 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / June 2006You want real trouble, try this:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801 Jobst Brandt > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801 > > Jobst Brandt I've always wondered how the same inefficient, inept, corrupt,venal, totally ineffective governmental agencies riddled with publicity hungry politicians and disgruntled employees suddenly become so omnipotent when it suits some evil purpose. Of course, I also wonder how presumably intelligent college educated individuals can reconcile a belief in democracy when the politicians that get elected are either absolutely evil (the comspirators) or fools (those that are unaware of the existence of the conspiracy). Maybe I'll make a video about that. Regards, Bob Hunt >> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801 >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > absolutely evil (the comspirators) or fools (those that are unaware of > the existence of the conspiracy). Maybe I'll make a video about that. What's /really/ hilarious is that JB posts stuff from wacko blog sites -- fairly regularly -- and yet often gets indignant when others exhibit "sloppy thinking" (IHO). Of coure, he once flamed someone for posting a /ride report/ on RB-misc, since there's a more appropriate group (called RB-rides, presumably). I'm almost positive he posted a political troll the very same day, BTW. LOL That's our JB... BS > I've always wondered how the same inefficient, inept, corrupt,venal, > totally ineffective governmental agencies riddled with publicity hungry [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > absolutely evil (the comspirators) or fools (those that are unaware of > the existence of the conspiracy). Maybe I'll make a video about that. I wonder at those who can't distinguish a democracy from a republic. > > I've always wondered how the same inefficient, inept, corrupt,venal, > > totally ineffective governmental agencies riddled with publicity hungry [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I wonder at those who can't distinguish a democracy from a republic. I also wonder about those who can't distinguish the difference between "a" democracy and democracy. Maybe I'll make a video series. Regards, Bob Hunt In rec.bicycles.misc Bob <hunrobe@aol.com> wrote: >> I wonder at those who can't distinguish a democracy from a republic. > > I also wonder about those who can't distinguish the difference between > "a" democracy and democracy. Maybe I'll make a video series. You might want to keep it simpler. A set of flash cards cards might be efficacious. On the other hand, given the attention span of the average TV viewer, you might have to condense it down to a 3 second blip-vert. [1] Of course, then you might have problems with the more corpulent viewers exploding. [1] I really should see if that's available on DVD now.  SignatureDane Buson - sigdane@unixbigots.org The older a man gets, the farther he had to walk to school as a boy. > In rec.bicycles.misc Bob <hunrobe@aol.com> wrote: >>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > [1] I really should see if that's available on DVD now. Not yet, unless you want someone's dvd-r home made version. http://tinyurl.com/m6zob > > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801 > > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Regards, > Bob Hunt Hopefully, intelligent college-educated individuals do *not* believe in a democracy, which our founders avoided, since they believed that they inevitably lead to dictatorships, but in a constitutional republic, as we have/had. Read the Federalist Papers for more information about this. It is very interesting, when listening to old speeches circa the 1950's, you can often hear the orater referring, correctly, to the Republic. No mention of democracy. Pureheart (To Ben Franklin, as he was leaving the constitutional convention): "Well, what do we have professor?? Franklin: "A replubic...if you can keep it." > > > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801 > > > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Franklin: "A replubic...if you can keep it." I've read the Federalist Papers, apparently closer than you read my post since I didn't write about "_a_ democracy" but "democracy". BTW, FDR's "Arsenal of democracy" fireside chat predates those unspecified orations you mention by a few years. I guess he knew the difference between a philosophy and a bureaucracy. Regards, Bob Hunt > http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801 > > Jobst Brandt Why is it people think our government can orchestrate these elaborate deceptions, and keep them secret, but cannot manage to avoid infighting, incompetence and corruption in the day to day running of the country? Try this for a more rational read of the "evidence". http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html Tim >>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801 >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > deceptions, and keep them secret, but cannot manage to avoid infighting, > incompetence and corruption in the day to day running of the country? Well, they're obviously not very good at it; they get caught all the time! > Why is it people think our government can orchestrate these elaborate > deceptions, and keep them secret, but cannot manage to avoid infighting, > incompetence and corruption in the day to day running of the country? The infighting is mostly drama that keeps our eye off the ball. If you watch what both parties actually do it is a consistant movement in the same direction. As far as stupidity goes, stupidity works as an explaination until there are too many things for it to work any more. the events of 11-sept-2001 have reached that point. Too many people told told to stand down, too many oddities, too many everything. Keeping it secret? It hasn't been. Problem is if you just stick with what the mainstream press puts out front you'd never notice that it hasn't been kept secret as one government employee, appointee, etc after another brings forth another piece of evidence. While 'loose change' has many hole, the government's conspirsy theory is one of the weakest and least supportable of the bunch. Actually the government's story IMO is somewhere just above the pods-on-the-airliner theory. >>Why is it people think our government can orchestrate these elaborate >>deceptions, and keep them secret, but cannot manage to avoid infighting, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > watch what both parties actually do it is a consistant movement in the > same direction. word. "Tim McTeague" <mcteague@comcast.net> wrote in news:cLSdnSO9Tc- mfA7ZnZ2dnUVZ_vSdnZ2d@comcast.com: >> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801 >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > deceptions, and keep them secret, but cannot manage to avoid infighting, > incompetence and corruption in the day to day running of the country? Who killed JFK? They can keep a secret if they want to. > Try this for a more rational read of the "evidence". > > http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html > > Tim SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > "Tim McTeague" <mcteague@comcast.net> wrote in news:cLSdnSO9Tc- >> Why is it people think our government can orchestrate these elaborate >> deceptions, and keep them secret, but cannot manage to avoid infighting, >> incompetence and corruption in the day to day running of the country? > Who killed JFK? They can keep a secret if they want to. The government just passes laws to keep the documentation secret and kookifies anyone who questions the offical story no matter how much evidence there is. But hey, if you want to believe a single man (military intelligence/CIA) pulled off super human shooting with an obsolete rifle from a location that didn't lend itself to expert marksmanship then you'll want to believe some guy (CIA's Tim Osmond) living in a cave with kidney disease requiring dialysis commanded 19 men, some very poorly skilled pilots of small aircraft to take over commerical airliners and fly them into buildings. After all, it's just those rogue crazy people that do stuff like this.... > In article <Xns97E846FED8CACjohnfosterineroeyaho@66.150.105.47>, Chris > Foster wrote: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > airliners and fly them into buildings. After all, it's just those > rogue crazy people that do stuff like this.... My point was that the US Govt CAN keep a secret, and keep it very well. 9/11 was pulled off by the US Govt as far as I can tell. Prety sure the US Govt killed Martin Luther King too. SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > > Who killed JFK? They can keep a secret if they want to. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > airliners and fly them into buildings. After all, it's just those rogue > crazy people that do stuff like this.... Even allowing for the downward angle, there's absolutely nothing superhuman about hitting a slow-moving target with a scoped rifle at a range measured in feet not yards but that's beside the point. If they want to avoid the "kook" label here are a few of the questions the 9/11 conspiracy theorists need to answer-- If 9/11 was a plot by some shadowy government types, who were they? What did they gain? Why did they target the Twin Towers, why not stick with easily identifiably political targets like the Pentagon? Since operations like that would require advance planning, why didn't they leak phony advance warnings that would make blaming al Queda just that much easier later? How did they fake the video footage of airliners crashing into the Twin Towers? Where are all the witnesses that *didn't* see that? Where are all the unwitting dupes- the technicians, clerks, mechanics, stock traders, etcetera- that would have had to seen bits and pieces of the conspiracy? Until they give reasonable answers to at least these questions, the conspiracy theorists will be justly labelled kooks. Regards, Bob Hunt P.S.- To answer the question in your post, it was Lee Harvey Oswald. ;-) > Even allowing for the downward angle, there's absolutely nothing > superhuman about hitting a slow-moving target with a scoped rifle at a > range measured in feet not yards but that's beside the point. If they > want to avoid the "kook" label here are a few of the questions the 9/11 > conspiracy theorists need to answer-- Making a bullet do what the government said it did and getting that many shots off that accurately with that rifle is. No one has ever been able to duplicate it, not even the government's own marksman. > If 9/11 was a plot by some shadowy government types, who were they? Didn't say it was. I implied the government's conspirsy theory is weak. If there was full disclosure of the evidence by the government we may be able to determine who was actually involved in many of the aspects that have not been able to remain secret and more. > What did they gain? Money, loss of liberty in USA, invasions of Iraq and Afganistan. It is about control. > Why did they target the Twin Towers, High profile. Possible profit (to the leaseholder) and theft (gold). > why not stick > with easily identifiably political targets like the Pentagon? Not a strong enough 'message'. > Since > operations like that would require advance planning, why didn't they > leak phony advance warnings that would make blaming al Queda just that > much easier later? For the same reason it is not liked when evidence is brought out that people were told to stand down and do nothing about it. > How did they fake the video footage of airliners > crashing into the Twin Towers? Ahh... never mind, you're one of those government story swallowers who think that anyone who questions the government story must believe every other theory no matter how kooky it is. You're just another person who doesn't think, who just tries kookify anyone who does. As I stated before, the government theory is not much more than a notch above the pods-on-the-planes theory. The pods on planes theory being a few notches above the no-planes-hit-the-towers theory. The government's conspirsy theory is astoundingly weak. Especially when the 'highjackers' they blame turn up alive overseas. >> How did they fake the video footage of airliners >> crashing into the Twin Towers? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >other theory no matter how kooky it is. You're just another person who >doesn't think, who just tries kookify anyone who does. In some cases, there are simply no other options. This is one of those cases. For example, my daughter watched the second plane fly into the tower from the 40th floor of a building about a mile away. I suppose she's "in on it too", huh? If you knew her, you'd know how ironic that would be. Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame >>> How did they fake the video footage of airliners >>> crashing into the Twin Towers? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > "in on it too", huh? If you knew her, you'd know how ironic that > would be. Funny, I was watching "Today" -- which I never watch but had flipped to once the first "accident" happened -- and SAW the second plane's impact "live and in color". It was obvious that second that the US was under attack -- by a country or terrorists or both -- further confirmed maybe 20 minutes later when there was an "explosion" at the Pentagon. Who knew the whole thing was faked? BS (ayyup) >>> How did they fake the video footage of airliners >>> crashing into the Twin Towers? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > In some cases, there are simply no other options. This is one of > those cases. > For example, my daughter watched the second plane fly into the tower > from the 40th floor of a building about a mile away. I suppose she's > "in on it too", huh? If you knew her, you'd know how ironic that > would be. Keep playing along with the concept that any questioning of government means believeing in the kookiest thing out there and we'll be living under tyranny in no time. Thanks for proving my point. Just because I question why good people were told to stand down when they uncovered portions of the plot, just because I question who benefits, just because I question why the steel was sent off for recycling in china quickly without testing, just because I question these things and many others that deserve to be questioned, you and the rest of the sheeple just belittle it with assinine commentary implying that the person questioning believes that it wasn't planes that hit the towers. Your kind doesn't deserve liberty or freedom. You deserve to live as the slave you want to be, beliving what you are fed, never questioning the government, never watching the government, always trusting the government. Governments need to be watched, not the people. Government cannot be trusted, government must always be questioned. Failure to do so means tyranny. > Your kind doesn't deserve liberty or freedom. You deserve to live as the > slave you want to be, beliving what you are fed, never questioning the > government, never watching the government, always trusting the > government. I would imagine Sorni and Hickey were less trusting of the government during the Clinton years. Just a guess. > Governments need to be watched, not the people. Ken Lay, Andrew Fastow -- those types of people? >> Governments need to be watched, not the people. > Ken Lay, Andrew Fastow -- those types of people? If government had been watched and controlled, they wouldn't have been able to do what they did. >>> Governments need to be watched, not the people. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > able > to do what they did. And exactly how would watching the government have stopped Lay and Fastow? >>>> Governments need to be watched, not the people. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> > And exactly how would watching the government have stopped Lay and Fastow? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis "The California electricity crisis (also known as the Western Energy Crisis) of 2000 and 2001 followed a failed partial-deregulation, in 1996, of the electricity market in the state. " Well it goes on, but without the government screwing up or doing it on purpose whichever you want to believe the rest could not have followed. This should be common knowledge by now. >>> In article <Ga3mg.47495$fb2.14875@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, Mike >>> Kruger [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > This should be common knowledge by now. So if Lay and Fastow had been in some other business, but in similar circumstances, they would have never committed criminal acts? > So if Lay and Fastow had been in some other business, but in similar > circumstances, they would have never committed criminal acts? So if only pure-good business people existed, government would not need to be watched for idiotcy and corruption? >> Your kind doesn't deserve liberty or freedom. You deserve to live as the >> slave you want to be, beliving what you are fed, never questioning the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Ken Lay, Andrew Fastow -- those types of people? Government's fault. If our government had been interested in ensuring compliance, that would have never occurred under Clinton, nor continued under Bush. >>> Your kind doesn't deserve liberty or freedom. You deserve to live as the >>> slave you want to be, beliving what you are fed, never questioning the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >If our government had been interested in ensuring compliance, that >would have never occurred under Clinton, nor continued under Bush. You spelled "prosecuted" like "continued". Odd... Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame >>>> Your kind doesn't deserve liberty or freedom. You deserve to live as the >>>> slave you want to be, beliving what you are fed, never questioning the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >You spelled "prosecuted" like "continued". Odd... Yes, but the illegal activity did occur after Bush was sworn in, right? >>>>> Your kind doesn't deserve liberty or freedom. You deserve to >>>>> live as the slave you want to be, beliving what you are fed, >>>>> never questioning the government, never watching the government, >>>>> always trusting the government. >>>> I would imagine Sorni and Hickey were less trusting of the >>>> government during the Clinton years. Just a guess. >>>>> Governments need to be watched, not the people. >>>> Ken Lay, Andrew Fastow -- those types of people? >>> Government's fault. >>> If our government had been interested in ensuring compliance, that >>> would have never occurred under Clinton, nor continued under Bush. >> You spelled "prosecuted" like "continued". Odd... > Yes, but the illegal activity did occur after Bush was sworn in, > right? Today on Fresh Air with Terri Gross yo could hear of embarrassing illegal activities our government is perpetrating. At least the Supreme Court still recognizes this and ruled accordingly, in spite of GWB's attempt at stacking the court in his favor. Jobst Brandt > Today on Fresh Air with Terri Gross yo could hear of embarrassing > illegal activities our government is perpetrating. At least the > Supreme Court still recognizes this and ruled accordingly, in spite of > GWB's attempt at stacking the court in his favor. So if it's in a Hollywood movie (Syriana), conspiracy video (that Loose Change thing), or on PBS, then it MUST be true. Rock-solid sourcing, as usual, JB! LOL >Today on Fresh Air with Terri Gross yo could hear of embarrassing >illegal activities our government is perpetrating. At least the >Supreme Court still recognizes this and ruled accordingly, in spite of >GWB's attempt at returning the court to proper balance. I corrected your typo for you. > Just because I question why good people were told to stand down when > they uncovered portions of the plot... Neither you nor the "loose change" producers have given even one example of anyone being told to "stand down when they uncovered portions of the plot". Lots of, "Isn't *that* suspicious innuendo but not a shred of evidence. > just because I question who benefits... The question, "who benefits?", was one I asked you. A fair summary of your reply would be, "Oh, 'they' did." > just because I question why the steel was sent off for > recycling in china quickly without testing.... Which steel and who says it was shipped off? I know several people that worked at what's now called Ground Zero. There were literally tons of steel to be picked up. Which pieces did you want tested and since you already conceded that the Towers were indeed hit by two airliners what tests do you think would be useful? > just because I question > these things and many others that deserve to be questioned, you and the > rest of the sheeple... The "sheeple" are those that accept as evidence the innuendo and veiled hints of some nameless faceless evil in that ridiculous video. > just belittle it with assinine commentary implying > that the person questioning believes that it wasn't planes that hit the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > cannot be trusted, government must always be questioned. Failure to do > so means tyranny. How are things in the Posse Comitatus these days? Regards, Bob Hunt >> Just because I question why good people were told to stand down when >> they uncovered portions of the plot... > Neither you nor the "loose change" producers Why are you linking me to them? > have given even one > example of anyone being told to "stand down when they uncovered > portions of the plot". Lots of, "Isn't *that* suspicious innuendo but > not a shred of evidence. Able Danger. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Danger is the most well known. There are other lesser known ones. >> just because I question who benefits... > The question, "who benefits?", was one I asked you. A fair summary of > your reply would be, "Oh, 'they' did." Well you start with the president and work your way up and down. >> just because I question why the steel was sent off for >> recycling in china quickly without testing.... > Which steel and who says it was shipped off? I know several people that > worked at what's now called Ground Zero. Wooptie do. Is that supposed to make you some sort of authority? > There were literally tons of > steel to be picked up. Which pieces did you want tested and since you > already conceded that the Towers were indeed hit by two airliners what > tests do you think would be useful? Conceded? How the hell does one concede on a point that was never made. Here you go again, assigning this kookiness to me. Well, I see you concede that the towers weren't blasted by flying saucers from Mars. Which pieces? Well that's why you don't scrap the whole thing quickly but actually call in structural engineers and people that worked on the buildings who could interpet the markings on the steel from the initial construction to indentify what came from where. >> just because I question >> these things and many others that deserve to be questioned, you and the >> rest of the sheeple... > The "sheeple" are those that accept as evidence the innuendo and veiled > hints of some nameless faceless evil in that ridiculous video. Hint: I am not defending anything in the video. >> just belittle it with assinine commentary implying >> that the person questioning believes that it wasn't planes that hit the >> towers. >> Your kind doesn't deserve liberty or freedom. You deserve to live as the >> slave you want to be, beliving what you are fed, never questioning the >> government, never watching the government, always trusting the >> government. Governments need to be watched, not the people. Government >> cannot be trusted, government must always be questioned. Failure to do >> so means tyranny. > How are things in the Posse Comitatus these days? F you too. > >> Just because I question why good people were told to stand down when > >> they uncovered portions of the plot... > > > Neither you nor the "loose change" producers > > Why are you linking me to them? Jobst started this thread by posting a link to the "loose change" video. This thread is not centered on you, Brent, but you seem to be agreeing with their conclusions. > > have given even one > > example of anyone being told to "stand down when they uncovered [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Able Danger. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Danger is the most well > known. There are other lesser known ones. Maybe you should read that link again. What it says is that at least one US intelligence agency identified Atta as a terrorist threat prior to 9/11. It does *not* say anyone was ordered to "stand down when they uncovered portions of the plot". It doesn't even say the information wasn't acted upon. All it says it that an alleged identification of Atta prior to 9/11 contradicts the Commission Report but that the chart allegedly showing that early identification- a chart presumably possessed by the source of the allegation- seems to have disappeared. > >> just because I question who benefits... > > > The question, "who benefits?", was one I asked you. A fair summary of > > your reply would be, "Oh, 'they' did." > > Well you start with the president and work your way up and down. "Up" from the president? There is no "up from the president" in the Executive branch. Do you mean *laterally* into the other two branches of government or "up" into the shadowy world of TriLateral Commissions, International Zionist Conspiracies, etcetera? > >> just because I question why the steel was sent off for > >> recycling in china quickly without testing.... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > already conceded that the Towers were indeed hit by two airliners what > > tests do you think would be useful? Nice try at deconstructing and twisting what I wrote to change its meaning but it fails. > Conceded? How the hell does one concede on a point that was never made. > Here you go again, assigning this kookiness to me. Well, I see you concede [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > buildings who could interpet the markings on the steel from the initial > construction to indentify what came from where. This is simply another bit of baseless innuendo because what you say should have been done, *was* done. > >> just because I question > >> these things and many others that deserve to be questioned, you and the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Hint: I am not defending anything in the video. That you don't cite the video as your source doesn't change the fact that you're making the same assertions with the same lack of any evidence that it does. > >> just belittle it with assinine commentary implying > >> that the person questioning believes that it wasn't planes that hit the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > F you too. Religion may be the last refuge of scoundrels but "f*** you too" is the last refuge of those with no facts on their side. Regards, Bob Hunt >> >> Just because I question why good people were told to stand down when >> >> they uncovered portions of the plot... [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > video. This thread is not centered on you, Brent, but you seem to be > agreeing with their conclusions. You don't like being called a blind follower of government, so perhaps you should consider that before acting on your 'seems' in the future. >> > have given even one >> > example of anyone being told to "stand down when they uncovered [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> Able Danger. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Danger is the most well >> known. There are other lesser known ones. > Maybe you should read that link again. What it says is that at least > one US intelligence agency identified Atta as a terrorist threat prior > to 9/11. It does *not* say anyone was ordered to "stand down when they > uncovered portions of the plot". I just poped it into google and chose that one to give you an overview. You can look into further if you wish. However being told not to pursue, reaching dead ends trying to pursue is part of the able danger story. > It doesn't even say the information wasn't acted upon. So in other words you've been so totally asleep this is the very first you've heard of able danger? You don't know anything beyond what's in that link? You didn't listen to any of the interviews or anything else that occured at that time. The link isn't all and everything, it's a brief overview, an quick illustration, I didn't realize you've been living in a cave like OBL. > All it says it that an alleged identification of > Atta prior to 9/11 contradicts the Commission Report but that the chart > allegedly showing that early identification- a chart presumably > possessed by the source of the allegation- seems to have disappeared. Fine... you want more detail, need to be spoon fed, here: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20050917&article Id=965 This weldon's testomony: "So what we will have is a person who will testify under oath, on the record, that in the summer of 2000, he was ordered -- or he would lose his job and/or go to jail if he didn't comply -- he was ordered to destroy 2.5 terabytes of data specific to Able Danger, the Brooklyn cell and Mohammed Atta." >> >> just because I question who benefits... >> >> > The question, "who benefits?", was one I asked you. A fair summary of >> > your reply would be, "Oh, 'they' did." >> >> Well you start with the president and work your way up and down. > "Up" from the president? There is no "up from the president" in the > Executive branch. No, I mean up, his sponsors. > Do you mean *laterally* into the other two branches > of government or "up" into the shadowy world of TriLateral Commissions, > International Zionist Conspiracies, etcetera? I wouldn't know about those. However the CFR polices seem to get inacted not to mention bliderberg group meeting with presidential canidates. But hey, whatever floats your boat. >> > There were literally tons of >> > steel to be picked up. Which pieces did you want tested and since you >> > already conceded that the Towers were indeed hit by two airliners what >> > tests do you think would be useful? > Nice try at deconstructing and twisting what I wrote to change its > meaning but it fails. Replying to your own text and calling it twisting? It's as you wrote it. >> Conceded? How the hell does one concede on a point that was never made. >> Here you go again, assigning this kookiness to me. Well, I see you concede >> that the towers weren't blasted by flying saucers from Mars. >> Which pieces? Well that's why you don't scrap the whole thing quickly >> but actually call in structural engineers and people that worked on the >> buildings who could interpet the markings on the steel from the initial >> construction to indentify what came from where. > This is simply another bit of baseless innuendo because what you say > should have been done, *was* done. Well, you ask me for cites. >> >> just because I question >> >> these things and many others that deserve to be questioned, you and the >> >> rest of the sheeple... >> > The "sheeple" are those that accept as evidence the innuendo and veiled >> > hints of some nameless faceless evil in that ridiculous video. >> Hint: I am not defending anything in the video. > That you don't cite the video as your source doesn't change the fact > that you're making the same assertions with the same lack of any > evidence that it does. It's not my fault you aren't familiar nor kept up. nor does that mean there is a lack of evidence. I cannot hope to bring you up to date from the hopeless state you're in since you're just learning about things like able danger now. >> > How are things in the Posse Comitatus these days? >> F you too. > Religion may be the last refuge of scoundrels but "f*** you too" is the > last refuge of those with no facts on their side. Let's see, I can't come up with a better reply to a smart a.s comment in the wee-hours and that relates to facts excatly how? When you have some facts for me to reply to rather than smart a.s comments let me know, and you might get something better in reply. > Fine... you want more detail, need to be spoon fed, here: > > http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20050917&article Id=965 > This weldon's testomony: Er this is from weldon's press conference > "So what we will have is a person who will testify under oath, on the > record, that in the summer of 2000, he was ordered -- or he would lose > his job and/or go to jail if he didn't comply -- he was ordered to > destroy 2.5 terabytes of data specific to Able Danger, the Brooklyn cell > and Mohammed Atta." >> Fine... you want more detail, need to be spoon fed, here: >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> to destroy 2.5 terabytes of data specific to Able Danger, the >> Brooklyn cell and Mohammed Atta." The press doesn't care because Clinton was still President then. HTH. >>Just because I question why good people were told to stand down when >>they uncovered portions of the plot... [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > The "sheeple" are those that accept as evidence the innuendo and veiled > hints of some nameless faceless evil in that ridiculous video. Bob, you've made it pretty clear from your comments that you did not watch the video. 90% of your questions could have been answered by actually paying attention. > Bob, you've made it pretty > clear from your comments that > you did not watch the video. > 90% of your questions could > have been answered by actually > paying attention. I apparently don't have the requisite tinfoil hat with the right frequencies to focus my attention. May I borrow yours? Bob Hunt >>Bob, you've made it pretty >>clear from your comments that [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I apparently don't have the requisite tinfoil hat with the right > frequencies to focus my attention. May I borrow yours? Just keep your fingers in your ears; that should work fine. >Your kind doesn't deserve liberty or freedom. You deserve to live as the >slave you want to be, beliving what you are fed, never questioning the >government, never watching the government, always trusting the >government. Heh heh heh. You don't have to "always trust the government" to NOT buy into every whacko conspiracy theory out there. And if you don't think the government is under magnificently minute scrutiny, you've not been paying attention. At all. Pick up a newspaper sometime. Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame >>Your kind doesn't deserve liberty or freedom. You deserve to live as the >>slave you want to be, beliving what you are fed, never questioning the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Heh heh heh. You don't have to "always trust the government" to NOT > buy into every whacko conspiracy theory out there. You boys are expecting me to buy into "every whacko conspiracy theory out there" to question and not trust. What's good for the goose.... > And if you don't > think the government is under magnificently minute scrutiny, you've > not been paying attention. At all. Pick up a newspaper sometime. You have to go further than newspapers to get scrutiny. Well sometimes scrutiny is in the papers, burried and then the stories dropped. >>>Your kind doesn't deserve liberty or freedom. You deserve to live as the >>>slave you want to be, beliving what you are fed, never questioning the [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >You have to go further than newspapers to get scrutiny. Well sometimes >scrutiny is in the papers, burried and then the stories dropped. Yeah, you can always see juicy, sensational stories tearing at the very roots of our government being passed over by all the journalists out there. After all, they're all obviously trying hard to hide any mis-steps by the US government (as evidenced by the New York Times running only FIFTY front-page articles on the misdeeds of a few guards at Abu Grahib). Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame >>You have to go further than newspapers to get scrutiny. Well sometimes >>scrutiny is in the papers, burried and then the stories dropped. > Yeah, you can always see juicy, sensational stories tearing at the > very roots of our government being passed over by all the journalists > out there. After all, they're all obviously trying hard to hide any > mis-steps by the US government (as evidenced by the New York Times > running only FIFTY front-page articles on the misdeeds of a few guards > at Abu Grahib). Where's the scrutiny of something like this highway that's being/will be built in the effort to create a north american union? Better focus lot's of effort on Abu Grahib with those photos instead.... It's not about 'not covering mis-steps', but rather what is and what is not covered in depth. >>Your kind doesn't deserve liberty or freedom. You deserve to live as the >>slave you want to be, beliving what you are fed, never questioning the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Heh heh heh. You don't have to "always trust the government" to NOT > buy into every whacko conspiracy theory out there. Very true. But at the same time you owe it to yourself and your country to listen to what people have to say with an open mind before you cast them and everything they say out as "lies and conspiracy theory." Look at your views on the world and see how much they differ from the democrat/republican uniparty line regurgitated by the media. I would bet not much. And if you don't > think the government is under magnificently minute scrutiny, you've > not been paying attention. At all. Pick up a newspaper sometime. This is a common misconception. If I hear the phrase "the liberal media" one more time, I think I'll puke. Try reading some Chomsky, watching alternative media, or anything that isn't spoonfed. While I'll admit there are a few good columnists, so much just cannot be covered, either because journalists work for larger interests, controlled editors, or are simply embedded and unable to ask the questions or report the way they would choose to. Take a look at this for a start: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060703/goodman > Try reading some Chomsky, I have. He is insane, probably. At best a kook. >>Try reading some Chomsky, > > I have. He is insane, probably. At best a kook. Funny, he extremely educated, and back up everything he says with facts. All you've got above there is two insults. You lose. > >>Try reading some Chomsky, > > > > I have. He is insane, probably. At best a kook. > > Funny, he extremely educated, Well, unlike you, he does use proper grammar. > and back up everything he says > with facts. Sure. >>>>Try reading some Chomsky, >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Well, unlike you, he does use proper grammar. That's pretty weak. Unsurprising. >>and back up everything he says >>with facts. > > Sure. Well, maybe you should learn to read if you can't understand what a "fact" is. Or have someone read it to you. > Well, maybe you should learn > to read I accept your surrender. >>Well, maybe you should learn >>to read > > I accept your surrender. Whatever, you fool. You haven't made one comment of substance. If you want to quite name-calling as your third-grade companions have taught you, perhaps you could put something on the table worth talking about. Until then, what do you expect? > >>Try reading some Chomsky, > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and back up everything he says > with facts. He is a communist. >>>>Try reading some Chomsky, >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > He is a communist. No, he's not. He's an anarchist. You're just another who chooses to stereotype him rather than addressing his points, like the idiots that labeled him a Nazi sympathizer. There are plenty others saying the same things. Are they all communist too? > >>>>Try reading some Chomsky, > >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > No, he's not. He's an anarchist. He's a Bolshevik radical, about 0.1% of people believe his spewage. >>>>>>Try reading some Chomsky, >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > He's a Bolshevik radical, about 0.1% of people believe his spewage. No, he's not, and more reason for him to continue. > >>>>>>Try reading some Chomsky, > >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > No, he's not, and more reason > for him to continue. Well, if as you say he is an "anarchist", then he is a first class nut job. anarchism n : a political theory favoring the abolition of governments Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University an·ar·chism n. 1. The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are oppressive and undesirable and should be abolished. 2. Active resistance and terrorism against the state, as used by some anarchists. Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved. >>>>>>>>Try reading some Chomsky, >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > anarchism you are a genius. again, address the ideas, not the person. he's not an anarchist as described in the dictionary. it's not worth explaining to you. > >>>>>>>>Try reading some Chomsky, > >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > described in the dictionary. > it's not worth explaining to you. So you go by a different English language, then. Kook. >>>>>>>>>>Try reading some Chomsky, >>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > So you go by a different English language, then. Kook. Why don't you crawl back in your cave and knaw on that bone you were busy with before I disturbed you? Please read this: http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/interviews/9612-anarchism.html (I'm assuming you can do that) and then STFU. HAND. > >>>Well, if as you say he is an "anarchist", then he is a first class > >>>nut job. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Please read this: > http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/interviews/9612-anarchism.html It's tortured and convoluted, as if it was posted by a psychotic that is inside of a psychiatric ward. Is that where you are posting from?? > >>>>No, he's not. He's an anarchist. followed shortly by > he's not an anarchist as > described in the dictionary. "When I use a word ... it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less." -- Humpty Dumpty RJ snipe anonymously: >> Try reading some Chomsky, > I have. He is insane, probably. At best a kook. You should be so lucky to be as insane as he. How about not shooting the messenger and addressing the issues? You seem to take your cues from GWB whose whole foreign and national policies are based on that style. Bringing our troops home is an issue of wimps, "cut and Run". So why are our troops in Iraq in the first place? Are they still looking for WMD or Osama Bin Laden? See Syriana if you want to know why. The scene with George Cloony walking unfazed down the street as a car bomb goes off behind him. He doesn't even flinch. That is the state of affairs in the middle east. That scene sums it up so elegantly, it alone is worth an Oscar. Jobst Brandt > RJ snipe anonymously: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > are our troops in Iraq in the first place? Are they still looking for > WMD or Osama Bin Laden? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html > See Syriana if you want to know why. The scene with George Cloony > walking unfazed down the street as a car bomb goes off behind him. He > doesn't even flinch. That is the state of affairs in the middle east. > That scene sums it up so elegantly, it alone is worth an Oscar. Hey, if you can cite /movies and videos/ as "sources", then I can cite Fox News! LOL "Syrianna" and a 9-11 whack job conspiracy "report": you're on a roll, JB! >>>> How did they fake the video footage of airliners >>>> crashing into the Twin Towers? >>> >>>Ahh... never mind, you're one of those government story swallowers who ... >> For example, my daughter watched the second plane fly into the tower ... >Thanks for proving my point. ... >they uncovered portions of the plot, just because I question who >benefits, just because I question why the steel was sent off for >recycling in china quickly without testing, just because I question ... >Your kind doesn't deserve liberty or freedom. You deserve to live as the >slave you want to be, beliving what you are fed, never questioning the >government, never watching the government, always trusting the >government. Governments need to be watched, not the people. Government >cannot be trusted, government must always be questioned. Failure to do >so means tyranny. Most of us know that government has gotten out of hand. We just accept it because we are in some group that some party panders to, and so we somehow benefit from their attempt to buy our votes. The guy that pays no taxes because he gets more in child credits than he owes, does not bitch when one party increases the tax credit. The guy that plans on going to college, and benefits from the Hope credit, will not complain. The only ones who complain are those who get zero benefit and/or pay more in taxes than the benefit they receive, or those of us who are smart enough to understand that even though we benefit from something does not mean we should be in favor of it. The rest defend what they benefit from, while denouncing anything that does not benefit them. > Most of us know that government has gotten out of hand. We just > accept it because we are in some group that some party panders to, and [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > what they benefit from, while denouncing anything that does not > benefit them. You got that right. >>>How did they fake the video footage of airliners >>>crashing into the Twin Towers? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > "in on it too", huh? If you knew her, you'd know how ironic that > would be. Who said the buildings weren't hit by planes? I don't remember them saying that part was faked . . just that they shouldn't have fallen from the impact. >Who said the buildings weren't >hit by planes? I don't >remember them saying that part >was faked . . just that they >shouldn't have fallen from the >impact. They didn't fall from "the impact". Read something on the subject. It'll do you good and make you appear less dorky on the 'net. Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame >>Who said the buildings weren't >>hit by planes? I don't [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Read something on the subject. It'll do you good and make you appear > less dorky on the 'net. I have, I just didn't spell it out. Sorry, they claimed the steel "melted" in less than an hour. My bad. So much more believable. . . . Anything else? (of substance, I meant) >> They didn't fall from "the impact". >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >hour. My bad. So much more >believable. . . . You need to read the information again. You obviously didn't get it. >Anything else? (of substance, >I meant) Yeah, you might read up on how many percent of margin the design for the towers were built with, and how many percent structural steel weakens at a given temperature. This isn't rocket science, or difficult to research. Unless of course, you simply don't WANT to know the truth (a foregone conclusion, but I had to throw it in). I'll leave you now to your paranoia. Enjoy! Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame >>>They didn't fall from "the impact". >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > difficult to research. Unless of course, you simply don't WANT to > know the truth (a foregone conclusion, but I had to throw it in). You don't know me well enough to say that. But your generalizations are revealing. I read the NIST report xecutive summary. It's pretty convincing. It doesn't mean you're not a jackass. cc > I'll leave you now to your paranoia. Enjoy! > > Mark Hickey > Habanero Cycles > http://www.habcycles.com > Home of the $795 ti frame >>Who said the buildings weren't >>hit by planes? I don't [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Read something on the subject. It'll do you good and make you appear > less dorky on the 'net. Oh, and if you'd actually read my posts, it would be clear that I have read up on the subject. Perhaps you should do some reading . . though I can't guarantee any results. >> Who said the buildings weren't >> hit by planes? I don't [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Read something on the subject. It'll do you good and make you appear > less dorky on the 'net. Wow. You /really do/ have faith. <eg> >>> Who said the buildings weren't >>> hit by planes? I don't [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Wow. You /really do/ have faith. Heh. Mark Hickey Habanero Cycles http://www.habcycles.com Home of the $795 ti frame >>> Who said the buildings weren't >>> hit by planes? I don't [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Wow. You /really do/ have faith. They didn't fall from the impact. The official story (which I do not disbelieve on this point) is that they fell from the fire. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > Ahh... never mind, you're one of those government story swallowers who > think that anyone who questions the government story must believe every > other theory no matter how kooky it is. You're just another person who > doesn't think, who just tries kookify anyone who does. This is exactly the kind of comment that passes for argument among the more ridiculous of the conspiracy theorists. Whenever faced with a question they can't answer without abandoning or weakening their theory they attack the questioner's motives or intelligence. Nobody has to "kookify" you. You're doing an excellent job of it all by yourself. Regards, Bob Hunt > > Ahh... never mind, you're one of those government story swallowers who > > think that anyone who questions the government story must believe every [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Nobody has to "kookify" you. You're doing an excellent job of it all by > yourself. Exactly. Build the strawman of "oh, you believe everything 'they' tell you, huh?" The reason the government's story is easiest to swallow is because it's been neatly sliced into convenient bite-size pieces. By Occam's Razor. E.P. > Exactly. Build the strawman of "oh, you believe everything 'they' tell > you, huh?" What is the proper response to a strawman of "oh, you must believe that planes didn't hit the towers and the video was faked"? > The reason the government's story is easiest to swallow is because it's > been neatly sliced into convenient bite-size pieces. > By Occam's Razor. Too bad some of the 'highjackers' are still alive. > > Exactly. Build the strawman of "oh, you believe everything 'they' tell > > you, huh?" > > What is the proper response to a strawman of "oh, you must believe that > planes didn't hit the towers and the video was faked"? Two logical fallacies do not constitute a rational argument. You cede the point when you descend into logical fallacy in an attempt to prove your point. The proper response to the question is "Logical fallacy: strawman." HTH. > > The reason the government's story is easiest to swallow is because it's > > been neatly sliced into convenient bite-size pieces. > > By Occam's Razor. > > Too bad some of the 'highjackers' are still alive. Prove it. E.P. >> > Exactly. Build the strawman of "oh, you believe everything 'they' tell >> > you, huh?" >> >> What is the proper response to a strawman of "oh, you must believe that >> planes didn't hit the towers and the video was faked"? > Two logical fallacies do not constitute a rational argument. No 'argument' was being made there. It was a characterization. > You cede > the point when you descend into logical fallacy in an attempt to prove > your point. I didn't. > The proper response to the question is "Logical fallacy: strawman." That didn't work. >> > The reason the government's story is easiest to swallow is because it's >> > been neatly sliced into convenient bite-size pieces. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Prove it. CBS news found that out like 4 years ago. Try to keep current. > >> > Exactly. Build the strawman of "oh, you believe everything 'they' tell > >> > you, huh?" [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > No 'argument' was being made there. It was a characterization. You're splitting hairs, or being intentional obtuse. > > You cede > > the point when you descend into logical fallacy in an attempt to prove > > your point. > > I didn't. You used a logical fallacy, and you're trying to advance an idea. Yup, it looks like you actually *did* - don't try weaselling out of it. > > The proper response to the question is "Logical fallacy: strawman." > > That didn't work. Where did you try it? You call it a logical fallacy, and drop it. Nothing more needs to be said. > >> > The reason the government's story is easiest to swallow is because it's > >> > been neatly sliced into convenient bite-size pieces. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > CBS news found that out like 4 years ago. That does not constitute proof. When you make an assertion, you prove it. Prove your assertion or admit you were mistaken. E.P. >> >> > Exactly. Build the strawman of "oh, you believe everything 'they' tell >> >> > you, huh?" [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > You're splitting hairs, or being intentional obtuse. There's a big difference between characterizing another person and an argument to support a point. >> > You cede >> > the point when you descend into logical fallacy in an attempt to prove >> > your point. >> I didn't. > You used a logical fallacy, and you're trying to advance an idea. Yup, > it looks like you actually *did* - don't try weaselling out of it. What idea would that be then? >> > The proper response to the question is "Logical fallacy: strawman." >> That didn't work. > Where did you try it? You call it a logical fallacy, and drop it. > Nothing more needs to be said. It's never worked in the past with you or anyone else. >> >> > The reason the government's story is easiest to swallow is because it's >> >> > been neatly sliced into convenient bite-size pieces. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > That does not constitute proof. When you make an assertion, you prove yadda yadda... too bad you and others don't live up to your own standards. I'm always the one providing facts and cites while you lazy f'ers just sit there taking pot shots, making insults, and building strawmen. > Prove your assertion or admit you were mistaken. My cite is CBS news, Here's another, BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm A summary with links to various mainstream news sources that show the individuals still to be alive. http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/9-11/9-11_hijackers_still_ali ve.htm I swear you and the rest can't be this unaware and just must get your rocks off having me do google searches for what is common knowledge information after so many years. > >> >> > Exactly. Build the strawman of "oh, you believe everything 'they' tell > >> >> > you, huh?" [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > There's a big difference between characterizing another person and an > argument to support a point. Actually, there isn't. The two coincide at the logical fallacy of "ad hominem." > >> > You cede > >> > the point when you descend into logical fallacy in an attempt to prove [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > What idea would that be then? The idea of "don't trust the governement on anything." > >> > The proper response to the question is "Logical fallacy: strawman." > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > It's never worked in the past with you or anyone else. Well, I don't engage in strawman tactics, so *that* strawman falls away. If you don't have the self-discipline to call something a strawman and leave it, that's your problem. Creating an opposing strawman does not constitute rational discourse, and doesn't make you look reasonable or rational. A "kook", IOW. > >> >> > The reason the government's story is easiest to swallow is because it's > >> >> > been neatly sliced into convenient bite-size pieces. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > > > That does not constitute proof. When you make an assertion, you prove [snip whining] Don't complain to me. I didn't make the rules. > > Prove your assertion or admit you were mistaken. > > My cite is CBS news, Here's another, BBC: > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm That doesn't say anything about "the hijackers being alive". What it DOES say is that the hijackers were misidentified. This points to an intentional conspiracy being MORE unlikely - if the government can't correctly identify the hijackers, how could they possibly pull off such a complicated scheme? Of course, this argument could become circular, rapidly. The above only constitues proof of lack of positive ID. Nothing more, nothing less. Try again. > http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/9-11/9-11_hijackers_still_ali ve.htm > > I swear you and the rest can't be this unaware ... That website is obviously one of those who pick and choose articles to advance a particular agenda, and spin the links that way. Again, we're left with the simplest explanation - misidentification of the actual perps. Not malice, incompetance. And as we all know, incompetance in any federal bureau is nigh on impossible, right? Oooops. The reason we are so "unaware" is because these sorts of things don't add to awareness. E.P. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message