy, you live in a fantasy world. I don't mean that as an insult because an old friend of mine is equally insane and I love him to death. But you are living under a deep delusion that relies exclusively on unanswered questions (in your mind), not on established facts.

Posted by: Carlos at June 15, 2005 03:02 PM (8e/V4)

40 Iam a comedy writer adn Ive never come across something so funny as this... 'I was fucking there, and that is a fact. Where the fuck were you? Maybe you were inside where no photos were taken taking the temperature with your mom's turkey thermometer? Just what are you saying brought down the towers, eh? CIA agents kicking the support beams? Or was it those explosions we never saw or heard that were rigged up there? Do you think I'd trust your hypothesis over the phone calls I got from my friends in those towers? Maybe I should trust what you say happened over what I SAW happen? I suppose I'm supposed to discard the saying "Where there's smoke, there's a fire" now? Do you know how goddamn huge that cloud of smoke was that was billowing out of each building? Nope, no fire there! Just a little smoke! Little Guy, I think the only smoke you know about is wafting out of the crack pipe you took a huge hit off of before writing your post." It's HILARIOUS!

Posted by: I was there too! at June 15, 2005 03:02 PM (T7rcm)

41 I wish I was a room with a window looking into another room where osama' and Big Gay were in the same room.

Posted by: Editor at June 15, 2005 03:03 PM (adpJH)

42 Golldang! My Engrish has arr gone to herr. I've been reading to many jihadi training sites.

Posted by: Editor at June 15, 2005 03:04 PM (adpJH)

43 Carlos: "...But you are living under a deep delusion that relies exclusively on unanswered questions (in your mind), not on established facts." I don't recall asking anyone for a psych determination. Are you a practising psychologist? As for "established facts"...remember, hundreds of years ago it was an "established fact" the earth was the center of the universe.

Posted by: Big Guy at June 15, 2005 03:07 PM (T7rcm)

44 "As for 'established facts'...remember, hundreds of years ago it was an "established fact" the earth was the center of the universe." You are mistaking an "established fact" with belief.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 15, 2005 03:11 PM (x+5JB)

45 >>>"I don't recall asking anyone for a psych determination. Are you a practising psychologist?" Big, No, I'm not, so I'll put it in lay terms-- you're a loon.

Posted by: Carlos at June 15, 2005 03:11 PM (8e/V4)

46 Little guy, noooooo...it is a fact that you think YOU are the center of the universe, spouting lies so huge that they have the gravitational pull of a billion stars, encircled by nothing but a vacuum and floating pieces of shit. I barely wanted to respond to something so callous: "Did they tell you the heat was sooooooo intense that it would cause the steel columns to melt and collapse the building?" Little Guy, you are really pathetic to make fun of the misery and loss I went through on 9/11, not only that, but to harass me instead of backing up any validity to your bullshit lies. Don't make me have Rusty hand over your IP address to IM...he's always looking for some good target practice.

Posted by: osamabinpostin' at June 15, 2005 03:19 PM (buka0)

47 Carlos... Oooh OW! That hurts. Who writes your material? To Bourbon Prof...good point on "fact/belief". You can use the same logic with the events of 9/11. An overwhelming majority of the "established facts" of the official story are opinions, which are "beliefs" Since the WTC steel was quickly hauled away and recycled, there was no way to get analyses of the damaged beams and columns. That should've raised many eyebrows...and it did.

Posted by: Big Guy at June 15, 2005 03:21 PM (T7rcm)

48 So osama has finally made the leap to angry conservative. I couldn't be happier. Since the early days of these type conspiracies, I have tried rational discourse with these tin-foil hat wearing 'thinkers' and it has never gotten me anywhere but amazed at some peoples capacity for self-delusion. The best course of action, these days, is just to mock them mercilessly.

Posted by: Defense Guy at June 15, 2005 03:25 PM (jPCiN)

49 Big guy, Raised many eyebrows among the institutionalized and the 'forgot to take my lithium' crowd, you mean.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at June 15, 2005 03:27 PM (JQjhA)

50 I see the facts as viewed from two recent fires one in Venezuela and the other in Spain. Both highrises had fire burnings for days and neither building collasped. These two actions speack louder then a lying government that is attempting to cover up the truth of a controlled demolition that took place on 9/11. Those plans were the smoke screen.

Posted by: Helen at June 15, 2005 03:29 PM (6krEN)

51 >>>"So osama has finally made the leap to angry conservative. I couldn't be happier." Yes, he's coming along quite nicely, thank you!

Posted by: Carlos at June 15, 2005 03:29 PM (8e/V4)

52 I just took a huge crap and as it happens, it landed in the bowl as an exact replica of Dealy Plaza and I now know who fired those shots that Drained Kennedy's head! But alas, I flushed it and will be unable to show you my proof so, you will just have to take my word for it. MC HAMMER did it.

Posted by: Filthy Allah at June 15, 2005 03:33 PM (yBHNA)

53 I see Celine Dion has gotten to Helen. Poor helen. Can I see your boobies?

Posted by: Ob Snooks at June 15, 2005 03:34 PM (yBHNA)

54 Well, Helen has the facts, so we should all just shut up now. You see those other buildings (hell, every building ever) were constructed the same way as the WTC, were the same height and weight, and both had planes loaded (cross country flights remember?) with jet fuel smash into them. I for one am convinced. Death to ChimpyMcSmirkALot.

Posted by: Defense Guy at June 15, 2005 03:34 PM (jPCiN)

55 osamabinpostin'..."really pathetic to make fun of the misery and loss I went through on 9/11..." Say, you brought it up. You said you were there. You said you received phone calls from your friends. You set yourself up for this. "Don't make me have Rusty hand over your IP address to IM...he's always looking for some good target practice." Gotta use threats, eh? Another reason I think your story is a fairytale!

Posted by: Big Guy at June 15, 2005 03:36 PM (T7rcm)

56 Helen, highrises have been catching on fire ever since they were first built. Big deal. But there weren't airliners filled with jet fuel in Spain and Venezuela.

Posted by: Carlos at June 15, 2005 03:37 PM (8e/V4)

57 SO Big guy, tell us all how the Kennedy assassination was realy a Masonic plot and then, how this all ties into the shape shifting reptilian overlords which walk among us.

Posted by: filthy allah at June 15, 2005 03:38 PM (yBHNA)

58 Okay, so it was a rigged plan to somehow make the two towers collapse. Why? Wouldn't people be outraged enough at the destruction of two hi-jacked planes crashing into the buildings, the deaths, destruction, carnage? There's no REASON for the buildings to have been toppled artificially. What is the point the conspiracists are trying to make?

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 15, 2005 03:38 PM (x+5JB)

59 'An overwhelming majority of the "established facts" of the official story are opinions, which are "beliefs"' Furthermore, this an abuse of logic!

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 15, 2005 03:40 PM (x+5JB)

60 Carlos & Defense Guy...leapin' lizards! Yeah yeah...I still think Bush is a chimp, but I can't help but slam these nut-jobs who are posting absolute lies about 9/11. It's like having some rude stranger show up to your mom's funeral and say "Bush actually drilled your mom to death because she had oil deposits in her rectum that Cheney wanted. It was all part of the Illuminati plot to tap your mom's ass." Little Guy: "Say, you brought it up. You said you were there. You said you received phone calls from your friends. You set yourself up for this." You brought up the lies, I debunked them with my account + fact and common sense. You didn't set me up for shit. You set yourself up, chump. "Gotta use threats, eh? Another reason I think your story is a fairytale!" Oh yeah, just because I popped a joke about IM, I must be a liar. Plus, I must be a liar for living in NYC and having friends who died in 9/11. Yup, seems like a fairy tail to me. What? They had cell phones? Nonsense! They tried to call everyone they knew because they were scared and knew they might not live through the situation? Who would do that! Yeah, Little Guy. I'm a big fat liar. I actually live in Guam where I run a leper colony. You've blown my case to bits...I have not a leg to stand on. (damn leprosy)

Posted by: osamabinpostin' at June 15, 2005 03:50 PM (buka0)

61 Defense Guy: "You see those other buildings (hell, every building ever) were constructed the same way as the WTC, were the same height and weight, and both had planes loaded (cross country flights remember?) with jet fuel smash into them..." Sure! And there was that fuel-laden jumbo jet that crashed into WTC 7, initiating its collapse!!!!!!!! Oh yes, the planes that hit WTC1 and WTC2 were still topped off with the 6,000,000,000 gallons of fuel! Them Al Kadie hijackers shurrr are smarrt (or were they Iraqi, or Pakistani, or Arabian, or...) flying BIG Airyplanes without using fuel. Them is smart fellers. and...get this...the fuel in those planes, traveling at over 500 miles per hour was able to stop in less than 208 feet (the length/width of each WTC tower for you uninformed) and remain inside the buildings. They can change the laws of physics... WOW! http://www.serendipity.li/wot/mslp_i.htm I believe that! I sure do! I also believe that a car, with 12 gallons of gas, tumbling down a cliff will come to rest at the bottom, and a split-second later explode into a massive fireball!! That's true...really. I saw it on TEEVEE!

Posted by: Big Guy at June 15, 2005 03:50 PM (T7rcm)

62 Little Guy, I'm getting jealous now. Give me your drugs so I can have some fun too.

Posted by: osamabeenvotin' at June 15, 2005 03:54 PM (buka0)

63 "I believe that! I sure do! That's true...really. I saw it on TEEVEE! Fellahs, give it up. We are not equal to sparring with intellectuals like Big Guy and should humbly submit to his reasoning.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 15, 2005 03:57 PM (x+5JB)

64 osamabinpostin' : "I debunked them with my account + fact and common sense. " Heeeeeeerrre's COMMON SENSE! "...you're the fucking idiot, hombre..." "I was fucking there, and that is a fact. Where the fuck were you?" "I'm a big fat liar. "-this may the only truth you've written yet!

Posted by: Big Guy at June 15, 2005 04:00 PM (T7rcm)

65 osama You want no part of this guys drugs, they clearly cause an irreversible detachment from reality. After all, now he is claiming that no planes hit the buildings. To hard to do so, you see. After all, the link provided clearly explains why it couldn't be so. It's all just so damn simple.

Posted by: Defense Guy at June 15, 2005 04:08 PM (jPCiN)

66 "Little Guy, I'm getting jealous now. Give me your drugs so I can have some fun too." Sorry, I can't help you. I'm not like your leaders Bush and Clinton. I don't need drugs to have fun! :-) :-) :-) :-)

Posted by: Big Guy at June 15, 2005 04:10 PM (T7rcm)

67 Little Guy: I'd take my first hand account, facts and common sense over your half-baked theories anyday. But, the itching question remains...where were you? Your mom's basement playing with matches? I bet you were thinking..."Gee, this little match couldn't burn down mommy's house, could it? How could an exploding jet plane with enough fuel to fly to San Francisco cause so much damage?"

Posted by: osamabinpostin' at June 15, 2005 04:13 PM (buka0)

68 By the way, Little Guy, You should start taking some heavy drugs right away so you have an excuse for all the bullshit you're ranting about.

Posted by: osamabeenvotin' at June 15, 2005 04:14 PM (buka0)

69 OK! I have to get back to work. I leave the management of the mentally ill to the rest of you. I'll check back later for a few laughs...

Posted by: osamabeenvotin' at June 15, 2005 04:18 PM (buka0)

70 Big, are there any tinfoiler blogs where you people congregate? It would be fun to visit with you.

Posted by: Carlos at June 15, 2005 04:19 PM (8e/V4)

71 Where was I??? I was involved with the LIVE television coverage! "Your mom's basement playing with matches" Wahhhh...boo hoo hoo! I can't take your insults...sniff sniff. My mom is dead and he is making fun...wahhhhhhhhh ...oooh the pain, the pain! besides, she didn't have a basement.

Posted by: Big Guy at June 15, 2005 04:22 PM (T7rcm)

72 Big guy bores me. I have learned nothing from him. Bummer cause that's what I'm here for. Go Osamabeenthere Go. greg says "hey". He is/was just dying to chime in on this one. "911 truth movement"???. I have no idea. But he sends his regards anyway and says all is well with he and his.

Posted by: Howie at June 15, 2005 04:28 PM (D3+20)

73 Big Guy You should smarten up and know when you are being taken. That link you provide shows just enough half-truth to be barely plausible. Of course, what it doesn't mention is just as important, and in the end is the critical information that makes the lies he is telling sound plausible. For example: Not all 200,000 tons of steel would need to melt for the buildings to fall, in fact none of it needs to melt. Only a small portion of the weight bearing steel, in this case found on the outside of the building, needs to be weakened in order to cause the chain reaction that caused the buildings to fall. That this is not mentioned on the site you linked should give you a clue. I'd suggest the Scientific American or PBS site (why they fell), if you want to get the actual engineering facts about why the towers fell. Alternatively, you could continue to live in the reality you have set up for yourself. Your call really.

Posted by: Defense Guy at June 15, 2005 04:31 PM (jPCiN)

74 Finn was wondering: "What was the point in blowing up WTC anyway? Statue of Liberty and Empire State Building are bigger Usa-symbols even if WTC-towers were bin Ladens fixation and a symbol of the greatest evil, globalisation." There's a stock trading trick called shorting. Everyone knows that you can buy and sell stocks, and you buy low and sell high to make money. Shorting is like placing a bet that a stock's price will fall, and if it does, you make money. It seems that someone, or several someones, shorted stocks in companies that were hit on 9/11. Look here for more info: http://www.yirmeyahureview.com/archive/911/insider_trading.htm I'm not making an assertion myself, as I've not really researched it much, but if it's true, then it would explain everything.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 15, 2005 04:51 PM (0yYS2)

75 Yo! Defense Guy. I give you credit for at least reading the link. I am in agreement. Not all of the steel has to melt. Your said the outside of the building has the "weight bearing" steel. That is incorrect. The load bearing steel columns were in the central cores. That's where the stairs and elevator shafts were located. The outer columns were there for "wind load", or "horizontal load", designed to withstand a sustained 130mph wind. If you remember back in February the Windsor skyscraper fire in Madrid, most of a 32-storey highrise was completely engulfed in flames. It was...a torch. It burned for days. Portions of the upper floors DID collapse, but the entire building DID NOT! The you have Meridian Plaza in Philadelphia back in the early 90s. It burned for DAYS...no collapse. Now, we're always hearing this nonsense about all that jet fuel the planes deposited in the buildings. First: Jet fuel does not burn...the FUMES burn. Second: Most of the fuel/fumes burned off OUTSIDE the towers. That's the big fireball. Third: The planes' tanks were not fully loaded. Even if the tanks were "topped off" before departure, a large percentage was consumed during takeoff and ascent. It is not SOP to top off. The planes are usually provided enough fuel for the scheduled trip and maybe one or two hours spare for emergency. FYI, I used to believe the official story, but there were two nagging questions: 1. Why did WTC7 collapse? No plane hit it. The only photo of the fire I saw was hardly the devastating inferno that was the WTC1 and WTC2 fires in their early stages. 2. Why did George Bush sit on his tushie and read stories to second-graders after being informed "America is under attack" ---"But 15 minutes later, White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card walked across a children's classroom in Sarasota, Fla., where the president was visiting. He murmured into the president's ear. There had been a second crash at the World Trade Center. A plane had sliced into the south tower. Card whispered: "America is under attack.' http://www.suntimes.com/special_sections/sept11/voices/cst-nws-911overview08.html ---- I've read Scientific American and PBS stories on this. Since PBS receives funding from the UNITED STATES government, I see a conflict of interest.

Posted by: Big Guy at June 15, 2005 04:56 PM (T7rcm)

76 Big Guy, your right on the money. I also have a link you may be interested in. Http/Hitlerisaliveinspokane/ss/com. That’s right, Hitler is alive and hiding in …Spokane Washington. He has a small business treating victims of “mal fumar bouvouire” disease. To treat this illness, Hitler applies a Hot Cumin Rub to the offending female area. I believe Helen is one of his customers. Helen, I buy the whole Bush- Mossad thing, can you back me up on Hitler in Spokane?

Posted by: Brad at June 15, 2005 05:01 PM (3OPZt)

77 So, were the buildings in Madrid and Philly constructed in the same manner as the WTC 1 & 2, or in the more common fashion of using a concrete and steel mix in the middle? Why 7 fell, I do not know. I have read that it was due to damage from the collapse of 1 & 2. As to Bush reading to kids, it's really a non-starter and signifies nothing.

Posted by: Defense Guy at June 15, 2005 05:06 PM (lVjfM)

78 Actually, anybody can tell you that the towers collapsed for this or that reason. Guess it depends on who's paying them to say it. However, the events on 9/11 do make me question some events that are supposed to be the official storyline. And for that simple fact alone, I chose to visit some of these alternative sites to see what others were thinking. I hit a lot of them that were obviously there to discredit any thinking about the "official story". Like the sites about no planes hitting the towers, etc.... I mean, if you want to believe in that, go ahead, I know damn well that I saw at least one big ass plane go into that tower on my Fox News that morning as I was getting up for work. I wanted to know more and did have a lot of questions that I felt were going unaswered by the MainStreamMedia (MSM). So, after a lot of searching, I came across this website one day. It was called http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/ I will grant you that some of the information that is linked from this site may be a bit sensational, but at least the site is not afraid to link to it. Allow you to make up your own mind and formulate your own opinon by at least posting the subject matter. You don't get that from the MSM these days. It is more like read what we tell you to read because this is all we are going to talk about. More Micheal Jackson, more Lacy Peterson, more Gary Condit, more homeland security threats than you can shake a stick at, more fear sowing, etc... The MSM has become useless to me with their talking heads and trotting out experts to try and tell me hoe I should think. Barf. I did my part here today by posting this link and hopefully drawing more people to this website to inform the American Citizens that there is more than meets the eye when it comes to our government. I have learned much about our government from these pages, past administrations as well as the current administration, to lead me to a belief that the government is more harmful to me than helpful. #include std.disclaimer Just my thoughts and my thoughts alone

Posted by: root at June 15, 2005 05:24 PM (dAUUf)

79 Defense Guy: "As to Bush reading to kids, it's really a non-starter and signifies nothing." Signifies NOTHING??? America is under ATTACK and the Commander-In-Chief of the DEFENSE does nothing?? It signifies EVERYTHING! Hijacked planes flying into buildings and the "president" stays put in an elementary school loaded with children, secure in believing no one would attack him! Say bud, that has bugged me greatly since day one. At least it should be called "dereliction of duty". Re: Philly and Madrid. I hear that all the time "were they constructed the same way, etc?"...well, were WTC 1 and WTC 7 constructed the same way? No!, but they both fell. WTC7 did NOT have 65,000,000,000,000,000 gallons of avgas burning at blastfurnace temperatures but it fell. http://www.wtc7.net/pullit.html (the link does refer to PBS) The fact is, portions of the upper floors in Madrid collapsed. The entire building did NOT.

Posted by: Big Guy at June 15, 2005 05:30 PM (T7rcm)

80 Hmmm ... is that a Hershey Kiss moonbat tinfoil antenna? 'Cause you know what that means! CHOCOLATE!

Posted by: Diana at June 15, 2005 06:21 PM (4cyl6)

81 Two men can keep a secret, If one of them is dead. So tell us all, how many at the MINIMUM could be involved in this little conspiracy theory of yours? Why hasn't one person come forward and sold for millions of dollars, the story of a millennium? because they're ALL dead right?

Posted by: dave at June 15, 2005 06:36 PM (fsJ2z)

82 Dave, Because it's Bullshit?

Posted by: Brad at June 15, 2005 06:44 PM (3OPZt)

83 Big Guy, The exterior columns served to support the vertical loads as well as the lateral loads. The interior columns served to support the vertical load as well, sharing the weight of the floors with the exterior columns. The heat did several things, one of which was to warp the floors beyond the deformation compatibility of the vertical load transfering connections between the floors and the exterior columns. Just though I'd add a few facts.

Posted by: me at June 15, 2005 06:50 PM (7FMem)

84 This is absolutely the most fun I've had reading in a long time. root, big guy, helen, et al - come on, you guys aren't for real. You can't be. And I don't think it's very nice that you guys have ignored obsnooks. He's really concerned about Celine. And I'm inclined to believe him.

Posted by: Oyster at June 15, 2005 07:33 PM (YudAC)

85 Me: "The heat did several things, one of which was to warp the floors beyond the deformation compatibility of the vertical load transfering connections between the floors and the exterior columns. Just though I'd add a few facts." What investigation revealed the above? Where is the evidence that this happened? What happened to all the steel that was piled up after the collapse? Was there any extensive examination of the collapsed steel to determine what caused the buildings to fail? Working in the media at that time I never once saw an independent study into the WTC collapses. Everything, including your statement is all speculation...OPINION! --------- On May 4-5, 1988, the 62-story First Interstate Bank Building in Los Angeles – a structure that was more or less comparable to the twin towers – burned for more than three hours, with bright, intense flames licking up the sides of the building. In a post-blaze assessment, Iklim Ltd., a company that specializes in building inspections and structural analyses after fires, concluded: “In spite of the total burnout of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans.” --------

Posted by: Big Guy at June 15, 2005 07:33 PM (T7rcm)

86 Big dude, you forgot to add the LARGE BOEING JETLINER LOADED WITH FUEL into the First Interstate Bank comparison.

Posted by: Brad at June 15, 2005 07:44 PM (3OPZt)

87 Big Guy, Where are all these unnamed conspirators? At the minimum how many people do you think were involved in this cover up, and why has no one ever come forward?

Posted by: dave at June 15, 2005 07:49 PM (fsJ2z)

88 Dave: Look at the top of this page and maybe you MIGHT figgir something out

Posted by: Big Guy at June 15, 2005 08:00 PM (T7rcm)

89 Big Guy, I'm asking YOU, you have the facts and figures and have a web page to answer all ~ How many at a minimum were involved in this conspiracy to kill 3,000 americans? how were they approached to ensure maximum secrecy, and why did they not have a problem with killing American citizens? Where are these people now? why has no one spoke, despite knowing what happened?

Posted by: dave at June 15, 2005 08:05 PM (fsJ2z)

90 you guys are still arguing with the nutjob?

Posted by: Carlos at June 15, 2005 08:09 PM (8e/V4)

91 hey, has anyone here figured that Big Guy might just be good ole fat boy, Mikey Moore???.....it would be just like him to use "Big Guy" as a nic.....just a little thought tossed in

Posted by: THANOS35 at June 15, 2005 08:13 PM (CagjM)

92 Dave: "...why did they not have a problem with killing American citizens?" Take a look at the photo, specifically the third one down: http://www.meaus.com/93-michael-moore-appeal.htm

Posted by: Big Guy at June 15, 2005 08:14 PM (T7rcm)

93 uuuummmmm, "Big Guy"???...i hate to tell ya this, but the only thing big on you is youre ego....sorry dude

Posted by: THANOS35 at June 15, 2005 08:16 PM (CagjM)

94 A URL and a reference to a picture that shows U.S servicemen's coffins? Where are the numbers of conspirators, and the explanation for why no one has talked? You know why moonbats, aren't homicide detectives? because unlike the latter they actually examine the evidence, form a motive (much like a moonbat) but THEN come up with WHO did it. Please don't just comment on my last comment, and duck the question, answer it if you can?

Posted by: dave at June 15, 2005 08:25 PM (fsJ2z)

95 he cant/wont dave....dont even waste youre breath on this clown....though he does make me laugh with his conspiracy theories....its always good to laugh ya know, good for the heart....make me laugh some more "Big Guy"!!!!

Posted by: THANOS35 at June 15, 2005 08:28 PM (CagjM)

96 thanos35: "uuuummmmm, "Big Guy"???...i hate to tell ya this, but the only thing big on you is youre [sic] ego....sorry dude" oh ow yow that hurt! My "ego" has been hurt by your incredibly quick wit. Two minutes. Please stop it!! [I'll be greatly disappointed if I ever learn you used that line before.]

Posted by: Big Guy at June 15, 2005 08:29 PM (T7rcm)

97 Please stop!!!!!please!!!!!HAHAHOHOHAHOHAHA!!!!...youre sure one funny muthafucker there "Big Guy"....hold on while i wipe a tear.....ahhhhhhhhh, that sure is a good one...well at least ya made me laugh

Posted by: THANOS35 at June 15, 2005 08:34 PM (CagjM)

98 Young Bourbon Professional, To your statement "There's no REASON for the buildings to have been toppled artificially." See http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf (I don't think any would argue that its a 'tin-foil hat' website) and read the first paragraph of page 63: "Futher, the process of transformation [Creating Tomorrow's Dominant Force], even if it brigns revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event--like a new Pearl Harbor." There's a REASON there, no? Granted correlation is not causation; but it sure is a hint.

Posted by: Jack Isidor at June 15, 2005 08:45 PM (EOFDo)

99 "Where are the numbers of conspirators, and the explanation for why no one has talked?" For starters...Morgan Reynolds (see top). I don't know where I ever stated I knew the numbers or who!! I am participating to show you the holes/inconsistencies in your government's official 9/11 story. I have place several links to sites backing my statements. This one: http://www.serendipity.li/wot/mslp_i.htm posted at 3:50 was accessed by Defense Guy and at 4:31 said "That link you provide shows just enough half-truth to be barely plausible". Well, at least he did some reading of it but in less than 41 minutes was able to make that determination. I'm sure he did not open all of the over 50 supporting links. Rather than discuss the issue intelligently, you'd rather throw out attempted insults or try change the issue. I played along, briefly. If you really want to know, why don't you investigate your government. After all, you're the government's master, aren't you? It's your civic duty to keep your government in line. If you sit on your fat ass and soak up everything your government says without question, you're no different than those who received Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, etc. YOU GET WHAT YOU DESERVE!

Posted by: Big Guy at June 15, 2005 08:46 PM (T7rcm)

100 how come is it you guys can come up with the rate of dispersal of jet fuel, and the velocity of impact by determing weight, but can't even come up with a number of people involved in a conspiracy? FBI, CIA, NSA, FEMA, Congress, FAA, Senate, U.S Air Force, NORAD, Firemen, Policemen, pentagon staff, etc were involved in the event, and the investigation? how many of these knew?

Posted by: dave at June 15, 2005 09:00 PM (fsJ2z)

101 Does anyone know if my Catholic brother Greg is a large man?

Posted by: Brad at June 15, 2005 09:09 PM (pO1tP)

102 Do you know why I do not investigate "my" Government? I am not a structural engineer, I am not versed in forensics of Fire, or explosions nor am I an airframe technition or a construction materials expert, you however may feel free to roam the Internet and take "evidence" from people who likewise are not accredited in any of the above fields, and use that for your "investigation"

Posted by: dave at June 15, 2005 10:09 PM (fsJ2z)

103 dave: "FBI, CIA, NSA, FEMA, Congress, FAA, Senate, U.S Air Force, NORAD, Firemen, Policemen, pentagon staff, etc were involved in the event, and the investigation? how many of these knew?" Say Dave, now that you're making accusations why don't you send FOIA requests to the agencies listed and see what they tell you. "how come is it you guys can come up with the rate of dispersal of jet fuel, and the velocity of impact by determing weight..." Perhaps they have to do with the Laws of Physics! If you're past the Bill Nye the Science Guy stage it's not hard to get fuel dispersal rates, velocities and weights of airplane with a Google search or two. Welcome to the 21st century!!!! [gee, wasn't it wonderful how all those who knew of the Watergate break-in and conspiracy were rushing to get THAT story out to the public!!!!!!!!!]

Posted by: Big Guy the Science Nye at June 15, 2005 10:15 PM (T7rcm)

104 dave: "Do you know why I do not investigate "my" Government? " No, I think you're afraid of your government. Demanding answers and accountibility have nothing to do with understanding fire, 'splosions or whatever. The least you, who have admitted igonorance in certain areas, should have demanded an INDEPENDENT investigation into the "worst terrorist event" ever. Instead you let them melt the steel and recycle it. When my dad's business burned, it was six weeks before we were allowed to start rebuilding so there could be an investigation into the cause. It was electrical. I figured that out before the "experts" did! I know if you would do some surfing on the web you WILL find some people, as you call them, with credentials, who dispute the official story! I'm going to do you a favour and NOT link to any. BTW: "ignorant" is not an insult...we're all ingnorant in different areas.

Posted by: Big Guy at June 15, 2005 10:33 PM (T7rcm)

105 "Where are all these unnamed conspirators?" Why, it's the Joooooooooooooooooooossssss of course!

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 15, 2005 10:36 PM (0yYS2)

106 Whatreallyhappened.com is full of complete nonsense and has been debunked numerous times. At times, you can find stuff in their own photos that belie their bull. Big Guy, your claims are full of outright falsehoods. Steelframed buildings do not collapse because the steel melts, but because the steel loses its strength at temperatures far below that of the melting point. The aircraft that struck the two towers were indeed carrying large loads of fuel and the fireballs do not account for it all as you imply. WTC 7 was heavily damaged during the collapse of the towers and additionally had a fire burning in it without any firefighting response. Its collapse is no mystery. This conspiracy nonsense is not amusing. Its quite sick and disgusting.

Posted by: SPQR at June 15, 2005 10:49 PM (xauGB)

107 It must have been Maximus! Big Guy, what accusations did I make exactly? I named all of the agencies of the Government involved in the investigation, and asked how many of those agencies were involved in this nonsense conspiracy of yours (which you could not answer) If YOU can reconstruct "crime" with Internet articles, (which would be called hearsay from a third-party unverifiable source) Why do you think courts have testimony from "Expert Witnesses" and not "Google Guy©" ? I can see it now; "So how did you place the time of death?" "your honor I typed 'predict time of death' in google which gave me the answer!" You see the problem with a lot of moonbats is they point to one logic, while ignoring another, take for example this quote from one of your sites talking about wtc7: http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/wtc/pullit.html "How did they rig the skyscraper for implosion placing hundreds or thousands of high-explosive charges throughout the building: * in a few hours? * working around fires? " but then claim that the wtc1, and wtc2 were destroyed by controlled explosion. if it takes "hundreds of thousands" of explosives to rig a 47 floor skyscraper, how much for the much taller world trade centers, these explosives were planted by whom? why did not anyone notice people drilling into support beams placing "hundreds and thousands" of explosives around the towers? ironic?

Posted by: dave at June 15, 2005 11:11 PM (fsJ2z)

108 funny, the so called man named "Law of Physics"....ever see how science is discovering new stuff all the time and for some reason they dont match the man named "Law of Physics"...they question even Albert Einstiens E=Mc2 all the time so why should i fully trust and believe in the law of physics when it constantly changes all the time....its human arrogance to think that the same thing will happen every single time when a certain occurence happens.....oh no, but Big Guy seems to think that if it happens once it has to happen every single time....oh gee, this building caught fire and it didnt collapse so there is No way that this building could have collapsed unless it was helped by goverment demolition experts......does anyone else roll their eyes at this???....cause mine just rolled out on the floor, so excuse me while i find em and pop em back in.....oh, and yep, you made me laugh once again there, B.G. Youre a million yuks

Posted by: THANOS35 at June 15, 2005 11:16 PM (CagjM)

109 Care to point out exactly how that site has been debunked numerous times or maybe you know of how the photos belie their bull? I ask so that you don't just throw around an opinon that is not grounded in some sort of facts? Maybe that site is bogus and I have been caught up in it, but in oder for me to believe that, I think I might need for you to go the debunking route instead of just an opinon of yours. I am not sure about you, but go watch some demolition videos somewhere and then come back and tell me how two gigantic towers fell into their own footprints. That is a big part of why I doubt the official story. I mean, I can understand maybe one tower actually falling into itself, but both, much less a third? At the very least, with the tragedy that occurred that day, there should have been investigations launched. I mean if an airplane can bring a skyscraper down, I would like to know if maybe there is someway to prevent that from occurring in the future. Maybe we can engineer better building designs or something, but without being able to study the collapse site and relavent evidence pertaining to the collapse, that will never happen.

Posted by: root at June 15, 2005 11:22 PM (dAUUf)

110 Big guy are you like,,,,walking around loose?

Posted by: Brad at June 15, 2005 11:31 PM (pO1tP)

111 If the fire in the towers reached the temperature to melt steel, then the glass on those floors would be flowing down the side of the building right?

Posted by: root at June 15, 2005 11:32 PM (dAUUf)

112 http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/

Posted by: me at June 15, 2005 11:44 PM (D7hUH)

113 dave: "Why do you think courts have testimony from "Expert Witnesses" and not "Google Guy©" ?" "Expert Witnesses" are used for influence. The prosecution will use an "expert witness" to support its position. The defence will use an "expert witness" for the defence. "Expert witnesses" contradict each other. I've seen it happen. An "expert witness's" testimony on a paper transcript isn't even good as toilet paper. As for using Google®...the search engine is just a tool. FYI, when you do a search on Google®, or another search engine, you're supposed to access the links that are returned! Pay attention now...Go to your search engine...type in, let's say...Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel, OK? What comes up? A listing of sites dealing with the CBBT. You should see (usually blue) a link with www.????????.com under a brief description. Now click on the link...voila! You have information on the Chesapeake Bay Bridge Tunnel!!! Perhaps you may learn that the structure was started in 1963. Now did GoogleMan® tell you that or did you find it on a website? Search engines are wonderful TOOLS! ay?

Posted by: Big Guy at June 15, 2005 11:54 PM (T7rcm)

114 thanks for the bracing article on using a search engine, now address the facts that it was impossible to places hundreds of explosives in a 47 floor skyscraper in a few hours etc, but it's entirely possible thousands of the same said "high explosive charges" could be placed all around the wtc towers, in load bearing beams etc. without anyone noticing ?

Posted by: dave at June 16, 2005 12:00 AM (fsJ2z)

115 dave: "thanks for the bracing article on using a search engine" My pleasure! "now address the facts that it was impossible to places hundreds of explosives in a 47 floor skyscraper in a few hours etc, but it's entirely possible thousands of the same said "high explosive charges" could be placed all around the wtc towers, in load bearing beams etc. without anyone noticing ? Now that you know how to use a search engine, you can find out for yourself. Believe me, it's more rewarding to seek AND FIND the answers yourself. Why rely on me anyway? You don't believe anything I say (except for the lesson on search engines!)

Posted by: Big, Good-Looking Guy at June 16, 2005 12:10 AM (T7rcm)

116 htp://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/ Scientific American article, one month after 9/11. Nothing more than a report on "expert witnesses" offering OPINIONS on the collapses. NO FIRST HAND witnesses to support anything.

Posted by: Big Guy at June 16, 2005 12:14 AM (T7rcm)

117 That public action link is just as much speculation to me as any other sight I have read. Without having access to the actual material and collapse site it is merely assumptions at this point. Besides, maybe you should look at the sight itself before posting that. The rest of the sight is entirely geared towards what we are claiming, not you. So my best guess is they were linking to the article as an example of bogus 911 sights. Lets look at some temperatures. Metal melts at 2890F. Glass melts at 1600F. The lowest temperature for forging steel (i.e. horeshoes) is 1740F. The usual tempature for forging steel is 2000F - 2550F. Kerosene burns at about 1740F. Hot enough to forge some hoseshoes out of metal. Cetainly not hot enough to weaken a structure, much less the frame of a skyscraper. More fuel does not mean more heat, but simply a longer lasting fire. Think about that. You turn on a flame, just because you provide it more gas to burn, while it may rise somewhat in temperature, it was really just supplied a longer life span, not more heat.

Posted by: root at June 16, 2005 12:18 AM (dAUUf)

118 Are you sure you weren't on the O.J. or Michael Jackson juries? Reasonable doubt applies to real life too. The theories posited in that article are at least plausable to this licensed structural engineer. The B.S. you are pointing to and quoting is far from reasonable.

Posted by: me at June 16, 2005 12:22 AM (D7hUH)

119 Here's something from a first-hand witness: -----Steve Evans, a reporter for the BBC, happened to be in the South Tower that morning. “I was at the base of the second tower, the second tower that was hit,” he reported. “There was an explosion – I didn’t think it was an explosion – but the base of the building shook. I felt it shake … then we were outside, the second explosion happened and then there was a series of explosions….We can only wonder at the kind of damage – the kind of human damage – which was caused by those explosions, those series of explosions.” Say some "expert witness" testimony -----But numerous foreign experts arrived independently at similar conclusions. Steffen Kretz, the news anchor of the Danish television channel DR-1, reported that “the World Trade Center Tower collapsed after two more explosions.” In a commentary of this same network, it was stated that the World Trade Center collapsed after an additional explosion. (Wisnewski 13 On 9/11, Denmark’s DR-1 broadcast an interview with Jens Claus Hansen, a high-ranking officer of the Danish Military Academy. His view was: “Additional bombs must have been placed inside the WTC towers – otherwise they would not have collapsed as they actually did.” Another guest was the former NATO General Keld Hillingsøe, who commented: “Additional bombs must have been installed in the buildings.” (Wisnewski 13 The Danish newspaper Berlingske Tidende, the leading conservative paper in the country, published an interview with the explosives expert Bent Lund, who pointed out that fire alone could not have caused the collapse of the twin towers. He estimated that about a ton of explosives must have exploded inside the buildings in order to bring them down in this way. (Berlingske Tidende, September 12, 2001) ------ See..."expert witnesses" CAN have conflicting opinions!

Posted by: Big Guy at June 16, 2005 12:23 AM (T7rcm)

120 Big Guy, I would have thought it was obvious why I "rely" on you -- you're here with conspiracy theories, and I ask you to prove it? I've seen a whole bunch of Greek salad in numerous URLs you have pasted, not one of which actually gets to the core of the theory (remember we talked about evidence, motive, WHO) It's very easy to point to "controlled demolition" of the WTC, it isn't quite as easy to surmise how hundreds of explosives (buried in beams no less) got into that location, without anyone noticing, or which entity which vast experience of explosives and how to implode buildings were hired to demolish the towers? You know what's funny about the above article, if the title was "M.I.T structural engineers believe World Trade Centers leveled by explosive" you'd be using the same thing as "proof" because of their credentials.

Posted by: dave at June 16, 2005 12:24 AM (fsJ2z)

121 So, my B.S is just that, B.S. Do you have any way to prove my theory wrong? If not, then nothing you say can make a difference in anybody's eyes. If you can not get facts to back up your arguments and all you do is then resort to name calling, the stay out of a healthy debate. The name calling does no good. I can take it, someone calling me a name behind a keyboard is small potatoes in my eyes. If you have something worthwhile to debate my point of prove my theory wrong, then go ahead and do it, but please do not just go on calling my facts B.S. when you yourself as a structural engineer would know what it takes to bring steel to it's weakening point. At the very least, you could prove my facts wrong with facts of your own instead of resorting to name calling.

Posted by: root at June 16, 2005 12:26 AM (dAUUf)

122 So wait, let me see if I get this correct, because a military officer is assumed to have experience in bombs (when he may have never so much as used a handgrenade) he's an explosive expert? morever a demolition expert at that? I wouldn't call either one an "expert witness".

Posted by: dave at June 16, 2005 12:32 AM (fsJ2z)

123 dave: "I've seen a whole bunch of Greek salad in numerous URLs you have pasted, not one of which actually gets to the core of the theory (remember we talked about evidence, motive, WHO)" Well, if you searching thru the links I posted, fine! My purpose for those links were for the photographs, not the content. Once again I must tell you... I am not participating to point out who, or what caused the towers to collapse. I'm here to scounter the offical 9-11 story of your government. Even if I were to provide you with names, you'd never believe it anyway! You'll just scoff and mock me. You're not interested in the truth. In order to find the truth you must take all that you know with skepticisim. Do you know the people you saw on the TEEVEE? Can you trust them to tell you the truth? Question all that you have been told!!! As one who had worked in the media for over two decades, I know all to well of the half-truths and deceptions that are presented on TEEVEE, disguised as "news" Dave, I don't care if you believe me. Just check out the "opposition" with some degree of skepticism, and do the same with what you believe.

Posted by: Big Genius Guy at June 16, 2005 12:47 AM (T7rcm)

124 Big Guy, I bet your nemesis is a guy call achems right?

Posted by: dave at June 16, 2005 12:57 AM (fsJ2z)

125 "Big guy are you like,,,,walking around loose?" Sure! I like not having the chains on me. When do you get yours off?

Posted by: Big Guy at June 16, 2005 01:39 AM (T7rcm)

126 http://www.evergreen.edu/library/govdocs/photogallery/washington/kingdome.html The controlled destruction of the Kingdome in Seattle, while in contrast a vastly smaller structure than either of the World Trade Centers, took 5,800 gelatine dynamite charges, and 21 miles of det cord, according to the following article: http://www.bway.net/~albert/ducts/06_00/essays/essays_kingdome.html 6,000 holes were drilled into support beams after all the seats had been removed from the stadium. I bet they did the same in the WTC, with signs like "Pardon our Dust, Mossad operation in progress" ?

Posted by: dave at June 16, 2005 02:07 AM (fsJ2z)

127 WTC is the only steel framed building that has collapsed from a fire. Windsor building burned for 3 days without collapsing. Of course the fact that jet fuel fire is nowhere near hot enough to be able to weaken high quality steel beams has got nothing to do with it. The only conspiracy is that fires bought down the WTC. And I can't believe some people are stupid enough to believe that shit.

Posted by: saze at June 16, 2005 02:52 AM (doiBS)

128 The fact that an airliner hit the towers has got nothing to do with it. Those towers were specifically designed to withstand hits from planes. Now you dont't expect the towers designers thought that a plane would hit the towers and just stay stuck on the outside, completely intact and not spilling fuel/exploding, do you?

Posted by: saze at June 16, 2005 02:58 AM (doiBS)

129 Damn. I just got in here again and checked out all these posts! What a party! Little Guy...I have a better link for you to check out for more accurate facts. It's where I get the real skinny on world events: http://theonion.com/

Posted by: osamabeenvotin' at June 16, 2005 03:01 AM (buka0)

130 Does a letter from the Underwriters Laboratories to NIST, questioning NIST's analysis qualify as a legitimate debate point? UL certified the steel components used in the construction of the WTC buildings. http://www.septembereleventh.org/newsarchive/2004-11-11-ryan.php We know that the steel components were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000F for several hours. And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications. Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000F (2). Why Dr. Brown would imply that 2000F would melt the high-grade steel used in those buildings makes no sense at all. The results of your recently published metallurgical tests seem to clear things up (3), and support your team's August 2003 update as detailed by the Associated Press (4), in which you were ready to "rule out weak steel as a contributing factor in the collapse." The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, and you noted that the samples available were adequate for the investigation. Your comments suggest that the steel was probably exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is what one might expect from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation. ~~~~~ How/why the buildings collapsed is more a public safety issue. Why the planes were allowed to hit the towers in the first place is the question that needs to be answered, if you want a better understanding of the 9/11 events. snipet from: http://pilger.carlton.com/print/133391 The most important evidence to the commission came from General Ralph Eberhart, commander of the Norad. "Air force jet fighters could have intercepted hijacked airliners roaring towards the World Trade Center and Pentagon," he said, "if only air traffic controllers had asked for help 13 minutes sooner... We would have been able to shoot down all three... all four of them." Why did this not happen? The Kean report makes clear that "the defence of US Airspace on 9/11 was not conducted in accord with pre-existing training and protocols... If a hijack was confirmed, procedures called for the hijack coordinator on duty to contact the Pentagon's National Military Command Center (NMCC)... The NMCC would then seek approval from the office of the Secretary of Defense to provide military assistance..." Uniquely, this did not happen. The commission was told by the deputy administrator of the Federal Aviation Authority there was no reason the procedure was not operating that morning. "For my 30 years of experience..." said Monte Belger, "the NMCC was on the net and hearing everything real-time... I can tell you I've lived through dozens of hijackings... and they were always listening in with everybody else." But on this occasion, they were not. The Kean report says the NMCC were never informed. Why? Again, uniquely, all lines of communication failed, the commission was told, to America's top military brass. Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld could not be found; and when he finally spoke to Bush an hour and a half later, it was, says the Kean report, "a brief call in which the subject of shoot-down authority was not discussed." As a result, NORAD's commanders were "left in the dark about what their mission was". The report reveals that the only part of a previously fail-safe command system that worked was in the White House where Vice-President Cheney was in effective control that day, and in close touch with the NMCC. Why did he do nothing about the first two hijacked planes? Why was the NMCC, the vital link, silent for the first time in its existence? Kean ostentatiously refuses to address this. Of course, it could be due to the most extraordinary combination of coincidences. Or it could not. ~~~~ I personally believe the US Gov't was involved, to what degree is a matter of debate. But looking at purely from the terms of who had the most to gain by the event, OBL ain't at the top of the list. And I'm not sure he even claimed responsibilty for the 9/11 attacks. (note: OBL was/is a CIA asset) To answer the questions of "How could they cover it up?" & "There had to be too many people involved, for someone not to have leaked/came forward". Audacity. Something so beyond normal, it is just plain unbelievable. Why bother covering it up, if the public isn't going to believe the truth? The day of the film "Three days of the Condor" explains it well. Robert Redford character's threatens the CIA chief to expose what he found to the press. The CIA chief replied "Do you think they'll believe you or print it?"

Posted by: puzzled at June 16, 2005 03:40 AM (moq9v)

131 Root said: "I ask so that you don't just throw around an opinon that is not grounded in some sort of facts?" Whoa! Care to take your own advice? Please, you conspiracy theorists are making absolute fools of yourselves. For your information, the steel *was* analysed by the National Science Foundation, the Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, The steel was found to have been "weakened" by the intense heat. It expanded and twisted. The actual chemical composition of the steel was changed by the heat. Remember the jet fuel? And I think it was Big Guy who used the car with a full tank of gas falling off a cliff analogy. A car falling off a cliff is so fundamentally different, I can't begin to explain. The jet fuel was ignighted by the force of the plane entering the building and severing thousands of electrical wires all sparking like mad. Many prominent engineers, tell us that the majority of skyscrapers on the planet would have collapsed within seconds of such a calamity. Yet, you and your conspiracy websites actually refute facts without one single like instance to compare it to. These sites like whatreallyhappened.com are just people sitting around gleaning information here and there on the web and applying it to theories without any pratical knowledge of engineering. You should be ashamed of yourselves. And the argument about the buildings falling in their own footprints? If it was a controlled demolition, where were the explosions all along the length of the buildings? I've watched a few videos of these demolitions and you can plainly see where the charges are placed as the building actually seems to swell at those points, as the charges are ignighted, before the collapse. And the crews of demolition guys would have been huge. "Someone" would have talked, even anonymously. No one has ever come forward or leaked any such information. Dave's comment says it all: "Pardon our Dust, Mossad operation in progress." It's insane that you people ignore so many details to compound your theory. The "holes" in the ground under any of the buildings were garages, you dimwits. Manhattan is built on solid granite. Do you have any idea how much explosive material it would have taken to blow out any such holes? It takes small charges over a period of time to keep it localized. One big charge would not have made such nice deep holes without a much bigger diameter. A hole probably covering an area three or four times the size of what damage there really was in Manhattan. And now puzzled joins in with his ideas. Good God, you people are nuts!

Posted by: Oyster at June 16, 2005 06:37 AM (YudAC)

132 Maybe some of you should check this book out at your local library: http://www.upress.umn.edu/Books/f/fenster_conspiracy.html And have a deep dark look at your psyche and see the trap you've fallen into, you poor schlups.

Posted by: Oyster at June 16, 2005 07:07 AM (YudAC)

133 Hey, loonie Moonbats! Why have you not taken up arms against this "Criminal" government? You could call yourselves the Tinfoil Hat Brigade! Not only could you attack the Gubbamint which you so despise, you could attack the Joooooooooos since they are the real terrorists in your puny minds.

Posted by: Filthy Allah at June 16, 2005 07:49 AM (yBHNA)

134 This has been both interesting and nauseating. Why has there been no mention in these comments of the third and fourth airplanes involved in the vast conspiracy? Why didn't the evil engineers rig up the Pentagon as well since that was clearly an intended target that fateful morning? Has anyone prowled around the Capitol Building or the White House (obvious choices for the Pennsylvania plane) searching for TNT or whatever the heck is used to level buildings? Lastly, I have seen only a few filmed demolisions and have no concept of how they are engineered. However I seem to recall those controlled razings fall from the ground up and each level sandwiches onto the lower one. As I look at the photos for the WTC collapse, those buildings seem to fall from the impact area down and the ash/cinders/debris/smoke all come from this same area as they fall into themselves, not from the ground up. What can be the explanation of this, if indeed the conspirators rigged the buildings with detonation devices? That they, in cahoots with the hjackers, knew exactly where the planes would make impact, no doubt. To quote someone else that frequents this blog: "Rove, you magnificent bastard!"

Posted by: Turk at June 16, 2005 07:57 AM (x0C+c)

135 I fear for Conservatism because I see us splitting into factions that divide us. In Washington State, GOP Slade Gorton lost his Senate election to Cantwell by just 2000 votes. GOP Rosssi lost the race for Governor to democrat Gregouire by just 127 votes. In both races, the Libertarian candidate received over 50,000 votes. I am hopping that the left can start some sort of 4th party based on tin foil moonbat ranting like the postings here. Obviously there is a large constituency that could be lead by Big Guy. These people could organize and register candidates for elections across America. The GOP would loose a few survivalist types to this new Alcoa party, but most votes would come at the expense of the Democrats. Big Guy, itÂ’s time to stop posting your links and get political! Lets get this new party going and get some people on the ballot. Based on what I see in Seattle, Big Guy could get 50,000 votes for US Senate easy. Can someone give Big Guy the link to Brit Hume that Greg was always throwing out?

Posted by: Brad at June 16, 2005 08:10 AM (pO1tP)

136 Every dead American in Iraq is a victory for true democracy.

Posted by: G Galloway at June 16, 2005 08:43 AM (/zZvH)

137 I'm no "scientician" or "engineer," but wouldn't someone have noticed all of the explosives that would have been needed to bring down buildings as big as the WTC? It's not like you can conceal several hundred tons of TNT, without several thousand people noticing. I mean, al Qaeda packed a truck with explosives in '93, and the towers still stood. Seriously, this notion that something other than the planes bringing down the WTC is pretty fucked up.

Posted by: Venom at June 16, 2005 08:51 AM (dbxVM)

138 Brad There was monkey business going on in WA, Rossi won the first 2 counts. I expect you know that. I like your idea of a moonbat party, maybe we could swing a reality tv show deal around it. That would be good times. Celine Dion - the truth is out and we are coming for you.

Posted by: Defense Guy at June 16, 2005 08:56 AM (jPCiN)

139 Seriously, you do not want to lose my GOP vote do you by having me join another party? }

Posted by: root at June 16, 2005 09:05 AM (dAUUf)

140 Snooks is right. Celine Dion is responsible for all evil in this world. She must be stopped. Dirka Dirka, Baccalaa Mohammad Jihad

Posted by: Filthy Allah at June 16, 2005 09:16 AM (yBHNA)

141 root Do whatever you feel is right. You seem to believe that the GOP, or Bush, was responsible for 9/11, so why would you want to be a Republican. Just be careful, because I have it on good authority that Celine Dion is a Democrat. What's worse, is she may be.... Canadian!!!

Posted by: Defense Guy at June 16, 2005 09:38 AM (jPCiN)

142 DG, Yes there was some old time King county democrat machine fixing that went on in the Governors race here. *Absentee ballots from Servicemen rejected by democrat poll workers. *2000 or so more votes counted in King County than voters who signed at the polls. *An admission by King County director of elections Dean Logan that an unknown number of blank ballots were printed by poll workers and are unaccounted for. *Over 50,000 ballots in King County were illegally enhanced with sharpie pen and white out. This was done by poll workers to “accurately” determine the intent of the voters. *900 felons and a couple of hundred dead people voting. We can get no help from State Government all controlled by dems. Our US attorney has not commented on this situation. Please Justice dept. Help us. Hey Root, you believe over 3000 US citizens were killed by some strange coalition of Bush administration spooks and JOOOOs from the Mossad? And you’re still a Republican? WTF? You’re free to go.

Posted by: Brad at June 16, 2005 09:41 AM (pO1tP)

143 I am not sure why lib moonbats swoon over Celine Dion... She is a JoooooooOOOoOoOOooOOoooo! What with her beak and boney gollum like hands, you would figure the libs would extend their hate machine her way but NOooOoOooooooo! Since she is the cause of evil in this world, the libs support her.

Posted by: Filthy Allah at June 16, 2005 09:45 AM (yBHNA)

144 That backwoods French Canadian accent is the worst. Not like the sexy romantic way a real French girl talks when she speaks in broken English. No this North of Montreal accent is more like Robert Conrad when he played the French Fur trapper in one of those 80Â’s mini series. SheÂ’s not just Canadian...sheÂ’s French Canadian!!

Posted by: Brad at June 16, 2005 09:55 AM (pO1tP)

145 I have written to Scott Baio via his fan club and have asked that administer a proper thrashing to the hated devil woman Celine Dion.

Posted by: Filthy Allah at June 16, 2005 10:03 AM (yBHNA)

146 I have written to Scott Baio via his fan club and have asked that he administer a proper thrashing to the hated devil woman Celine Dion.

Posted by: Filthy Allah at June 16, 2005 10:03 AM (yBHNA)

147 My views are probably pretty much in line with yours when it comes to issues like the second amendment, taxes, big government, personal responsibilty, SS, etc... However, you are misquoting me. For the record, I do not think Bush pulled off 911. He is way to stupid to pull that off. Now, from the beginning, I have claimed that I doubted the official story put forth by the federal government. I am completely within my rights to deny the offical version. I do not need to kowtow the party line on this issue. Some of my views do differ with candiates that the Republican Party puts forth. I happen to think that a lot of the people that run on the Republican ticket are not true conservatives at all, but rather masqurade as Republicans to get in to office. Do I know what happenned on 911? No. Honestly, we have no idea at this point who did 911. I know the media sticks to the 19 hijackers story, but in reality, no one knows. Even after 911, Robert Mueller told us that 7 of the hijackers were alive and well. So, you know have to look at this with the viewpoint that the identities of the 19 hijackers were stolen. So just who was commandering those planes? If some of the supposed hijackers were alive, then who was it? No one can put that question to rest. I do not support Bush for several other reasons. Mainly his support of Isreal is sickening, I am starting to feel like a second class citizen in my own country. This is not a JOOOOOOOOOS issue. I have no problem with the JOOOOOOS. I do have a problem with countries that use my country to get what they want. We have seen Irseal time and time again screw the US over, and instead of swatting them like flies, we stay in bed with them. Well, you lie in the same bed as the dog, your gonna wake up with fleas. There has been enough evidence to convince me that Isreal is bad for this country. The USS Liberty, the King David Hotel, Johnathan Pollard, Larry Franklin, 3 Billion US tax dollars a year. For an independent country, why do they need 3 Billion US dollars of our tax money anyways? Then I take a look around Bush's cabinet members. I see people like Richard Perle. A man that is a dual citizen. He obviously prefers Isreal over our own citizens benefit. For a side note, Richard Perle was caught in the 70's handing over state secrets to the Isrealis and still has never been prosecuted for passing classified information to a foreign government. There are some others in there as wel like Feith, Wolfowitz, etc... You can not serve two masters. For Bush to even appoint these men to dictate the US policy is assine and gross negilgence on his part. For those reasons, I can not support an adminstration that I think does more harm to it's citizen base than good. Plain and simple. When you see the light at the end of the tunnel, that is not the light you seek, but rather the train getting ready to run over your ass. My disdain goes even further than that for the current form of government we are promoting under the guise of democracy. I pay more of my money in taxes than I get to spend. My voting process is not transparent. My constitution is constantly under attack. Look at some of the legisltion introduced or passed in the past couple of years. The Patriot Act does little to quell terrorists and completely dismantles the 4th amendment. Then we have people like those knuckleheads introducing the appeal of the 22nd amendment. The flag burning issue. Hey, ever hear of the First Amendment and the right to address your greivances with the government? So all across the board I have a big problem with today's version ov conservatism. The quote on this page is what brought me here to begin with. "Everything you thought you knew about Conservatism is wrong!" I think I will stay for awhile. Get used to it.

Posted by: root at June 16, 2005 10:15 AM (dAUUf)

148 9/11 was the best thing that ever happened to the fabulous Mr. Lips: George WMD Bush. He used to pass tax cuts, invade Iraq, get elected. Don't forget those Israeli spy dancing queen terrorists! Long Live The 4th Reich Heil Bush

Posted by: crusader bunnypants at June 16, 2005 10:21 AM (v58PL)

149 Kudos to you, root, on your views on conservatism. I thought I was the only one who still remembers what it was like before the "neo" was thrown in front of it.

Posted by: Venom at June 16, 2005 10:32 AM (dbxVM)

150 Loonie left never fails to amaze me with their tinfoil technology improvements. The moonbats worship Clinton because he embodies all that they stand for. Corruption, sloth, sex with fat chicks, treason, rape and theft.

Posted by: Ob snooks at June 16, 2005 10:55 AM (yBHNA)

151 You jackasses wouldn't know a true conservative if he bit you in the ass. You are liberal pinko bedwetters and you know it.

Posted by: Filthy Allah at June 16, 2005 10:57 AM (yBHNA)

152 Filthy Allah, I guess that settles that, you are the sexual intellect after all ;op

Posted by: root at June 16, 2005 11:01 AM (dAUUf)

153 Hahaha!

Posted by: Venom at June 16, 2005 11:21 AM (dbxVM)

154 I didn't realize Scott Baio was in the asskicking business. My respect for that man grows every day. I don't have to get used to anything root. In fact, at the next meeting of the VRWC I am going to propose you be kicked out of the club. No more stolen Iraqi crude for you, and boy are you gonna be sorry about that. Also, if I understand correctly, you like the Jews just fine. Just not the ones in Israel. Nice.

Posted by: Defense Guy at June 16, 2005 11:25 AM (jPCiN)

155 No, you do not understand me then. I am not talking about Jews. I am talking about a group of Isrealis that subscribe to a mindset that the US should protect them. I could care less if they were Jews, Christians, Muslims, Pagans, Buddas, Mormon, Jehovas, what have you. I do not want to send our boys off to die in a foreign country for another country's benefits. The minute I feel a foreign government is trying to take advantage of my nations resources for their own benefit is the minute I begin to dislike that nation. Free trade with all nations, but ally with none.

Posted by: root at June 16, 2005 11:42 AM (dAUUf)

156 So you are for cutting off aid to all countries then, or just Israel.

Posted by: Defense Guy at June 16, 2005 11:47 AM (jPCiN)

157 Hey, didn't Little Guy claim he was at 9/11 involved in the "LIVE" coverage? I wonder what media outlet that was? Sounded in the past tense as well...makes you wonder. Regardless of his fatso name, I highly doubt the hilarious question that he might be Michael Moore. Michael Moore may twist or exaggerate the truth...but he isn't known for flat out lying with nothing substantial to back it up. I know many of you will not accept this though! That, and he actually is pretty funny. Knock him as you will, but how many of you have seen the movie he did about GM in Flint? Anyway, what a insane thread in here. Too bad I couldn't stick around and join the chaos...had to work my ass off yesterday till 1AM.

Posted by: osamabeenvotin' at June 16, 2005 11:52 AM (buka0)

158 Turk: "However I seem to recall those controlled razings fall from the ground up and each level sandwiches onto the lower one." Try this: http://www.ok-history.mus.ok.us/mus-sites/OklahomaMuseumHistory_files/photojournalism.htm The third B&W photo on the left. Click on it, you'll get a larger shot and see if demolitions are done as you described above. Some interesting pictures of the WTC collapse caused by the incredible 5800000F heat (or was it 5800000C ?) http://www.klaus-krusche.de/wtc2.htm Geez, look how the smoke billows. The sudden collapse of the WTC sends out massive plumes of smoke and dust outward and UPWARD, while the OKC controlled demolition poofs, sorta like the puffs of your favourite filter cigarete. root: "At the very least, you could prove my facts wrong with facts of your own instead of resorting to name calling." No...that will never happen. The truth SCARES them. Notice how we support our position with links and other cites? Notice they DON'T? If you can't rebut with truth...insult! Oyster: "The jet fuel was ignighted by the force of the plane entering the building and severing thousands of electrical wires all sparking like mad." No no no no no....wrong! There are these things called "circuit breakers". When those lines were severed the breaker tripped, cutting off supply of electricity. Also, the official story is the power was cut when the planes hit. The image of sparking wires is another one of those things, like the exploding car, you see on TEEVEE. What you see on Dukes of Hazzard, CSI, and those action movies are NOT REAL! It's made up. It's fiction...IT'S ENTERTAINMENT. OK Bushie Lovers!! Time to walk the walk... Get off your lazy ass. Does no good to post messages on an Internet message board while in our air conditioned offieces. Let's go to Bagdhad and kill them Ay-Rab Bastards who knocked over the towers and the Pentagon! The weather is beautiful. HIGH 117 LOW 88 but it's a "dry" heat! :-) .

Posted by: Big Loveable Guy at June 16, 2005 12:20 PM (T7rcm)

159 You just knew when the ideas being peddled didn't find any traction that some asshole would resort to the 'go fight for your cause' meme. You are just that weak minded aren't you Big Guy?

Posted by: Defense Guy at June 16, 2005 12:25 PM (jPCiN)

160 "I wonder what media outlet that was? Sounded in the past tense as well..." Of course it is in the past tense. My above posts were clear in that regard. "...makes you wonder." Why does it make you wonder?

Posted by: Big Sweet Guy at June 16, 2005 12:29 PM (T7rcm)

161 Defense Guy: "You just knew when the ideas being peddled didn't find any traction that some asshole would resort to the 'go fight for your cause' meme." Check the photos down the page. They seem OK with fighting for your cause. Why don't you? What's the matter Colonel Sanders? CHICKEN? http://www.csc.liv.ac.uk/~m4tjl/

Posted by: Big Guy at June 16, 2005 12:39 PM (T7rcm)

162 Yes, cut them all off from the mothers tit. My comment was that I do not support the current adminstration because of their support for Isreal in particular. Yes, cut every nation off from US tax money. Spend that money on our defense, our schools, our roads, our anything, I don't really care what you spend it on at this point as long as the money goes to furthering the benefit of the US.

Posted by: root at June 16, 2005 12:44 PM (dAUUf)

163

Posted by: Whatever at June 16, 2005 12:59 PM (T7rcm)

164 Big Guy is still pushing his whacky demolition theory, but still cannot account for why past controlled destructions of buildings take thousands of holes/dynamite and miles of det cord, and how these where all put inside both towers (without anyone noticing of course) his suggestion is to use 'google' for the answers (I guess because none of his moonbat websites answer that theory either?) Just like the question I asked about the minimum amount of conspirators, and why no one has ever spoken, or what agencies were involved in this conspiracy to kill 3,000 Americans? "but, but Dave, I'm just being a good american and blaming our Government for killing citizens, after all it's more likely that President Bush would do this for Oil, than a criminal organization that were bombing, and killing people all over the globe before he even took office." Find a URL, that fixes your life? like a psychologist! Ask him what it means when people suspect authority continually? and feel they have access to "secret material" that other people don't have, or your feelings of being elevated, after all you can see, what others "cannot".

Posted by: dave at June 16, 2005 01:24 PM (fsJ2z)

165 Boy, this thread has really brought out the leftards, moonbats, and every other mouth-breathing, democrat-voting moron imaginable. You should all know this. You are beneath contempt. Your days are numbered. We are coming for you. We are winning. The time is coming, soon, very soon, when you won't be safe in America. You should leave. It won't go well for you when the gloves come off.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 16, 2005 01:38 PM (0yYS2)

166 Turk, they don't mention the other planes because one ended up in a field and the other one didn't exist. The Pentagon was hit by a bomb shot from, outer space, I think. Big Guy: Yeah, that's it! They saw the planes coming and someone shouted, "Cut the power!" You're so full of it. Maybe the power was cut "after" the planes hit. Circuit breakers are wonderful, but on impact, torn wiring WILL send sparks everywhere even with such a wonderful invention. And then there are tons of papers and plenty of other flammable material to keep it going. Run over to any wall in your house, knock a hole in it and start yanking wires. Guess what? Sparks! Big ones. Maybe even fire. But before you do that, please, do us all a favor and make sure you're standing barefoot in a pail of water.

Posted by: Oyster at June 16, 2005 01:42 PM (fl6E1)

167 Dave: "...but still cannot account for why past controlled destructions of buildings take thousands of holes/dynamite and miles of det cord, and how these where all put inside both towers (without anyone noticing of course) his suggestion is to use 'google' for the answers..." It would be very easy to set up the demoliton in the months beforehand. All you do is get your demo crew to wear official-looking coveralls, with official-looking identifcation badges. Nobody ever questions official-looking credentials. Do you? I've entered airports, courthouses and federal buildings with official-looking press credentials without any question. When there was reconstruction at the media outlet where I used to work, nobody questioned the construction guys...they had the official-looking badges. None of the over 100 people working there EVER questioned what they were doing. They could have planted bombs. Dave, you give the US citizen too much credit. They're more like Schultz: "I see nothing..." Can a big project be kept a secret?? http://www.inflection-point.com/jokes/17.htm Structural repairs to the Citibank building were performed without the knowledge of the tenants. To accomplish the fixes, walls had to be drilled, beams and columns welded. It was a massive project but the world was not aware of the potential danger of a building collapse 'til after the repairs were done. "like a psychologist! Ask him what it means when people suspect authority continually?" Why? All he can offer is an opinion. "his suggestion is to use 'google' for the answers " A friendly reminder: Google® does not provide the answers any more than the card catalogue at your local library provides answers.

Posted by: Our Favourite Big Guy at June 16, 2005 01:54 PM (T7rcm)

168 I just threw away my old VHS tape of Titanic..Just because of that woman.

Posted by: Brad at June 16, 2005 01:59 PM (3OPZt)

169 Hey Big Guy, Did you forget the part where after that crew finished 3,000 americans were murdered in the building, and not one of them breathed a word? or the part instead of "welding" and "drilling" they laid miles of detonation cords, and thousands of explosives charges? because, um that might be an important difference.

Posted by: dave at June 16, 2005 02:00 PM (fsJ2z)

170 Oyster: "They saw the planes coming and someone shouted, "Cut the power!" You're so full of it. Maybe the power was cut "after" the planes hit. " Maybe? No! The power DID get cut off. Most New York TEEVEE stations and some FM stations transmitted from the North Tower mast. When the first plane slammed through the stations went OFF THE AIR!, why? The power was cut off! "Run over to any wall in your house, knock a hole in it and start yanking wires. Guess what? Sparks! Big ones. " Don't need to do that. I've seen an example. Back when I worked at the media outlet one of our engineers did just that. There were a few sparks at the moment of "yank" and nothing after that...the circuit breaker popped. Just for fun, a little info on jet fuel/kerosene: http://www.milesstair.com/kero_fuel_primer.html I know, because this could show up on Google® it's not legitimate.

Posted by: Our Big Guy at June 16, 2005 02:07 PM (T7rcm)

171 Brad: What have you got against Barbara Stanwyck? Oh, the OTHER Titanic.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 16, 2005 02:18 PM (x+5JB)

172 YBP, Remember the Big Valley?

Posted by: Brad at June 16, 2005 02:20 PM (3OPZt)

173 dave: "...or the part instead of "welding" and "drilling" they laid miles of detonation cords, and thousands of explosives charges? " Tsk tsk tsk...once again you're giving too much credit to the US citizen. Do you think the average worker in the WTC could tell the difference between detonation cord and regular electrical wiring? What do you think this is, a Road Runner cartoon where the Coyote has a stick of dynamite with big bold letters TNT? Oh yes, don't forget the boxes labelled "ACME Detonation Cord". First, you'd have to suspect some sort of foul play in the making. Who's going to suspect official-looking coveralls and official-looking identification badges? I don't know where you work but do you EVER eyeball some unknown face with a package or briefcase as a possible terrorist? Do you truly believe the people who did the setup are going to run around with "EXPLOSIVES CREW" or "DEMOLITION TEAM" in big bold letters? In the Citibank building scenario, most of the repair work was done at night, when the building was almost empty. The same could be said for the WTC.

Posted by: Gotta Love This Big Guy at June 16, 2005 02:25 PM (T7rcm)

174 Brad: A favorite growing up! (Of course I was kidding with my first post.) Also loved "The Wild, Wild West" and Rat Patrol.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 16, 2005 02:26 PM (x+5JB)

175 Folks; Okay, enough of the demolition nonsense. Let's talk about favorite TV westerns.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 16, 2005 02:29 PM (x+5JB)

176 Big Guy, Why don't you just come out and admit you don't know how they could get miles of det cord, and thousands of explosives drilled and buried in concrete supports? You cannot even account for why not one person involved in your fantasy story has ever come forward and said they were involved, or people that know that person who suspect their involvement etc. I mean come on? BTW. while most people do not look for "terrorists" they do have people that are looking for unauthorized people in their midst. In fact several of the larger companies had whole departments dedicated to security, not including the Port Authority.

Posted by: dave at June 16, 2005 02:37 PM (fsJ2z)

177 Big Guy Since talking to crazy doesn't cause you to catch it, why don't you offer up some testimony from some of the 20,000 survivors who saw all that 'electrical wiring' being put in place in the towers. I hear they are doing great things with Lithium these days. You should look into it.

Posted by: Defense Guy at June 16, 2005 02:45 PM (lVjfM)

178 Dave, as I told you earlier, I've passed by "security" in courthouses, airports, stadia, and federal buildings because of "official-looking" credentials. All this happened BEFORE 9/11/01. Perhaps today it may be more difficult. "In fact several of the larger companies had whole departments dedicated to security, not including the Port Authority." Your statement makes it clear it would have been EASIER for the demo crews to do the job. "...dedicated to security, NOT INCLUDING the Port Authority." (caps emphasis added)

Posted by: Big Wonderful Guy at June 16, 2005 02:47 PM (T7rcm)

179 Defense guy: "why don't you offer up some testimony from some of the 20,000 survivors who saw all that 'electrical wiring' being put in place in the towers." I can't offer testimony from the survivors. Only they can testify. :-) "I hear they are doing great things with Lithium these days. You should look into it." WOW! Impressive! It's obvious you have no truth to stand on. "Duh, I have no intelligent rebuttals to Big Guy so, duh, I'll bring up the 'lithium' again, duh, huh that's a good one, right Oyster?, duhhhh!" I think you otta join Bourbon Prof and discuss your favourite TEEVEE westerns. Mine was "The Rifleman"

Posted by: Big Guy Winning at June 16, 2005 02:54 PM (T7rcm)

180 would these be your media "official-looking" credentials? because I wouldn't call those dubious. However all of your examples are Federal security employee's. Civilian employee's are not looking for people with guns, as much as industrial espionage (you know people laying wires for wiretaps etc.) Can you perhaps shed light on why my statement makes it clear for demo crews to enter the WTC, when I excluded the Port Authority from civilian security contractors -- I'm just not seeing it?

Posted by: dave at June 16, 2005 02:57 PM (fsJ2z)

181 I was scanning the posts and still haven't seen any answer to why numbers 6 and 7 came down. Well at least number 7 came down. Number 6 blew up. Why is that??? There is video footage of people in the gaping hole that one of the planes left in one of the towers, waving for help. If the fires were hot enough to melt structural steel, why didn't the people melt? This would be at the hottest part of the fire. Where the most air is. There are very small flames in the videos. Do you believe your eyes, or what popular mechanics tells you. There are actual tapes from the fire departments that you can listen to where they state very clearly that they heard explosions, and that the fires were small and that they could be put out quickly. How did Rudy Guillini (sp) know that the towers were going to fall before they fell. It had never happened before. Please answer the questions about buildings number 6 and 7. If you have links, that would be better. I only want to know what happened and why. These building's don't seem have come down the way the media's say they did.

Posted by: wilburcarp at June 16, 2005 03:02 PM (lVPDq)

182 wilburcarp, You are perhaps a subscriber to the controlled destruction theory, If you can answer all of the questions I've put forth, questioning the capacity in which an operation took place? or are we supposed to believe aeroplanes being crashed into a building, and the subsequent fires are not damaging enough?

Posted by: dave at June 16, 2005 03:08 PM (fsJ2z)

183 dave: "However all of your examples are Federal security employee's [sic]" Let's run those examples again..."courthouses, airports, stadia, and federal buildings" Stadia?...that's plural for stadium. Every stadium I had accessed did NOT have federal security employees. If you knew any better you'd know that federal security is always TOUGHER to get through. Now let's take courthouses. The local county courthouse DOES NOT have federal security employees either.

Posted by: Big Winner Guy at June 16, 2005 03:08 PM (T7rcm)

184 Marvin bUSH, Gee dUHB's brother, was in charge of security of the Trade Towers. http://www.gallerize.com/153%20WINDY%20TOWERS%20OF%209-11%20Four.htm Tower numbers 6 and 7 ??? WHY???

Posted by: wilburcarp at June 16, 2005 03:12 PM (lVPDq)

185 were you planning on telling us how your "official looking" credentials were actual fakes, or the second part about how my statement proves a demo crew could move around easier? Do you have any proof that Federal security is always tougher to get through? I have been to numerous civilian owned installations and had to not only to produce ID, but have had my affiliations checked before getting through the front desk, not only that but I have been escorted by security staff to my destination, and they waited until I finished my task, and escorted me off the location and they were not worried about terrorism. That happen to you at the airport, or court house?

Posted by: dave at June 16, 2005 03:15 PM (fsJ2z)

186 Check, two, three. Check, Chhheck, Chhhheck! Tap, tap, tap, tap. Is this mic on? Um hum, cough, Cough. I’d like to thank all of the people from WRH and the WRH Yahoo Group for responding to my call to arms and commenting on Dr Reynolds’ remarks. I had been banished from this site for being very outspoken on issues relating to the 9-11 truth movement. Today, I was reinstated as a commenting member, but I have agreed to tone down my “conspiratorial” nature. Consequently, I will not be able to jump into the fray. But you have made a great impact without me. I point to Improbulus Maximus’ post on June 15, 2005 at 04:51 PM. This was a major concession from arguably the most rabid of the neocons on this site. You’ve planted the seeds, and someday they may germinate. It is apparent to me that our movement is snowballing. I live near Austin, Texas. Tonight, I will go to the Alamo Draft House for a screening Of Alex Jones’, “9-11, the Rise of the Police State”. Two shows were originally scheduled. They sold out days in advance of the screening. Consequently, three additional shows were scheduled and those have also sold out many days in advance. I hope you will all stick around and continue to put in your 2 cents worth on this and other issues that are important to you. Keep fighting for America! Best, Greg ‘neuroman268’ P.S. Thank you, Michael Rivero at www.whatreallyhappened.com

Posted by: greg at June 16, 2005 03:21 PM (/+dAV)

187 Big Guy Losing: Good Lord. You have an answer for everything. The only problem is that you're helping to disseminate bullshit. One guy getting past any security is monumentally different than whole teams of demolition crews fooling thousands of people. You would have to assume that every single maintenance person in all buildings never questioned or saw anything odd. Oh wait! Maybe all the maintence guys were in on it! Maybe they were one by one replaced with CIA guys! Only problem is - who was doing the routine maintenance that needed to be done then? Hmmm. Snag there. See if you can come up with a scenario for that one. I'd love to hear it. In essence none of the maintenance crew would have noticed anything in their areas. Areas they looked after every day. Your analogy of the guys working to retro-fit another building is a bit different than setting explosives. They were there in conjuction with regular maintenance crews who knew they were there, just maybe not exactly why. You'd think one maintenance person would come forward and say, "Gee, it seemd something funny was going on." At the rate things are leaked regarding anything the government does you'd think SOMEONE would step forward. You've yet to address this issue. Your healthy skepticism, has turned into full blown paranoia, dude. Get a job making movies, because that's all your talent is good for.

Posted by: Oyster at June 16, 2005 03:23 PM (fl6E1)

188 dave: "Do you have any proof that Federal security is always tougher to get through? I have been to numerous civilian owned installations and had to not only to produce ID, but have had my affiliations checked before getting through the front desk..." I have no doubt there some civilian operations are tougher to get through, but I never tried getting through those without first arranging an appointment.

Posted by: Big Guy :-) at June 16, 2005 03:26 PM (T7rcm)

189 Big Guy, So in your theory, the people that actually owned all of the buildings were in on this conspiracy? After all someone would have to account for these teams moving through the building, because even at night there would be dust, holes, walls removed, desks moved, computers removed, and other modifications made, are we to believe no one noticed any of this and queried the company that owned the towers, about these "modifications?"

Posted by: dave at June 16, 2005 03:32 PM (fsJ2z)

190 I have a better idea, Oh Huge One. Go find some stupid people to convince. You're not getting anywhere here. The average intelligence quotient here is too high. (Except for the few whack jobs that come and go. Some even get let back in.)

Posted by: Oyster at June 16, 2005 03:34 PM (fl6E1)

191 GREG!!!!! Welcome back! Glad to see those that fear free speech have allowed you to come back...maybe they realize this is America and not Nazi Germany. ANOTHER CONCESSION !!! "Young Bourbon Professional" has conceded DEFEAT!! He wants to talk TEEVEE westerns rather than intelligently debate the issue. Dave...I'll commend him. At least he discusses the subject without namecalling and other slimebag speech. Oyster...You're better off discussing those westerns, or better yet, "My Mother The Car." GREG...in the words of KC & The Sunshine Band..."Keep it Coming!" I look forward to seeing the cockroaches run. (that excludes you, dave)

Posted by: Big Guy at June 16, 2005 03:36 PM (T7rcm)

192 This is an intelligent deabate?

Posted by: Oyster at June 16, 2005 03:39 PM (fl6E1)

193 debate.

Posted by: Oyster at June 16, 2005 03:39 PM (fl6E1)

194 "Young Bourbon Professional"has conceded DEFEAT!! He wants to talk TEEVEE westerns rather than intelligently debate the issue." Big Guy: The operative word is "intelligently." After almost 200 posts, it ain't happening. Better to talk about "My Mother the Car." (Gosh, you're old.)

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 16, 2005 03:47 PM (x+5JB)

195 Oyster "I have a better idea, Oh Huge One. Go find some stupid people to convince..." Plenty of stupid people here! I can't convice stupid people though, they are STUPID you see. Dave: (you're not included in the above) "After all someone would have to account for these teams moving through the building, because even at night there would be dust, holes, walls removed, desks moved, computers removed, and other modifications made, are we to believe no one noticed any of this and queried the company that owned the towers, about these "modifications?" Ever work in a highrise building?? Tenants come and tenants go all the time. Some tenants occupy several floors. When Tenant A moves out of floors23-28, the new tenant will have the layout of those floors redone. Tenant B hires its own contractor to do the remodeling. Do the people on floors 1-22 give a hoot? Those on the lower floors, especially the ones serviced by the lower tiers of elevators may never even know anything is going on upstairs. Take the WTC towers...you had 12 tiers of local elevator service. One hundred ten floors in each building. Over 20,000 people.

Posted by: Huge Guy at June 16, 2005 03:48 PM (T7rcm)

196 Thanks Big Guy, There are some good people here. I hope you, root and the rest of the Sunshine Band, stick around.

Posted by: greg at June 16, 2005 03:51 PM (/+dAV)

197 I just got back from Red Robin. 2 Mac & Jack African Ambers, a cheese burger and a little US open. Fred Couples is even!! Big Guy and Greg, please start a 4th party. You are needed and your followers need a home. Please, start getting a slate of candidates registered through out the country asap. If you guys really believe this and will not campaign on it you have no balls. YBP, I realize you were only being polite in responding to my Horse Opera post. We all know this is no concession to the MIF (men in foil).

Posted by: Brad at June 16, 2005 03:54 PM (3OPZt)

198 YBP: "Better to talk about "My Mother the Car." (Gosh, you're old.)" Yep, sure am! And if being old is such a bad thing, join the club YBP: "Also loved "The Wild, Wild West" and Rat Patrol." The Rat Patrol ran 1966-67 Wild, WIld West 1965-69 My Mother The Car 1965

Posted by: Huge, In Stature, Guy at June 16, 2005 03:55 PM (T7rcm)

199 Gargantuan Elderly Guy: Old isn't bad, but I saw them in syndication.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 16, 2005 04:02 PM (x+5JB)

200 P.S. When did you conspiracists first come up with the Bush Blew up New York theory? Were you telling people about it four years ago, when everyone in the country had at least two flags on their car? Did you have those flags, too? Just curious?

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 16, 2005 04:06 PM (x+5JB)

201 He's too old to be engaging in fairytales. This is NOT intelligent debate. An intelligent debate is between people who have varying opinions, not a pitting of common sense against some wild conspiracy. This conspiracy of yours is too big. It involves four airplanes, numerous buildings separated by hundreds of miles, who knows how many people who are totally hush-hush, huge crews of people doing black ops work in preparation (also hush-hush) and not one of them care enough to speak out that thousands of people were killed as a result of their work. They had to coordinate with those flying the planes into each of the buildings. People who were willing to kill themselves and hundreds of others for what? So we could have a war? Much easier for you to say someone has admitted defeat and dismiss others as stupid. Why sould any of us look for information for YOUR conspiracy. It's a pile of manure. And he really believes it.

Posted by: Oyster at June 16, 2005 04:19 PM (fl6E1)

202 YBP...I'm not that old, though I do remember "My Mother The Car" in its first run on NBC. I was eight. I have not since its original one-season run. Have you even seen that show?? Many consider it the "worst TEEVEE show...ever!" I thought "Lost In Space" was worse. Oh well...

Posted by: Big Old Guy at June 16, 2005 04:20 PM (T7rcm)

203 Oyster: I agree. Send the whole reeking load to a local farmer. Meanwhile, wait, I think I see a black helicopter out my window...

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 16, 2005 04:23 PM (x+5JB)

204 Oh my God. Are you sure? They're monitoring our comment thread aren't they?

Posted by: Oyster at June 16, 2005 04:24 PM (fl6E1)

205 Well, this has been fun. But I have a real life. Having dinner with friends. I'll don my foil hat and take back alleys so they can't find me. See ya'll later.

Posted by: Oyster at June 16, 2005 04:26 PM (fl6E1)

206 B.O.G. I don't think I've ever seen the show, but I'm curious--especially if it's as bad as you say. "Lost in space" bad! Heresy! a classic! (Oh, the pain, William, the pain...") Hey, see? I did get you to change the topic to something more worthwhile.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 16, 2005 04:27 PM (x+5JB)

207 Oyster: "An intelligent debate is between people who have varying opinions, not a pitting of common sense against some wild conspiracy." I thank you for acknowleding the common sense of our posts with the numerous links to support our position! "This conspiracy of yours is too big. It involves four airplanes, numerous buildings separated by hundreds of miles,..." I'll say you sure support some wild CONSPIRACY involving some towel-head-third-world-cave-dwelling El Kaydie types who were able to breach security measures of the UNITED STATES, hijack four airplanes with just boxcutters, pilot jumbo jets with the only flight training being a Cessna, fly undetected by NORAD, navigate airliners visually to targets hundreds of miles away. Here's the government's official 9/11 story: "Once upon a time..."

Posted by: Really Big Guy at June 16, 2005 04:30 PM (T7rcm)

208 My only problem with conspiracy theories is they always hinge on something that humans are almost incapable of: secracy. There are people that keep a secret, for example in the book "The Teams" James Janos AKA Jessie Ventura wrote that he would not talk about his experiences in Vietnam because he was ordered before returning to state side to not reveal the nature of what they did in Vietnam, but three of his fellow authors were quite happy to describe what they did in Vietnam and no longer considered that order to apply. If you look at the past there are much lesser "huge" conspiracies than this, two of which directly affected the President of the United States, both because of people "talking". That is why I originally quoted the phrase: "Two men can keep a secret, If one of them is dead"

Posted by: dave at June 16, 2005 04:37 PM (fsJ2z)

209 YBP: "Hey, see? I did get you to change the topic to something more worthwhile." That's cool. I don't mind a little levity in all this. Though I won't change subjects permanently I do enjoy the chit-chat. Re: My Mother The Car...Was it really bad? I don't remember. It's been 40 years!!! As an eight-year-old I thought it was great. I also thought Lost In Space was great (debuted the same year). By its second season, at nine, I realised how bad it was! MMTC was never given that opportunity. If you look at Lost In Space with an eye for campiness then it can be tolerated. Seems Dr. Smith's (Jonathan Harris) overacting more than made up for the lack of acting skills of the rest. Lone exception: Robot. Gotta go now... "my back is extremely delicate today....it's a disaster area!"

Posted by: Wonderful Big Guy at June 16, 2005 04:40 PM (T7rcm)

210 Dave, People are talking. Many FBI agents have come forward. They say the joke around the office is that Al Qaeda must have operatives very high up in the FBI because it seemed as if the FBI was doing everything but trying to stop the 'terrorists". Several FBI agents hired David Schiffer (of the Clinton impeachmment fame) a few weeks BEFORE 9-11 to help them get past the obstructive resistance they were meeting from their supervisors in regards to their investigation of Al Qaeda. They knew an attack was inevitable, but no one would listen. Oops, I better shut up now before I get banned again.

Posted by: greg at June 16, 2005 04:57 PM (/+dAV)

211 Sibel Edwards is the first to come to my mind http://www.justacitizen.org/

Posted by: root at June 16, 2005 05:07 PM (dAUUf)

212 "Of course it is in the past tense. My above posts were clear in that regard. "...makes you wonder." Why does it make you wonder?" I only wonder what type of media or organization you were involved with. Only curious, that and why you are no longer with them. Anyway, Little Guy...I'm also trying to figure out your motive in here. Usually if you honestly want people to believe your theories, you don't insult them over and over...*even* if they insult you first or often. Most often someone has to respect you first to believe you. I guess your posts are about as effective as it would be for me to blindly charge in here and say, "Hey everyone! Jesus is a fag!" and expect everyone to go, "No, really? There's a link that says so? You must be right..." I mean, are you trying to change someone's mind? Influence them? Do something productive? All I'm seeing is someone trying to satisfy some sort of pathetic need for validation. You're also pretty lame to assume everyone in here isn't as smart or smarter than you. Even the guy I get into the most scuffles with in here is well educated, well spoken, etc. Even if we rarely agree on anything I still respect what he's done for this country. If you want to say Bush is a chimp, I won't disagree with you...but a C student isn't slick enough to pull off something so outlandish. I'd be more likely to believe you if you told me that Cheney's deafening heartburn indigestion grumbling from miles away knocked out the support beams on those floors. Or maybe Celine Dion's album was playing on one of the floors, resonating everything till the support beams simply gave out... If the world is flat, and you are right, are you saying that planes crashing into the WTC weren't enough to start a war? Even if they were still standing, but mangled the shit had hit the fan. Oh yeah, welcome back Greg. IM's been missing you...

Posted by: osamabeensellin'tinfoil at June 16, 2005 05:22 PM (buka0)

213 "If you want to say Bush is a chimp, I won't disagree with you..." I would, but I don't want to insult chimps. "Or maybe Celine Dion's album was playing on one of the floors, resonating everything till the support beams simply gave out..." If Michael Bolton were playing, then I'd be apt to believe the theory.

Posted by: Big Big Guy at June 16, 2005 05:32 PM (T7rcm)

214 Oh, and I'm not saying I don't harass, insult or generally cause a ruckus with what I say in here. But really, what is your motive LG?

Posted by: osamabeensellin'tinfoil at June 16, 2005 05:36 PM (buka0)

215 Greg, I thought that the F.B.I had numerous judiciary roadblocks in place that not only stopped them communicating with other agencies, but also in sharing their case information, and also restricted who (character wise) they got information from before September 11th? I believe the examples I saw were Moussaoui's Laptop Computer originally not being authorized to be searched, and the communication between the CIA and the FBI. If these agents are speaking, are they speaking about the inept policies of the FBI that allowed such a travesty to occur, or are they accusing their superiors of conspiracy in a plot to kill three thousand united states citizens? big difference.

Posted by: dave at June 16, 2005 05:46 PM (fsJ2z)

216 Osama: "Usually if you honestly want people to believe your theories, you don't insult them over and over..." I don't care if you believe "my" theories. I am participating to dispute the official line. Links are sometimes provided to other sites. Read and discern. Think for yourself. Show me your evidence. I have no problem participating in a civil manner. Even the occasional curse or insult doesn't bother me. Talking about Lost In Space or My Mother The Car is OK. I have these discussions with real people. Sure we disagree over beer then go home friends. I can't and won't change the world thru this. I'm having fun!!!!!!!!! What's my media history you ask??? I worked TEEVEE news for over 20 years with a major network affiliate news operation. As a director. When I entered the TEEVEE news field way back in the dinosaur days, we had a certain responsibility to the viewers. Remember Sam Donaldson...how he'd get on Reagan with tough questions? Well that rarely happens anymore. 60 Minutes is a rare exception. The local reporters would ask tough, meaningful questions of all levels of government, all the way down to dogcatcher. Today it's become nothing more than "soundbite PR" with the usual government official talking head. It's this pandering to "the government" that caused me to rethink my profession. The mainstream media has NO INTEGRITY. I butted heads with upper management many times on the issues we presented. Not long after 9/11 there we some people who wanted to discuss the "official governent story" in our town hall series. Management gave the OK until they saw there was qoing to be "doubts about the official explanation of the 9/11 events". At that time I believed the "official line". That, along with the nagging questions about WTC 7's collapse led me to start MY OWN research into what happened. As for specifics...I can't reveal too much as per my severance agreement. In two more years I can. I still work with media as an independent producer/editor of commercials, infomercials and industrial videos. Say it's a helluva lot more fun...the pay is triple...and I have more time to "annoy" you on these bulletin boards! ; - )

Posted by: Big Cuddly Guy at June 16, 2005 06:01 PM (T7rcm)

217 Big Guy Whats your take on the Pentagon?

Posted by: sparky at June 16, 2005 06:14 PM (F1nba)

218 Well, LG...let me guess. You worked at "Fixed" News? I agree that the mainstream news is crap & journalists either don't have balls or can't get a story out. Regardless of convincing or disputing...I looked at all the links and still wasn't convinced in the least. I'm no idiot, either...so why are you so convinced? Yes, commercials pay damn good. I barely ever watch "TEEVEE", but I do work with some of the best ad agencies in the world composing music. The amount of money on some of those budgets are insane.

Posted by: osamabeensellin'tinfoil at June 16, 2005 06:31 PM (buka0)

219 Sparky: "Whats your take on the Pentagon?" I'm guessing you want to know I think a plane or a missile hit it? I don't know either way. I'll say I have not researched the Pentagon event with any of the fervor as the WTC. I looked at the "find the Boeing", or whatever site and was not convinced. I saw the security camera video of the explosion. That was inconclusive.

Posted by: Big Guy at June 16, 2005 06:58 PM (T7rcm)

220 osama: "so why are you so convinced?" It all boils down to two things: ** WTC 7 ** George Bush doing nothing I believed the Towers fell as a result of the fires at first. I remember discussing the collapses with some friends who thought bombs were in the buildings and I said "not this time...I saw the tape over 60 times and that certainly was not true." But the WTC7 collapse just did not seem right. Over 99% of talk about 9/11 was WTC 1/2, The Pentagon and Pennsylvania but WTC 7 was out of the loop. If Seven were still standing today I'd probably be supporting you and your position. My research for more on 9/11, WTC 7 and other images of the Twin Towers' collpases brought me to George Bush stating he was told "America's under attack" while reading in that Florida classroom. He admitted to knowing the North Tower has been hit before entering the school. Then to sit on his tushie after an "act of war" was simply unaccepatable. I was in the Navy. If the captain of the boat were to do nothing after an attack on his vessel, he'd be court martialed and strung up. The president is the Commander-In-Chief of the military. He's the top dog...the buck stops with him. He's got to act immediately!!! Never mind the excuse that he would have alarmed the second-graders. Hijacked planes are crashing into buildings, with the president, the man in charge of the defense, sitting in an elementary school that would be an obvious "next target". "The amount of money on some of those budgets are insane." If you have any extra send it my way, OK? The wife would love that. :-) g'day

Posted by: Big good-lookin Guy at June 16, 2005 07:17 PM (T7rcm)

221 BG, Can I interject and ask what it is exactly, you expected the President to do, in this situation? Even FDR's 'day of infamy' speech was given the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor? Didn't #7 collapse after one of the Towers had fell? I think it would stand to reason that there would be damage to the foundation of most of the buildings with the sheer volume of weight that hit the ground that day? I'm not sure why it's deemed mysterious, most people do not sit and wonder why buildings fall down from vibrations of an earth quake?

Posted by: dave at June 16, 2005 07:49 PM (fsJ2z)

222 Big Guy, your attempt to twist my words reminds me of my childhood days. That was very immature. Then you said: "Links are sometimes provided to other sites. Read and discern. Think for yourself." That's exactly what we've done. You came to one conclusion and most of us came to another. Period. Do you think none of us ever saw any of those sites? Do you think that none of us have the brain or powers of reasoning to come up with our own conclusions? All you've done in this entire thread is talk down to most of us. As if you're the utmost, top authority on what happened that day. All because you read some stuff on the web. You've made a fool of yourself. If it's conspiracy laden and there's no proof, you're all over it. What's up with that? We could drag the WTC architect and all the engineers into this discussion and you'd argue with all of them. Something happened to you, somewhere along the line, that made you an excellent subject for Pavlov. You're way to easy to fool. I'm starting to feel bad for you.

Posted by: Oyster at June 16, 2005 09:14 PM (YudAC)

223 Dave "Even FDR's 'day of infamy' speech was given the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor?" So, what's the point? "Didn't #7 collapse after one of the Towers had fell? I think it would stand to reason that there would be damage to the foundation of most of the buildings with the sheer volume of weight that hit the ground that day? I'm not sure why it's deemed mysterious, most people do not sit and wonder why buildings fall down from vibrations of an earth quake?" WTC 7 collapsed at 5:20 ET, approx. six hours after WTC 1 AND WTC 2 fell. So what you're saying is it was seismic activity that caused WTC 7 to fall? That's a new one! Until today the cause was the blazing, intense inferno melted Seven's steel columns. Now it was an "earthquake". The collapses registered less than a "1" on the Richter. If you remember the 1989 quake that rocked San Francisco was far greater than a "1". No buildings collapsed. A portion of the Bay Bridge failed and the Nimitz Freeway (double decker) had catastrophic collapse, but that was about it. Oyster: "All you've done in this entire thread is talk down to most of us." Say, I'm not responsible for your inferiority complex. Oyster: "Do you think that none of us have the brain or powers of reasoning to come up with our own conclusions?" Hmmmm...after comments like these: "i know, it was the keebler cookie elves who did it!!!!.....they are so small who would even see em???." "This guy is a nut case and should not be provided a platform to spew his lunatic ravings...." "I love all these moonbats who were not there when the towers fell give their expert opinion." "you tinfoiler types have put the moonbats to shame in your utter fruitloopiness." "Where the fuck were you?" "I have tried rational discourse with these tin-foil hat wearing 'thinkers'" "ThatÂ’s right, Hitler is alive and hiding in Â…Spokane Washington. " "Are you sure you weren't on the O.J. or Michael Jackson juries? "The "holes" in the ground under any of the buildings were garages, you dimwits. '" "Hey, loonie Moonbats! Why have you not taken up arms against this "Criminal" government? You could call yourselves the Tinfoil Hat Brigade!" I'd have to say NO!

Posted by: Big Guy! at June 16, 2005 10:36 PM (T7rcm)

224 "I love all these moonbats who were not there when the towers fell give their expert opinion." Here we go with some of them moonbats who weren't there offering their expert opinions: http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/ Wait a minute...wait a minute...It's the Scientific American piece. They can't be "moonbats". Those are the experts who knew EXACTLY what happened. A panel made up of Boston-area experts. They were in Boston. How can that be?? They have all the facts! Oh...Oh yeah, they all flew down to New York to witness the towers collapse first hand!!! yeh that's it, or... Or maybe it was their powerful telescopes they used to view the collapses from Boston!

Posted by: Big Cheeful Guy!!! at June 16, 2005 10:59 PM (T7rcm)

225 BG, The quote with FDR, was for comparison; The attack on Pearl Harbour was the most destructive attack on America (At the time) The United States knew the culprit was Japan, and thus could have declared War on the same day, however FDR waited till the day after to give his "Day of Infamy" speech, history does not criticize him for his inaction on the actual day of attack. What were people expecting the President to do, strap on a cape, and save the Pentagon... or? The Secret Service are the people who have sworn to protect the President, If they felt his life was in danger they would have removed him from the location, no questions asked. Actually you will see I said that the foundation was damaged on WTC 7, and asked what the mystery was. However popular mechanics have a much better theory, theirs is actually wrote by structural engineers and other experts. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y you can then scroll back and see some of the people misquoted, or information that was declared facts on places like whatreallyhappened, that the people quoted disagreed, or denied saying. Unfortunately, if they do not convince you, I'm not sure you'll ever feel safe with the U.S Government again.

Posted by: dave at June 17, 2005 12:00 AM (fsJ2z)

226 Dave...scroll down about 1/2 way down the page to the sections about WTC7... http://www.reopen911.org/ericreubt.htm gotta catch some z-z-z-z-z-z-z starting to nod off..........

Posted by: Big Tired Guy at June 17, 2005 12:28 AM (T7rcm)

227 Hi Oyster, Glad your a fan of mine writings. Maybe next time you could take the time to actual read them? Feel free to reply, but please no need for name calling. My question/debate point was UL questioning NIST's findings. You simply rehash NIST's findings(without providing a link to document it). I was looking for a dicussion for about why UL would question NIST's findings. I am trying to learn by understanding as many view-points as possible. I'll listen just be polite.

Posted by: puzzled at June 17, 2005 03:13 AM (moq9v)

228 Oh, I see. NOW we want to be polite. Why is it that everytime you come by here you're putting words in my mouth? That's not very polite. Tell me - when did I rehash NIST's findings? Unless of course you're talking about what I said regarding the steel. That's the only thing I can come up with that I think you may be referring to. Puzzled, the sciences are not exact. For nearly every instance of scientific study out there, there is someone who will refute it with another set of data. Unless you or I are experts in metallurgy we can only come to our best conclusions about what happened to the steel in the WTC. Try reading some of the texts out there about it. One needs a strong education in many basics before they can really understand and attempt to refute any of it. That's what is so frustrating about some people here. Their inclination to believe refutation of any concept or study rather than the original study itself. That's where, often, conspiracy comes into play. We are so concerned about being "taken in" by any particular expert regarding any science that we're too quick to jump on the that's-not-true bandwagon. Sometimes things are just what they are. The biggest concern that some seem to have is the collapse of building 7. There are a lot of questions that need to be answered before we should jump to conclusions. For instance; do we know that there weren't already any stress fractures in the granite under that building? When was the last time a bunch of buildings that big came down in one place that we can compare this to? Was building 7 built with identical materials? Was it built in an identical fashion? Do we know that there wasn't already something wrong with the building itself, as in Big Guy's recollection of the Citi Bank building, that no one bothered to do anything about? Frankly, if I feel there was no "conspiracy" regarding the other buildings, the Pentagon and the incident in the Pennsylvania field then I'm not going to worry about building 7. I think with forensics being as advanced as they are, I'm sure evidence of explosives would have been discovered. Too many foundations, institutes and independent study groups have examined too much without this coming up. I think you're allowing yourself to be dragged into a hoax. I wouldn't recommend it.

Posted by: Oyster at June 17, 2005 07:25 AM (YudAC)

229 Dave, The point Big Guy was tryng to make regarding Bush staying at Booker Elementary School for 20 minutes after the second plane hit is this. Why wasn''t Bush immediately wisked from the site. It had been known for days that Bush would be at that school on the 11th. Furthermore there was an airport a mere 4 miles away from the school. THE PRESIDENT WAS IN IMMENENT DANGER WHERE HE SAT. The prudent thing for his Protective Detail to have done, would have been to wisk him away from the site IMMEDIATELY to an undisclosed site. They behaved as if they knew that Booker Elementary was not a target. How did they know that? Someone's got some splainin' to do.

Posted by: greg at June 17, 2005 08:29 AM (/+dAV)

230 Dave, You made a common point earlier. To paraphrase, you asked how a massive conspiracy could be kept a secret. Surely with all of the people who were involved, someone would spill the beans. First, it wouldn't take that many people to be really in the know. It could be as limited as 2o people or less, with other "participants" not being privy to the grand scheme. Think about the Watergate conspiracy. It is a miracle that we ever found out about it. "Deep Throats" are a rarity and even when one comes along, no storm is generated if the media doesn't follow up. Today we are in an environment in whick the media are too wimpy to ask the tough questions. Fortunately there are the blogs. In July 2001, David Schiffers was told by the FBI agents he represented that the terrorists were going to crash planes into the WTC, the Pentagon, the Whitehouse and the CIA building. The FBI couldn't get their superiors to take them seriously and David Schiffers couldn't get anyone to take him seriosly either, except Alex Jones. And appparently, Rumsfeld and other 'important' people, beacause all of a sudden they quit flying on commercial airlines. In July, 2001, 2 full months before 9-11, Alex reported on his radio show that we were going to be attacked in the next few months and that the targets were going to be the WTC, the Pentagon, the Whitehouse and the CIA building. At the time, I thought he was a nutcase. On September 11th, when the first plane hit I said, 'Son of a Bitch, Alex was right.' Last night I went to see Alex's move, 'Martial Law, 9-11, the Rise of the Police State". It's awesome! I bought a copy from Alex at the movie and he said I could make as many copies as I want and distribute them as long as I don't charge anything for them. I'm going to take him up on his offer and spread this gem.

Posted by: greg at June 17, 2005 08:52 AM (/+dAV)

231 "as limited as 20 people or less". Well, 19 of them are accounted for on four planes. That leaves 1 person to coordinate EVERYTHING else including, but not limited to, controlled demolition of several million square feet of buildings. I'll even give you the benefit of the doubt and say 10 more people. It's still ridiculous. Comparing Watergate to this is beyond the pale. Tell me, has anyone gone to the media with any proof? A media that absolutely loves to expose "truth"? Where's the proof? After almost 4 years, it's still an unproved conspiracy. There's a reason for that. And Alex Jones? Sheesh! He's pals with the likes of Gary North, Greg Palast, etc. Sorry. Ain't buyin' it.

Posted by: Oyster at June 17, 2005 09:38 AM (fl6E1)

232 Dave: "The quote with FDR, was for comparison; The attack on Pearl Harbour was the most destructive attack on America (At the time) The United States knew the culprit was Japan, and thus could have declared War on the same day, however FDR waited till the day after to give his "Day of Infamy" speech, history does not criticize him for his inaction on the actual day of attack." He waited a day to give a speech! Good for him!! What you need to do is examine FDR's actions immediately following his learning of Pearl Harbor. You gotta remember the technology of 1941 was not what we had 2001. Airplanes will still propeller-driven. There weren't TEEVEE crews following FDR every waking moment. No cable TEEVEE networks with 24/7 Broken News Reports. So what happened. Relying on my dad's account, something was done. My dad was in the military, on the west coast at the time. The army, navy, air corps were put on HIGH ALERT immediately. As quickly as the communications of the day would allow! It was figgured...West Coast...Pearl Harbor (Pacific Ocean)...Japan...bombings...say, there's a pattern here... As for how they reacted on the east coast, in DC is beyond me. Perhaps FDR immediately went to his office to start writing his speech, and for that all Americans should be grateful. So, if giving a speech is the proper action the commander-in-chief is to make after a devastaing attack, well George did a better job. He gave a speech later on 9/11!!!!

Posted by: Big Awake Guy at June 17, 2005 10:07 AM (T7rcm)

233 "The Congress shall have Power ...To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; " US Constitution, Section 8, Clause 11. I know this is off-track slightly, but so was The Rat Patrol. : - ) So now, there is a "war" in Iraq. Was it lawfully declared by Congress? NO! The last time Congress declared war was in 1941, after FDR delivered his speech. The reason I brought this up has to do with relying on "experts". One of my sticky points with the TEEVEE news gurus in my last days in the media were the references to the "War In Iraq". I gave those spineless news higherups the Constitution cite to no avail. The worst part was the political science "experts" who never questioned the term "war". I asked them "Where's the declaration by Congress", and the political science "expert" would look at me with a look of "huh?" These were the same guys who, on election night, would explain in detail, the Electoral College! Anyway, I can go on and on about the inside nonsense of TEEVEE news, but I won't. Unfortunately for you I'll be away most of today. Got some work to do!

Posted by: Big, Sweet, Kind, Loveable Guy at June 17, 2005 10:30 AM (T7rcm)

234 Oyster:'Comparing Watergate to this is beyond the pale. ' Oyster, I think you may have missed my point, or maybe I have missed yours. As Dave wrote, how could a 9-11 conspiracy be kept a secret? Surely, someone would come forward.. My response is to look at one example where a conspiracy was exposed. The Watergate conspiracy might never have come to light. By the grace of God there was a Deep Throat who came forward, but this maybe an exception to the rule. I hope you agree that our government has many state secrets. The government is able to keep a secret so the argument that conspiracies canÂ’t be kept a secret isnÂ’t very strong. It now appears that FDR baited the Japanese into an attack and was fully aware of the impending attack on Pearl Harbor. We are just finding this out 60 years after the fact. In 60 years we may know much more about what happened on 9-11. Yes, people have gone to the media with proof. Get a PO Box and I'll send you a free DVD chock full of evidence.

Posted by: greg at June 17, 2005 11:02 AM (/+dAV)

235 Dave:'If these agents are speaking, are they speaking about the inept policies of the FBI that allowed such a travesty to occur, or are they accusing their superiors of conspiracy in a plot to kill three thousand united states citizens? big difference.' Dave,, The FBI agents are under a gag order to shut up. Their attorney David Schiffer does make the serious alllegation you eluded to. Again, 2 months before 9-11 the attorney presented evidence that 9-11 was imminent, even naming the targets and the method of attack. He was ignored.

Posted by: greg at June 17, 2005 11:19 AM (/+dAV)

236 I've misspelled the attorney's name. It is David Schippers and he was the lead prosecuter in the Clinton impeachment trial. Hardly a leftist.

Posted by: greg at June 17, 2005 11:54 AM (/+dAV)

237 David Schippers, Chief Council for the House Judiciary Committee and head prosecutor responsible conducting the impeachment against former President Clinton, has now gone public revealing that months ago many FBI agents had come to him informing him about the attacks which have now come to pass. These agents knew the names of the hijackers, the targets of their attacks, the proposed dates, and the sources of the terrorists' funding, etc., many months in advance of the 9/11 attacks. The FBI command pulled them off of their investigations into these terrorists and threatened them with the National Security Act that if they talked about any of the information pertaining to their investigations that they would be prosecuted. So many of them sought the council of Mr. Schippers wanting to get somebody in the U.S. government to take action against these terrorists before their plan could be implemented. Mr. Schippers talked to many Congressmen and Senators, and tried to get a hold of Att. Gen. John Ashcroft, all only to get the run-around. Mr. Schippers is now legally representing at least ten (!) of these FBI agents in a suit against the U.S. government in an attempt to subpoena their testimony (where they can then legally tell what they know and legally get it on record). To hear Mr. Schippers talk about this bombshell, please listen to part 7 and 9 of the October 10th a.m. edition of The Alex Jones Show below: Where was the MSM on this?

Posted by: greg at June 17, 2005 12:05 PM (/+dAV)

238 BG, Please do me a big favor, NEVER give a article wrote by a guy who think that car bombs are really secret bunker buster bombs or micro nukes: http://www.erichufschmid.net/Science_Challenge_12.html or that Linux is evil because the software is expected to be free: http://members.aol.com/erichuf/Linux.html He even addresses the "fake" moonlanding This guy is a joke, especially when he tries to refute articles wrote by scientists! the guys a complete loon, and you take him serious enough to quote him to me, jeus christ? What more does this idiot have to write before people start thinking he's a nutjob?

Posted by: dave at June 17, 2005 12:11 PM (fsJ2z)

239 Greg, It would take more than 20 people to rig enough explosives to topple a single tower, let along both (and according to some wtc6 and wtc7 too) ?

Posted by: dave at June 17, 2005 12:14 PM (fsJ2z)

240 Dave, You may be right. I'm not going to stick to the 20 figure. There were some 200 Israeli spies in the US shadowing the terrorists on and around 9-11 (please see Brit Hume of Fox News reporting on this at: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm However, this may be of interest. Larry Silverstein had owned a single trade tower. About 2 months prior to 9-11 he bought all seven buildings and insured them for 3.5 billion, twice what he paid. These buildings were very old. How much do you think it would cost to demolish and clear these buildings? Think about it. Silverstein admitted that WTC 7 was 'pulled". You can see the video or listen to the audio at http://www.truth-now.com/911/pullWTC/ or 100's of other sites. Just google Larry silversttein 9-11 wtc7 pull. As you suggested, pulling a building is an intensive process. It usually takes about 3 days of preperation to do it correctly and yet only a few short hours after the first building was hit, WTC 7 was pulled. This suggests that charges had already been positioned in advance of the attack. How can this be?

Posted by: greg at June 17, 2005 01:19 PM (/+dAV)

241 preparation

Posted by: greg at June 17, 2005 01:47 PM (/+dAV)

242 It is so obvious was an inside job... I see conclusively that a number of public officials, at the national and New York City levels, including then-Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, were aware that flight 175 was en route to lower Manhattan for 20 minutes and did nothing to order the evacuation of, or warn the occupants of the South Tower. One military officer was forced to leave his post in the middle of the attacks and place a private call to his brother - who worked at the WTC - warning him to get out. That was because no other part of the system was taking action. You can also prove the "Israeli and British governments acted as partners with the highest levels of the American government to help in the preparation and, very possibly, the actual execution of the attacks." When so many leaders are part of the Israel oath and Carlyle type (Bush Sr.) weapons manufacturers, how can you stand by and watch fathers and mothers loose their children? Who is making millions? The PNAC - Project for a New American Century: Elliott Abrams, Gary Bauer, Eliot A. Cohen, Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky, Steve Forbes, Aaron Friedberg, Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle, Donald Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen, Donald Rumsfeld, Vin Weber, George Weigel, Paul Wolfowitz) that is who.. PNAC They needed a "New Pearl Harbor" to convince you all to go to war and fund the military take over. Bush even went as far as to say that 9-11 was the "New Pearl Harbor". Thus begins "The Theatre Wars". Look here, http://www.newamericancentury.org. I hope you have studied the PNAC. They own you and me. They are hopelessly bound to Israel and oil and war. I quote, "We need more money to up the defense budgets for raises , new arms, and future capabilities." "Without some disaster or catastrophic event neither the politicians or the military would have approved." Feel duped? Let us review this "New Pearl Harbor" shall we? Gee, Sir just who set up all these diversions? TREASON? 1 ) MILITARY EXERCISE NORTHERN VIGILANCE: Transferred most of the combat ready interceptors and possibly many AWACS from the north east into northern Canada and Alaska. This explains,in part, why there were only eight( 8 ) combat interceptors in the NE on 9/11. 2 ) NON-MILITARY BIOWARFARE EXERCISE TRIPOD II: FEMA arrived in NYC on 10 Sept 2001 to set up the command post for FEMA, NEW YORK CITY AND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE on Manhattan's PIER 29. This shows our masters are loving, they made a strong effort to minimize the required deaths. This was probably forced on them by the CFR, nice guys who must occasionally kill innocent people. 3 ) WARGAME EXERCISE, VIGILANT GUARDIAN: This exercise simulated hi-jacked planes in the northeast sector. The 9/11 commission made only mention of this single exercise and lied about its purpose. The commission said its purpose was to intercept Russian bombers. 4 ) WARGAME EXERCISE, VIGILANT WARRIOR: This exercise simulated hi-jacked planes in the northeast sector. 5 ) WARGAME EXERCISE NORTHERN GUARDIAN: This exercise simulated hi-jacked planes in the northeast sector. At the time of the real hi-jacking there were as many as 22 hi-jacked aircraft on NORAD's radar screen. Some of these drills were "Live Fly" exercises were actual aircraft, likely flown by remote control were simulating hi-jacked aircraft. Some of the drills electronically added the hi-jacked aircraft into the system. All this as the real hi-jackings began. NORAD could not tell the difference between the seventeen bogus blips and the five actual hi-jacked aircraft blips. Cheney could. It is clear we know almost nothing about how 9/11 was executed. We should know it was an exceeding highly technological operation involving dozens of major projects each employing large resources. So, right now the United States is a nation without a legal government. We are under occupation by a foreign power. "As nightfall does not come all at once, neither dies oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight. And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we become victims of the darkness" Justice William O. Douglas, US Supreme Court (1939-75). How, do you wonder, was the 'Secret' Senate meeting on Patriot Act? The expanded act would let police go on 'fishing expeditions? In a move that could expand the police powers in the Patriot Act, the Senate Intelligence Committee will meet behind close doors to discuss, among other things, "a little-discussed provision to enlarge the FBI's ability to wiretap people who it suspects are national security threats." And, pray tell, what constitutes the DEFINITION of a ‘national security threat”??? Anyone who disagrees with the current Administration? Man, that’s going to be one heck of a lot of wire taps. Where is the love? Repeat after me, "I am from the government and I am here to help you." If you are among those who still think the US government "Military - Industrial-Intelligence" complex would never dream of harming Americans: Who blew up the 'Maine'? Who has tested, for decades, - with often fatal results - scores of bio-pathogens against countless, unknowing US men, women and children? Who put our troops and public in death's way of radioactive fallout in the 50's and 60's above-ground nuclear testing? Who created 'Operation Northwoods' which proposed killing American airline passengers among many other treasonous acts? Who failed to warn and encouraged the attack on Pearl Harbor? Who killed JFK, RFK, JFK, Jr, Sen Carnahan, Sen Wellstone and countless others who 'got in the way'? What about those 50+ dead microbiologists? Who created/caused GWI which has killed/disabled over 500,000 US troops and their family members? Who used/is using nuclear weapons in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq which have killed or disabled tens of thousands of US troops... and will kill far more than that number with the 'Depleted'Uranium now sown...not to mention the millions of other innocents now dead or dying? Who lied repeatedly about HIV/AIDS? Who has lied/lies repeatedly about mad cow prion disease in our food supply - which is now crawling throughout our environment? Who approved countless deadly pharmaceutical drugs, including deadly toxins like aspartame, and sat by and watched Americans die? You cannot deny the writing is on the wall for 9-11. As year five of the reign of George W. Bush unfolds, consider Team Bush's modus operandi: a cabinet in lock-step with the president; secret policy-making meetings and back door deals with the corporate elite; legislation crafted by a Republican-controlled Congress with little dissent by a timid opposition party; misinformation and disinformation campaigns; a permanent war on terrorism that tolerates the widespread abuse of detainees and secret prisons; and the chipping away at civil liberties.. America is becoming a Theocratic Fascist Dictatorship. I suppost none of you "sheep" noticed the "Repeal the 22nd Ammendment" hit Washington law makers...To allow more than two terms per president?? Gee, the media missed it too.. Go figure. Wake up. http://www.scaredinamerica.blogspot.com/

Posted by: scaredinamerica at June 18, 2005 01:49 PM (PnOQF)

243 America is becoming a Theocratic Fascist Dictatorship. If you need a reminder of a what a Fascist Government may be like, here are fourteen: 1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism (Patriotism) - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays. 2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc. 3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc. 4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized. 5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution. 6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common. 7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses. 8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions. 9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite. 10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed. 11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked. 12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even fore go civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations. 13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders. 14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections. Consider, the anti-democratic warning signs: the Patriot Act and subsequent civil liberties-busting legislation; election snafus seamlessly fading into history; a war carried out on the basis of misinformation and disinformation; secret prisons where captives are tortured. Think about how things change slowly, yet dramatically, while good people either aren't paying attention or are too satisfied to raise their voices..... Even YOU people have to admit THIS is very troubling. In recent months two proposals have been introduced to the House of Representatives to amend the Consitution of the United States and repeal the 22nd amendment. The 22nd amendment was put place to limit the number of times a president could be in office to two terms. The first, HJRES 11 IH, was introduced on January 7, 2003 by Representative Serrano. On February 25, 2003 HJ 25 IH was introduced. These appear to be identical. The latter proposed amendment has 7 sponsors. Will you save us? We are watching! Sincerely, ScaredInAmerica http://www.scaredinamerica.blogspot.com/

Posted by: scaredinamerica at June 18, 2005 01:58 PM (PnOQF)

244 Hi, did you forget the Northwood document?!?! Why be "ScaredInAmerica" when you could be "SafeInFrance" not scared enough apparently.

Posted by: dave at June 18, 2005 03:22 PM (fsJ2z)

245 How do you know your "experts" are "experts"??

Posted by: Big Guy!! at June 18, 2005 06:08 PM (T7rcm)

246 If you're referring to me, at least they state name and credentials which allows you to research their qualifications and background. That other guy is anonymous nutjob with an internet page, that is evident by the material matter, within about 3 minutes of reading his subjects.

Posted by: dave at June 18, 2005 06:26 PM (fsJ2z)

247 "One hundred people can keep a secret if one of them is dead... ... ... ... ... ...and the other 99 know about the one dead."

Posted by: Big Fun Guy at June 20, 2005 12:19 AM (T7rcm)

248 It's amazing how you people ALWAYS attack the messenger NO MATTER who they are. Now we see you tie this guy to Clinton as to write off what he said. Truth can be stranger than fiction. I will give you credit for open posts. MOST con sites won't do that where others like Daily Kos etc. alllow free will posting. Hmm, you have a reason but then you say you protect the first. I CHALLENGE EVERYONE HERE RIGHT NOW to go to this site READ and WATCH and LISTEN and then make your comments about all this. When I fisrt heard all this I thought people were nuts! I attacked them also but I was IGNORANT because I didn't look at the facts. There are some VERY shoddy sites out there on this but this is not one of them. http://911fraud.blogspot.com/ MANY of you will not go and research this because you are a "know it all" who knows nothing beyond blind attacks. Hey man, I'm just saying it like it is. Some of you will go there and it will change your life I will promise you that. I WISH I didn't find this because I have not been the same. I am no bleeding heart Liberal I am someone who cares about what is going on in our Goverenment regardless of the leadership. http://911fraud.blogspot.com/ Who was involved in security for the towers and the airport and the airlines? Marvin Bush PUBLIC record. What the hell was FEMA doing? Silverstien said they had to "pull" building 7 on FILM. He later said (two years later) he didn't mean that. Never explaining what he did mean. YUP, when I heard this story at forst I said they were crazy. No they were not. DECIDE for yourself. Don't get so caught up in the silly fights. Take that time and research. http://911fraud.blogspot.com/ I'll be back and thank you for posting this. Maybe you won't we'll see.

Posted by: Truth speak at July 06, 2005 01:08 PM (hJx9Q)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Douglas Wood, an Alamo, California, resident with Australian citizenship, has been rescued by Iraqi forces backed by U.S. troops from his terrorist captors.

Developing. Check back later for updates.......

News.com Australia:

AUSTRALIAN hostage Douglas Wood is well and undergoing medical checks following his rescue more than six weeks after being kidnapped in Iraq.

The 63-year-old engineer, with numerous health problems, was in good health in Baghdad tonight, and he was under the protection of an Australian taskforce sent to Iraq to negotiate his release, Prime Minister John Howard told Parliament.
Mr Wood was freed this afternoon by Iraqi and US troops in Baghdad, Mr Howard said.

"I am delighted to inform the house that the Australian hostage in Iraq Mr Douglas Wood is safe from his captors," he said to cheers in Parliament.

"Mr Wood was recovered a short while ago in Baghdad in a military operation that I'm told was conducted by Iraqi forces."

Mr Wood was well and was undergoing medical checks while in the care of the Australian emergency response team, Mr Howard said.

Foreign Minister Alexander Downer meanwhile said Mr Wood was in good shape, if mentally exhausted.

He said he had called the Wood family with the good news at 6pm.

A family spokesman said: "They are elated.

"They haven't spoken to him yet but I understand that all of the family know in all parts of the world."

Mr Wood, a US-based Australian with an American wife, Yvonne, and a daughter, Christina, has brothers living in Australia

Seventeen days later Iraq security forces stumbled by chance on the house where he was being held during an early-morning search in a northern suburb of Baghdad.

In an operation codenamed Lightning and supported by US advisers, the Iraqis were conducting "snap, cordon and search" raids from house to house.

"They just happened to get lucky," a coalition defence source in Iraq said last night. Australian commanders, who had no advance knowledge of the operation, were caught by surprise.

UPDATE II: KrilliX adds, "Con un’operazione militare. Senza pagare riscatti e finanziare i terroristi. Evidentemente si può fare anche così." Indeed.

Related posts from The Jawa Report:
Family of Australian Hostage Starts a Blog
Time Running Out for Duglas Wood
Terrorists Issue 72 Hour Ultimatum to Aussies
The Life of a Hostage in Iraq
Australian Douglas Wood in Hostage Video, Appeals to Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bush, Howard

Resources:
The Wood family blog--blog started by Douglas Wood's family in an effort to convince the terrorists to let him go.

Others: John Little at Blogs of War, Tim Blair blogging from Australia, Captain Ed, Red at Scared Monkeys, see fatwas issued below for others....

Posted by: Rusty at 08:43 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 512 words, total size 4 kb.

1 Yee-haw! Hope they shot the freedom fighters responsible for this. Too many prisoners already.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 15, 2005 08:56 AM (x+5JB)

2 "...was conducted by Iraqi forces." Not bad, Iraqis. Not bad.

Posted by: Editor at June 15, 2005 09:57 AM (adpJH)

3 Awesome..

Posted by: Howie at June 15, 2005 09:58 AM (D3+20)

4 Huzzah boys!

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 15, 2005 10:48 AM (0yYS2)

5 Yay. And the terrorists involved were "detained". People are getting tired of the crap there. Information on terrorist's operations, locations of weapons and all sorts of information is coming forth now.

Posted by: Oyster at June 15, 2005 11:34 AM (fl6E1)

6 Very nice.

Posted by: Defense Guy at June 15, 2005 02:04 PM (jPCiN)

7 I hope the people who gave the tip got a nice reward ($$$), and that this will inspire more cooperation between the Iraqis and their government.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 15, 2005 02:08 PM (x+5JB)

8 Glad you agree!

Posted by: KrilliX at June 15, 2005 07:25 PM (/7AIJ)

9 UPDATE II: KrilliX adds, "Con un’operazione militare. Senza pagare riscatti e finanziare i terroristi. Evidentemente si può fare anche così." Indeed. I think I can translate, even with my limited Italian. KrilllX says, 'With a military operation. Without paying a ransom and financing the terrorists. Evidently, it can be done this way as well." KrilllX, Hope I didn't put words in your mouth. I'm trying to bone up on my crappy Italian. In 2 weeks I'll be traveling there.

Posted by: greg at June 16, 2005 04:01 PM (/+dAV)

10 greg! it was simply perfect! mail me if you'r coming back to rome in italy

Posted by: KrilliX at June 16, 2005 07:18 PM (/7AIJ)

11 Now now, Gregg. Must I be forced to chaperone this rendezvous?

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 17, 2005 08:13 AM (x+5JB)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

My darling husband found this website and the accompanying picture:

Cute, eh?

Anyway, if you care at all about blogger rights you should definitely visit this site. It's worth a look around. Here's an exerpt:

Other ways we're fighting for your rights:

Bloggers can be journalists (and journalists can be bloggers) - We're battling for legal and institutional recognition that if you engage in journalism, you're a journalist, with all of the attendant rights, privileges, and protections. (See Apple v. Does.)

Bloggers are entitled to free speech - We're working to shield you from frivolous or abusive threats and lawsuits. Internet bullies shouldn't use copyright, libel, or other claims to chill your legitimate speech. (See OPG v. Diebold.)

Bloggers have the right to political speech - We're working with a number of other public-interest organizations to ensure that the Federal Election Commission (FEC) doesn't gag bloggers' election-related speech. We argue that the FEC should adopt a presumption against the regulation of election-related speech by individuals on the Internet, and interpret the existing media exemption to apply to online media outlets that provide news reporting and commentary regarding an election -- including blogs. (See our joint comments to the FEC; [PDF, 332K].)

Bloggers have the right to stay anonymous - We're continuing our battle to protect and preserve your constitutional right to anonymous speech online, including providing a guide to help you with strategies for keeping your identity private when you blog. (See How to Blog Safely (About Work or Anything Else).)

Bloggers have freedom from liability for hosting speech the same way other web hosts do - We're working to strengthen Section 230 liability protections under the Communications Decency Act (CDA) while spreading the word that bloggers are entitled to them. (See Barrett v. Rosenthal.)

Check it out, kids.

Cross-posted at Suzanne's blog

Posted by: Suzanne at 07:14 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 308 words, total size 2 kb.

And from the "Isn't That Special" file.....

Former hostage Florence Aubenas says her captors gave her gifts of two rings and a bottle of perfume when they released her at the weekend after more than five months of captivity in Iraq.

She told her newspaper, Liberation, that one of her guards said, “We have prepared some presents for you” just before she was freed on Saturday. “They gave me two rings and a bottle of perfume.”

Her captors also returned her handbag, which still contained her identity papers and money, and served her tea and roast chicken, she said.

Heartwarming indeed. Just goes to show that even brutal murdering beheading terrorist scumbags can effectively bullsh!^ the press.

BTW, Grundgy Islamofascists who haven't seen a bathtub in months think the French stink too.

Posted by Traderrob

Posted by: Traderrob at 04:44 PM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 155 words, total size 1 kb.

Ok, I now admit that interogation methods used at Camp X-Ray in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, were in fact torture. Ananonva:

Christina Aguilera's music has reportedly been used to interrogate a leading al Qaeda suspect at Guantanamo Bay.

Time magazine says her songs were played to try to break down Mohammed al Qahtani who is believed to be the so-called 20th hijacker.

Qahtani is thought to have tried to enter the US in August 2001 as part of the team which took part in the September 11 attacks.

UPDATE: Whoever is in charge over at The Superficial has similar thoughts (and headline...ahem...cough...):

Thanks a lot pussy liberals. This could have been an awesome report if not for you, and they could have replaced the words “dripping water onto” with “slammed a hammer into” and “playing Christina Aguilera music” with “execute”. Honest to God, once I'm in charge, if I see any electronic equipment brought into a room with a guy involved with 9/11, I better hear the phrase, “Red is positve, black is negative” and “don't bother with any KY.”

Posted by: Rusty at 03:47 PM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 198 words, total size 2 kb.

Were the hostages captives of a criminal gang or terrorists? What was Didier Julia's role? Was a ransom paid? The Bad Hair Blog has the details.

Posted by: Rusty at 03:36 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 42 words, total size 1 kb.

Maybe I'm the last blogger on earth to hear that former California gubernatorial governor and porn star Mary Cary is scheduled to have dinner with President Bush tonight, but no one is going to accuse Rusty Shackleford of not doing his utmost to get to the bottom of this story! Oh Infinite Zeuss, why do you mock me?? Why could I have not been in D.C. this week!!

Via Wonkette and the America Blog I learn that Mary Cary is set to be at National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) fundraiser tonight as the guest of pornographer and president of Kick Ass Pictures president Mark Kulkis.

As we speak Kulkis & Carey are scheduled to be having lunch with Karl Rove. At 3:00 p.m. Eastern, Carey will be at The Coyote Ugly Saloon in Washington, DC, for a pre-dinner press-conference where she will be showing off her dress for this evening's festivities with the President. Mary Cary is going to announce her candidacy for Lieutenant Governor of California at the conference.

If you are in the D.C. area, grab a digital cam and get on over there (you have all of 5 minutes to get there). If you need some press credentials I'll be happy to provide you some on condition that you bring a digital cam!

Of course, the mavens over at Wonkette are publishing this because they think it is so ironical. And the gay-outing thugs over at America Blog want to show the hypocrisy of the Republicans inviting a pornorgrapher to a fundraiser. And no doubt this will become something of a minor embarrasment for the administration among inside the beltway pundits tomorrow morning. The kind of story where no one will actually talk about what happened, but all will pause to speak of the effect of what happened on the President's poll numbers, support among Christians, and so forth.

On behalf of all South Park Republicans everywhere let me be the first to say, Mr. President, have an enjoyable dinner with that porn star!

On a serious note, there is no way that President Bush knows that Mary Cary is going to be there. It's also very unlikely that KKKarl Rove or any of the Bush people know what Kick Ass Productions is or that Mark Kulkis is an adult film producer. I was never one of those right-wingers who got all over Clinton for having drug dealers in the White House or who got all upset about Gore's campaign fundraising troubles. The reality is that modern campaigns are run like very large corporations, with the people at the top knowing very little about the day to day operations of the organization.

Further, neither she nor Kulkis is actually having dinner with the President as their press release implies. Hundreds of people will be at that dinner. If being in the same room with the President while you put food in your mouth counts as 'having dinner', then I've dined with Senators, had brunch with Kings, and even had tea with the first lady. You know, cause I was in the same room and all....

Anyway, I have no objections to a porn star going to a Republican fundraiser. Heck, I want more porn stars at Republican fundraisers! But this will be a minor embarassment tomorrow if word doesn't get out and Kulkis's invite isn't cancelled in the next few hours, so heads up on this.

UPDATE: I didn't notice this last week on WND. In it, Cary claims she is a Christian. Ok, maybe Cary doesn't understand what it means to be a Christian or maybe she's just a bad Christian, but that just seems like one of the most idiotic statements ever. Or maybe she read the part about Jesus saving the adultress from those who would stone her Taliban style, but forgot to read on to the next part where he says, "Go and sin no more."

I love this one:

When asked about Bible verses condemning adultery, she responded, "Bill Clinton committed adultery. [Doing] adult movies is acting, portraying a role. It's not Mary Ellen Cook, the real me."

Anyway, from the WND article we already get a preview of the brew-ha-ha that's coming down:

"The reason these people are doing this is for publicity and to embarrass Bush," Wildmon told WND. "I think the Republicans can survive this, but they need to go public with an explanation. They need to exclude them or withdraw the invitation. Just doing nothing is the worst thing they can do."

And yes, I'm both a blog pimp and a link whore.....

Posted by: Rusty at 01:54 PM | Comments (58) | Add Comment
Post contains 832 words, total size 6 kb.

1 Didn't Bush say he was going to bring dignity back to the White House after the torrid Bill Clinton years? How is dining with porn stars dignified? The Libs are right, this is hypocritical.

Posted by: Carlos at June 14, 2005 01:58 PM (8e/V4)

2 Lighten up. There will be hundreds of people there. Bush isn't really 'having dinner' with her.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at June 14, 2005 02:10 PM (JQjhA)

3 Rusty, it's not a matter of lightening up. I'm not personally offended by porno, but porno has its place, and it's not the White House. Even if there are hundreds of people there, this sends the wrong message if indeed Bush wants to bring dignity to the White House. Would it be so hard for Bush to send the right message here?

Posted by: Carlos at June 14, 2005 02:16 PM (8e/V4)

4 What message is that Carlos? That as Republicans, or perhaps even Christians, we should be shunning people like this?

Posted by: Defense Guy at June 14, 2005 02:20 PM (jPCiN)

5 Very weird. I just wonder what they're doing there. I suppose there is a relationship of sorts between libertarians (that's libertarians, not libertines)and various "lifestyles."

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 14, 2005 02:24 PM (x+5JB)

6 Defense Guy, would you say that if it was pimps and whores instead of porno queens? I would invite the scum of the earth into my home, as Jesus did, but not to make them feel good about their sin, but to minister to them, as Jesus did. I expect fellow christians to call me on my sin too, not to give it a pass just so we can all get along.

Posted by: Carlos at June 14, 2005 02:27 PM (8e/V4)

7 If I were Bush's scriptwriter, I'd suggest he simply say, when questioned about this, "Even Christ ate with sinners."

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 14, 2005 02:27 PM (x+5JB)

8 But a) it's not at the White House b) Bush has no control over who goes to the dinner, that's the RNCC.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at June 14, 2005 02:29 PM (JQjhA)

9 But the bottom line is, he doesn't know about it, and those "lower level" campaign workers Rusty referes to should be more careful.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 14, 2005 02:29 PM (x+5JB)

10 Damn it, I seem to be posting one line too late evry time!

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 14, 2005 02:31 PM (x+5JB)

11 Wonder what's on the menue. Kielbasa?

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 14, 2005 02:33 PM (x+5JB)

12 Carlos That's right. I think shunning them would be the wrong message to send. Inclusion shows openness to those that have not yet 'found the way', so to speak, and affords more opportunity to have that kind of dialogue. Hate the sin, love the sinner kind of thing. In addition, to shun them would cause more political harm as the left would use it as more ammunition about the intolerance of the evil rethuglicans towards what is a very legal venture in this country.

Posted by: Defense Guy at June 14, 2005 02:35 PM (jPCiN)

13 Defense Guy, true, shunning her now will look terrible. They should have quietly withdrawn the invitation early on, but it's too late now. Libs get their little PR victory no matter what the White House does.

Posted by: Carlos at June 14, 2005 02:39 PM (8e/V4)

14 Just read the WND article. Carey claims she's a friendly. Uh, yeeeeaaahhh. She also wants political "pointers" from Bush. My favorite part: "She maintains pornographic movies don't harm anyone, and are beneficial in a way, providing safe fantasies for the "lonely" public." This despite study after study blaming the indistry to desensitization towards promiscuous sex and violence toward women. Plus, if she's such a fan of the Bible, what about the warning that anyone who looks upon a woman with lust in his heart commits adultery--listed as one of the vices sure to land someone in Gahenna.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 14, 2005 02:45 PM (x+5JB)

15 would you rather have Mary Carey or Michael Moore showing up? I know who I would take

Posted by: William Teach at June 14, 2005 02:58 PM (IRsCk)

16 Moore would no doubt eat up the profits.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 14, 2005 03:03 PM (x+5JB)

17 "Maybe I'm the last blogger on earth to hear that former California gubernatorial governor and porn star Mary Cary is scheduled to have dinner with President Bush tonight, but no one is going to accuse Rusty Shackleford of not doing his utmost to get to the bottom of this story!" Nah, you're not the last to hear about it. I posted a link for you (or anyone else) to read last week in that post you made about wanting links because you were bored: http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/085936.php Anyways, this will do wonders for the "family values" angle the Republican party always throws around.

Posted by: Venom at June 14, 2005 03:15 PM (dbxVM)

18 "would you say that if it was pimps and whores instead of porno queens?" Last I checked, porn is not illegal while prostitution is. I could care less if the entire industry was there. It doesn't mean they would be filimg a scene while Bush is on the stage. There are a lot of people with shady occupations. Should we not allow telemarketers, insurance salesmen, telecom industry execs, etc. to attend? All three of those professions are as shady as being a porn star and at times are just as "non-Christian."

Posted by: Chad Evans at June 14, 2005 03:21 PM (dZcXJ)

19 Well said, let me reiterate my personal view on pornography. The ideal society is one which tolerates pornography, yet does not consume much of it. The same rule applies to drugs.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at June 14, 2005 03:25 PM (JQjhA)

20 >>>"Last I checked, porn is not illegal while prostitution is." Chad, I see. So if prostitution were legal, then you'd have pimps and whores dining at the White House. I small hint, there's a difference between legal and moral. Ponder that. Also, there's a difference between a telemarketer vs pimps and whores, ponder that one too.

Posted by: Carlos at June 14, 2005 03:28 PM (8e/V4)

21 and Chad, labeling something as "christian" doesn't make a lick of difference. There are plenty of non-christians who also do not like the message the porn industry sends to their sons and daughters.

Posted by: Carlos at June 14, 2005 03:30 PM (8e/V4)

22 "It doesn't mean they would be filimg a scene while Bush is on the stage." Haha, that would kick ass.

Posted by: Venom at June 14, 2005 03:35 PM (dbxVM)

23 "Ok, maybe Cary doesn't understand what it means to be a Christian or maybe she's just a bad Christian..." Funny. The above statement seems to apply especially well to the motives and content of this site! Nice Christian porn links too by the way! LOL. Is that just more of your effort to "show us the enemy we fight"??? LOL Dude!

Posted by: Professor Peter Von Nostrand at June 14, 2005 03:39 PM (h9w01)

24 This is just a cheap way to get publicity and embarass the president. The banality of evil is surprising: Satan plays the same old tricks in current disguises ever since the Garden. If you take away the buzz words and packaging, Satan's old tricks are so common and banal they're really quite a bore. She is just the latest, who of course, must convince herself she is and "actress" "playing a role." God is not mocked.

Posted by: 72VIRGINS at June 14, 2005 03:49 PM (dhRpo)

25 You must excuse Prof. PVN, Like many non-Christians on the Left, they pretend to understand Christianity better than, well, Christians.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at June 14, 2005 03:50 PM (JQjhA)

26 And just for full disclosure to readers, Most of you would not consider me a Christian, even though I consider myself one. I'm definitely not in the main stream theologically, but I do go to church.

Posted by: Rusty Shackleford at June 14, 2005 03:53 PM (JQjhA)

27 ... Aaaaaaaand SCENE!

Posted by: Editor at June 14, 2005 04:07 PM (adpJH)

28 Ok, all I want to know is if Bush will be wearing nothing but assless leather chaps and a cowboy hat. A whip wouldn't hurt. Or maybe it would? What happened to the 'cover up that dirty statue titty' days of Ashcroft? Is Laura not enough of a naughty librarian? Anyway...it does seem rather odd. I wonder what will CUM of it...

Posted by: osamabeenhiding at June 14, 2005 04:41 PM (buka0)

29 If this comes to light in the media, and I believe it will since it can be used to make Bush look bad, he should simply state that that as an American, she had as much right as anyone else to attend. Game, set, match.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 14, 2005 04:56 PM (0yYS2)

30 Who cares? And it is only hypocritical if Bush "shares" a cigar with Cary.

Posted by: KBiel at June 14, 2005 05:11 PM (KSCkS)

31 True, IM. But once the NY Times checks the bookmarks, cache and history on his browser it'll make Clinton look like a priest!

Posted by: osamabinpostin' at June 14, 2005 05:12 PM (buka0)

32 I used to work in the telecom industry and I can tell you what was being done is in no way moral, just like I do not believe those in the porn industry are moral. I know insurance salesmen and the industry teaches immoral techniques in order to push policies upon clients. Am I to believe no member of the telecom or insurance industry has stepped foot in the White House? I still stand to the point though if we do not allow certain immoral occupations to attend a fundraiser, we should not allow any. Who will the new moral police be though to decide whether or not one profession is more moral than the next? Furthermore, why is the White House such sacred ground and who is in charge of determining who is allowed on the sacred ground? If those who want to believe Mary Carey is disturbing sacred ground because of her profession, then why did a good portion of those vote for a known adulterer to work out of the White House? And by the way, I only inserted the non-Christian comment because it is cited by Mary Carey herself. Anyone that actually knows me understands how religious I am, of lack thereof as is more appropriate.

Posted by: Chad Evans at June 14, 2005 05:25 PM (dZcXJ)

33 The Pharisees and Saducees were quite religious, too. Choose your words wisely, Chad.

Posted by: Editor at June 14, 2005 05:32 PM (adpJH)

34 >>>"I know insurance salesmen and the industry teaches immoral techniques in order to push policies upon clients." Chad, that's a very shallow analogy. There's a difference between an immoral industry (porno) vs crooks working in the telecom industry. The telecom industry isn't immoral-- those crooks are. If the guy's a crook, then he doesn't get the invite,that's all. >>>"Who will the new moral police be though to decide whether or not one profession is more moral than the next." That's easy, obviously the person in the White House decides what/who he considers worthy to dine at the White House, duh. That's what Bush said he would do.

Posted by: Carlos at June 14, 2005 05:51 PM (8e/V4)

35 hey, if they cant invite a porn starlet, who it seems some people are saying is a shady area of employment, than most def. no lawyers should be invited either since they are some of the shadiest people around....ive known mafiaso who are nicer people

Posted by: THANOS35 at June 14, 2005 06:28 PM (CagjM)

36 If all crooks and whores were banned from state events, we'd have to shut down the government.

Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 14, 2005 06:38 PM (0yYS2)

37 THANO, I know plenty of asshole lawyers, and that porn starlet looks like a real sweetheart. That's besides the point.

Posted by: Carlos at June 14, 2005 06:38 PM (8e/V4)

38 Maybe this is Bush's twisted revenge on Laura's standup routine a while ago?

Posted by: osamabeendownloadin'porn at June 14, 2005 06:39 PM (buka0)

39 "Cary claims she is a Christian. Ok, maybe Cary doesn't understand what it means to be a Christian or maybe she's just a bad Christian, but that just seems like one of the most idiotic statements ever. Or maybe she read the part about Jesus saving the adultress from those who would stone her Taliban style, but forgot to read on to the next part where he says, 'Go and sin no more.'" Rusty: I thought that this, despite someone's comments, was very well written, orthodox, and right on the money.

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 14, 2005 06:44 PM (m6QBo)

40 Oh good grief. No, I don't agree with her "job". Do, I think she's wrong to be involved with porn, "yes". Do I think she should be made fun of, called names, shunned, "NO, NO, NO!" You can disagreed with someone and/or disapprove of their behavior and still interact with them. The LLL have their panties all twisted up saying that it just shows we're not the party of family values. And they are doing everything they can in an attempt to push Christians to criticize President Bush and distance themselves from the Republican Party. They still think that if they out gay Republicans and scream that President Bush "dines" with porn stars that Christians will be so horrified and disgusted that they will stop voting. And then of course Democrats will have the edge, or so they think. My answer to anyone who criticizes either Mary Carey, President Bush or Republicans about this is, "So what? She has just as much right to be there as anyone else. Do you think we should start refusing admittance to people based on their job or morals? Do we refuse anyone we disagree with? People who are having affairs? Models who model sexy clothes? Singers who sing racy songs? Where do we start and where do we end?" As a Christian and a decent human being I believe that we don't have to like the behavior to be nice, interact with and be gracious to another person.

Posted by: sues at June 14, 2005 08:57 PM (WMcIU)

41 osama, Your head is in the gutter and you are disgusting. Just like all your other lefty friends. It shows your low level of intelllegence that you are unable to carry out a conversation with out blatent sexual references.

Posted by: lin at June 14, 2005 09:05 PM (WMcIU)

42 linlinlin...Right you are that my head is in the gutter. I am proud to be uninhibited sexually or unfazed by sexual references. Though you are extremely wrong about a few things: I can carry on many intelligent conversations very easily and without blatant sexual references. I posted my joking words in here while having a great conversation with Young Bourbon Professional about abortion, life, religion and philosophy in another post...all at the same time! So save your moralistic rant for someone else and learn to laugh. Oh yeah, and I'm not "Left" as you might so easily have assumed me to be. You know a mere iota of what I'm about or how I live my life. Anyway, I'd be open to having any discussion with you about any topic...and without any sexual references if you like.

Posted by: osamabinpostin' at June 14, 2005 09:44 PM (buka0)

43 osama, are you greg? or Steve?

Posted by: Carlos at June 15, 2005 12:02 AM (8e/V4)

44 Carlos, I'm shocked that you ask... I have posted under "Steve" before when Collin first introduced me to this blog, and I use a million variations of osama this and that, but I'm sure as hell not Greg! Why do you ask? Did I say something similar to what he used to post?

Posted by: osamabinpostin' at June 15, 2005 01:35 AM (buka0)

45 Maybe this will get people more interested in politics. Howie says as he sheepishly returns to the forum.

Posted by: Howie at June 15, 2005 09:09 AM (D3+20)

46 osama, because greg also identified himself as neither Left nor right.

Posted by: Carlos at June 15, 2005 09:29 AM (8e/V4)

47 That's it? I thought Greg was IP blocked anyway, right? He would have to be totally split personality to post as me and him...besides what you mentioned we have very different posts and styles of writing. Just to get facts straight, I'm not Libertarian either. I don't back the GOP, the Dems, Greens or anyone, really. When I vote I tend to try and vote for the best person, not the best party...but that's a whole other conversation. I'm sure if Greg wanted to post in here, he could find a way, and surely without using my osama handles. If anyone did imitate me, I'd alert everyone right away.

Posted by: osamabinwhatever at June 15, 2005 09:44 AM (buka0)

48 Osama: Never fear--your views and Greg's on certain topics are quite different. I never thought you were the same person. What is your brother up to these days?

Posted by: Young Bourbon Professional at June 15, 2005 09:52 AM (x+5JB)

49 My "bro" Collin? I'm sure he's terrorizing another blog somewhere. I forget which one though!

Posted by: osamabinwhatever at June 15, 2005 10:17 AM (buka0)

50 Osama = not greg for sure.

Posted by: Howie at June 15, 2005 10:50 AM (D3+20)

51 Now those definitely look like some weapons of mass destruction!

Posted by: Chrees at June 15, 2005 11:06 AM (hFZJx)

52 As a Repbulican, this makes me proud of JR! The administration should use as good PR and a recruitment tool. Hey, may be she'll do a recruitment film.

Posted by: homely at June 15, 2005 11:47 AM (h9pED)

53 What is everyone uptight about. Bush does not need Mary to make him look like a immoral corrupt fool. He is perfectly cable of doing that himself.

Posted by: Butch at June 17, 2005 11:55 AM (Gqhi9)

54 Butch, because Bush=Hitler, right? He is corrupt, blah, blah, blah...liberal tripe and unsubstantiated "facts" go hand-in-hand.

Posted by: Jeremy at June 25, 2005 08:05 PM (5Ayae)

55 osamabinpostin: that presupposes that the man knows how to work a computer.

Posted by: mlevans at June 28, 2005 01:05 PM (jZV9v)

56 Maybe Bush can show her how to really F!!! someone. As for Christian's it's all a front to mask there problems, & looking for a magic cure all. And biggest phoney's I know.

Posted by: Alibaba at June 28, 2005 02:15 PM (BBI7X)

57 PS.It is not the fact that Christians should be appauled at Bush's actions, It's the fact that there not !!!!

Posted by: Alibaba at June 28, 2005 02:23 PM (BBI7X)

58 But Will Their Children Produce Porn News? (BEVERLY HILLS) -- X-rated video mogul Mark Kulkis, who escorted porn star Mary Carey to June's GOP dinner with President Bush, has found a new love interest: Washington powerdater and CNN producer Kathy Benz. The two met during an interview while Kulkis, 40, president and CEO of Kick Ass Pictures, was in DC for the National Republican Congressional Committee's annual President's Dinner. He's honorary chairman of the NRCC's Business Advisory Council, a roundtable of millionaire entrepreneurs. Benz denies she's cozying up to Kulkis to get a scoop for CNN about the private lunch he and Carey had with White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove. "Mark's a wonderful guy and I think this could be the real thing," she tells girlfriends. Benz, 35, is known in Washington power circles for dating such figures as venture capitalist Jonathan Ledecky (now trying to buy the Washington Nationals), Univ. of Maryland basketball coach Gary Williams, and spent time last August with Sirius CEO Mel Karmazin at his Hamptons home. Her regular companions include Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Tex.), John Sununu, Sr, venture capitalist Mark Ein, Chicago Cubs VP John McDonough and Democratic lawyer Julian Epstein. She was engaged to John Daggett, AOL millionaire.

Posted by: Kelly at August 06, 2005 07:53 PM (+y0DY)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

I looked over the account of the suspected twentieth hijackerÂ’s (wait? wasnÂ’t that Moussaoui? Or is he now the 21st hijacker?) interrogation at Guantanamo. Someone leaked a document to Time, which ran to publish its breathless handwringing gotcha scoop. (The whole story is only available to Time subscribers; but hereÂ’s a press release; here are excerpts from the log; and hereÂ’s Brother LileksÂ’ incomparable japery.) I canÂ’t compete with Lileks on this one, but let me throw a thought at you:

Time got played. If this thing wasnÂ’t leaked by Karl Rove himself, it shoulda been.

YÂ’all remember that movie, the Untouchables? Elliot Ness (Kevin Costner) and Malone (Sean Connery), couple other guys go after the oily, brutal Al Capone, played by Robert DeNiro. And the Untouchables quickly realize that the regular methods of police work just donÂ’t apply to this war. When they go on a raid of a liquor warehouse, Capone is tipped off and clears his booze out. And he tips off the media so when Ness opens what he thinks is a crate of liquor bottles, and he pulls out a parasol, a cameraman is there to record his mistake. A picture of Ness looking stupid is on the front page the next day.

It’s funny, when you think about it, how the press were portrayed in that film: they were staunchly anti-crime and kept hassling the cops to end this horrble crime wave–while at the same time they never missed a chance to make the cops look stupid and Capone look ten thousand feet tall and unbeatable. Though they would deny it, they were complicit in Capone’s power. They fawningly took down every single word he said at press conferences, printed his lies, and laughed at his jokes. It was easy to do that. Capone would kill you, the cops wouldn’t. It was easy for the press to swim with that current. Swim against it, prick the ego, tarnish the myth, look too deeply into the abyss, and you would sleep with the fishes.

Sound familiar?

Anyway, Ness is dejected about being set up and at some point early on in the movie, Malone, the gruff Irish beat cop, gives him one of the greatest movie speeches ever:

If you open the can on these worms you must be prepared to go all the way because theyÂ’re not gonna give up the fight until one of you is deadÂ…Do you want to know how to get Capone? YouÂ’ve got to do it the Chicago Way. He pulls a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one oÂ’ yours to the hospital, you send one oÂ’ his to the morgue. ThatÂ’s the Chicago way. And thatÂ’s how you get Capone.

The first step in their Chicago-way pursuit of Capone is an interception of a liquor shipment at the Canadian border. Ness shoots a bootlegger outside a small cabin while the other Untouchables, with the help of the Canadian mounties, win a huge firefight nearby. One of the bootleggers is captured alive and brought to the cabin, where he refuses to translate the ledger that conceals Capone’s accounts. Malone grows frustrated with the interrogation and walks outside, picks up the dead bootlegger and slams him against the window of the cabin. He puts his pistol in the dead body’s mouth and yells, “I’ll give you to the count of three to tell me what I want to know!”

Of course the dead bootlegger, he say nothin’, and Malone blows the dead body’s head off, spraying the horrified captive inside with gore. He falls all over himself trying to talk. Malone comes in and says “And don’t let him clean himself until he tells you everything you want to know.”

At this point the prim captain of the Canadian Mounties puffs up and tells Malone indignantly, “I do not approve of your methods!”

Elliot Ness replies, “You’re not from Chicago.”

Now then. Check out the Time piece, where they have an actual log of what we do in Gitmo. Not what we tell the press, but the notes the US government keeps for its own use. The Nazis kept notes, you know, and it hung a bunch of them at Nuremberg. Ours exonerate us.

An interrogator sits on this guys head and reads him the news of the death of Al Qaeda figures. They call him worse than a dog, since dogs at least protect the innocent instead of killing them. They wake him up with pop music and they give him dancing lessons. They hang pictures of nekkid women on his clothes. They monitor his health and try to keep him hydrated despite his refusal to drink enough water. Blackjacks and rubber hoses? No, but they touched an inflated latex glove to his face.

This is, remember, the twentieth hijacker.

The man is being humiliated, not tortured. IÂ’ve had worse in high school. IÂ’ve had worse at church camp.

The tone of the memo is of professionals doing their best to get information from this guy without hurting him. They are exercising enormous restraint and care for his well-being. They even note how often he goes to the bathroom. I guaran-damn-tee you that better men who have done far less are being treated far worse right now, in Lompoc or San Quentin or Soledad prisons, right under the nose of the press and in the custody of the State of California. Bill Lockyer admitted as much in 2001.

This is the twentieth hijacker, and there are no rapes, no whips, no severed tongues, no battery cables, no kicks to the head. There are MRE Boxes with smiley faces placed on his head. And everyoneÂ’s going to realize this. Everyone sees that this is barely even a Chicago Rules interrogation.

Most people realize that the War on Terror must be fought the Chicago Way.

Most people, that is, except the press. TheyÂ’re not from Chicago. After being tricked into publishing this exoneration of Guantanamo Bay, however, they are holding a parasol.

UPDATE: Here’s another comparison between the Terror War and the hunt for Capone–this time looking at the multi-agency task forces and prosecution strategy.

UPDATE II: Now I remember where IÂ’ve heard about these tactics before.

UPDATE III: Geraghty at TKS agrees: this story is now a gift to the GOP.

(Cross posted from Patterico's Pontifications where I'm still posting till Thursday.)

Posted by: seedubya at 11:52 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 1068 words, total size 7 kb.

As an ex-member of Amnesty International I can only say 'aye' to Christopher Hitchens in Slate:

About Amnesty International's disgraceful performance, however, I can tell as well as ask. I was at one point quite close to its London headquarters, and I used to both carry and return messages for the organization when I went as a reporter to screwed-up countries. The founding statutes were quite clear: An Amnesty local was to adopt three "prisoners of conscience," one from either side of the Cold War and one from a "neutral" state. Letters were to be written to the relevant governments and to newspapers in free countries. Though physical torture and capital punishment were opposed in all cases, no overt political position was to be taken. (I remember there was quite a row when an Amnesty "country report" on Argentina went so far as to describe a guerrilla raid as "daring.") By adhering to these rules, AI became a credible worldwide group to which even the most repressive governments sometimes had to pay attention. All honor to its founder Peter Benenson, who died earlier this year.

And now look. I think it is fairly safe to say that not one detainee in Guantanamo is there because of an expression of opinion. (And those whose "opinion" is that all infidels must die are not exactly prisoners of conscience.) Morally neutral on this point, apparently, Amnesty nonetheless finds its voice by describing the prison itself as "the gulag of our times." No need to waste words here: Not everyone in the gulag was a "prisoner of conscience," either. But if an organization that ostensibly protects the rights of prisoners is unaware of the nature of a colossal system of forced labor and arbitrary detention—replete with physical torture, starvation, and brutal execution—then the moral compass has become disordered beyond repair. This is not even neutrality between the fireman and the fire. It surely expresses a covert sympathy with the aims and objectives of jihad and an overt, if witless and sinister, hatred of the United States. If only this were the only symptom of that tendency.

Posted by: Rusty at 11:45 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 364 words, total size 2 kb.