PDA

View Full Version : Urgent! TV program that needs to be seen by ALL!



Scott Lee
05-04-2005, 09:18 AM
Whether you are Republican, Democrat, Independent, religious Right, Left, or moderate...you need to watch this program, coming up as a rebroadcast THIS weekend, on C-Span2. I watched the original airing last Saturday, and it was eye-opening, to say the least!

David Ray Griffin is a tremendously well-respected theologian, who is Chairman of Theology at Claremont College, in the Los Angeles area. His research has been documented over and over...yet the mainstream media is being "told" to ignore him. If you think the American press is not controlled by the current White House, you need to wise up, and read some of the newspapers and magazines being published in other parts of the world.
Europeon newspapers consistently publish stories on what's happening in the Middle East, concerning U.S. occupation and politics. If this man's research is understood by even 10-20% of this country, it may start another grassroots revolution, similar to what happened with Nixon and Watergate!...only this is 1000x worse than Nixon's lies and deceit of the American public!

NO MATTER WHAT YOUR POLITICAL OR RELIGIOUS PERSUASION, WATCH THIS PROGRAM, AND DECIDE FOR YOURSELF!



Quote: C-Span has decided to air David Ray Griffin's Madison, Wisconsin lecture again, this Saturday, may 7th, at 2:30PM EST (11:30AM West Coast). Here is the announcement directly from C-span's website.

http://www.booktv.org/General/index.asp?segID=5677&schedID=362

This re-airing of the show at a more accessible time slot by a major cable network may indicate the tide is turning for 9/11 truth. It is certainly an unexpected, positive development. Appreciation goes out all those who
contacted C-span to thank them for their original airing.

Also, if you didn't get a chance to see it the first time around, and you can't wait until Saturday, you can watch it here online (WMV video):

http://www.911blogger.com/2005/04/proper-release-of-griffin-in-madison.html

Or listen to the audio here (mp3):
http://www.septembereleventh.org/documents/drg_cspan.mp3



Scott Lee

Qtec
05-04-2005, 10:28 AM
The REAL GW.

[ QUOTE ]


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

May 3, 2005
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Day 113 of the President's Silence
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

Finally, finally, finally, President Bush is showing a little muscle on the issue of genocide in Darfur.

Is the muscle being used to stop the genocide of hundreds of thousands of villagers? No, tragically, it's to stop Congress from taking action.

Incredibly, the Bush administration is fighting to kill the Darfur Accountability Act, which would be the most forceful step the U.S. has taken so far against the genocide. The bill, passed by the Senate, calls for such steps as freezing assets of the genocide's leaders and imposing an internationally backed no-fly zone to stop Sudan's Army from strafing villages.

The White House was roused from its stupor of indifference on Darfur to send a letter, a copy of which I have in my hand, to Congressional leaders, instructing them to delete provisions about Darfur from the legislation.

Mr. Bush might reflect on a saying of President Kennedy: <font color="red"> "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in a period of moral crisis maintain their neutrality." </font color>

Aside from the effort to block Congressional action, there are other signs that the administration is trying to backtrack on Darfur. The first sign came when Condoleezza Rice gave an interview to The Washington Post in which she deflected questions about Darfur and low-balled the number of African Union troops needed there.

Then, in Sudan, Deputy Secretary of State Robert Zoellick pointedly refused to repeat the administration's past judgment that the killings amount to genocide. Mr. Zoellick also cited an absurdly low estimate of Darfur's total death toll: 60,000 to 160,000. Every other serious estimate is many times as high. The latest, from the Coalition for International Justice, is nearly 400,000, and rising by 500 a day.

This is not a partisan issue, for Republicans and the Christian right led the way in blowing the whistle on the slaughter in Darfur. As a result, long before Democrats had staggered to their feet on the issue, Mr. Bush was telephoning Sudan's leader and pressing for a cease-fire there.

Later, Mr. Bush forthrightly called the slaughter genocide, and he has continued to back the crucial step of a larger African Union force to provide security. Just the baby steps Mr. Bush has taken have probably saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

So why is Mr. Bush so reluctant to do a bit more and save perhaps several hundred thousand more lives? I sense that there are three reasons.

First, Mr. Bush doesn't see any neat solution, and he's mindful that his father went into Somalia for humanitarian reasons and ended up with a mess.

Second, Mr. Bush is very proud - justly - that he helped secure peace in a separate war between northern and southern Sudan. That peace is very fragile, and he is concerned that pressuring Sudan on Darfur might disrupt that peace while doing little more than emboldening the Darfur rebels (some of them cutthroats who aren't negotiating seriously).

Third, Sudan's leaders have increased their cooperation with the C.I.A. As The Los Angeles Times reported, the C.I.A. recently flew Sudan's intelligence chief to Washington for consultations about the war on terror, and the White House doesn't want to jeopardize that channel.

All three concerns are legitimate. But when historians look back on his presidency, they are going to focus on Mr. Bush's fiddling as hundreds of thousands of people were killed, raped or mutilated in Darfur - and if the situation worsens, the final toll could reach a million dead.

This Thursday marks Holocaust Remembrance Day. The best memorial would be for more Americans to protest about this administration's showing the same lack of interest in Darfur that F.D.R. showed toward the genocide of Jews. Ultimately, public pressure may force Mr. Bush to respond to Darfur, but it looks as if he will have to be dragged kicking and screaming by Republicans and Democrats alike.

Granted, Darfur defies easy solutions. But Mr. Bush was outspoken and active this spring in another complex case, that of Terry Schiavo. If only Mr. Bush would exert himself as much to try to save the lives of the two million people driven from their homes in Darfur.

So I'm going to start tracking Mr. Bush's lassitude. The last time Mr. Bush let the word Darfur slip past his lips publicly (to offer a passing compliment to U.S. aid workers, rather than to denounce the killings) was Jan. 10. So today marks Day 113 of Mr. Bush's silence about the genocide unfolding on his watch.


E-mail: nicholas@nytimes.com



Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | RSS | Help | Back to Top
<hr /></blockquote>

I dont know how you can concede that Genocide is happening to a certain group of people and then side with the ones who are doing the killing.

Remember the Pakistani guy who sold nuclear secrets/parts to Libyia and Iran. This guy should be in jail. It happens the guy had a whole network set up to proliferate nuclear technology, but do you know that he has never been questioned by anyone from outside Pakistan! Pakistan now can now 'thum its nose' at the US and there isnt a thing they/you can do about it.

This is what happens when you comprimise your principals.

Q

Gayle in MD
05-04-2005, 11:01 AM
Thank you so much for posting this news. I missed this the first time it was aired, but many people told me about it. I want to record it on the same tape with "The Truth About The War In Iraq" and "Bushes Brain"

Plenty of truth out there when you're willing to search for it!

Thanks again, I would hate to have missed it twice.

Love,
Gayle

Gayle in MD
05-04-2005, 11:02 AM
This is tragic. It doesn't surprise me though. Thanks for the post.

Gayle in Md.

Fran Crimi
05-04-2005, 11:39 AM
"This is what happens when you comprimise your principals.

Q"

I think maybe this is what happens when you read too many articles in the NY Times. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

The media propaganda machine is up and running in full force. The republicans did it when we had a democratic administration, and the dems are doing it now to the repubs.


Here are the facts I deciphered from that article:

1.)The Senate passed a bill called the Darfur Accountability Act.

2.)The author didn't state that he actually read the bill.

3.)A letter was sent by the White House with instructions to delete provisions.

4.) The author claims to have this letter but does not state which provisions are in question. How many? One? Two? Ten? How significant are they? We don't know if there was also a request that provisions be added.

5.) The author did not state that the bill was vetoed by the White House.

So here we have a Bill passed by the Senate, it goes to the White House, and the White House responds with changes. Nothing extraordinary going on here.

Yet, the author is very concerned about how the historians will look back on our President for letting all those people die.

Melodrama at it's best. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Fran

Voodoo Daddy
05-04-2005, 11:48 AM
C-SPAN...ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

highsea
05-04-2005, 11:51 AM
To my knowledge, the US is the only country that has come out and called the situation in Sudan genocide. The UN will not step in, and will not label it genocide, because that will trigger automatic peacekeeping operations. Since no EU states want to step up to the task, and certainly not Russia and China, the US has gone it alone on the Sudan issue. We tried to convince the SC to take action, but we were overruled.

Since we will not receive any UN support, and no NATO support, if Bush wants to try to work on the problem through back channels, I don't really see what alternative he has. At least he is trying to do something, which is more than you can say for the UN and the EU.

France doesn't want the US involved in Africa, that is traditionally an area of French influence. The only SC support we would get would be from the UK, and any unilateral action by the US would be criticized as US hegemony.

The AU can't go it alone, they don't have the forces or political support. Until the EU steps up to the plate, the crisis in Darfur will continue.

Scott Lee
05-04-2005, 12:28 PM
Steve...this is not your typical C-Span b.s. It's a Book Review lecture by a well-respected college professor, and strong theologian, with some startling evidence on recent events in our country. You should watch this, just for your own information and education. Remember, people initially pooh-poohed Watergate too...until there was so much proof that the people were forced to believe it.

I watched this program last weekend. I don't know if this man's evidence is true or not...but I believe in his right, as an American, to have it investigated, which nobody in any gov't or judicial position has offered to do...yet.

All I am saying, is watch it, and make up your own mind!

Scott /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Wally_in_Cincy
05-04-2005, 12:30 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote highsea:</font><hr>

...if Bush wants to try to work on the problem through back channels, I don't really see what alternative he has. ...<hr /></blockquote>

The alternative is another Somalia, and I don't think anyone wants that.

Thanks for writing what I was thinking, more or less /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Voodoo Daddy
05-04-2005, 01:59 PM
Scott, your ok in my book and you know it too. In my life I have enough bordem without C-SPAN, maybe I'm not that into whatever it is their saying or maybe I got too much happening to watch anything other than the Playoffs or Deadwood. Sorry brotha, not my cup of tea!!

Scott Lee
05-04-2005, 04:26 PM
Steve...Yeah, I know what you mean! I prefer outstanding entertainment like Deadwood on HBO too! I wish this was fantasy...but it sure doesn't appear to be. Here's a thought for you. Tape the program, but don't watch it (I understand your feelings). Give the tape to one of your close friends (someone who's opinion you respect), and ask them to watch it, and see if it's a bunch of baloney. It's only an hour... /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Scott

Sid_Vicious
05-04-2005, 04:55 PM
Thanks Scott. What really gets me is how quickly Bushites go for the sand with their heads to bury, when all you asked, in sincerity and human compassion, was to please give the issue a small bit of your open-mindness and watch the deal. It makes me sad. Some of the horrible slaughter details are so appauling, pregnant women's breasts being whacked off to prevent proliferation by not feeding that unborn...well, it should make Americans of compassion and caring sense to at least listen to the possible truth, and then make a decision. To jump up and start defending this admin with blinders on is sickening!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!SID VICIOUS, human being of the planet earth

highsea
05-04-2005, 06:32 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>I dont know how you can concede that Genocide is happening to a certain group of people and then side with the ones who are doing the killing.<hr /></blockquote>
Better to just pretend it's not happening, huh?
[ QUOTE ]
April 21, 2005 9:20 PM

U.S. at Odds with France on NATO Role in Darfur

By Mark John

VILNIUS (Reuters) - The United States urged NATO Thursday to respond quickly to any request for help in the Darfur conflict, but France insisted the alliance could not be the "gendarme of the world."

Despite NATO hints it would be ready to help a 2,000-strong African Union mission struggling to monitor a shaky cease-fire in the region, the AU has so far not made any request for support.

But Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who raised the conflict at wide-ranging NATO talks in Lithuania, said it should be ready to offer help with logistics and planning if asked.

"If there is a request, I would hope NATO would activate quickly ... We all have a responsibility to do what we can to alleviate the suffering in Darfur," she said.

However French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier disagreed that there was a role for NATO in Darfur and stressed that Africans should retain the lead in peace efforts.

"NATO does not have a calling to be the gendarme of the world," he told a news conference at the same meeting.

The AU troops are not mandated as peacekeepers and have limited powers to protect civilians in Darfur, a region the size of France in western Sudan. Survivors of militia attacks have demanded that peacekeepers be sent into the war-torn region.

Tens of thousands have been killed and more than 2 million uprooted by two years of fighting between non-Arab rebels and the Arab-dominated government. Khartoum denies accusations it is backing militias known as Janjaweed.

FRENCH INFLUENCE

French officials see the European Union as better suited to helping in the region than NATO. The alliance's involvement would mean a further U.S. presence on a continent where former colonial power France is keen to retain strategic influence.

NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, who has also mooted a role for the alliance in Darfur, stressed the aim was "not to have NATO boots on the ground" but to offer support.

"NATO has the most sophisticated planning machinery in the world," he told reporters.

The disagreement on Darfur came at NATO talks where France also rejected a U.S.-backed initiative to turn the alliance into a transatlantic forum for debate on broad strategic issues.

Washington backs proposals by de Hoop Scheffer to broaden the 26-member alliance's remit, seeing it as a way for its voice to be heard in European policy-making.

Rice Wednesday described NATO as "the premier forum" for transatlantic political dialogue and said NATO allies should be able to use it to discuss any issue affecting them.

"We want to use NATO more, and more efficiently," she said.

But Barnier said key issues such as Iran's nuclear program were better dealt with elsewhere and stressed that the EU insisted on full autonomy over its own policy decisions.

"NATO is first and foremost a military organization," Barnier said, adding that other bodies such as the United Nations were better suited to dealing with issues like the nuclear programs of North Korea or Iran.


Reuters

http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=143&amp;sid=5708773&amp;cKey=11141 11222000
<hr /></blockquote>It's not just Sudan, Q. The entire continent is burning. This is a consequence of European colonialism in the 1800's and 1900's. Both British and French. And when they left, they partitioned the colonies so that they would fight each other instead of their former masters. There are 360,000 people dying each year in DR Congo alone. When the UN finally buckled under US pressure and sent in peacekeepers, what happens? They have to be withdrawn, because they couldn't keep their pants on- literally. There's something about a peacekeeping force that pays to have sex with the little girls of the people they are tasked with protecting- you know? That's a problem.

Somalia
Sudan
Zaire
Uganda
Rwanda
Cote'd Ivoire
Ethopia and Eritrea (Where Russia is selling advanced weapons to both sides of the conflict)
Angola
Sierra Leonne
Burundi
Congo
Zambia

This is the legacy of European colonialism in Africa. Tell me, Q, when will we hear you advocate that the EU step up and take some responsibility, instead of just blaming everything on Bush?

I won't hold my breath. You obviously prefer to sit here and lecture us on compromising our principles. At least we have principles.

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr>Remember the Pakistani guy who sold nuclear secrets/parts to Libyia and Iran. This guy should be in jail. It happens the guy had a whole network set up to proliferate nuclear technology, but do you know that he has never been questioned by anyone from outside Pakistan! Pakistan now can now 'thum its nose' at the US and there isnt a thing they/you can do about it.<hr /></blockquote>A.Q.Khan got the nuke technology from your country, Q. Pakistan has refused access to him by the IAEA, because he is seen as a National Hero in Pakistan, and it would be political suicide for Musharraf. The "Father of the Islamic Bomb". I find it ironic that you guys gave him the technology, and now you blame the US for not stopping it? How many scientists from your country went to jail over it? After all, you were the source.

Regardless, the US has been given quiet access to A.Q. Khan, and Musharraf has committed to helping us uncover the extent of the network. Of course, any action we take to mitigate the damage will come under immediate attack from our European "friends", but we understand that, don't we? After all, we're the big bad USA, and everybody knows we are out to rule the world.

Fran Crimi
05-05-2005, 09:58 AM
Voodoo, IMO, you didn't miss much from what I saw. I watched the first 32 minutes of it on broadband. He spent the first 6 and a half minutes defining the word "empire." Next, he layed out 4 possibilities of why 9-11 could have happened: 1) We had no idea, 2)We had an idea but couldn't put the pieces together in time, 3)We knew the exact date and time and didn't do anything about it, 4)We helped orchestrate the whole thing.

His "evidence", he said, which, btw, I wish I was there to debate him, pointed toward the "truth" lying somewhere between numbers 3 and 4.

I think I had enough when he proported that it wasn't a commercial airliner that crashed into the Pentagon, but a military aircraft. Okie dokie. Tell that to the relatives of the dead passengers.

Fran

Deeman2
05-05-2005, 10:03 AM
Tap! Tap! Tap!

Deeman

Fran Crimi
05-05-2005, 10:07 AM
Oh, I left out one of the best parts. He said that the WTC couldn't have collapsed like that on it's own because no skyscraper ever collapsed like that. He claims there were bombs strategically placed throughout the building to help take it down, possibly by the U.S.

He totally disregarded the issue of thousands of tons of jet fuel and the unique construction design of the Twin Towers.

Okie dokie again. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Fran

Barbara
05-05-2005, 10:36 AM
Well Fran, I think you just saved me some DVR setup.

Barbara

Scott Lee
05-05-2005, 10:43 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> Oh, I left out one of the best parts. He said that the WTC couldn't have collapsed like that on it's own because no skyscraper ever collapsed like that. He claims there were bombs strategically placed throughout the building to help take it down, possibly by the U.S.

He totally disregarded the issue of thousands of tons of jet fuel and the unique construction design of the Twin Towers.

Okie dokie again. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Fran <hr /></blockquote>

Fran...I was unaware that you were an accredited structural engineer! I guess all the REAL experts, in the U.S., and around the world, apparently don't know what they're talking about. According to acknowledged experts in the field, Jet fuel, no matter how much of it you have, does not burn at a high enough temperature, for long enough, to melt steel beams. The other "detail" conveniently left out of the government's 'official' report, is the public knowledge of the steel support core, in the center of each tower, which provided the structural integrity of the whole thing, making it physically impossible for the building to collapse as it did (pancake style collapse)...let alone at freefall speed. Here's one more interesting detail left out...There is video footage of live people in the openings of the WTC Towers, AFTER the fires were already nearly out (NYFD firefighters have acknowledged that the fires were nearly out, by the time they reached the high floors, after the initial impacts). If the fires burned so intently that they "melted" the structural steel, then how is it possible that people survived that fireball? Heck, you die if you're exposed to even temperatures of 150 degrees...let alone the 500-1000 degree temperatures that the official report lists. BTW, steel will not melt at that temperature.

I hope to God that this man is wrong, but I fear otherwise.
30 years ago, the general population would NOT believe that our President &amp; gov't cohorts could POSSIBLY be connected with the activities they were all eventually convicted of.
Remember, they denied involvement right up to the end...including Nixon.

Ever heard of the Council of Foreign Relations, Fran? The CFR is a 'secret' organization with members made up of the world's elite financial, corporate, and government leaders (you would be amazed at all the dozens of recognizable names, as members of this 'club'...among them Dan Rather, Walter Cronkite, Alan Greenspan, and many, many others...and of course several generations of Bushes.

Their published mission statement declares their intent to create a "new world order", with American domination ruling the world. I am not making this up. That statement was made in the 1940's, and GW's dad reinforced it publicly 15 years ago. The CFR has been in force since the 30's, when Prescott Bush (GW's grandad) and his son, George H.W. Bush, worked together with the Dulles brothers (private Wall Street lawyers, who later became Sec. of State &amp; Director of the CIA), along with Fritz Tiesch (sp.?), who was Hitler's major financier, to create a money-laundering scheme to fund Hitler's rise to power. History records, that when the Union Bank was seized as a Nazi front, that all the shareholders assets were frozen. Later, Prescott Bush was given $1.5 million for his shares in the bank. This is the origin of the Bush fortune.

Any of this information is available to anyone who wants to read it. It is published fact (located in the National Archives), that nobody disputes...they just don't bring it up. If you want to know more, here's a valuable website:
www.thementalmilitia.org (http://www.thementalmilitia.org)

Scott Lee

eg8r
05-05-2005, 10:45 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I think I had enough when he proported that it wasn't a commercial airliner that crashed into the Pentagon, but a military aircraft. Okie dokie. Tell that to the relatives of the dead passengers.
<hr /></blockquote>
Ok, and this is the type of crap the left on the board wants us to watch. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif What is urgent about this crap, the same lies have been on the internet for a couple years.

If the guy screws this part up, why would anyone continue to believe face-value the rest of what is said?

eg8r &lt;~~~has not seen the show and is responding based on Fran's recollection

Scott Lee
05-05-2005, 11:10 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote eg8r:</font><hr> Ok, and this is the type of crap the left on the board wants us to watch. /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif What is urgent about this crap, the same lies have been on the internet for a couple years.

If the guy screws this part up, why would anyone continue to believe face-value the rest of what is said?

eg8r &lt;~~~has not seen the show and is responding based on Fran's recollection <hr /></blockquote>

Ed...I am NOT left, right, or middle...I'm not even political. However, I do love what this country stands for, which is freedom and democracy. This man (David Ray Griffin) has a perfect right to say anything he wants, even in print. We, as American citizens, have the right to investigate his claims, and substanciate or disprove them.
They are certainly radical ideas, whose content goes against the basic tenets of our constitution.

You asked me for proof about the 'new draft', and I gave it to you. If you want further proof, in the form of House and Senate bill numbers, I can provide those to you. A person would have to be totally blind intellectually, to not see that strange things are happening within our country, as well as other places that our government wants to control, for one reason or another. This is not about party politics...these things have been put in motion decades ago, and it doesn't matter who, or what party has been in power...this process has been maintained secretly, and built upon, so that now it is nearly impenetrable.
The FOIA, and the Internet have been the reasons that much of this has come to light, in recent years.

All I have asked, is for ANYONE who cares about this country, to be open-minded enough to HEAR or SEE both sides of the issue, and make up your own minds. We get the gov't view on a daily basis. The opposing view has been stanchly suppressed, until they forced the issue, according to constitutional law. That's why this was on C-Span last week, and will be repeated again on Saturday...because of public demand! To just 'brush off' the opposing view, without any substantive reasoning (other than, "Oh those Democrats...what a bunch of idiots!"), seems self-serving.
Ignorance is bliss, to some. Scares the hell out of me, though.

Scott

Deeman2
05-05-2005, 11:10 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Scott Lee:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> Oh, I left out one of the best parts. He said that the WTC couldn't have collapsed like that on it's own because no skyscraper ever collapsed like that. He claims there were bombs strategically placed throughout the building to help take it down, possibly by the U.S.

He totally disregarded the issue of thousands of tons of jet fuel and the unique construction design of the Twin Towers.

Okie dokie again. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Fran <hr /></blockquote>

Fran...I was unaware that you were an accredited structural engineer! I guess all the REAL experts, in the U.S., and around the world, apparently don't know what they're talking about. According to acknowledged experts in the field, Jet fuel, no matter how much of it you have, does not burn at a high enough temperature, for long enough, to melt steel beams. The other "detail" conveniently left out of the government's 'official' report, is the public knowledge of the steel support core, in the center of each tower, which provided the structural integrity of the whole thing, making it physically impossible for the building to collapse as it did (pancake style collapse)...let alone at freefall speed. Here's one more interesting detail left out...There is video footage of live people in the openings of the WTC Towers, AFTER the fires were already nearly out (NYFD firefighters have acknowledged that the fires were nearly out, by the time they reached the high floors, after the initial impacts). If the fires burned so intently that they "melted" the structural steel, then how is it possible that people survived that fireball? Heck, you die if you're exposed to even temperatures of 150 degrees...let alone the 500-1000 degree temperatures that the official report lists. BTW, steel will not melt at that temperature. <font color="blue"> Scott, I am a mechanical engineer, not a structural engineer. However, we use the same science. While steel, in fact, does not "melt" at those temperatures, that's the heat level needed to weaken or bend steel. More importantly, the coatings that protected the steel beams and trusses were stripped of their coating by the impact (later, the brittleness of the spray on heat shield was found to be a contributing factor). Another point, no, people don't survive temperatures above 130 degree F. if directly exposed. However, fire does not burn a 150 degrees F. We saw flames. If these flames had all been at 150 degrees the building would not have failed. Buildings are designed to withstand loads several times their expected weight bearing experience. i.e.. winds, earthquakes, etc. A 250 ft. long missile at more than 400 mph does considerable physical damage to the structure, even not considering the fire. However, the fire did cause the building to collapse, in my opinion. If what you say is true, thousands of structural engineers would be writing books on this failure. </font color>

I hope to God that this man is wrong, but I fear otherwise.
30 years ago, the general population would NOT believe that our President &amp; gov't cohorts could POSSIBLY be connected with the activities they were all eventually convicted of.
Remember, they denied involvement right up to the end...including Nixon.

Ever heard of the Council of Foreign Relations, Fran? The CFR is a 'secret' organization with members made up of the world's elite financial, corporate, and government leaders (you would be amazed at all the dozens of recognizable names, as members of this 'club'...among them Dan Rather, Walter Cronkite, Alan Greenspan, and many, many others...and of course several generations of Bushes. <font color="blue"> Are you saying that two of the most left wing journalists in our history are in a conspiracy with the Bushes? </font color>

Their published mission statement declares their intent to create a "new world order", with American domination ruling the world. I am not making this up. That statement was made in the 1940's, and GW's dad reinforced it publicly 15 years ago. The CFR has been in force since the 30's, when Prescott Bush (GW's grandad) and his son, George H.W. Bush, worked together with the Dulles brothers (private Wall Street lawyers, who later became Sec. of State &amp; Director of the CIA), along with Fritz Tiesch (sp.?), who was Hitler's major financier, to create a money-laundering scheme to fund Hitler's rise to power. History records, that when the Union Bank was seized as a Nazi front, that all the shareholders assets were frozen. Later, Prescott Bush was given $1.5 million for his shares in the bank. This is the origin of the Bush fortune.

Any of this information is available to anyone who wants to read it. It is published fact (located in the National Archives), that nobody disputes...they just don't bring it up. If you want to know more, here's a valuable website:
www.thementalmilitia.org (http://www.thementalmilitia.org)

Scott Lee <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> Scott, this is way out there. If this guy is right, I would help drag GWB out of office along with every other politician, left or right who is involved (Clinton?). I just don't see anyone giving real evidence, just theories. I would love to believe in UFO's but I'd kinda like to see a piece of a real one before I say a light I saw in the sky is little green men.</font color>

Deeman
I respect you Scott and will watch the show

Scott Lee
05-05-2005, 11:25 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman2:</font><hr> I respect you Scott and will watch the show <hr /></blockquote>

Dee...Thank you, my friend! That is ALL I am asking anyone to do. The man makes very specific claims, and provides the documentation to look it up. Everything he said on tv, there is apparently information available in the National Archives, and through the FOIA, to substanciate what he put in his books. Like you said, if ANY of it is true, we the people should rise up and revolt. If it is baloney, then I'd agree with you. The jury is still out on this one... /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Scott ~ wants to believe in UFO's too, but ALSO would like the proof in seeing one myself!

Voodoo Daddy
05-05-2005, 11:26 AM
Tossin Dee a brew of choice for takin the Engineers degree outta mothballs in defense of a good argument!!!

Deeman2
05-05-2005, 01:00 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Voodoo Daddy:</font><hr> Tossin Dee a brew of choice for takin the Engineers degree outta mothballs in defense of a good argument!!! <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="blue"> My friend, I'll take you up on the brew and a game of one pocket if we ever get together... </font color>

Deeman
Longview, TX. thinks one pocket is a type of t-shirt....

SPetty
05-05-2005, 01:44 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman2:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Voodoo Daddy:</font><hr> Tossin Dee a brew of choice for takin the Engineers degree outta mothballs in defense of a good argument!!! <hr /></blockquote><font color="blue"> My friend, I'll take you up on the brew and a game of one pocket if we ever get together... </font color><hr /></blockquote>Deeman, see if you can talk him into making it to the chili cookoff. I hear he makes a mean bowl of Miami Multi-Cultural Half Dixie/Half Caribbean Chili that's to die for!

eg8r
05-05-2005, 01:49 PM
[ QUOTE ]
You asked me for proof about the 'new draft', and I gave it to you. If you want further proof, in the form of House and Senate bill numbers, I can provide those to you. <hr /></blockquote> More than once I have asked for the bill number and the person behind it. I am looking to see if you accusation is true about the current administration. You have not offered that up at all.

eg8r

Fran Crimi
05-05-2005, 01:50 PM
Deeman,

I saw a documentary about the construction of the towers, and one of the things that was said that made them so unique was that the floors were suspension floors, something never before used in skyscrapers. Each floor was held up by steel hinges at the four corners of the building.

When the planes struck the buildings, some hinges were completely destroyed making the floors vulnerable. As the fuel burned and the steel started to bend, the remaining hinges started to bend and give way to the weight of the floors. The hinges literally opened up and the first of the floors fell through. The floor below it had also been compromised and the weight of the other floor on top of it opened up those hinges and so-on.

Fran

Candyman
05-05-2005, 05:07 PM
Gee Scott! I thought you were going to tell us about a FL and dog sighting on Sci-Fi Channel last night. This is true. He did his 2 table deal (taped of course). /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Fran Crimi
05-05-2005, 09:13 PM
Yeah, Scott, I do know about the CFR. They're out there, front and center. Donna Shalela, Clinton's cabinet member, was the Clinton administration's representative in that group. I also know about Skull and Bones, the Bilderbergs, which BTW, John Edwards gave a well-received speech at the annual Bilderberg gathering just before he became Kerry's Vice Presidential nominee. These groups cross all party lines.

I'm also familliar with Helena Blavatsky who founded the Theosophists. She coined the term "New World Order." If you read the stuff written by this group your hair will stand on end. They're satan worshipers.

I've been studying this stuff for 20 years and if you try to figure it all out, you'll go insane. I take it in small doses.

One thing I know for sure, whatever these groups are trying to accomplish, Henry Kissinger is smack dab in the middle of it. His name pops up everywhere.

But conspiracy theorists will blame these groups anytime anything happens that they can't figure out.

I also know there's a crazy man out there named OBL and he's got a bunch of misguided angry henchmen willing to do his dirty work.

Fran

Chopstick
05-06-2005, 04:18 AM
OK, eg. Here ya go.

"The draft issue has largely come to public attention due to pair of bills introduced in Congress (S.89 and H.R.163) which seek to obligate all citizens and residents of the U.S. between the ages of 18 and 26 (both male and female) to perform a two-year period of national service (not necessarily as part of the military), and the Selective Service's advertising for volunteers to man draft boards around the country. However, both these bills were introduced not by legislators genuinely seeking to reinstate the draft but by <font color="red">Democrats seeking to make an anti-war statement,</font color> and they languished in committee for 21 months before Republicans brought the House version to the floor and overwhelmingly defeated it in October 2004."

S.89 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:s.89:)
HR163 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:h.r.163:)

This issue has since become an urban legend. There is no current bill to reinstate the draft. If anyone would like to check it here's the link. Congressional Bills (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/bills/)

Here's the article on the urban legend.
Draft Urban Legend (http://www.snopes.com/politics/military/draft.asp)

Gayle in MD
05-06-2005, 05:06 AM
Hey Scott,
Just have to say a good word about C-SPAN. It is the best way to know what's going on with our Government. Someone here called it a National Treasure, and I agree. Everything of importance that happens on the Senate floor, including all investigations by various committees, it's all right there, LIVE.

There's really no BS aired on C-Span. Authors of important works, and also many forum type gatherings which highlight the issues of the day are also included in their programing. Anyone who is really interested in knowing the truth about who did what, and how our government is really operating, should definately seek out C-Span.

Just a little plug for the best thing going in the form of accurate information! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Gayle in Md.

Qtec
05-06-2005, 05:37 AM
Are you trying to tell me I cant believe everything I read in the NYT? /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

I,m apalled. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Q

Qtec
05-06-2005, 05:39 AM
I totally agree.

Qtec

Deeman2
05-06-2005, 06:06 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> Deeman,

I saw a documentary about the construction of the towers, and one of the things that was said that made them so unique was that the floors were suspension floors, something never before used in skyscrapers. Each floor was held up by steel hinges at the four corners of the building.

When the planes struck the buildings, some hinges were completely destroyed making the floors vulnerable. As the fuel burned and the steel started to bend, the remaining hinges started to bend and give way to the weight of the floors. The hinges literally opened up and the first of the floors fell through. The floor below it had also been compromised and the weight of the other floor on top of it opened up those hinges and so-on. <font color="blue"> and they say you are not a structural engineer!!! Yes, Fran, you are right on target. The corner supported new pancake design was new and once the corners were compromised, the heating of the metal assured the structure would fail. Once a floor fell to another floor, it was just like dominoes falling. </font color>

Deeman

Fran <hr /></blockquote>

Qtec
05-06-2005, 06:19 AM
You forgot to include Zimbawe, where its a case of "vote for us ,or starve".

If the UN called it genocide, they would have to have acted. Thats why they didnt. The fact is, GW did and now you seem to suggest that its not a moral problem anymore but a UN one. GW went into iraq without UN aproval, so whats stopping him now from sending in some troops to just defend the people who are living in huge camps at the mercy of their enemy.
He calls himself pro-life but he is very selective. For once I actually thought he was going to do something positive. Silly me.

Principals;
Pakistan is a dictatorship. M is head of State and the Armed Forces. Pakistan has developed Nukes.
GW is against Nuclear Proliferation and for Democracy but enters into a patnership with a dictator because of the WoT. Pakistan sells info to 'rouge states' about how to build your own bomb and still we are friends.

You see the contradictions. Which principals is he keeping to?


When was the last time you heard GW criticise[sp] Pakistan?



Qtec

nobody is perfect but if you are gonna 'woof'' and then you back down.........? I bet nobody ever told GW to say the word genocide. It was probably a slip of the tounge. Hope i,m wrong

eg8r
05-06-2005, 06:58 AM
[ QUOTE ]
"The draft issue has largely come to public attention due to pair of bills introduced in Congress (S.89 and H.R.163) which seek to obligate all citizens and residents of the U.S. between the ages of 18 and 26 (both male and female) to perform a two-year period of national service (not necessarily as part of the military), and the Selective Service's advertising for volunteers to man draft boards around the country. However, both these bills were introduced not by legislators genuinely seeking to reinstate the draft but by Democrats seeking to make an anti-war statement, and they languished in committee for 21 months before Republicans brought the House version to the floor and overwhelmingly defeated it in October 2004."

S.89
HR163
<hr /></blockquote> Scott, I have not heard back from you, are these the bills you were referring to?

eg8r

eg8r
05-06-2005, 07:04 AM
[ QUOTE ]
GW went into iraq without UN aproval, so whats stopping him now from sending in some troops to just defend the people who are living in huge camps at the mercy of their enemy.
<hr /></blockquote> Sorry Q but you can't have it both ways. You chastised Bush for going into Iraq without UN, and now you are asking for it.

One thing you can thank John Kerry for, the word hypocrite is no longer needed. We can just use flip flop. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif I guess that is more politically correct. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

eg8r &lt;~~~waiting for Q to give some reasoning for his flip flop

Eric.
05-06-2005, 07:04 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Scott Lee:</font><hr>
Fran...I was unaware that you were an accredited structural engineer! I guess all the REAL experts, in the U.S., and around the world, apparently don't know what they're talking about. Scott Lee <hr /></blockquote>

Geez Scott, seems like a shitty comment to make. I'm not defending Fran here, but I do think she had a valid view point.

Now, I'm no "accredited engineer" either, but chew on this; Steel doesn't have to melt to become malleable. Have you ever worked on steel with an acetylene torch? You heat the steel til it glows reddish, then it bends very easily. It doesn't have to melt. Now, here's another thought; what if the heat from the burning jet fuel, fanned by the constant winds that blow, caused the steel structur to heat up and become soft. Remember, the steel fascade was cut thru by the plane, and the fascade was part of the buildings support and added rigidity to the tower. Add in the HUGE counterbalancers . These counterbalancers are in the top of the building and counter act the constant swaying of the building. I had a chance to see the one in tower 2 when I worked for Morgan Stanley Dean Witter and it is about the size of a small house. I dunno how many tons it weighed. 10? 12 tons?
It might be possible that if the steel was softened by the heat of the jet fuel, the counter balncers had enough weight to twist the tower and make it come down like a house of cards.

This isn't gospel (and neither is some report by the media on TV), just food for thought.


Eric

Barbara
05-06-2005, 07:11 AM
Whatever happened to the "Gnomes of Zurich" - the NSA? What did they morph into?

Barbara

Qtec
05-06-2005, 07:21 AM
No , you are the one who is flip-flopping. You say the UN cant and wont do jack s**t and then you use the UN as an excuse for not doing anything.

You cant have it both ways! /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Qtec

Qtec

Fran Crimi
05-06-2005, 07:39 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Qtec:</font><hr> Are you trying to tell me I cant believe everything I read in the NYT? /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

I,m apalled. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Q <hr /></blockquote>


As if you didn't know....you fire fueler, you.... /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Fran Crimi
05-06-2005, 09:08 AM
Oh, and here's something else to make the hairs on the back of your neck stand up. The Theosophist's publications are published by a company called Lucius Press, formerly known as Lucifer Press. I guess the name got too hot and they decided to change it. The address of Lucius Press was formerly at the United Nations Plaza in NYC.

Fran

Scott Lee
05-06-2005, 09:38 AM
Lock...Interesting that you mention FL! LOL He was supposed to stop in Bozeman and visit...and possibly shoot some. Don't you know he actually SHOWED UP, on Monday, but didn't even bother to call, after emailing me 3 times for my phone number! LMAO...I guess he didn't like me poking fun with the comments about the 11 rail bank and the 16 kinds of draw! FL DID, however, manage to stop in to our university poolroom, to tout his "skills" and try for a booking. Interestingly, with NO provocation from me, the kids there he talked to were NOT impressed! Go figure! LOL
I thought it curious that he made NO mention of Wonder Dog, but gave them a copy of his tape, and proceeded to brag about being on Ripley's, in the Guiness Book, and seen by 2 BILLION people worldwide!

Well, heck Larry...I guess this was your 'chance' to 'bury the hatchet', that you have talked about and emailed me about for the past 3 yrs., was not "real" either, huh? /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Scott

Qtec
05-06-2005, 09:39 AM
[ QUOTE ]
formerly known as Lucifer Press. I guess the name got too hot <hr /></blockquote> /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

.and I thought I was the only ne here with a sense of humour! /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Z. /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

Scott Lee
05-06-2005, 09:47 AM
Ed...Yes, those are the bills. See my post on the other thread about the Army. Again...my apoligies. However, Chopstick is incorrect about S89 having disappeared. Since it never went to the Senate floor for debate or a vote, it still survives "in committee", and potentially could be revived at a moments notice. Like I said, I can only hope that NEVER happens...

Scott

Fran Crimi
05-06-2005, 09:51 AM
HAHAHAHA!

Get some sleep willya? You called yourself 'Z' instead of Q.

Fran Crimi
05-06-2005, 11:05 AM
Barbara,

I could be wrong on this but I think "Gnomes of Zurich" was something some of the Brits were calling the elite group of businessmen who supposedly controlled the World Bank and other influential world financial interests. The NSA could have been involved.

I think the group they're referring to is the Bilderbergs. The Bilderbergs are headquartered in Zurich, and meet annually in various elite locations throughout Europe.

Barbara
05-06-2005, 11:23 AM
Yeah, that could be them. I remember reading about them in Finance class in college.

A long, long time ago...

Barbara

Scott Lee
05-06-2005, 12:38 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr>
I'm also familliar with Helena Blavatsky who founded the Theosophists. She coined the term "New World Order." If you read the stuff written by this group your hair will stand on end. They're satan worshipers.

Fran
<hr /></blockquote>

Fran...I can find no mention of Helen Blavatsky 'coining' the term "New World Order", in biographies about her, or elsewhere...although she did make many commnents concerning the 'New World', meaning the (at that time) 100 yr old United States, vs. the 1000 yr old Europeon &amp; Asian societies. However, even if she did, her definition is nowhere close to George H.W. Bush, who made the comment, and used the term, many times in speeches, during his last tenure in office. The Bush definition of New World Order is a polar opposite of what HTB meant.

Quote:
The three objectives of the Theosophical Society are (1) to form a nucleus of the Universal Brotherhood of Humanity without distinction of race, creed, sex, caste, or color; (2) to encourage the study of comparative religion, philosophy, and science; (3) to investigate unexplained laws of nature and the powers latent in man.

The society's policy is one of complete freedom of individual search and belief. A.G.H. Unquote

Seems pretty different to me, than our government's expansionist policies, that reek of 'world domination' through financial, legislative, judicial, and military actions, around the world.

Oh...and as far as 'satan worship', the CFR goes just as far, as their history shows ritual sacrifices of children at their annual meetings (for the past 50 yrs. at Buffalo Grove, CA)...although they consistently have denied that ACTUAL killings took place. There is plenty of photographic evidence that supports these allegations, and nobody is likely telling the whole truth!

I do agree with you, that a person could go crazy with all of this stuff...and imo, although HTB may have been "different" than most of us, and some of her ideas controverial and frightening...they don't compare with what seems to be happening now. This is MUCH scarier, imo.

Scott

Barbara
05-06-2005, 01:00 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Scott Lee:</font><hr>
Oh...and as far as 'satan worship', the CFR goes just as far, as their history shows ritual sacrifices of children at their annual meetings (for the past 50 yrs. at Buffalo Grove, CA)...although they consistently have denied that ACTUAL killings took place. There is plenty of photographic evidence that supports these allegations, and nobody is likely telling the whole truth!

<hr /></blockquote>

As long as it's just children you're safe Scott. But if they're sacrificing virgins... well, you best stay away from that area! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Barbara~~~j/k...

Scott Lee
05-06-2005, 01:41 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Barbara:</font><hr>
As long as it's just children you're safe Scott. But if they're sacrificing virgins... well, you best stay away from that area! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Barbara~~~j/k... <hr /></blockquote>

Barbara...LOL Wait a minute! I've got a 23 yr old son! I CAN'T be a virgin. Let's see...if ya don't have sex for 6 weeks, does that count? LOL /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Scott

Fran Crimi
05-06-2005, 01:47 PM
Geez! Where do you get your information? The CFR conducting ritual sacrifices? They're a political animal, that's all.

Listen, I'm not going to put up my 20 years of research against your 10 minute internet search. I have an entire library of Blavatsky's writings. Yes, she said it, and so did her disciples, Alice Bailey and Benjamin Creme.

The Theosophical stuff is very seductive and very dangerous. If you want to research it, do it cautiously.

As for Bush senior, I think he only said the term once in a speech and I don't think he ever used the term again. My guess is that he was strongly admonished for it and warned not to say it. The interesting question is BY WHOM?

Senior stayed pretty much in line with the U.N.. Junior, on the other hand, doesn't seem to agree with his father's foreign policies. Sr. even admitted on Larry King that he doesn't agree with his son on certain issues but he respects his judgement. I think the last part of that sentence is just rhetoric.

When Jr. was elected I was concerned that he may do whatever Big Daddy told him to do. He didn't, and stood on his own two feet and stood up to the U.N. Seems like he may becoming a problem child for Big Daddy. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Fran

Kato
05-06-2005, 07:23 PM
Is CSI Special Investigations or sports on CSPAN? If not, I ain't watchin.

Kato

eg8r
05-06-2005, 08:19 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Ed...Yes, those are the bills. See my post on the other thread about the Army. Again...my apoligies. <hr /></blockquote> I will check the other thread. Why are you apologizing to me?

[ QUOTE ]
Like I said, I can only hope that NEVER happens...
<hr /></blockquote> I am right there with you. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Hey, I guess FL did not appreciate the jabs. Whodathunkit. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Maybe next time.

eg8r

eg8r
05-06-2005, 08:22 PM
All right you two. This is getting to be a little too much TMI. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

eg8r
05-06-2005, 08:28 PM
[ QUOTE ]
No , you are the one who is flip-flopping. You say the UN cant and wont do jack s**t and then you use the UN as an excuse for not doing anything. <hr /></blockquote> How is that flip flopping. They can't and will not do anything, I can still blame them for continuing in the same manner. That is not flip flopping, that is pointing out the obvious, you are too blind to see it. Your post was very hypocritcal and when I pointed it out it seemed to strike a nerve. However, so you know, highsea is probably the person whom's post you getting mixed up. Follow the thread and you will stay on track.

I still believe the UN is worthless and will continue to point it out every single time I feel fit to do so. If this sort of honest, to the point consistency bothers you, get help.

eg8r

Chopstick
05-07-2005, 08:03 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Scott Lee:</font><hr> Ed...Yes, those are the bills. See my post on the other thread about the Army. Again...my apoligies. However, Chopstick is incorrect about S89 having disappeared. Since it never went to the Senate floor for debate or a vote, it still survives "in committee", and potentially could be revived at a moments notice. Like I said, I can only hope that NEVER happens...

Scott <hr /></blockquote>

Actually I didn't say it disappeared. Since it was defeated in the House it is effectively dead. At this point they would have to draft a new one.

I found browsing through Congressional Bills to interesting. Everyone should take the time to see for themselves what the Congress is up to. Some of that stuff is just plain silly.

Scott Lee
05-07-2005, 02:14 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Deeman2:</font><hr> <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Fran Crimi:</font><hr> Deeman,

I saw a documentary about the construction of the towers, and one of the things that was said that made them so unique was that the floors were suspension floors, something never before used in skyscrapers. Each floor was held up by steel hinges at the four corners of the building.

When the planes struck the buildings, some hinges were completely destroyed making the floors vulnerable. As the fuel burned and the steel started to bend, the remaining hinges started to bend and give way to the weight of the floors. The hinges literally opened up and the first of the floors fell through. The floor below it had also been compromised and the weight of the other floor on top of it opened up those hinges and so-on. <font color="blue"> and they say you are not a structural engineer!!! Yes, Fran, you are right on target. The corner supported new pancake design was new and once the corners were compromised, the heating of the metal assured the structure would fail. Once a floor fell to another floor, it was just like dominoes falling. </font color>

Deeman

Fran <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote>

Dee...You are certainly very well educated, my friend; and I respect your opinions. However, I'm quite curious. Let's suppose you're correct! How do you explain the "missing" 47 upright giant steel girders, that comprised the central core of each of the towers? Even IF the buildings "pancaked", because of 'hinges' on the corners, or any other reason, those 47 beams would still be standing a few hundred feet straight up in the air, in the middle of the rest of the debris. The official report denied those beams even existing, when they are unique and central to the stability of the buildings. That information is public record! The denial of it, in an "official" government document (9/11 Commission Report...which declared that the central core of the towers was an empty steel shaft, containing elevators, and utilities), if nothing else, suggests some kind of coverup.

One more thing...what caused Building 7 to "pancake"? It was a 47-story building, which had fires on just two floors (7 &amp; 12), and was struck by NO airplane. Yet it collapsed a few hours after the two towers, in exactly the same manner(for lack of a better descriptive term); which was a 'controlled demolition' style...one floor pancake collapsing down onto the next. How'd they DO that?

Respectfully...

Scott /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Qtec
05-08-2005, 03:46 AM
All evidence shows that GW was going to invade iraq with or without support from the UN. All the original reasons for going into Iraq have been disproved and the official line from the Whitehouse now is, "we did it because it was the right thing to do"!
Doesnt the same argument apply to the Sudan, especially after GW himself called it an'"act of genocide"?
The excuse that the UN is ineffectual seems a bit lame, dont you think?

Q

Sid_Vicious
05-08-2005, 05:54 AM
Q...What does Ed and an osterich have in common?

Qtec
05-08-2005, 06:28 AM
They are both ugly and have the same capacity for 'thinking ouside the box'.? /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

eg8r
05-09-2005, 05:32 AM
[ QUOTE ]
All evidence shows that GW was going to invade iraq with or without support from the UN. All the original reasons for going into Iraq have been disproved and the official line from the Whitehouse now is, "we did it because it was the right thing to do"!
Doesnt the same argument apply to the Sudan, especially after GW himself called it an'"act of genocide"?
The excuse that the UN is ineffectual seems a bit lame, dont you think?
<hr /></blockquote> First of all that is not an excuse, it is truth. Now, obviously you are trying to be obstinate. The discussion is not about what is right and wrong, it is about you chastising Bush for doing something you did not agree with, and then try and push him to do the very same thing for something you feel is worth it. Whether it is worth it or not is not what we are talking about. My post to you was in reference the hypocrisy in which you posted.

eg8r

eg8r
05-09-2005, 05:33 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Q...What does Ed and an osterich have in common? <hr /></blockquote> One hit wonder strikes again. Should we be suckers and wait for your little punchline?

eg8r

eg8r
05-09-2005, 05:34 AM
[ QUOTE ]
They are both ugly and have the same capacity for 'thinking ouside the box'.? <hr /></blockquote> And this comes from a guy living in the Netherlands?

eg8r