QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 3 2010, 09:49 AM)
If we couldn't have removed Saddam with fewer Civilian casualties than at WTC, then of course we were no better than OBL.
Just like we shouldn't have bombed the Japanese if their civilian casualties were going to outnumber ours at Pearl Harbor.
The Japanese were directly responsible for the Pearl Harbor attack.
Saddam had nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
That said, Saddam could have been handled much better. He was more concerned with his image than actually having weapons of mass destruction. Like most non-nuclear-capable nations, he wanted nukes as a deterrent. You can't invade a country that has nukes, and Saddam wanted into the club. Invasion should have been a last resort, but Bush skipped a few steps and went directly to invasion.
Between the new Iraqi Army, the US Army and US defense mercenaries (Blackwater), I'm not sure that the human rights situation in Iraq has actually improved that much.
Just like we shouldn't have bombed the Japanese if their civilian casualties were going to outnumber ours at Pearl Harbor.
The Japanese were directly responsible for the Pearl Harbor attack.
Saddam had nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
That said, Saddam could have been handled much better. He was more concerned with his image than actually having weapons of mass destruction. Like most non-nuclear-capable nations, he wanted nukes as a deterrent. You can't invade a country that has nukes, and Saddam wanted into the club. Invasion should have been a last resort, but Bush skipped a few steps and went directly to invasion.
Between the new Iraqi Army, the US Army and US defense mercenaries (Blackwater), I'm not sure that the human rights situation in Iraq has actually improved that much.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Nov 3 2010, 09:01 AM)
The Japanese were directly responsible for the Pearl Harbor attack.
Saddam had nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
That said, Saddam could have been handled much better. He was more concerned with his image than actually having weapons of mass destruction. Like most non-nuclear-capable nations, he wanted nukes as a deterrent. You can't invade a country that has nukes, and Saddam wanted into the club. Invasion should have been a last resort, but Bush skipped a few steps and went directly to invasion.
Between the new Iraqi Army, the US Army and US defense mercenaries (Blackwater), I'm not sure that the human rights situation in Iraq has actually improved that much.
Yeah, maybe not my best analogy.
I didn't say he had anything to do with 9/11 though and that's not what I meant to imply.
I disagree with you though, like the reporter from Al Jazeera, I think Iraq is FAR better off today than they would have been had we not ended the death and ruination the Sanctions were causing to Iraq by taking Saddam out.
Arthur
Saddam had nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
That said, Saddam could have been handled much better. He was more concerned with his image than actually having weapons of mass destruction. Like most non-nuclear-capable nations, he wanted nukes as a deterrent. You can't invade a country that has nukes, and Saddam wanted into the club. Invasion should have been a last resort, but Bush skipped a few steps and went directly to invasion.
Between the new Iraqi Army, the US Army and US defense mercenaries (Blackwater), I'm not sure that the human rights situation in Iraq has actually improved that much.
Yeah, maybe not my best analogy.
I didn't say he had anything to do with 9/11 though and that's not what I meant to imply.
I disagree with you though, like the reporter from Al Jazeera, I think Iraq is FAR better off today than they would have been had we not ended the death and ruination the Sanctions were causing to Iraq by taking Saddam out.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 3 2010, 10:31 AM)
I disagree with you though, like the reporter from Al Jazeera, I think Iraq is FAR better off today than they would have been had we not ended the death and ruination the Sanctions were causing to Iraq by taking Saddam out.
My opinion is that democracy has to be home-grown or it will never truly take root. The people have to decide that they want democracy, and they will only get it after they fight for it. Democracy doesn't get much respect as a gift.
My opinion is that democracy has to be home-grown or it will never truly take root. The people have to decide that they want democracy, and they will only get it after they fight for it. Democracy doesn't get much respect as a gift.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Nov 3 2010, 10:04 AM)
My opinion is that democracy has to be home-grown or it will never truly take root. The people have to decide that they want democracy, and they will only get it after they fight for it. Democracy doesn't get much respect as a gift.
I don't think the Iraqis think that their freedom from Saddam isn't something they have earned.
They, like we, have paid a high price to finally get rid of Saddam, but they could have never done it without our help.
Arthur
I don't think the Iraqis think that their freedom from Saddam isn't something they have earned.
They, like we, have paid a high price to finally get rid of Saddam, but they could have never done it without our help.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 3 2010, 11:44 AM)
I don't think the Iraqis think that their freedom from Saddam isn't something they have earned.
They've paid for it, but it was never a "cause" that the people fought for. Would you respect a car more if you bought it, or your parents gave it to you? Many Iraqis have died, but they didn't die in the name of democracy.
Not immediately, but given time it could have happened. Popular democratic movements take time to build, and no such thing existed then or now. It is very presumptuous to assume that Western-style democracy is the right fit for everyone.
They've paid for it, but it was never a "cause" that the people fought for. Would you respect a car more if you bought it, or your parents gave it to you? Many Iraqis have died, but they didn't die in the name of democracy.
QUOTE
They, like we, have paid a high price to finally get rid of Saddam, but they could have never done it without our help.
Not immediately, but given time it could have happened. Popular democratic movements take time to build, and no such thing existed then or now. It is very presumptuous to assume that Western-style democracy is the right fit for everyone.
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 3 2010, 02:31 PM)
I disagree with you though, like the reporter from Al Jazeera, I think Iraq is FAR better off today than they would have been had we not ended the death and ruination the Sanctions were causing to Iraq by taking Saddam out.
Arthur
Arthur
Iraq would have been better off if the conditions that led to the sanctions had not occurred, like the promotion of the Iran-Iraq war by foreign governments(including the U.S), enhancement of Iraq's military capabilities by those same governments, and allowing Saddam to invade Kuwait unopposed.
No doubt Saddam had a major role in the decline of his country, but as usual in the history of middle east turmoil, he had plenty of outside help.
No doubt Saddam had a major role in the decline of his country, but as usual in the history of middle east turmoil, he had plenty of outside help.
How far back do you want to go?
Can we blame it on the aftermath of WW 2 and the breaking up of the Ottoman empire.
The fact is you have to deal with what is, not so much on how you got there.
Bush 1 should have probably got rid of Saddam back then, but he didn't and so we were in the position we were in because of a long line of factors.
Still, there was no end in sight for the misery those people were going though and there were ample reasons Saddam had to go.
Anyone thinking that the Iraqi people would be better off if we had left the sanctions in place and continued to negotiate with Saddam simply didn't pay attention to what was going on to those people back then.
The estimates put the death toll at 50,000 Iraqis, almost all Shiites, per year due to the sanctions.
Arthur
Can we blame it on the aftermath of WW 2 and the breaking up of the Ottoman empire.
The fact is you have to deal with what is, not so much on how you got there.
Bush 1 should have probably got rid of Saddam back then, but he didn't and so we were in the position we were in because of a long line of factors.
Still, there was no end in sight for the misery those people were going though and there were ample reasons Saddam had to go.
Anyone thinking that the Iraqi people would be better off if we had left the sanctions in place and continued to negotiate with Saddam simply didn't pay attention to what was going on to those people back then.
The estimates put the death toll at 50,000 Iraqis, almost all Shiites, per year due to the sanctions.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 3 2010, 06:39 PM)
How far back do you want to go?
Can we blame it on the aftermath of WW 2 and the breaking up of the Ottoman empire.
The fact is you have to deal with what is, not so much on how you got there.
Bush 1 should have probably got rid of Saddam back then, but he didn't and so we were in the position we were in because of a long line of factors.
Still, there was no end in sight for the misery those people were going though and there were ample reasons Saddam had to go.
Anyone thinking that the Iraqi people would be better off if we had left the sanctions in place and continued to negotiate with Saddam simply didn't pay attention to what was going on to those people back then.
The estimates put the death toll at 50,000 Iraqis, almost all Shiites, per year due to the sanctions.
Arthur
Well there seemed to be enough relevance to the last three decades for you to document Saddam's atrocities, I felt it needed to be put in perspective.
It's ironic that at the peak of Saddam's brutality and strength, when he was considered an ally, that the Iraqi and Iranian citizens were considered by the west to be cannon fodder in a conflict engineered to bleed both sides. Then the dog(Saddam) is allowed off his leash and bites the neighbor(Kuwait), and the owners( the West) try to avoid responsibility by punishing(war and sanctions) the dog. Only after successive strategic policy blunders by various administrations does the welfare of the Iraqi people become a valued asset to a reckless plan to clean up the mess.
Can we blame it on the aftermath of WW 2 and the breaking up of the Ottoman empire.
The fact is you have to deal with what is, not so much on how you got there.
Bush 1 should have probably got rid of Saddam back then, but he didn't and so we were in the position we were in because of a long line of factors.
Still, there was no end in sight for the misery those people were going though and there were ample reasons Saddam had to go.
Anyone thinking that the Iraqi people would be better off if we had left the sanctions in place and continued to negotiate with Saddam simply didn't pay attention to what was going on to those people back then.
The estimates put the death toll at 50,000 Iraqis, almost all Shiites, per year due to the sanctions.
Arthur
Well there seemed to be enough relevance to the last three decades for you to document Saddam's atrocities, I felt it needed to be put in perspective.
It's ironic that at the peak of Saddam's brutality and strength, when he was considered an ally, that the Iraqi and Iranian citizens were considered by the west to be cannon fodder in a conflict engineered to bleed both sides. Then the dog(Saddam) is allowed off his leash and bites the neighbor(Kuwait), and the owners( the West) try to avoid responsibility by punishing(war and sanctions) the dog. Only after successive strategic policy blunders by various administrations does the welfare of the Iraqi people become a valued asset to a reckless plan to clean up the mess.
History does not negate the value of what was done to bring this intolerable situation to a close and at the same time provide a way forward that has hope for the Iraqi people.
Arthur
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 3 2010, 08:01 PM)
History does not negate the value of what was done to bring this intolerable situation to a close and at the same time provide a way forward that has hope for the Iraqi people.
Arthur
Which intolerable situation? The arming of Saddam? The assisted execution of his wars? The deliberate starvation of Iraqi society? Or the misapplication of military force to remove Saddam from power?
Thank God for world leaders who have the guts and brains to shoot first and ask questions later.
Arthur
Which intolerable situation? The arming of Saddam? The assisted execution of his wars? The deliberate starvation of Iraqi society? Or the misapplication of military force to remove Saddam from power?
Thank God for world leaders who have the guts and brains to shoot first and ask questions later.
The intolerable situation was the death of 50,000 Iraqis, mostly Shiite children each year because no one could find an acceptable way out of this mess that didn't involve removing Saddam by force.
You say it was a misapplication of force, I say it was a justified use of force and that the world is a better place because of it.
Seems the writers at Al Jazeera now agree with me and not you.
Why do you think that is?
How long to you want to go around and around on this?
Arthur
You say it was a misapplication of force, I say it was a justified use of force and that the world is a better place because of it.
Seems the writers at Al Jazeera now agree with me and not you.
Why do you think that is?
How long to you want to go around and around on this?
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 3 2010, 09:04 PM)
The intolerable situation was the death of 50,000 Iraqis, mostly Shiite children each year because no one could find an acceptable way out of this mess that didn't involve removing Saddam by force.
You say it was a misapplication of force, I say it was a justified use of force and that the world is a better place because of it.
Seems the writers at Al Jazeera now agree with me and not you.
Why do you think that is?
How long to you want to go around and around on this?
Arthur
We both agree it wasn't being effectively dealt with and that something had to change, we apparently disagree on the ultimate option chosen by the last administration. That said, hopefully the Iraqi survivors can recover from the collective mess created by all parties involved, and benefit from those willing to constructively assist them.
You say it was a misapplication of force, I say it was a justified use of force and that the world is a better place because of it.
Seems the writers at Al Jazeera now agree with me and not you.
Why do you think that is?
How long to you want to go around and around on this?
Arthur
We both agree it wasn't being effectively dealt with and that something had to change, we apparently disagree on the ultimate option chosen by the last administration. That said, hopefully the Iraqi survivors can recover from the collective mess created by all parties involved, and benefit from those willing to constructively assist them.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Nov 3 2010, 02:31 PM)
.
Two observations if I may.
(1) The lessons of being 'isolationist' were learnt when WW1 and WW2....in that if one waits too long to get involved, the price is orders of magnitude greater than 'prevention-intervention' early.
(2) The corruption engendered in trying to handle Saddam with sanctions made the 'soft' option a farce....remember the Australian wheat board and others' arrangements for making 'kickbacks' to saddam's regime which kept him in business while the people suffered his mad son's and others' cruelty? That regime was going to last for at least as long as there was corruption. Someone had to act before the tragedy ended up even greater for everyone....just as it did in WW2 because the nazis were left too long to create the overwhelming tragedy then.
I agree that bush1 should have done the job when he had the chance (after all, it was their responsibility since they had a hand in his 'creation' (although that was all in the Soviet-American cold war and the 'satellite=states involved at the time on both sides). I also agree that bush2 was too late and too incompetent....and so missed what Afghanistan was developing into....and again that was left too long and so we are paying that higher price there too because we didn't do what was necessary earlier.
And if I had to die a horrible death, I would rather do it for ''imperfect democracy" that lets me down occassionally than do it for "perfect religion" which cuts and stones women and children to death for human faults that are not crimes in a democracy.
Just a quick and dirty perspective from my world. Good luck to us all.
RC.
.
I have to disagree, in WWI and WWII we were obviousely on the right side. The world mostly accepted democracey and appreciated our efforts, we have yet to see the impac of our intervention in Iraq and our pre-emptive behaviour in my view has taken the moral high ground from us. Hitler acted pre-emptive in that their view was they were taking back rightful german lands stole by an unfair treaty, when war was declared he almost used that pre-emptive logic to overrun the entire world. Its debatable if the russians would have ever attacked Germany at all, heck Britian even made plans to invade Russia they were viewed as Hitlers ally because the treaty of versailes took land from them as well. They were naturally political allies in one sense, yet this pre-emptive logic can be only as effective as the person weilding that power.
I think Iraq has damaged our standing in the world and made us more wars for the future... but only time will tell I hope I'm wrong.
Two observations if I may.
(1) The lessons of being 'isolationist' were learnt when WW1 and WW2....in that if one waits too long to get involved, the price is orders of magnitude greater than 'prevention-intervention' early.
(2) The corruption engendered in trying to handle Saddam with sanctions made the 'soft' option a farce....remember the Australian wheat board and others' arrangements for making 'kickbacks' to saddam's regime which kept him in business while the people suffered his mad son's and others' cruelty? That regime was going to last for at least as long as there was corruption. Someone had to act before the tragedy ended up even greater for everyone....just as it did in WW2 because the nazis were left too long to create the overwhelming tragedy then.
I agree that bush1 should have done the job when he had the chance (after all, it was their responsibility since they had a hand in his 'creation' (although that was all in the Soviet-American cold war and the 'satellite=states involved at the time on both sides). I also agree that bush2 was too late and too incompetent....and so missed what Afghanistan was developing into....and again that was left too long and so we are paying that higher price there too because we didn't do what was necessary earlier.
And if I had to die a horrible death, I would rather do it for ''imperfect democracy" that lets me down occassionally than do it for "perfect religion" which cuts and stones women and children to death for human faults that are not crimes in a democracy.
Just a quick and dirty perspective from my world. Good luck to us all.
RC.
.
I have to disagree, in WWI and WWII we were obviousely on the right side. The world mostly accepted democracey and appreciated our efforts, we have yet to see the impac of our intervention in Iraq and our pre-emptive behaviour in my view has taken the moral high ground from us. Hitler acted pre-emptive in that their view was they were taking back rightful german lands stole by an unfair treaty, when war was declared he almost used that pre-emptive logic to overrun the entire world. Its debatable if the russians would have ever attacked Germany at all, heck Britian even made plans to invade Russia they were viewed as Hitlers ally because the treaty of versailes took land from them as well. They were naturally political allies in one sense, yet this pre-emptive logic can be only as effective as the person weilding that power.
I think Iraq has damaged our standing in the world and made us more wars for the future... but only time will tell I hope I'm wrong.
To be frank I don't give a crud about iraqis problems with Sadaam. The way you help the world is by example not by force or by giving them our money and jobs. We rose up and removed a tyrant and established what we thought was a fair a government and an economic system as we could do. We can't do that for people that do not yet want it, if we stop propping up people like Sadaam and China then maybe their people would follow our lead and establish their own system.
Then you have to face that fact that maybe they HAVE established what they want and don't want our influence.. they only want our money and jobs which we are readily bleeding away.
I say screw the rest of the world charity is fine, but enabling evil or actually perpetrating evil is not acceptable behavior. The good guys only kill in self defense not in anticipation of self defense.
Then you have to face that fact that maybe they HAVE established what they want and don't want our influence.. they only want our money and jobs which we are readily bleeding away.
I say screw the rest of the world charity is fine, but enabling evil or actually perpetrating evil is not acceptable behavior. The good guys only kill in self defense not in anticipation of self defense.
QUOTE (dhcracker+Nov 5 2010, 03:19 AM)
I have to disagree, in WWI and WWII we were obviousely on the right side. The world mostly accepted democracey and appreciated our efforts, we have yet to see the impac of our intervention in Iraq and our pre-emptive behaviour in my view has taken the moral high ground from us. Hitler acted pre-emptive in that their view was they were taking back rightful german lands stole by an unfair treaty, when war was declared he almost used that pre-emptive logic to overrun the entire world. Its debatable if the russians would have ever attacked Germany at all, heck Britian even made plans to invade Russia they were viewed as Hitlers ally because the treaty of versailes took land from them as well. They were naturally political allies in one sense, yet this pre-emptive logic can be only as effective as the person weilding that power.
I think Iraq has damaged our standing in the world and made us more wars for the future... but only time will tell I hope I'm wrong.
This is really what Irag was all about. The reason the US rushed to war in Irag instead of finishing the job in Afghanistan.
The neoconservative manifesto. Project for a new american century.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/index.html
Statement of principles. Look who signed this document.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
Never could figure out why this wasn't discussed during the rush to war in Iraq.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/Rebuildi...casDefenses.pdf
Read the third dot. That means establishing a military presence in the middle east theatre. Unbelievable core missions. Psycho. Except the first dot these guys are fuking stupid ideologue morons to think this would go their way [fuking Dan Quayle].
ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for U.S. military forces:
• defend the American homeland;
• fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
• perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in
critical regions;
• transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs;”
To carry out these core missions, we need to provide sufficient force and budgetary
allocations. In particular, the United States must:
MAINTAIN NUCLEAR STRATEGIC SUPERIORITY, basing the U.S. nuclear deterrent upon a
global, nuclear net assessment that weighs the full range of current and emerging threats,
not merely the U.S.-Russia balance.
RESTORE THE PERSONNEL STRENGTH of today’s force to roughly the levels anticipated in
the “Base Force” outlined by the Bush Administration, an increase in active-duty strength
from 1.4 million to 1.6 million.
REPOSITION U.S. FORCES to respond to 21st century strategic realities by shifting
permanently-based forces to Southeast Europe and Southeast Asia, and by changing naval
deployment patterns to reflect growing U.S. strategic concerns in East Asia.
Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century
I think Iraq has damaged our standing in the world and made us more wars for the future... but only time will tell I hope I'm wrong.
This is really what Irag was all about. The reason the US rushed to war in Irag instead of finishing the job in Afghanistan.
The neoconservative manifesto. Project for a new american century.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/index.html
Statement of principles. Look who signed this document.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
Never could figure out why this wasn't discussed during the rush to war in Iraq.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/Rebuildi...casDefenses.pdf
Read the third dot. That means establishing a military presence in the middle east theatre. Unbelievable core missions. Psycho. Except the first dot these guys are fuking stupid ideologue morons to think this would go their way [fuking Dan Quayle].
ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for U.S. military forces:
• defend the American homeland;
• fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
• perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in
critical regions;
• transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs;”
To carry out these core missions, we need to provide sufficient force and budgetary
allocations. In particular, the United States must:
MAINTAIN NUCLEAR STRATEGIC SUPERIORITY, basing the U.S. nuclear deterrent upon a
global, nuclear net assessment that weighs the full range of current and emerging threats,
not merely the U.S.-Russia balance.
RESTORE THE PERSONNEL STRENGTH of today’s force to roughly the levels anticipated in
the “Base Force” outlined by the Bush Administration, an increase in active-duty strength
from 1.4 million to 1.6 million.
REPOSITION U.S. FORCES to respond to 21st century strategic realities by shifting
permanently-based forces to Southeast Europe and Southeast Asia, and by changing naval
deployment patterns to reflect growing U.S. strategic concerns in East Asia.
Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century
QUOTE (brucep+Nov 5 2010, 05:19 AM)
This is really what Irag was all about. The reason the US rushed to war in Irag instead of finishing the job in Afghanistan.
The neoconservative manifesto. Project for a new american century.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/index.html
Statement of principles. Look who signed this document.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
Never could figure out why this wasn't discussed during the rush to war in Iraq.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/Rebuildi...casDefenses.pdf
Read the third dot. That means establishing a military presence in the middle east theatre. Unbelievable core missions. Psycho. Except the first dot these guys are fuking stupid ideologue morons to think this would go their way [fuking Dan Quayle].
ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for U.S. military forces:
• defend the American homeland;
• fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
• perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in
critical regions;
• transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs;”
To carry out these core missions, we need to provide sufficient force and budgetary
allocations. In particular, the United States must:
MAINTAIN NUCLEAR STRATEGIC SUPERIORITY, basing the U.S. nuclear deterrent upon a
global, nuclear net assessment that weighs the full range of current and emerging threats,
not merely the U.S.-Russia balance.
RESTORE THE PERSONNEL STRENGTH of today’s force to roughly the levels anticipated in
the “Base Force” outlined by the Bush Administration, an increase in active-duty strength
from 1.4 million to 1.6 million.
REPOSITION U.S. FORCES to respond to 21st century strategic realities by shifting
permanently-based forces to Southeast Europe and Southeast Asia, and by changing naval
deployment patterns to reflect growing U.S. strategic concerns in East Asia.
Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century
Remember in the Michael Moore movie where Bush is standing with a putter surrounded by his dumbass core people and somebody says 'what about Iraq' and Bush turns around and says 'lets go in now' and everybody laughed the knowing laugh. The quotes are just paraphrase because I can't remember the exact words in my old age. Hard for me to believe what's happened to this country since my hippy days. Bush and these neodumbshits never cared about Bin Laden. Makes me wonder about the entire 9/11 incident.
The neoconservative manifesto. Project for a new american century.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/index.html
Statement of principles. Look who signed this document.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
Never could figure out why this wasn't discussed during the rush to war in Iraq.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/Rebuildi...casDefenses.pdf
Read the third dot. That means establishing a military presence in the middle east theatre. Unbelievable core missions. Psycho. Except the first dot these guys are fuking stupid ideologue morons to think this would go their way [fuking Dan Quayle].
ESTABLISH FOUR CORE MISSIONS for U.S. military forces:
• defend the American homeland;
• fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars;
• perform the “constabulary” duties associated with shaping the security environment in
critical regions;
• transform U.S. forces to exploit the “revolution in military affairs;”
To carry out these core missions, we need to provide sufficient force and budgetary
allocations. In particular, the United States must:
MAINTAIN NUCLEAR STRATEGIC SUPERIORITY, basing the U.S. nuclear deterrent upon a
global, nuclear net assessment that weighs the full range of current and emerging threats,
not merely the U.S.-Russia balance.
RESTORE THE PERSONNEL STRENGTH of today’s force to roughly the levels anticipated in
the “Base Force” outlined by the Bush Administration, an increase in active-duty strength
from 1.4 million to 1.6 million.
REPOSITION U.S. FORCES to respond to 21st century strategic realities by shifting
permanently-based forces to Southeast Europe and Southeast Asia, and by changing naval
deployment patterns to reflect growing U.S. strategic concerns in East Asia.
Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century
Remember in the Michael Moore movie where Bush is standing with a putter surrounded by his dumbass core people and somebody says 'what about Iraq' and Bush turns around and says 'lets go in now' and everybody laughed the knowing laugh. The quotes are just paraphrase because I can't remember the exact words in my old age. Hard for me to believe what's happened to this country since my hippy days. Bush and these neodumbshits never cared about Bin Laden. Makes me wonder about the entire 9/11 incident.
QUOTE (brucep+Nov 5 2010, 05:34 AM)
Remember in the Michael Moore movie where Bush is standing with a putter surrounded by his dumbass core people and somebody says 'what about Iraq' and Bush turns around and says 'lets go in now' and everybody laughed the knowing laugh. The quotes are just paraphrase because I can't remember the exact words in my old age. Hard for me to believe what's happened to this country since my hippy days. Bush and these neodumbshits never cared about Bin Laden. Makes me wonder about the entire 9/11 incident.
Remember all these dipshits thought they knew more than our military experts on how to conduct the invasion. All the subsequent fukups can be directly attributed to their conviction that they had all the answers. These dumbshits didn't even think knowledge of the regions cultures was neccessary. The definition of an ideologue 'don't let the facts get in the way of what you believe'.
Dot 2 really pisses me off. Playing Risk with our young folks and all the bs patriotism.
Remember all these dipshits thought they knew more than our military experts on how to conduct the invasion. All the subsequent fukups can be directly attributed to their conviction that they had all the answers. These dumbshits didn't even think knowledge of the regions cultures was neccessary. The definition of an ideologue 'don't let the facts get in the way of what you believe'.
Dot 2 really pisses me off. Playing Risk with our young folks and all the bs patriotism.
QUOTE (brucep+Nov 5 2010, 12:34 AM)
Remember in the Michael Moore movie where Bush is standing with a putter surrounded by his dumbass core people and somebody says 'what about Iraq' and Bush turns around and says 'lets go in now' and everybody laughed the knowing laugh. The quotes are just paraphrase because I can't remember the exact words in my old age. Hard for me to believe what's happened to this country since my hippy days. Bush and these neodumbshits never cared about Bin Laden. Makes me wonder about the entire 9/11 incident.
Well, there was much undeserved hatred of americans in arab nations to begin with. I do not doubt 9/11 I doubt the intelligence of those idiot terrorists that planned it.. that they could turn their religion into a jihad or something and defeat the superpower of the world on any level at all is ridiculous and INSANE. Sure they may bleed us a little but their entire country could simply be destroyed with their most radical followers killed in droves. But that is exactly what religious fundamentalism is its insanity. Christianity isn' quiet as militant but when struck it can also pick up the war drums and kill with extreme prejudice.
Bush ran as a domestic policy person he was in no way ready for world politics even under heavy coaching for that popular debate we watched on SNL lol. I seriously think his religion alone lead him to his reaction to that event and its what a typical american might have done.. after all we supported it as a nation and even re-elected the man. I think americans were tired of being targets because of supporting Israel, yet they do not sympathize with people fighting over offenses not committed during their lifetime and not to themselves.
But americans need to learn its not our business to create nations among other people, thats their job, their land, they will know what's best for them. And if they don't then cause and effect will lead to democracey if we don't spoon feed the pricks subjucating their own people in this fundamentalism so they don'tnotice their own impoverished state of existence. I don't care what war we won or how many people we sent to die, we didn't do that so we could subjucate other peoples we supposedly did it to preserve our republic.. I don't buy it in either case.
We don't need bases across the world we need to just defend our own land and way of life and stop going in the hole to try toforce our ways on people not able to understand it or accept it.
The america that didn't meddle in other nations affairs was the america loved by the world hundreds of years ago.. we are now a republic form of a fascist expansionist state in my opinion. And we do it by bleeding our own population and expanding unemployment intentionally in order to beef up our military by economic slavery.
Not all conservatives are neo's, I'm old school I guess.
Well, there was much undeserved hatred of americans in arab nations to begin with. I do not doubt 9/11 I doubt the intelligence of those idiot terrorists that planned it.. that they could turn their religion into a jihad or something and defeat the superpower of the world on any level at all is ridiculous and INSANE. Sure they may bleed us a little but their entire country could simply be destroyed with their most radical followers killed in droves. But that is exactly what religious fundamentalism is its insanity. Christianity isn' quiet as militant but when struck it can also pick up the war drums and kill with extreme prejudice.
Bush ran as a domestic policy person he was in no way ready for world politics even under heavy coaching for that popular debate we watched on SNL lol. I seriously think his religion alone lead him to his reaction to that event and its what a typical american might have done.. after all we supported it as a nation and even re-elected the man. I think americans were tired of being targets because of supporting Israel, yet they do not sympathize with people fighting over offenses not committed during their lifetime and not to themselves.
But americans need to learn its not our business to create nations among other people, thats their job, their land, they will know what's best for them. And if they don't then cause and effect will lead to democracey if we don't spoon feed the pricks subjucating their own people in this fundamentalism so they don'tnotice their own impoverished state of existence. I don't care what war we won or how many people we sent to die, we didn't do that so we could subjucate other peoples we supposedly did it to preserve our republic.. I don't buy it in either case.
We don't need bases across the world we need to just defend our own land and way of life and stop going in the hole to try toforce our ways on people not able to understand it or accept it.
The america that didn't meddle in other nations affairs was the america loved by the world hundreds of years ago.. we are now a republic form of a fascist expansionist state in my opinion. And we do it by bleeding our own population and expanding unemployment intentionally in order to beef up our military by economic slavery.
Not all conservatives are neo's, I'm old school I guess.
QUOTE (dhcracker+Nov 5 2010, 06:21 AM)
Well, there was much undeserved hatred of americans in arab nations to begin with. I do not doubt 9/11 I doubt the intelligence of those idiot terrorists that planned it.. that they could turn their religion into a jihad or something and defeat the superpower of the world on any level at all is ridiculous and INSANE. Sure they may bleed us a little but their entire country could simply be destroyed with their most radical followers killed in droves. But that is exactly what religious fundamentalism is its insanity. Christianity isn' quiet as militant but when struck it can also pick up the war drums and kill with extreme prejudice.
Bush ran as a domestic policy person he was in no way ready for world politics even under heavy coaching for that popular debate we watched on SNL lol. I seriously think his religion alone lead him to his reaction to that event and its what a typical american might have done.. after all we supported it as a nation and even re-elected the man. I think americans were tired of being targets because of supporting Israel, yet they do not sympathize with people fighting over offenses not committed during their lifetime and not to themselves.
But americans need to learn its not our business to create nations among other people, thats their job, their land, they will know what's best for them. And if they don't then cause and effect will lead to democracey if we don't spoon feed the pricks subjucating their own people in this fundamentalism so they don'tnotice their own impoverished state of existence. I don't care what war we won or how many people we sent to die, we didn't do that so we could subjucate other peoples we supposedly did it to preserve our republic.. I don't buy it in either case.
We don't need bases across the world we need to just defend our own land and way of life and stop going in the hole to try toforce our ways on people not able to understand it or accept it.
The america that didn't meddle in other nations affairs was the america loved by the world hundreds of years ago.. we are now a republic form of a fascist expansionist state in my opinion. And we do it by bleeding our own population and expanding unemployment intentionally in order to beef up our military by economic slavery.
Not all conservatives are neo's, I'm old school I guess.
You're not a neoconservative. They're reactionary fundamentalist not conservative. They thought it was going to be empire building for them. How could they be so stupid? Did you read the signature list? *** Cheney, the architect of the Iraq policy Wolfidumbshit. The whole weapons of mass destruction lie was to justify what they planned to do all along. I've often wondered what the plan was before 9/11 opened the door? Probably the weapons of mass destruction without 9/11.
Bush ran as a domestic policy person he was in no way ready for world politics even under heavy coaching for that popular debate we watched on SNL lol. I seriously think his religion alone lead him to his reaction to that event and its what a typical american might have done.. after all we supported it as a nation and even re-elected the man. I think americans were tired of being targets because of supporting Israel, yet they do not sympathize with people fighting over offenses not committed during their lifetime and not to themselves.
But americans need to learn its not our business to create nations among other people, thats their job, their land, they will know what's best for them. And if they don't then cause and effect will lead to democracey if we don't spoon feed the pricks subjucating their own people in this fundamentalism so they don'tnotice their own impoverished state of existence. I don't care what war we won or how many people we sent to die, we didn't do that so we could subjucate other peoples we supposedly did it to preserve our republic.. I don't buy it in either case.
We don't need bases across the world we need to just defend our own land and way of life and stop going in the hole to try toforce our ways on people not able to understand it or accept it.
The america that didn't meddle in other nations affairs was the america loved by the world hundreds of years ago.. we are now a republic form of a fascist expansionist state in my opinion. And we do it by bleeding our own population and expanding unemployment intentionally in order to beef up our military by economic slavery.
Not all conservatives are neo's, I'm old school I guess.
You're not a neoconservative. They're reactionary fundamentalist not conservative. They thought it was going to be empire building for them. How could they be so stupid? Did you read the signature list? *** Cheney, the architect of the Iraq policy Wolfidumbshit. The whole weapons of mass destruction lie was to justify what they planned to do all along. I've often wondered what the plan was before 9/11 opened the door? Probably the weapons of mass destruction without 9/11.
QUOTE (brucep+Nov 5 2010, 02:01 AM)
You're not a neoconservative. They're reactionary fundamentalist not conservative. They thought it was going to be empire building for them. How could they be so stupid? Did you read the signature list? *** Cheney, the architect of the Iraq policy Wolfidumbshit. The whole weapons of mass destruction lie was to justify what they planned to do all along. I've often wondered what the plan was before 9/11 opened the door? Probably the weapons of mass destruction without 9/11.
I believe 9/11 was the trajedy that spawned our nations own tragedy. Yes I read that and I'm not surprised Cheney is there in the mix, he is openly expansionist and extremely dangerous. I do not think Bush or cheney are conservatives either.. just look at what they spend how is that conservative. Only thing I saw them pinching on was the use of force in Iraq and we witnessed that disaster. Sure a few american divisions can take a government down but it cannot control a country or subjucate its population. The only way to do that as we learned in WWII is to kill masses of people until they realize... maybe this religious crap isn't so smart. Thats the only war way to win really judging by history.
However we don't have to kill off populations to change their perspective. We simply need to engage and enlighten them. The situation that spawned democracey here was enlightenment... science and tolerance which I think go hand in hand. You know we could learn something from the Mason's, how they tolerate beliefs and use science kind of as its uniting principle.. in the old days it was simply construction engineering now its a little more complicated. I believe the organization was designed to be able to fit in anywhere in the world.
I think our diplomats should be the same way, able to accept other peoples culture and respect it while also sharing ours and gaining respect for it. If we behaved like that we could change the worldwithout bleeding our people.
I believe 9/11 was the trajedy that spawned our nations own tragedy. Yes I read that and I'm not surprised Cheney is there in the mix, he is openly expansionist and extremely dangerous. I do not think Bush or cheney are conservatives either.. just look at what they spend how is that conservative. Only thing I saw them pinching on was the use of force in Iraq and we witnessed that disaster. Sure a few american divisions can take a government down but it cannot control a country or subjucate its population. The only way to do that as we learned in WWII is to kill masses of people until they realize... maybe this religious crap isn't so smart. Thats the only war way to win really judging by history.
However we don't have to kill off populations to change their perspective. We simply need to engage and enlighten them. The situation that spawned democracey here was enlightenment... science and tolerance which I think go hand in hand. You know we could learn something from the Mason's, how they tolerate beliefs and use science kind of as its uniting principle.. in the old days it was simply construction engineering now its a little more complicated. I believe the organization was designed to be able to fit in anywhere in the world.
I think our diplomats should be the same way, able to accept other peoples culture and respect it while also sharing ours and gaining respect for it. If we behaved like that we could change the worldwithout bleeding our people.
QUOTE (dhcracker+Nov 5 2010, 01:10 PM)
I believe 9/11 was the trajedy that spawned our nations own tragedy. Yes I read that and I'm not surprised Cheney is there in the mix, he is openly expansionist and extremely dangerous. I do not think Bush or cheney are conservatives either.. just look at what they spend how is that conservative. Only thing I saw them pinching on was the use of force in Iraq and we witnessed that disaster. Sure a few american divisions can take a government down but it cannot control a country or subjucate its population. The only way to do that as we learned in WWII is to kill masses of people until they realize... maybe this religious crap isn't so smart. Thats the only war way to win really judging by history.
However we don't have to kill off populations to change their perspective. We simply need to engage and enlighten them. The situation that spawned democracey here was enlightenment... science and tolerance which I think go hand in hand. You know we could learn something from the Mason's, how they tolerate beliefs and use science kind of as its uniting principle.. in the old days it was simply construction engineering now its a little more complicated. I believe the organization was designed to be able to fit in anywhere in the world.
I think our diplomats should be the same way, able to accept other peoples culture and respect it while also sharing ours and gaining respect for it. If we behaved like that we could change the worldwithout bleeding our people.
I like those comments.
However we don't have to kill off populations to change their perspective. We simply need to engage and enlighten them. The situation that spawned democracey here was enlightenment... science and tolerance which I think go hand in hand. You know we could learn something from the Mason's, how they tolerate beliefs and use science kind of as its uniting principle.. in the old days it was simply construction engineering now its a little more complicated. I believe the organization was designed to be able to fit in anywhere in the world.
I think our diplomats should be the same way, able to accept other peoples culture and respect it while also sharing ours and gaining respect for it. If we behaved like that we could change the worldwithout bleeding our people.
I like those comments.
QUOTE (dhcracker+Nov 5 2010, 01:10 PM)
However we don't have to kill off populations to change their perspective. We simply need to engage and enlighten them.However we don't have to kill off populations to change their perspective. We simply need to engage and enlighten them. The situation that spawned democracey here was enlightenment... science and tolerance which I think go hand in hand.
If only the process of enlightenment where that simple. It took two wars and a couple of centuries of social strife to attain an acceptable degree of enlightenment in this country. If you're asking prospective democracies to follow our example you're still calling for a bloodbath.
QUOTE (Capracus+Nov 5 2010, 10:59 PM)
If only the process of enlightenment where that simple. It took two wars and a couple of centuries of social strife to attain an acceptable degree of enlightenment in this country. If you're asking prospective democracies to follow our example you're still calling for a bloodbath.
An acceptable degree of enlightenment.
. More like stupid to brain dead.
An acceptable degree of enlightenment.
. More like stupid to brain dead.
QUOTE (brucep+Nov 6 2010, 01:01 AM)
An acceptable degree of enlightenment. . More like stupid to brain dead.
. More like stupid to brain dead.At least we've gotten past genocide and lynching of our own inhabitants, and there is a reasonable degree of social justice.
QUOTE (Capracus+Nov 6 2010, 01:35 AM)
At least we've gotten past genocide and lynching of our own inhabitants, and there is a reasonable degree of social justice.
Sure. I'm not thrilled with the level of group intellect when it comes to remembering who screwed who and why. Like who is responsible for allowing Wall Street to take the world economy to the brink for short term gain. I'm one who knows 'even though this happened we still had to save the world banking system' regardless of what they did. I wonder if our elected leaders are ever going to do the oversight they were elected to perform. IE their fuking job. Unfortunately it's the real citizens that get fuked. I don't disagree with you but Americans need to start doing their homework rather than just trusting authority to do what is best for all Americans.
Sure. I'm not thrilled with the level of group intellect when it comes to remembering who screwed who and why. Like who is responsible for allowing Wall Street to take the world economy to the brink for short term gain. I'm one who knows 'even though this happened we still had to save the world banking system' regardless of what they did. I wonder if our elected leaders are ever going to do the oversight they were elected to perform. IE their fuking job. Unfortunately it's the real citizens that get fuked. I don't disagree with you but Americans need to start doing their homework rather than just trusting authority to do what is best for all Americans.
QUOTE (Capracus+Nov 5 2010, 05:59 PM)
If only the process of enlightenment where that simple. It took two wars and a couple of centuries of social strife to attain an acceptable degree of enlightenment in this country. If you're asking prospective democracies to follow our example you're still calling for a bloodbath.
WE have only had to fight one war to attain our society that has lead to social justice, the revolution. Every other war was just a distraction from our own enlightenment and advancement to the point of now we waste a significant portion of the worlds resources so we are always ready to completely exterminate all life on this planet.
WWII was also avoidable, to say Germany and Japan wanted to take over the world is foolish and it completely ignores the facts of history and the events leading up to those wars. What got Japan worried about us was our expansion into southeast asia, what got germany after us was we were profiting from people dying. What started wwII was meddling with other nations at versailes. WE pissed off china, japan, the arabs, and britian completely ignored her colonies. After that the UK lost its empire, the world was mad at us we drove Italy to ally with germany and we punished russia allowing hitler to bait them. That was all Wilsons handiwork this global expansionist agenda cannot be done by governments or guns, it can only be done by the population itself.
And when the population is controlled by two parties that control all the media and all the work and jobs... we are stagnant we are not advancing in social justice and we are going backwards in economic justice.
You think its so hard to get along with other peoples? I have never met anyone that worked for a living from any nation that I could not relate to and learn to respect and even like. I have friends that are muslim, buddhist, atheist, and from nations we consider our enemies.. those people are not our enemies the enemies of the people are the ones telling us who our enemies are.
But as far as other governments.. sure they are doing probably far worse to their population but my friend we have lost our way. Politics used to be about our local social and economic conditions now its about scandal and issues like abortion and religion and guess what... they don't want to fix any of those issues cause if they did fix them then they wouldnt' have a dead horse to beat to get into office nor an enemy to blame for doing nothing.
The days of representative governing are no longer needed, its ancient system we could afford to wire every citizens home onto a network and let them sit down and decide how we should govern ourselves. We could also use such a system to interact with the entire world and thus get rid of the middle men who would have us believe lies like weapons of mass destruction in order to get rich off oil.
Yes I said oil.. "but we buy iraq's oil and they own it" BS we buy it, they own it and we develop it and we get paid for that development. We are contorlled by money because they keep us where we always need more. Whoever spends the most wins... ALWAYS isnt' that something the damn tv picks our presidents and representatives.
I could do better myself..
Listen I'm just trying to point out to you that our nation is not doing things right. Our budget needs to be spent on our own people, NO nation threatens us when we can push a button and destroy it. Our interests are not on our population and is not on any kind of justice our interests is with the money of the people that have the money and control it, they tell us what our interests are and my friend you are just repeating what they have put in your head.
If you go and read world history clear of that propoganda.. if you go and see what europe was doing and how before wwI the western world was enslaving the rest of the world you will see maybe Germany had a right to be pissed off.. maybe we should have all sat down and been decent human beings. Maybe we should have got greedy money hungry politicians out of power before we drove entire populations into hatred.
"oh the old haves and have nots" yeah thats another propoganda line but let me tell you when you are dirt poor and you see stupid rich people wasting wealth and resources that you work your *** off to produce... yeah that sucks.
WE have only had to fight one war to attain our society that has lead to social justice, the revolution. Every other war was just a distraction from our own enlightenment and advancement to the point of now we waste a significant portion of the worlds resources so we are always ready to completely exterminate all life on this planet.
WWII was also avoidable, to say Germany and Japan wanted to take over the world is foolish and it completely ignores the facts of history and the events leading up to those wars. What got Japan worried about us was our expansion into southeast asia, what got germany after us was we were profiting from people dying. What started wwII was meddling with other nations at versailes. WE pissed off china, japan, the arabs, and britian completely ignored her colonies. After that the UK lost its empire, the world was mad at us we drove Italy to ally with germany and we punished russia allowing hitler to bait them. That was all Wilsons handiwork this global expansionist agenda cannot be done by governments or guns, it can only be done by the population itself.
And when the population is controlled by two parties that control all the media and all the work and jobs... we are stagnant we are not advancing in social justice and we are going backwards in economic justice.
You think its so hard to get along with other peoples? I have never met anyone that worked for a living from any nation that I could not relate to and learn to respect and even like. I have friends that are muslim, buddhist, atheist, and from nations we consider our enemies.. those people are not our enemies the enemies of the people are the ones telling us who our enemies are.
But as far as other governments.. sure they are doing probably far worse to their population but my friend we have lost our way. Politics used to be about our local social and economic conditions now its about scandal and issues like abortion and religion and guess what... they don't want to fix any of those issues cause if they did fix them then they wouldnt' have a dead horse to beat to get into office nor an enemy to blame for doing nothing.
The days of representative governing are no longer needed, its ancient system we could afford to wire every citizens home onto a network and let them sit down and decide how we should govern ourselves. We could also use such a system to interact with the entire world and thus get rid of the middle men who would have us believe lies like weapons of mass destruction in order to get rich off oil.
Yes I said oil.. "but we buy iraq's oil and they own it" BS we buy it, they own it and we develop it and we get paid for that development. We are contorlled by money because they keep us where we always need more. Whoever spends the most wins... ALWAYS isnt' that something the damn tv picks our presidents and representatives.
I could do better myself..
Listen I'm just trying to point out to you that our nation is not doing things right. Our budget needs to be spent on our own people, NO nation threatens us when we can push a button and destroy it. Our interests are not on our population and is not on any kind of justice our interests is with the money of the people that have the money and control it, they tell us what our interests are and my friend you are just repeating what they have put in your head.
If you go and read world history clear of that propoganda.. if you go and see what europe was doing and how before wwI the western world was enslaving the rest of the world you will see maybe Germany had a right to be pissed off.. maybe we should have all sat down and been decent human beings. Maybe we should have got greedy money hungry politicians out of power before we drove entire populations into hatred.
"oh the old haves and have nots" yeah thats another propoganda line but let me tell you when you are dirt poor and you see stupid rich people wasting wealth and resources that you work your *** off to produce... yeah that sucks.
QUOTE (dhcracker+Nov 6 2010, 02:47 AM)
WE have only had to fight one war to attain our society that has lead to social justice, the revolution.
I think the Native Americans, the enslaved Africans, the oppressed minorities, and the half of the nation that flew the Stars and Bars might disagree.
interesting how the real cause of wars is always overlooked for the media parrot squawking.
the real cause is to make the rich richer, and to keep the populace enslaved to the bankers. the bankers are behind ALL wars.
it is easy to stick with the brainwashed version of reality, though. that way you can read about something to think about in the "news". you can have all kinds of opinions on how to kill and who to kill, 'cause killing will totally solve stuff.
those fat cats must be laughing really hard when they write the news.
bomb the bogeyman!
the real cause is to make the rich richer, and to keep the populace enslaved to the bankers. the bankers are behind ALL wars.
it is easy to stick with the brainwashed version of reality, though. that way you can read about something to think about in the "news". you can have all kinds of opinions on how to kill and who to kill, 'cause killing will totally solve stuff.
those fat cats must be laughing really hard when they write the news.
bomb the bogeyman!
QUOTE (newton+Nov 6 2010, 01:35 PM)
the real cause is to make the rich richer, and to keep the populace enslaved to the bankers. the bankers are behind ALL wars.
A prominent cause of genocide and hate crime is the tendency of people to blame all of society's problems on one group of people. Jews, bankers, immigrants, take your pick.
A prominent cause of genocide and hate crime is the tendency of people to blame all of society's problems on one group of people. Jews, bankers, immigrants, take your pick.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Nov 6 2010, 06:33 PM)
A prominent cause of genocide and hate crime is the tendency of people to blame all of society's problems on one group of people. Jews, bankers, immigrants, take your pick.
the bankers aren't people. they're demons.
(figuratively speaking)
it is not wrong to hate those that enslave you, and yes, we are ALL slaves to the bank.
but, i don't expect anybody to do anything other than keep paying the bills and wining when they have to take another job.
i can't believe ANYONE would defend the banksters. they steal from every living soul who has an "honest job".
Nathan Mayer Rothschild (1777-1836, who once said: "I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply."
so, whatever, buddy, lol.
i don't approve of genocide, but bankers are not a group of people. banking is a profession, and no genocide has ever been attributed to wiping out a profession, that i know of. that aside, i don't think bankers should be killed, just defanged. the power to set value on a physical object as a standard of trade for labour and goods should be held firmly by the people, not a tiny handful of people that literally OWN the world by OUR CONSENT!
kill the banking system, the people are not the REAL problem.
the bankers aren't people. they're demons.
(figuratively speaking)
it is not wrong to hate those that enslave you, and yes, we are ALL slaves to the bank.
but, i don't expect anybody to do anything other than keep paying the bills and wining when they have to take another job.
i can't believe ANYONE would defend the banksters. they steal from every living soul who has an "honest job".
Nathan Mayer Rothschild (1777-1836, who once said: "I care not what puppet is placed upon the throne of England to rule the Empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire, and I control the British money supply."
so, whatever, buddy, lol.
i don't approve of genocide, but bankers are not a group of people. banking is a profession, and no genocide has ever been attributed to wiping out a profession, that i know of. that aside, i don't think bankers should be killed, just defanged. the power to set value on a physical object as a standard of trade for labour and goods should be held firmly by the people, not a tiny handful of people that literally OWN the world by OUR CONSENT!
kill the banking system, the people are not the REAL problem.
QUOTE (newton+Nov 6 2010, 06:28 PM)
the bankers aren't people. they're demons.
I believe Hitler said something similar about the Jews...
It sounds more like you have a problem with capitalism. Are you a communist?
I believe Hitler said something similar about the Jews...
QUOTE
i can't believe ANYONE would defend the banksters. they steal from every living soul who has an "honest job".
It sounds more like you have a problem with capitalism. Are you a communist?
QUOTE (Capracus+Nov 5 2010, 11:27 PM)
I think the Native Americans, the enslaved Africans, the oppressed minorities, and the half of the nation that flew the Stars and Bars might disagree.
If you think we had to kill Indians to have our society you are wrong, we could have honored our treaties and avoided genocide. If you think the civil war was fought to free slaves.. again you are wrong Lincoln would have preserved the union by keeping slavery if that was possible he said so many times. Back then people had this big honor problem, southern people felt they were being oppressed by the more populous north. Back then the representatives and govt system wasn't so fairly structured, and also people often dueled to the death over a stupid insult. So you could imagine that southern people felt their honor was insulted and northern people felt their country had been insulted.. a big honor war you can tell simply by reading the letters of the soldiers that did the fighting. They sure wasn't talking about marching to a glorious death to abolish or preserve slavery.. they were fighting for their country and honor more or less. And actually by the end of the war if the south could have abolished slavery and preserved its nation it would have done so and Davis tried to do so all too late. He had his own emancipation drafted to garner support from europe but before he could get it moving Richmond fell. That tells me had people really used their heads and communicated better and knew all the options they could have avoided that and still got rid of the evil of slavery.
Anyway all those wars were avoidable, we could have used the pen and not the sword. There is never ever ever a justifiable reason for war, you can only justify defending yourself and family. I don't think you have to defend your life or your families life on the other side of the planet against people that ride horses and don't even use money.
If you think we had to kill Indians to have our society you are wrong, we could have honored our treaties and avoided genocide. If you think the civil war was fought to free slaves.. again you are wrong Lincoln would have preserved the union by keeping slavery if that was possible he said so many times. Back then people had this big honor problem, southern people felt they were being oppressed by the more populous north. Back then the representatives and govt system wasn't so fairly structured, and also people often dueled to the death over a stupid insult. So you could imagine that southern people felt their honor was insulted and northern people felt their country had been insulted.. a big honor war you can tell simply by reading the letters of the soldiers that did the fighting. They sure wasn't talking about marching to a glorious death to abolish or preserve slavery.. they were fighting for their country and honor more or less. And actually by the end of the war if the south could have abolished slavery and preserved its nation it would have done so and Davis tried to do so all too late. He had his own emancipation drafted to garner support from europe but before he could get it moving Richmond fell. That tells me had people really used their heads and communicated better and knew all the options they could have avoided that and still got rid of the evil of slavery.
Anyway all those wars were avoidable, we could have used the pen and not the sword. There is never ever ever a justifiable reason for war, you can only justify defending yourself and family. I don't think you have to defend your life or your families life on the other side of the planet against people that ride horses and don't even use money.
QUOTE (dhcracker+Nov 7 2010, 12:46 AM)
If you think we had to kill Indians to have our society you are wrong, we could have honored our treaties and avoided genocide. If you think the civil war was fought to free slaves.. again you are wrong Lincoln would have preserved the union by keeping slavery if that was possible he said so many times. Back then people had this big honor problem, southern people felt they were being oppressed by the more populous north. Back then the representatives and govt system wasn't so fairly structured, and also people often dueled to the death over a stupid insult. So you could imagine that southern people felt their honor was insulted and northern people felt their country had been insulted.. a big honor war you can tell simply by reading the letters of the soldiers that did the fighting. They sure wasn't talking about marching to a glorious death to abolish or preserve slavery.. they were fighting for their country and honor more or less. And actually by the end of the war if the south could have abolished slavery and preserved its nation it would have done so and Davis tried to do so all too late. He had his own emancipation drafted to garner support from europe but before he could get it moving Richmond fell. That tells me had people really used their heads and communicated better and knew all the options they could have avoided that and still got rid of the evil of slavery.
Anyway all those wars were avoidable, we could have used the pen and not the sword. There is never ever ever a justifiable reason for war, you can only justify defending yourself and family. I don't think you have to defend your life or your families life on the other side of the planet against people that ride horses and don't even use money.
Anyway all those wars were avoidable, we could have used the pen and not the sword. There is never ever ever a justifiable reason for war, you can only justify defending yourself and family. I don't think you have to defend your life or your families life on the other side of the planet against people that ride horses and don't even use money.
I’m not condoning the historical behavior of European American society, only noting that their state of cultural development allowed these various atrocities to occur. The fact that slavery, genocide and racial discrimination were even considered an option by either side sheds light on the degree of enlightenment prevalent at the time.
The economy of the South was heavily invested in slavery, and succession from the Union was based on preserving that economy. Southern leaders only considered freeing slaves as a means to bolster their military ranks. Jefferson Davis believed that slavery was a necessary condition for Blacks until they could be conditioned over generations to be capable free men.
To say that these wars were avoidable ignores the historical facts of the time. As long as perceived intolerable conditions cannot be remedied through acceptable compromise, and resolution through military conflict remains a viable option, war will prevail.
The economy of the South was heavily invested in slavery, and succession from the Union was based on preserving that economy. Southern leaders only considered freeing slaves as a means to bolster their military ranks. Jefferson Davis believed that slavery was a necessary condition for Blacks until they could be conditioned over generations to be capable free men.
To say that these wars were avoidable ignores the historical facts of the time. As long as perceived intolerable conditions cannot be remedied through acceptable compromise, and resolution through military conflict remains a viable option, war will prevail.
Now that we've all shot our off topic ideological wads, I'd like to know if newton has any new revelations from the 911 Truth movement, or is it still BS as usual.
well, thanks for asking, capracus. i have nothing to add. there is a mounting pile of professionals who are taking the lead, and i'm bored of flogging a flacid horse on a tiny stage with only people who are pretending to be blind watching me, lol.
nothing has changed, ...911 was a MIHOP job, perpetrated by the power elite to put a bee in the bonnet of the world "economy", and to put away a big pile of those nasty "rights" and "freedoms" the masses used to cower under. "ooooo, i'm a person, leave me alone and let me make my own decisions".
big brother is watching.
p.s. i liked it when you argued with arthur. that was hot.
p.s.s. am i a communist jew hater? in your wet dreams, i am.
p.s.s.s. bring up the jews again, flyingbutressman. it makes you seem like you care about something.
nothing has changed, ...911 was a MIHOP job, perpetrated by the power elite to put a bee in the bonnet of the world "economy", and to put away a big pile of those nasty "rights" and "freedoms" the masses used to cower under. "ooooo, i'm a person, leave me alone and let me make my own decisions".
big brother is watching.
p.s. i liked it when you argued with arthur. that was hot.
p.s.s. am i a communist jew hater? in your wet dreams, i am.
p.s.s.s. bring up the jews again, flyingbutressman. it makes you seem like you care about something.
QUOTE (newton+Nov 7 2010, 01:02 AM)
p.s.s. am i a communist jew hater? in your wet dreams, i am.
p.s.s.s. bring up the jews again, flyingbutressman. it makes you seem like you care about something.
Haters gonna hate.
p.s.s.s. bring up the jews again, flyingbutressman. it makes you seem like you care about something.
Haters gonna hate.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Nov 7 2010, 05:20 AM)
Haters gonna hate.
i haven't preached any kind of hatred. your putting words in my mouth. typical.
i haven't preached any kind of hatred. your putting words in my mouth. typical.
QUOTE (newton+Nov 7 2010, 03:21 PM)
i haven't preached any kind of hatred. your putting words in my mouth. typical.
Now you're preaching?
Now you're preaching?
to the choir.
g'night, dyck.
g'night, dyck.
QUOTE (newton+Nov 7 2010, 04:59 PM)
to the choir.
Which choir? You're the only one here who takes you seriously.
Dych? Did you seriously misspell a four-letter word?
Which choir? You're the only one here who takes you seriously.
QUOTE
g'night, dyck.
Dych? Did you seriously misspell a four-letter word?
QUOTE (newton+Nov 7 2010, 12:02 AM)
well, thanks for asking, capracus. i have nothing to add. there is a mounting pile of professionals who are taking the lead, and i'm bored of flogging a flacid horse on a tiny stage with only people who are pretending to be blind watching me, lol.
nothing has changed, ...911 was a MIHOP job, perpetrated by the power elite to put a bee in the bonnet of the world "economy", and to put away a big pile of those nasty "rights" and "freedoms" the masses used to cower under. "ooooo, i'm a person, leave me alone and let me make my own decisions".
big brother is watching.
p.s. i liked it when you argued with arthur. that was hot.
p.s.s. am i a communist jew hater? in your wet dreams, i am.
p.s.s.s. bring up the jews again, flyingbutressman. it makes you seem like you care about something.
Only problem is you truthers don't have any actual demolition experts as "professionals" just a bunch of anti-government idiots who think appearances of falling objects should be somehow different...
idiots I won't even bother explaining to you the physics of demolition by explosives because you people don't care your just like religious nutcases.
nothing has changed, ...911 was a MIHOP job, perpetrated by the power elite to put a bee in the bonnet of the world "economy", and to put away a big pile of those nasty "rights" and "freedoms" the masses used to cower under. "ooooo, i'm a person, leave me alone and let me make my own decisions".
big brother is watching.
p.s. i liked it when you argued with arthur. that was hot.
p.s.s. am i a communist jew hater? in your wet dreams, i am.
p.s.s.s. bring up the jews again, flyingbutressman. it makes you seem like you care about something.
Only problem is you truthers don't have any actual demolition experts as "professionals" just a bunch of anti-government idiots who think appearances of falling objects should be somehow different...
idiots I won't even bother explaining to you the physics of demolition by explosives because you people don't care your just like religious nutcases.
dhcracker --- I fear you have the right of it.
Faith-based demolition.
Faith-based demolition.
Some aerodynamic half-truth from Pilots For 9/11 Truth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iToxQVq-Lg
Ground effect explained:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1iToxQVq-Lg
Ground effect explained:
QUOTE
First of all, there is no bubble of air that pushes an aircraft away from the ground. The true cause of ground effect is the influence of the ground on the wing's angle of attack as described above. Ground effect does nothing to force an aircraft upward from the ground, it only changes the relative amount of lift and drag that a wing will generate at a given speed and angle of attack. Second, we have seen that this effect actually decreases with speed since induced drag has increasingly less influence on an aircraft the faster it flies.
Brian also consulted with a pair of commercial airline pilots who decided to try this kind of approach in a flight training simulator. Although the pilots were not sure the simulator models such scenarios with complete accuracy, they reported no significant difficulties in flying a 757 within an altitude of tens of feet at speeds between 350 and 550 mph (565 to 885 km/h) across smooth terrain. The only issue they encountered was constant warnings from the simulator about flying too fast and too low. These warnings were expected since the manufacturer does not recommend and FAA regulations prohibit flying a commercial aircraft the way Flight 77 was flown. These restrictions do not mean it is impossible for a plane to fly at those conditions but that it is extremely hazardous to do so, and safety was obviously not a concern to the terrorists on September 11. An aircraft flying at those high speeds at low altitude would also likely experience shaking due to the loads acting on it, but commercial aircraft are designed with at least a 50% safety margin to survive such extremes.
One of the pilots summarized his experiences by stating, "This whole ground effect argument is ridiculous. People need to realize that crashing a plane into a building as massive as the Pentagon is remarkably easy and takes no skill at all. Landing one on a runway safely even under the best conditions? Now that's the hard part!" While he may have been exaggerating a bit for effect, he does raise a valid point that flying skillfully and safely is much more difficult than flying as recklessly as the terrorists did on September 11.
- answer by Jeff Scott, 21 May 2006
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0274.shtml
Brian also consulted with a pair of commercial airline pilots who decided to try this kind of approach in a flight training simulator. Although the pilots were not sure the simulator models such scenarios with complete accuracy, they reported no significant difficulties in flying a 757 within an altitude of tens of feet at speeds between 350 and 550 mph (565 to 885 km/h) across smooth terrain. The only issue they encountered was constant warnings from the simulator about flying too fast and too low. These warnings were expected since the manufacturer does not recommend and FAA regulations prohibit flying a commercial aircraft the way Flight 77 was flown. These restrictions do not mean it is impossible for a plane to fly at those conditions but that it is extremely hazardous to do so, and safety was obviously not a concern to the terrorists on September 11. An aircraft flying at those high speeds at low altitude would also likely experience shaking due to the loads acting on it, but commercial aircraft are designed with at least a 50% safety margin to survive such extremes.
One of the pilots summarized his experiences by stating, "This whole ground effect argument is ridiculous. People need to realize that crashing a plane into a building as massive as the Pentagon is remarkably easy and takes no skill at all. Landing one on a runway safely even under the best conditions? Now that's the hard part!" While he may have been exaggerating a bit for effect, he does raise a valid point that flying skillfully and safely is much more difficult than flying as recklessly as the terrorists did on September 11.
- answer by Jeff Scott, 21 May 2006
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0274.shtml
I believe that my discoveries, science and technology be considered to solve any mysteries in regards to the collapse of the three 9/11 towers. The energy dispersed with the two crashing air craft would be added to the energy of natural fire.
What you are seeing or rather not seeing in the black smoke being produced is the energy it took to collapse these buildings.
The multiple explosions or noise that the last man in tower 7 heard was the collapsing of atmospheric cells.
Bruce Voigt
Posted: Mar 15 2011, 02:47 PM
Tsunami hits Japan 8.9 magnitude earthquake - Friday March 11, 2011
-------------------------------
Black Wave
TORNADO'S The How and Why (physorg general science)
Bruce Voigt Posted: Dec 18 2006, 05:07 PM
While the air cell is expanded its nuclei are of a size that does not interact with the sun's radiation and little light is produced leaving a dark cloud (black). The vortex of energy released from the Earth has now mutated to a size as to interact with gravity and air, returning to Earth as a destructive tornado.
What you are seeing or rather not seeing in the black smoke being produced is the energy it took to collapse these buildings.
The multiple explosions or noise that the last man in tower 7 heard was the collapsing of atmospheric cells.
Bruce Voigt
Posted: Mar 15 2011, 02:47 PM
Tsunami hits Japan 8.9 magnitude earthquake - Friday March 11, 2011
-------------------------------
Black Wave
QUOTE
TORNADO'S The How and Why (physorg general science)
Bruce Voigt Posted: Dec 18 2006, 05:07 PM
While the air cell is expanded its nuclei are of a size that does not interact with the sun's radiation and little light is produced leaving a dark cloud (black). The vortex of energy released from the Earth has now mutated to a size as to interact with gravity and air, returning to Earth as a destructive tornado.
Bruce Voigt --- There was plenty of energy; the energy of position, also called potential energy. All it took was to lessen the resistive force conuteracting the force of gravity. For WTC 1 what one observes is best described as a vertical avalanche.
Black -- the nuclei energy shows in the black smoke of burning oil.
Adding air or oxygen to fire produces a hotter fire because oxygen "is" fire.
Like the small nuclei of a black hole does not interact with matter so it is with the nuclei of an air cell. The reaction of fire causes these small particles to separate and being that these many repelling particles are the same strength as the cell multiplying fires energy or heat.
If by chance you ever encounter a dust devil, water spout, fire tornado that is black, stay away as it may turn out to be the likes of a miniature Tunguska Disaster.
scenario;
Ocean waves are two feet, there is no effort standing in this (little energy).
A rouge three foot wave comes along and with its energy knocks you over and beats the hell out of you as it's dragging your body along the bottom.
PS-- I explain fire and gravity in Crop Circles
Adding air or oxygen to fire produces a hotter fire because oxygen "is" fire.
Like the small nuclei of a black hole does not interact with matter so it is with the nuclei of an air cell. The reaction of fire causes these small particles to separate and being that these many repelling particles are the same strength as the cell multiplying fires energy or heat.
If by chance you ever encounter a dust devil, water spout, fire tornado that is black, stay away as it may turn out to be the likes of a miniature Tunguska Disaster.
scenario;
Ocean waves are two feet, there is no effort standing in this (little energy).
A rouge three foot wave comes along and with its energy knocks you over and beats the hell out of you as it's dragging your body along the bottom.
PS-- I explain fire and gravity in Crop Circles
QUOTE (Bruce Voigt+Apr 8 2011, 11:52 AM)
Like the small nuclei of a black hole does not interact with matter so it is with the nuclei of an air cell. The reaction of fire causes these small particles to separate and being that these many repelling particles are the same strength as the cell multiplying fires energy or heat.
Yeah, take that Dr Benson....
Yeah, take that Dr Benson....
scenario;
Ocean waves are two feet, there is no effort standing in this (little energy).
A rouge "three" foot wave comes along and with its energy knocks you over and beats the hell out of you as it's dragging your body along the bottom.
Ocean waves are "three" feet, there is no effort standing in this (little energy).
A rouge four foot wave comes along and with its energy knocks you over and beats the hell out of you as it's dragging your body along the bottom.
QUOTE (Bruce Voigt @ Apr 8 2011, 11:52 AM
QUOTE
Like the small nuclei of a black hole does not interact with matter so it is with the nuclei of an air cell. The reaction of fire causes these small particles to separate and being that these many repelling particles are the same strength as the cell multiplying fires energy or heat.
the blackness of outer space! Think of the energy!
adoucette --- I took it.
No way I can reply to such poetry.
No way I can reply to such poetry.
As Einstein said only two things are infinite, this is an example of the latter....
Wildfires around the globe have been horrific and will continue.
There is a reason why.
QUOTE (adoucette+Nov 3 2010, 09:04 PM)
The intolerable situation was the death of 50,000 Iraqis, mostly Shiite children each year because no one could find an acceptable way out of this mess that didn't involve removing Saddam by force.
You say it was a misapplication of force, I say it was a justified use of force and that the world is a better place because of it.
Seems the writers at Al Jazeera now agree with me and not you.
Why do you think that is?
How long to you want to go around and around on this?
Arthur
I am getting a big chuckle at reading personal opinions dunked in revisionist history from a Physics of 9/11 Events site.
I thought the moderator would ban or delete this sort of tripe?
Or am I wrong and "off topic" discussions of history where "liars use statistics and statistics lie" are now accepted?
Please inform me because educated posters always produce the best forum.
I teach within the social sciences at the university level and would love to engage scientists in serious social debate. But according to the rules, this falls in dangerous territory where one can be banned, have your post deleted, as well as having other unsavory things happen to one's account. There is no recourse or appeal to a poster if a moderator does not like you because of what you said. This fact alone makes this site dubious when it comes to everyone's Natural right to a "fair and balanced" exchange of ideas to arrive at the truth.
I have read a lot from this thread to realize there is a double standard going on here in regards to the moderation. So, please don't be offended by my off topic comments about the rules. It's important to understand the rules before I play any game.
I came here because I am more concerned about the findings of Dr. Neil Harrit's team with the 911 dust samples.
If the octs are still pushing "no molten steel in the towers" as reported first hand by many learned and intelligent people on the scene, I sure would like to get the octs apology about the iron spheres found in every 911 dust sample.
Let's discuss the iron spheres first before we develop it into the other scientific findings of Harrit, shall we?
You say it was a misapplication of force, I say it was a justified use of force and that the world is a better place because of it.
Seems the writers at Al Jazeera now agree with me and not you.
Why do you think that is?
How long to you want to go around and around on this?
Arthur
I am getting a big chuckle at reading personal opinions dunked in revisionist history from a Physics of 9/11 Events site.
I thought the moderator would ban or delete this sort of tripe?
Or am I wrong and "off topic" discussions of history where "liars use statistics and statistics lie" are now accepted?
Please inform me because educated posters always produce the best forum.
I teach within the social sciences at the university level and would love to engage scientists in serious social debate. But according to the rules, this falls in dangerous territory where one can be banned, have your post deleted, as well as having other unsavory things happen to one's account. There is no recourse or appeal to a poster if a moderator does not like you because of what you said. This fact alone makes this site dubious when it comes to everyone's Natural right to a "fair and balanced" exchange of ideas to arrive at the truth.
I have read a lot from this thread to realize there is a double standard going on here in regards to the moderation. So, please don't be offended by my off topic comments about the rules. It's important to understand the rules before I play any game.
I came here because I am more concerned about the findings of Dr. Neil Harrit's team with the 911 dust samples.
If the octs are still pushing "no molten steel in the towers" as reported first hand by many learned and intelligent people on the scene, I sure would like to get the octs apology about the iron spheres found in every 911 dust sample.
Let's discuss the iron spheres first before we develop it into the other scientific findings of Harrit, shall we?
QUOTE (dhcracker+Nov 10 2010, 04:41 AM)
Only problem is you truthers don't have any actual demolition experts as "professionals" just a bunch of anti-government idiots who think appearances of falling objects should be somehow different...
idiots I won't even bother explaining to you the physics of demolition by explosives because you people don't care your just like religious nutcases.
Dh, your argument falls into the realm of fallacy when analyzing the logic behind it.
Ad hominid attacks are not cool either.
Talking about demolition experts in one thing.
I remind you of Danny Jawenko. This Dutch controlled demolition expert gave his opinion about Building 7 and he said unequivocally, and unabashed it was a "controlled demolition."
Danny Jawenko later explained he was getting some heat and would no longer talk about his expert opinion because he feared the threats were real, had teeth and would lead to loss of business.
Firefighters also speak of threats too, but I'm afraid we are off topic and "Personal attacks against other Bulletin Board members in any of the forums are strictly prohibited." PhysOrgForum Forum rules.
I wouldn't worry though, because like Boris Badenov you break the rules, and who will get banned? Me.
idiots I won't even bother explaining to you the physics of demolition by explosives because you people don't care your just like religious nutcases.
Dh, your argument falls into the realm of fallacy when analyzing the logic behind it.
Ad hominid attacks are not cool either.
Talking about demolition experts in one thing.
I remind you of Danny Jawenko. This Dutch controlled demolition expert gave his opinion about Building 7 and he said unequivocally, and unabashed it was a "controlled demolition."
Danny Jawenko later explained he was getting some heat and would no longer talk about his expert opinion because he feared the threats were real, had teeth and would lead to loss of business.
Firefighters also speak of threats too, but I'm afraid we are off topic and "Personal attacks against other Bulletin Board members in any of the forums are strictly prohibited." PhysOrgForum Forum rules.
I wouldn't worry though, because like Boris Badenov you break the rules, and who will get banned? Me.
sandpeebles --- Iron spheres? Very small yes? Everything was rubbing and banging against everything else inside on the way down. Rubbing off a small bit of iron which friction was enough to melt comes as no surprise to me.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Apr 25 2011, 01:48 AM)
sandpeebles --- Iron spheres? Very small yes? Everything was rubbing and banging against everything else inside on the way down. Rubbing off a small bit of iron which friction was enough to melt comes as no surprise to me.
Dear Dr. Benson, I thank you for your comment.
Are you aware of the molybdenum spheres found?
Do you think there was enough friction and time in roughly a 12 second collapse to create 2,623 degrees C?
Dear Dr. Benson, I thank you for your comment.
Are you aware of the molybdenum spheres found?
Do you think there was enough friction and time in roughly a 12 second collapse to create 2,623 degrees C?
QUOTE (sandpeebles+Apr 24 2011, 01:57 PM)
I am getting a big chuckle at reading personal opinions dunked in revisionist history from a Physics of 9/11 Events site.
As I get a big chuckle at someone nearly a decade after the event still trying to beat the dead horse of a conspiracy.
You do realize that the world has examined this event in great detail and found nothing the conspirisists have brought to the table to be compelling in the least don't you?
Arthur
As I get a big chuckle at someone nearly a decade after the event still trying to beat the dead horse of a conspiracy.
You do realize that the world has examined this event in great detail and found nothing the conspirisists have brought to the table to be compelling in the least don't you?
Arthur
sandpeebles --- I wasn't even aware of iron spheres. While I'm a bit puzzled as to the source of the molybdenum, the melt temperature is not problematic; tremendous potential energy had to go somewhere and so a tiny bit into forming the spheres.
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Apr 25 2011, 01:48 AM)
sandpeebles --- Iron spheres? Very small yes? Everything was rubbing and banging against everything else inside on the way down. Rubbing off a small bit of iron which friction was enough to melt comes as no surprise to me.
Dear Dr. Benson,
After further review of the findings of Harrit and his crew there is something very strange perhaps you could help clear up.
If the spheres, mostly composed of iron and many with some aluminum and silicon were formed due to friction, how did aluminum get inside a molten iron globule by friction?
Dear Dr. Benson,
After further review of the findings of Harrit and his crew there is something very strange perhaps you could help clear up.
If the spheres, mostly composed of iron and many with some aluminum and silicon were formed due to friction, how did aluminum get inside a molten iron globule by friction?
QUOTE (sandpeebles+Apr 24 2011, 01:57 PM)
I came here because I am more concerned about the findings of Dr. Neil Harrit's team with the 911 dust samples.
QUOTE (adoucette+Apr 26 2011, 12:17 AM)
As I get a big chuckle at someone nearly a decade after the event still trying to beat the dead horse of a conspiracy.
You do realize that the world has examined this event in great detail and found nothing the conspirisists have brought to the table to be compelling in the least don't you?
Arthur
Arthur,
You are a champion of logical fallacy. You're not fooling anyone.
There is no statute of limitations for murder, and it isn't going away no matter how bad your logic is.
Keep whistling when you pass the graveyard.
Tell me Arthur, are you associated to Omicron Technology in any way?
You do realize that the world has examined this event in great detail and found nothing the conspirisists have brought to the table to be compelling in the least don't you?
Arthur
Arthur,
You are a champion of logical fallacy. You're not fooling anyone.
There is no statute of limitations for murder, and it isn't going away no matter how bad your logic is.
Keep whistling when you pass the graveyard.
Tell me Arthur, are you associated to Omicron Technology in any way?
sandpeebles --- Aluminium of course is not surprising.
The friction simply supplies the direct means of heating. The chaotic nature of the flow, think vertical avalanche, does the rest.
The friction simply supplies the direct means of heating. The chaotic nature of the flow, think vertical avalanche, does the rest.
QUOTE (sandpeebles+Apr 25 2011, 10:05 PM)
Arthur,
You are a champion of logical fallacy. You're not fooling anyone.
There is no statute of limitations for murder, and it isn't going away no matter how bad your logic is.
Keep whistling when you pass the graveyard.
Tell me Arthur, are you associated to Omicron Technology in any way?
Like I said, it's been examined in detail for over a decade and even though many people have tried to find evidence of something besides the official explanation, no compelling evidence has been provided to indicate that the towers didn't fall because of the damage caused by the planes and fire (fire alone for WTC 7).
You show up and also provide nothing at all compelling.
Saying that you find Iron Oxide and Aluminum in the dust of the remains of a Steel framed building clad in Aluminum panels is not going to raise any eyebrows at all.
So start with the NIST reports on the Towers. What specific issues do you have with their conclusions?
And no association with Omicron Tech.
Arthur
You are a champion of logical fallacy. You're not fooling anyone.
There is no statute of limitations for murder, and it isn't going away no matter how bad your logic is.
Keep whistling when you pass the graveyard.
Tell me Arthur, are you associated to Omicron Technology in any way?
Like I said, it's been examined in detail for over a decade and even though many people have tried to find evidence of something besides the official explanation, no compelling evidence has been provided to indicate that the towers didn't fall because of the damage caused by the planes and fire (fire alone for WTC 7).
You show up and also provide nothing at all compelling.
Saying that you find Iron Oxide and Aluminum in the dust of the remains of a Steel framed building clad in Aluminum panels is not going to raise any eyebrows at all.
So start with the NIST reports on the Towers. What specific issues do you have with their conclusions?
And no association with Omicron Tech.
Arthur
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Apr 26 2011, 02:14 AM)
sandpeebles --- Aluminium of course is not surprising.
The friction simply supplies the direct means of heating. The chaotic nature of the flow, think vertical avalanche, does the rest.
Dear Dr. Benson,
You are right, certainly the potential energy is there to produce the molten spheres, but the means of directing it so precisely into producing such a vast number of molten spheres is questionable if not impossible as some purport.
Now what is your take on the sulfur being present in many of the spheres? Where did it come from?
The friction simply supplies the direct means of heating. The chaotic nature of the flow, think vertical avalanche, does the rest.
Dear Dr. Benson,
You are right, certainly the potential energy is there to produce the molten spheres, but the means of directing it so precisely into producing such a vast number of molten spheres is questionable if not impossible as some purport.
Now what is your take on the sulfur being present in many of the spheres? Where did it come from?
Penn & Teller had something to say on this topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I
Bruce Voigt
Posted: Apr 4 2011, 01:18 AM
I believe that my discoveries, science and technology be considered to solve any mysteries in regards to the collapse of the three 9/11 towers. The energy dispersed with the two crashing air craft would be added to the energy of natural fire.
What you are seeing or rather not seeing in the black smoke being produced is the energy it took to collapse these buildings.
The multiple explosions or noise that the last man in tower 7 heard was the collapsing of atmospheric cells.
There is definitely room for conspiracy in our cruel old world but I take umbrage to people running with something they know so little about. In some cases I think these know it all people should be accountable for their actions. To watch reputable people trying to defend their honor and being accused of destroying their own building is bloody pathetic.
Posted: Apr 4 2011, 01:18 AM
QUOTE
I believe that my discoveries, science and technology be considered to solve any mysteries in regards to the collapse of the three 9/11 towers. The energy dispersed with the two crashing air craft would be added to the energy of natural fire.
What you are seeing or rather not seeing in the black smoke being produced is the energy it took to collapse these buildings.
The multiple explosions or noise that the last man in tower 7 heard was the collapsing of atmospheric cells.
There is definitely room for conspiracy in our cruel old world but I take umbrage to people running with something they know so little about. In some cases I think these know it all people should be accountable for their actions. To watch reputable people trying to defend their honor and being accused of destroying their own building is bloody pathetic.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Apr 27 2011, 11:54 PM)
.
Hi everyone. Very briefly my observations in this area....
Regarding the variety of spheres and impurities within same, please be aware of, and consider the probabilities and ramifications associated with, the following factors present in the events in question:
Good points RC. One minor source absent from your list was the contribution from the processes inherent in the construction of the buildings themselves.
Hi everyone. Very briefly my observations in this area....
Regarding the variety of spheres and impurities within same, please be aware of, and consider the probabilities and ramifications associated with, the following factors present in the events in question:
Good points RC. One minor source absent from your list was the contribution from the processes inherent in the construction of the buildings themselves.
sandpeebles --- RealityCheck seems to have done the heavy lifting.
Osama bin Laden is dead. Finally. With him goes the truth of his level of involvement in 9/11 attacks. Since this thread is synonymous with the diabolic Usama bin Ladin, let's lock this thread now. Let's sing happy day. . .
QUOTE (NEU-FONZE+Dec 10 2008, 03:52 PM)
A spectacular case of decelerating motion was that of Northaird Point in London in 1985, which came to rest with 10 floors still intact.”
Videos of the failed demolition, sometimes referred to as the Leaning Tower of Hackney.
(Trowbridge Estate, Hackney Wick, Northaird, 1985)
http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//ITN/198.../03/AS031185008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8tnkpkiqRM
Videos of the failed demolition, sometimes referred to as the Leaning Tower of Hackney.
(Trowbridge Estate, Hackney Wick, Northaird, 1985)
http://www.itnsource.com/shotlist//ITN/198.../03/AS031185008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8tnkpkiqRM
shagster! Long time no see.
Did your last post get lost in the wires for two years?
I have to thank you for your three stooges collapse video. I've had occasion to link to it a couple of times, at the most advantageous moments.
Did your last post get lost in the wires for two years?
I have to thank you for your three stooges collapse video. I've had occasion to link to it a couple of times, at the most advantageous moments.
Hi OWE.
I noticed some videos recently of Northaird that NF had alluded to a couple years ago.
Looks like the last time I posted was dec 2008. I haven't kept up much on what you and others have been doing on this topic the past couple years.
I noticed some videos recently of Northaird that NF had alluded to a couple years ago.
Looks like the last time I posted was dec 2008. I haven't kept up much on what you and others have been doing on this topic the past couple years.
QUOTE (shagster+May 20 2011, 05:30 AM)
Hi OWE.
I noticed some videos recently of Northaird that NF had alluded to a couple years ago.
Looks like the last time I posted was dec 2008. I haven't kept up much on what you and others have been doing on this topic the past couple years.
Probably for the best, I imagine. If you change your mind, I have a place you could waste some time. But I'm not suggesting it, just offering it. A little like a bum offering a drink to someone who has risen up from the gutter to a respectable life.
NF has moved on, too.
It has been an opportunity for remedial self-education, that much can be said.
I noticed some videos recently of Northaird that NF had alluded to a couple years ago.
Looks like the last time I posted was dec 2008. I haven't kept up much on what you and others have been doing on this topic the past couple years.
Probably for the best, I imagine. If you change your mind, I have a place you could waste some time. But I'm not suggesting it, just offering it. A little like a bum offering a drink to someone who has risen up from the gutter to a respectable life.
NF has moved on, too.
It has been an opportunity for remedial self-education, that much can be said.
I see Dr. Benson is kicking it on Brave New Climate. I feel compelled to point out that climate scientists are not the best source for balanced coverage of the nuclear industry. I've watched Dr. Brook step on his junk since Fukushima started and, rather than acquire a much-needed sense of humility (or integrity), he instead banned critics for posts that later proved to be correct assessments in hindsight.
Sorry Dr. Benson about the lack of angle measurements.
Sorry Dr. Benson about the lack of angle measurements.
OneWhiteEye --- BraveNewClimate hardly ever bans anybody. A ban only happens for repeated violation of the commenting rules. Some posts are removed as off-topic, often with the moderator's comment to repost on the proper thread.
Dr. Brook has quite a balanced view of nuclear power and enjoys the able assistance of those who understand that industry from the inside. I'm not claiming perfection.
[Still awaiting decent WTC 1 data.]
Dr. Brook has quite a balanced view of nuclear power and enjoys the able assistance of those who understand that industry from the inside. I'm not claiming perfection.
[Still awaiting decent WTC 1 data.]
QUOTE (David B. Benson+Jun 4 2011, 10:01 PM)
Dr. Brook has quite a balanced view of nuclear power and enjoys the able assistance of those who understand that industry from the inside.
I had about four months 'on the inside' quite some time back. Not much. Maybe enough.
Understood.
Understood.
[Still awaiting decent WTC 1 data.]
yeah. so sorry.
Check your PM inbox here.
I had about four months 'on the inside' quite some time back. Not much. Maybe enough.
QUOTE
I'm not claiming perfection.
Understood.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I'm not claiming perfection. |
Understood.
[Still awaiting decent WTC 1 data.]
yeah. so sorry.
Check your PM inbox here.
hi! miss you all. much love.
p.s. inside job, lol
p.s. inside job, lol
QUOTE (newton+Jul 19 2011, 03:47 AM)
p.s. inside job, lol
As opposed to an outside job? But if this a request, then grab your ankles.
I see it was time to come around and spam this forum, psikeyhackr. Spamming the same things at hundreds of forums must place very great demands on your time.
Behold:
TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE
distribution of steel in a skyscraper
strong enough to support the combined weights of all of the levels above
You forgot 9/11 is the Piltdown Man incident of the 21st century
Behold:
TONS of STEEL and TONS of CONCRETE
distribution of steel in a skyscraper
strong enough to support the combined weights of all of the levels above
You forgot 9/11 is the Piltdown Man incident of the 21st century
QUOTE (OneWhiteEye+Jul 24 2011, 08:27 PM)
I see it was time to come around and spam this forum, psikeyhackr. Spamming the same things at hundreds of forums must place very great demands on your time.
You think that accomplished something? Do you think that bothers me in the slightest?
Are you telling people that the designers of skyscrapers don't have to make critical decisions about the distributions of steel in skyscrapers so that they hold themselves up reliably but not waste a lot of money? What is so curious is that you can't find the distributions of steel and concrete on lots of skyscrapers. Guild secret?
Wouldn't the conservation of momentum matter in an airliner impact and collapse analysis?
The problem is all of the people who have been claiming to know physics and not discussing the subject for 9.8 years.
You didn't mention the 1000 m/sec.
psik
You think that accomplished something? Do you think that bothers me in the slightest?
Are you telling people that the designers of skyscrapers don't have to make critical decisions about the distributions of steel in skyscrapers so that they hold themselves up reliably but not waste a lot of money? What is so curious is that you can't find the distributions of steel and concrete on lots of skyscrapers. Guild secret?
Wouldn't the conservation of momentum matter in an airliner impact and collapse analysis?
The problem is all of the people who have been claiming to know physics and not discussing the subject for 9.8 years.
You didn't mention the 1000 m/sec.
psik
Come again? I didn't hear you.
QUOTE (psikeyhackr+Jul 23 2011, 08:06 PM)
http://psikeyhackr.livejournal.com/1276.html
psik
I went to your site and I see you are spreading LIES, since the BS you posted was debunked here LONG AGO.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=442981
So, are you just back for another spanking?
Arthur
psik
I went to your site and I see you are spreading LIES, since the BS you posted was debunked here LONG AGO.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=442981
So, are you just back for another spanking?
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jul 27 2011, 04:59 PM)
I went to your site and I see you are spreading LIES, since the BS you posted was debunked here LONG AGO.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=442981
So, are you just back for another spanking?
Arthur
LOL
Is it a LIE that skyscrapers have to hold themselves up?
Is it a LIE that the amount of steel increases down a skyscraper?
Is it a LIE that the steel has to hold up the concrete in a skyscraper?
Were there HORIZONTAL BEAMS connecting the columns in the cores of the WTC? Ever seen a diagram of how those beams were laid out? It should have been about 1500 feet of steel on every level. So what did it weigh? Was the thickness the same all of the way down the building.?
So after almost TEN YEARS it is pretty damn funny that so many people claiming to know physics have not demanded and been talking about having accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete in the twin towers.
You can accuse me of LYING all you want. I just find the accusation amusing. It does not change the fact that I have been saying for years that the NCSTAR1 report does not even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers and not one person has specified a number and where it is in that report. On 9/11/11 the physics profession will have spent TEN YEARS making a fool of itself.
Can't build a physical model that can completely collapse. But it is certainly interesting that it sounds like most of the profession has chosen to REMAIN SILENT. But to remain silent about such an event is inexcusable.
psik
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=442981
So, are you just back for another spanking?
Arthur
LOL
Is it a LIE that skyscrapers have to hold themselves up?
Is it a LIE that the amount of steel increases down a skyscraper?
Is it a LIE that the steel has to hold up the concrete in a skyscraper?
Were there HORIZONTAL BEAMS connecting the columns in the cores of the WTC? Ever seen a diagram of how those beams were laid out? It should have been about 1500 feet of steel on every level. So what did it weigh? Was the thickness the same all of the way down the building.?
So after almost TEN YEARS it is pretty damn funny that so many people claiming to know physics have not demanded and been talking about having accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete in the twin towers.
You can accuse me of LYING all you want. I just find the accusation amusing. It does not change the fact that I have been saying for years that the NCSTAR1 report does not even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers and not one person has specified a number and where it is in that report. On 9/11/11 the physics profession will have spent TEN YEARS making a fool of itself.
Can't build a physical model that can completely collapse. But it is certainly interesting that it sounds like most of the profession has chosen to REMAIN SILENT. But to remain silent about such an event is inexcusable.
psik
QUOTE (psikeyhackr+Jul 27 2011, 02:16 PM)
LOL
Is it a LIE that skyscrapers have to hold themselves up?
Is it a LIE that the amount of steel increases down a skyscraper?
Is it a LIE that the steel has to hold up the concrete in a skyscraper?
Were there HORIZONTAL BEAMS connecting the columns in the cores of the WTC? Ever seen a diagram of how those beams were laid out? It should have been about 1500 feet of steel on every level. So what did it weigh? Was the thickness the same all of the way down the building.?
So after almost TEN YEARS it is pretty damn funny that so many people claiming to know physics have not demanded and been talking about having accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete in the twin towers.
You can accuse me of LYING all you want. I just find the accusation amusing. It does not change the fact that I have been saying for years that the NCSTAR1 report does not even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers and not one person has specified a number and where it is in that report. On 9/11/11 the physics profession will have spent TEN YEARS making a fool of itself.
Can't build a physical model that can completely collapse. But it is certainly interesting that it sounds like most of the profession has chosen to REMAIN SILENT. But to remain silent about such an event is inexcusable.
psik
Nope all of that was shown to you.
Yes, all of that is in fact in the NIST reports and the details are available via a Database which you simply don't want to access.
http://razor.occams.info/nist-wtc/
Yes, I have seen the layout of the horizontal beams, also in the NIST report.
The fact that all you can do is lie and say it's not there is your only way of pretending that the issue of how the towers collapsed hasn't been resolved.
So the only thing that is "pretty damn funny" is that 10 years later there are still losers like you trying to con people into believing your BS.
Arthur
Is it a LIE that skyscrapers have to hold themselves up?
Is it a LIE that the amount of steel increases down a skyscraper?
Is it a LIE that the steel has to hold up the concrete in a skyscraper?
Were there HORIZONTAL BEAMS connecting the columns in the cores of the WTC? Ever seen a diagram of how those beams were laid out? It should have been about 1500 feet of steel on every level. So what did it weigh? Was the thickness the same all of the way down the building.?
So after almost TEN YEARS it is pretty damn funny that so many people claiming to know physics have not demanded and been talking about having accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete in the twin towers.
You can accuse me of LYING all you want. I just find the accusation amusing. It does not change the fact that I have been saying for years that the NCSTAR1 report does not even specify the total amount of concrete in the towers and not one person has specified a number and where it is in that report. On 9/11/11 the physics profession will have spent TEN YEARS making a fool of itself.
Can't build a physical model that can completely collapse. But it is certainly interesting that it sounds like most of the profession has chosen to REMAIN SILENT. But to remain silent about such an event is inexcusable.
psik
Nope all of that was shown to you.
Yes, all of that is in fact in the NIST reports and the details are available via a Database which you simply don't want to access.
http://razor.occams.info/nist-wtc/
QUOTE
Two global models of the major structural components and systems for the towers, one each for WTC 1 and WTC 2. The models included all primary structural components in the towers, including exterior walls (columns and spandrel beams), core columns, exterior wall bracing in the basement floors, core bracing at the mechanical floors, core bracing at the main lobby atrium levels, hat trusses, and rigid and flexible diaphragms representing the floor systems.
"− One model each of the typical truss-framed floor (floor 96 of WTC 1) and typical beam- framed floor (floor 75 of WTC 2). The models included all major structural components in the floor system, including primary and bridging trusses, beams, strap anchors and horizontal trusses, concrete slabs, and viscoelastic dampers."
"− One model each of the typical truss-framed floor (floor 96 of WTC 1) and typical beam- framed floor (floor 75 of WTC 2). The models included all major structural components in the floor system, including primary and bridging trusses, beams, strap anchors and horizontal trusses, concrete slabs, and viscoelastic dampers."
Yes, I have seen the layout of the horizontal beams, also in the NIST report.
The fact that all you can do is lie and say it's not there is your only way of pretending that the issue of how the towers collapsed hasn't been resolved.
So the only thing that is "pretty damn funny" is that 10 years later there are still losers like you trying to con people into believing your BS.
Arthur
QUOTE (adoucette+Jul 27 2011, 07:22 PM)
Nope all of that was shown to you.
Yes, I have seen the layout of the horizontal beams, also in the NIST report.
Arthur
Oh yeah, so tell us which page of which of the 50-some reports.
So why hasn't Lon Waters put the info on his website with the core columns?
http://wtcmodel.wikidot.com/nist-core-column-data
Keep claiming stuff is there but don't actually point to the spot. YAWN!
psik
Yes, I have seen the layout of the horizontal beams, also in the NIST report.
Arthur
Oh yeah, so tell us which page of which of the 50-some reports.
So why hasn't Lon Waters put the info on his website with the core columns?
http://wtcmodel.wikidot.com/nist-core-column-data
Keep claiming stuff is there but don't actually point to the spot. YAWN!
psik
Ten years and still the same crap.
QUOTE (psikeyhackr+Jul 27 2011, 05:22 PM)
Oh yeah, so tell us which page of which of the 50-some reports.
So why hasn't Lon Waters put the info on his website with the core columns?
http://wtcmodel.wikidot.com/nist-core-column-data
Keep claiming stuff is there but don't actually point to the spot. YAWN!
psik
So now you are complaining about the number of reports?
What a laugh.
An example of the Core Beam Layout is in NISTAR 1-2A pg 143.
Figure 6-5
By the way, the appendices at the end of 1-2A maps ALL of the tower drawings to the Database which IS available.
Arthur
So why hasn't Lon Waters put the info on his website with the core columns?
http://wtcmodel.wikidot.com/nist-core-column-data
Keep claiming stuff is there but don't actually point to the spot. YAWN!
psik
So now you are complaining about the number of reports?
What a laugh.
An example of the Core Beam Layout is in NISTAR 1-2A pg 143.
Figure 6-5
By the way, the appendices at the end of 1-2A maps ALL of the tower drawings to the Database which IS available.
Arthur
Whereof one cannot speak one perforce must remain silent.
QUOTE (adoucette+Jul 27 2011, 11:37 PM)
So now you are complaining about the number of reports?
What a laugh.
So now you accuse me of saying what I didn't say.
That is too dumb to be laughable.
psik
What a laugh.
So now you accuse me of saying what I didn't say.
That is too dumb to be laughable.
psik
A match made in heaven. You two have at it.
Some always have to have the last word.
Me.
rpenner, please close the thread now
rpenner, please close the thread now
I don't agree.
There are still a few minor amusements.
There are still a few minor amusements.
Aww, I wanted the last word. Wait... I do have the last word.
Not for long.
Uh-huh.
QUOTE (AlexG+Jul 27 2011, 10:52 PM)
Ten years and still the same crap.
10 years and still blind as Mr Magoo...
10 years and still blind as Mr Magoo...
An old african saying goes "The truth may pass through the fire but it can't be burnt".
Pilots for 911 Truth. I would like to take the tape all the way back to the beginning and question whether or not commercial airliners were capable of 420 and 510 knots at 700 feet. VMO/MMO limitations are there for a reason and published by the manufacturer. According to computer simulation and live test done on the 767, the airframe would start to experience structural failure around 350-375 knots. Wing flap would set in and the plane would shake itself apart in midair or stall. Probably both.
Sir Issac Newton on the events of 911: "Shirley, you must be joking?"
Pilots for 911 Truth. I would like to take the tape all the way back to the beginning and question whether or not commercial airliners were capable of 420 and 510 knots at 700 feet. VMO/MMO limitations are there for a reason and published by the manufacturer. According to computer simulation and live test done on the 767, the airframe would start to experience structural failure around 350-375 knots. Wing flap would set in and the plane would shake itself apart in midair or stall. Probably both.
Sir Issac Newton on the events of 911: "Shirley, you must be joking?"
Daddyo930
You are aware that the Douglas DC-8 once flew past the sound barrier(also something not within design parameters), are you not?
http://www.dc-8jet.com/0-dc8-sst-flight.htm
500 mph is well under the speed of sound at near sealevel(~630). Also, VNE only applies to those who wish to survive to fly again or who care what damage they may do to the aircraft, not to religious nutjobs bent on dying for the cause, we really have no idea what anomolies they experienced in those final seconds.
And, since we are talking about 757s...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRiCHgQnf9s&feature=related
...the approach speed looks about the same as that in this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0K94NUtpGJw&feature=related
But, hey, don't let facts get in the way of your beliefs, right?
Grumpy
You are aware that the Douglas DC-8 once flew past the sound barrier(also something not within design parameters), are you not?
http://www.dc-8jet.com/0-dc8-sst-flight.htm
500 mph is well under the speed of sound at near sealevel(~630). Also, VNE only applies to those who wish to survive to fly again or who care what damage they may do to the aircraft, not to religious nutjobs bent on dying for the cause, we really have no idea what anomolies they experienced in those final seconds.
And, since we are talking about 757s...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRiCHgQnf9s&feature=related
...the approach speed looks about the same as that in this...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0K94NUtpGJw&feature=related
But, hey, don't let facts get in the way of your beliefs, right?
Grumpy
Musta been UFOs wot did it. 
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.