Election of 2012....Who ya got?

[EasyEJL]

you have a point, but you are not in the least bit facing reality. Change does not come like ripping off a bandaid. It is something that will move at a snails pace. To get things to work that you believe are for the best interest of your constituents and the country (and in some instances, yourself as well) you might approve a bill that has legislation tacked onto it that you dont like. We must deal with the reality of it E.

I dunno, I feel like the reality of it leads us to wanting a rip off the bandaid pace rather than the snails crawl. Look at the ramifications across the globe of not taking bold steps. Japan never really came out of its banking crash recession of the early 90s because they never let the bandaid rip off. Same with our housing crisis.

All the effort into keeping people who can't + aren't paying their loans in their homes, and slowing down banks from foreclosing and then selling the homes is mostly keeping housing prices depressed for longer. So long as there is going to be a consistent slow flow of foreclosure houses on the market, prices will not come up significantly. Even if every home that is in the foreclosure process was released to the market at once, there is still a basic floor value on homes that businesses and individuals would choose to purchase at for rental use and no matter how many homes were available the value would not go lower. At that point, values would start to rise again as the supply/demand for homes would no longer be skewed by the constant trickle of foreclosures.

 

[AE14]

I dunno, I feel like the reality of it leads us to wanting a rip off the bandaid pace rather than the snails crawl. Look at the ramifications across the globe of not taking bold steps. Japan never really came out of its banking crash recession of the early 90s because they never let the bandaid rip off. Same with our housing crisis.

All the effort into keeping people who can't + aren't paying their loans in their homes, and slowing down banks from foreclosing and then selling the homes is mostly keeping housing prices depressed for longer. So long as there is going to be a consistent slow flow of foreclosure houses on the market, prices will not come up significantly. Even if every home that is in the foreclosure process was released to the market at once, there is still a basic floor value on homes that businesses and individuals would choose to purchase at for rental use and no matter how many homes were available the value would not go lower. At that point, values would start to rise again as the supply/demand for homes would no longer be skewed by the constant trickle of foreclosures.

E, I am in agreement that I would rather see it ripped off quickly and deal with those ramifications and then rebuild. However, the reality is, no one president will have the unilateral support to get sh!t done like this. This is the beauty of the checks and balance system.

 

[EasyEJL]

E, I am in agreement that I would rather see it ripped off quickly and deal with those ramifications and then rebuild. However, the reality is, no one president will have the unilateral support to get sh!t done like this. This is the beauty of the checks and balance system.

or the ugliness of it

 

[ax1]

Do we need over 1000 military bases around the world? no, conventional warfare is dead

Good luck with that...

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta just admitted at a congressional hearing yesterday that they seek NATO and UN resolutions for approval and authority, not congress.

Panetta was asked by Senator Jeff Sessions, “We spend our time worrying about the U.N., the Arab League, NATO and too little time, in my opinion, worrying about the elected representatives of the United States. As you go forward, will you consult with the United States Congress?”

​

The Defense Secretary responded “You know, our goal would be to seek international permission. And we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress.”
​

 

[ax1]

Good luck with that...

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta just admitted at a congressional hearing yesterday that they seek NATO and UN resolutions for approval and authority, not congress.

Panetta was asked by Senator Jeff Sessions, “We spend our time worrying about the U.N., the Arab League, NATO and too little time, in my opinion, worrying about the elected representatives of the United States. As you go forward, will you consult with the United States Congress?”

​

The Defense Secretary responded “You know, our goal would be to seek international permission. And we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress.”
​

 

[TomGreen]

Listen....to me this is not an issue on personal liberty. Steroids are not a concern for me, as if we have someone who can improve the economy (even slightly) and at the same time keep it illegal, I will take that. Time to be a bit more pragmatic.

Also, I am absolutely stunned by the Paul supporters. He has been in Washington for over 30+ years, and how many bills has he gotten passed for the "betterment of personal liberty"? The fact that people make him out to be a messiah figure is laughable, and if he was the man of the people, how in the world is her the only one that has not won a state yet?


Waiting for the conspiracy to begin

He has not won a state because alot of people think just like you. They like guys who say they are conservatives then vote 5 times to raise the debt ceiling, fund planned parenthood, vote against right to work, and vote for no child left behind. Or "conservatives" who are one day are pro mandate, pro bailout, pro gun control and pro choice and the next day are the complete opposite. i, unlike you, dont listen to the rhetoric of politicians, but rather their records and what they really stand for. Also there are so many people who are so brainswashed by fox news that the word terrorist or muslim extremist puts a shiver down their spine and they run to government wanting protection and will give up any right to do so (ie Patriot Act, NDAA bill, TSA, Homeland Security). I agree with Benjamin Franklin in "he who sacrifices liberty for security deserve neither".

 

[AE14]

He has not won a state as most folks see him as a tinfoil hat wearing fringe candidate. He has made some remarks that would be considered "off" with the mainstream. He is not taken seriously at all.

 

[TomGreen]

He has not won a state as most folks see him as a tinfoil hat wearing fringe candidate. He has made some remarks that would be considered "off" with the mainstream. He is not taken seriously at all.

enlighten me on his extreme views please? id love to hear them. Because usually there just consitutional views....which you are correct the fluoride drinking, football watching populations that know entire lineups for pro teams that cant name their own congressman dont understand the constitution anymore

 

[ax1]

He has not won a state as most folks see him as a tinfoil hat wearing fringe candidate. He has made some remarks that would be considered "off" with the mainstream. He is not taken seriously at all.

Mainstream = Lets give a State of the Union Address on a 8th grade reading level (according to a political analysis group at the University of Minnesota) that millions of Obama zombies including many I know personally drool over and consider a well presented and respectable speech?

Why would being considered "off" with the mainstream be such a bad thing? Ill tell you Im most skeptical when things are mainstream with fluoride drinking, football watching populations that know entire lineups for pro teams that cant name their own congressman dont understand the constitution anymore

Average Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level for Orally Delivered State of the Union Addresses by Presidents Since FDR

Rank​	President​	Words per sentence​	Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level​
1​	John Kennedy​	24.4​	13.2​
2​	Dwight Eisenhower​	20.9​	12.8​
3​	Franklin Roosevelt​	24.4​	12.5​
4​	Richard Nixon​	23.5​	11.6​
5​	Gerald Ford​	19.3​	11.2​
6​	Jimmy Carter​	19.7​	10.8​
7​	Harry Truman​	19.0​	10.6​
8​	Lyndon Johnson​	20.3​	10.4​
8​	George W. Bush​	19.0​	10.4​
10​	Ronald Reagan​	19.6​	10.3​
11​	Bill Clinton​	19.0​	9.5​
12​	George H.W. Bush​	17.4​	8.6​
13​	Barack Obama​	16.7​	8.4​

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2012/01/my_message_is_simple_obamas_so.php

 

[D3Baseball]

enlighten me on his extreme views please? id love to hear them. Because usually there just consitutional views....which you are correct the fluoride drinking, football watching populations that know entire lineups for pro teams that cant name their own congressman dont understand the constitution anymore

Extreme doesn't necessarily mean wrong, just so you know. It often does, but it only means that the view differs from the average public opinion rather significantly. Good ideas can be extreme too.

I don't find Ron Paul's ideas to be generally "good" though

 

[D3Baseball]

Mainstream = Lets give a State of the Union Address on a 8th grade reading level (according to a political analysis group at the University of Minnesota) that millions of Obama zombies including many I know personally drool over and consider a well presented and respectable speech?

Why would being considered "off" with the mainstream be such a bad thing? Ill tell you Im most skeptical when things are mainstream with fluoride drinking, football watching populations that know entire lineups for pro teams that cant name their own congressman dont understand the constitution anymore

Average Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level for Orally Delivered State of the Union Addresses by Presidents Since FDR

Rank	President	Words per sentence	Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level
1	John Kennedy	24.4	13.2
2	Dwight Eisenhower	20.9	12.8
3	Franklin Roosevelt	24.4	12.5
4	Richard Nixon	23.5	11.6
5	Gerald Ford	19.3	11.2
6	Jimmy Carter	19.7	10.8
7	Harry Truman	19.0	10.6
8	Lyndon Johnson	20.3	10.4
8	George W. Bush	19.0	10.4
10	Ronald Reagan	19.6	10.3
11	Bill Clinton	19.0	9.5
12	George H.W. Bush	17.4	8.6
13	Barack Obama	16.7	8.4

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2012/01/my_message_is_simple_obamas_so.php

As an academic that studies politics as well as English and public speaking, I have to say that brevity is a gift. There's no objective way to measure the complexity of a speech, but you've presented an objective way to learn literally nothing useful about a speech. Long sentences are hard to understand not because the audience is stupid but because it is difficult for anyone to receive a complex message with an equally complex delivery. The desire of any speaker or writer is to transmit complex ideas in the simplest, clearest terms possible. Long, cryptic sentences and wording are only self-serving for the speaker that feels good about his/her ability to craft something so convoluted.

 

[AE14]

enlighten me on his extreme views please? id love to hear them. Because usually there just consitutional views....which you are correct the fluoride drinking, football watching populations that know entire lineups for pro teams that cant name their own congressman dont understand the constitution anymore

his own staffers have acknowledged he "was" a 9-11 truther.

Mainstream = Lets give a State of the Union Address on a 8th grade reading level (according to a political analysis group at the University of Minnesota) that millions of Obama zombies including many I know personally drool over and consider a well presented and respectable speech?

Why would being considered "off" with the mainstream be such a bad thing? Ill tell you Im most skeptical when things are mainstream with fluoride drinking, football watching populations that know entire lineups for pro teams that cant name their own congressman dont understand the constitution anymore

Average Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level for Orally Delivered State of the Union Addresses by Presidents Since FDR

Rank​	President​	Words per sentence​	Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level​
1​	John Kennedy​	24.4​	13.2​
2​	Dwight Eisenhower​	20.9​	12.8​
3​	Franklin Roosevelt​	24.4​	12.5​
4​	Richard Nixon​	23.5​	11.6​
5​	Gerald Ford​	19.3​	11.2​
6​	Jimmy Carter​	19.7​	10.8​
7​	Harry Truman​	19.0​	10.6​
8​	Lyndon Johnson​	20.3​	10.4​
8​	George W. Bush​	19.0​	10.4​
10​	Ronald Reagan​	19.6​	10.3​
11​	Bill Clinton​	19.0​	9.5​
12​	George H.W. Bush​	17.4​	8.6​
13​	Barack Obama​	16.7​	8.4​

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2012/01/my_message_is_simple_obamas_so.php

Ax, I am not sure i understand your point with this. The speech is on a low level? Ok...not sure how that relates. Let me tell you, I am not surprised given my profession. Kids today (damn I sound old) do not care (in the generality) about any of this, and in many instances neither do their parents. When I taught full time, I was amazed at a general lack of geographical knowledge (why isnt Iraq on a European map, Is Iran in Spain, etc..). So to see this does not surprise me.

 

[ax1]

his own staffers have acknowledged he "was" a 9-11 truther.

Which is good, any politician not wanting to open a investigation is weak imo. Ron wont come out publicly and has "abandoned" idea's of the 9/11 truth reasoning I would never vote for him.

Ax, I am not sure i understand your point with this. The speech is on a low level? Ok...not sure how that relates. Let me tell you, I am not surprised given my profession. Kids today (damn I sound old) do not care (in the generality) about any of this, and in many instances neither do their parents. When I taught full time, I was amazed at a general lack of geographical knowledge (why isnt Iraq on a European map, Is Iran in Spain, etc..). So to see this does not surprise me.

I though Iraq was next to Kuwait which is another Eurasian country? j/k

All Im saying is Im not impressed with mainstream. After the Bush re-election and now continued support I see in NY and phony Liberals around the country (I actually have no issue with real Liberals) every-time you state that a politician would not have mainstream acceptance as if there is something wrong with the politition it doesnt make sense why that would be a knock.

I think another issue with the speech level is the general overall attention span of the average person has dramatically decreased over the years. Regardless of speech level Obama never really gives any specifics in his speeches its really just propaganda commercials (as with any politician trying to win support of course) and if written down on paper and read there is nothing significant said (just like most of the debates.)

 

[EasyEJL]

his own staffers have acknowledged he "was" a 9-11 truther.

do you believe that our government has been open and forthcoming with what they know or has hidden piles of details we have a right to know? Being a "truther" doesn't have to mean he thinks our government was behind it.

 

[AE14]

do you believe that our government has been open and forthcoming with what they know or has hidden piles of details we have a right to know? Being a "truther" doesn't have to mean he thinks our government was behind it.

I understand where you are coming from, but according to Pauls own staffers, his belief was the government (CIA) was behind it.

 

[EasyEJL]

I understand where you are coming from, but according to Pauls own staffers, his belief was the government (CIA) was behind it.

well, i dunno about that for sure, if Paul hasn't said it himself. Even so, he has (as a representative) access to information the rest of us certainly don't have.

 

[ax1]

I understand where you are coming from, but according to Pauls own staffers, his belief was the government (CIA) was behind it.

And Paul has been accused of being a "conspiracy theorist" because he has stated that congress doesnt control our own military behind the scenes, and now 2 days ago our own US Military directly told congress they dont.

Why wouldnt anyone think the CIA wasnt a part of 9/11? After all for the first time in history the vice president of the USA former CIA director Dick Cheney took control of NORAD on the morning of 9/11 and also gave stand-down orders according to the omitted testimony of the transportation secretary that was with him that morning. Wonder why the greatest airforce in the world was sent to the ocean to do nothing? And ever wonder why they were running war games on the morning of 9/11 mirroring the 9/11 attacks?

 

[EasyEJL]

even regardless of that, its quite believable that the CIA partially funded the operation. Not with knowledge of their goal of terrorism, but as a part of all their other activities.

 

[AE14]

And Paul has been accused of being a "conspiracy theorist" because he has stated that congress doesnt control our own military behind the scenes, and now 2 days ago our own US Military directly told congress they dont.

Why wouldnt anyone think the CIA wasnt a part of 9/11? After all for the first time in history the vice president of the USA former CIA director Dick Cheney took control of NORAD on the morning of 9/11 and also gave stand-down orders according to the omitted testimony of the transportation secretary that was with him that morning. Wonder why the greatest airforce in the world was sent to the ocean to do nothing? And ever wonder why they were running war games on the morning of 9/11 mirroring the 9/11 attacks?

The last part of what you wrote, I would love to see evidence of. Additionally, if there was some grand conspiracy, do you think that the "elites" behind it would be foolish enough to do the things you are mentioning?

Just curious

Again....I believe 9-11 is similar to Pearl Harbor. I think (no evidence to support) that we had intelligence about this, and most likely did not take it seriously enough

 

[ax1]

The last part of what you wrote, I would love to see evidence of. Additionally, if there was some grand conspiracy, do you think that the "elites" behind it would be foolish enough to do the things you are mentioning?

Just curious

Again....I believe 9-11 is similar to Pearl Harbor. I think (no evidence to support) that we had intelligence about this, and most likely did not take it seriously enough

Vigilant Guardian and Vigilant Warrior were run on the morning of 9/11. They did cover this in 1 measly paragraph in the official 9/11 report.

Gen. Richard Meyers testified on congress about many phantom aircraft that morning, and Maj. Gen. Larry Arnold testified that they had multiple aircraft called hijacked all over the country (Ive seen this coming from their own mouths on video).

Norman Mineta gave the testimony which was aired on CSpan.

CNN reported that Dick Cheney commanded NORAD from his bunker on the morning of 9/11 (where Mineta was also in the bunker at some point).

 

[ax1]

Additionally, if there was some grand conspiracy, do you think that the "elites" behind it would be foolish enough to do the things you are mentioning?

Didnt mean to dodge this...I cant really answer that with any certainty to be honest. I can accuse and point fingers on who the main conspirators were as well as possible suspects but in my mind I cannot conclude on any of that other than I dont believe the story happened the way we were told not even close.

I dont think they are fools at all just crazy.

 

[TomGreen]

his own staffers have acknowledged he "was" a 9-11 truther. QUOTE]

The evidence shows that 9/11 was an inside job. watch loose change final cut. if you do the research for yourself on 9/11 youll come to the same conclusion. Also false flag terror is nothing new or cooky though. Operation Northwoods has been declassified and the Gulf of Tonkin Incident has been shown to be a lie. People that believe 9/11 was carried out by muslim extremists either dont think for themselves and are told by the television and politicians what to believe or they choose to believe that because they dont want to face the cruel reality

 

[TomGreen]

Can anyone explain to me why there is countless footage of firefighters and news reporters talking about bombs going off? Or can you explain world trade center 7 and how it collapsed, and also how bbc news reported it had collapsed roughly 20 minutes before it had. (I have links showing this but i dont have enough posts to post links yet). Also isnt it funny that our complete defense system messed up that day?

 

[AE14]

his own staffers have acknowledged he "was" a 9-11 truther. QUOTE]

The evidence shows that 9/11 was an inside job. watch loose change final cut. if you do the research for yourself on 9/11 youll come to the same conclusion. Also false flag terror is nothing new or cooky though. Operation Northwoods has been declassified and the Gulf of Tonkin Incident has been shown to be a lie. People that believe 9/11 was carried out by muslim extremists either dont think for themselves and are told by the television and politicians what to believe or they choose to believe that because they dont want to face the cruel reality

Please feel free to explain to me what happened then on 9/11? Who was on the planes?

Loose change? Oy vey, I cant believe that is even still considered

 

[TomGreen]

Please feel free to explain to me what happened then on 9/11? Who was on the planes?

Loose change? Oy vey, I cant believe that is even still considered

Well first off you did not anyswer my questions that i asked first??? I dont know why hahah? but watch it, they give the best evidence and explain it better than i could on a bodybuilding forum. If understanding and seeking truth is not worth taking 2 hours to watch a documentary then there no reason to even debate you. Iv looked at the official story for myself and i, like the 9/11 commisioners that gave you the official story, doubt the official story and want a reinestigation. BTW The evidence they used to prove it was the muslims i use to show it wasnt. For Example: somehow after the plains crashed into the towers, blew up, and created a heat the melted the infrastructure of a steel building the paper passports of the hijackers were found by fbi intact on top of rubble....hmmmm....see you and i think differently because i think that is a bit odd.

 

[ax1]

Please feel free to explain to me what happened then on 9/11? Who was on the planes?

Some hairy cavemen after years of practice playing Top Gun on the NES went to flight school here in America and managed a impossible maneuver on a jumbo jet that not even Captain Chesley Sullenberger would dare try in a empty parking lot and hit the Pentagon with striking accuracy.

 

[AE14]

Well first off you did not anyswer my questions that i asked first??? I dont know why hahah? but watch it, they give the best evidence and explain it better than i could on a bodybuilding forum. If understanding and seeking truth is not worth taking 2 hours to watch a documentary then there no reason to even debate you. Iv looked at the official story for myself and i, like the 9/11 commisioners that gave you the official story, doubt the official story and want a reinestigation. BTW The evidence they used to prove it was the muslims i use to show it wasnt. For Example: somehow after the plains crashed into the towers, blew up, and created a heat the melted the infrastructure of a steel building the paper passports of the hijackers were found by fbi intact on top of rubble....hmmmm....see you and i think differently because i think that is a bit odd.

the passport to me is downright silly. Lets say for sh!ts and giggles that the plane crashes, many things would be blown out of the plane. There is no way with certainty to say that the passport couldnt have landed there. Is it possible? Absolutely.

With regard to loose change, I have seen a variety of incarnations of that "film", and like my friend Ax1's articles, there are many contextual issues with it, and it was created to cause a stir.

Can anyone explain to me why there is countless footage of firefighters and news reporters talking about bombs going off? Or can you explain world trade center 7 and how it collapsed, and also how bbc news reported it had collapsed roughly 20 minutes before it had. (I have links showing this but i dont have enough posts to post links yet). Also isnt it funny that our complete defense system messed up that day?

Sorry I missed these.

In terms of what they said.....there would most certainly be secondary explosions based on the structure being compromised by temperature. Even a slight % of the compromise would cause possible collapse.

I have no answer to building 7 (in all honesty)

 

[ax1]

the passport to me is downright silly. Lets say for sh!ts and giggles that the plane crashes, many things would be blown out of the plane. There is no way with certainty to say that the passport couldnt have landed there. Is it possible? Absolutely.

You really think the passports flew out of their pockets (or luggage) through the ball of fire and landed on top of all the rubble in very good condition yet the blackboxes melted to smithereens? Is it possible? That would be the least likely of any hypothesis, yet its not even something thats being investigated or has ever openly been investigated as far as I know.

 

[EasyEJL]

You really think the passports flew out of their pockets (or luggage) through the ball of fire and landed on top of all the rubble in very good condition yet the blackboxes melted to smithereens? Is it possible? That would be the least likely of any hypothesis, yet its not even something thats being investigated or has ever openly been investigated as far as I know.

its as plausible as plenty of the other fairy tales the federal government tells people

 

[ax1]

In terms of what they said.....there would most certainly be secondary explosions based on the structure being compromised by temperature. Even a slight % of the compromise would cause possible collapse.

The 2 towers didnt really even collapse, they totally pulverized to the point reporters on live TV couldnt understand where all the rubble went the next morning. There were horizontal explosions coming out of the buildings on all 4 sides before it collapsed. Multiple firemen reported that there were bombs in those buildings.

Those towers has less of a impact than the demolition of the Kingdome.

 

[AE14]

Lets not tell tales...hey reported what they felt sounded like bombs.

Let me ask you all something....has any of you ever been hat close to an went of that magnitude? I know quite a few that were there, as well as work with one everyday. He even said that he knows what he saw but in all the commotion things are jumbled in his mind.

Don't take the human side out of it.

 

[ax1]

Lets not tell tales...hey reported what they felt sounded like bombs.

Let me ask you all something....has any of you ever been hat close to an went of that magnitude? I know quite a few that were there, as well as work with one everyday. He even said that he knows what he saw but in all the commotion things are jumbled in his mind.

Don't take the human side out of it.

Here is an image of bomb blasts coming out of the building far before the pulverization style collapse got to them...if you look closely you can see it coming out from the front of the building as well as the right side in this picture

According to multiple firemen in this video who were just 1-2 blocks away they all witnessed floor by floor popping out before the collapse, and they feel as if there were bombs planted and detonating from the top-down. Also, not seen in this video but want to add real quick, Deputy Fire Commissioner Thomas Fitzpatrick: “I remember seeing, it looked like sparkling around one specific layer of the building.… Then the building started to come down. My initial reaction was that this was exactly the way it looks when they show you those implosions on TV.”

 

[AE14]

again, and I am no expert on physics or demolition, but if the structure material was compromised say 25%, is it not plausable to say that is what caused this response?

It is also difficult to be 100% certain on either side since this is the first event of its kind and magnitude

 

[ax1]

again, and I am no expert on physics or demolition, but if the structure material was compromised say 25%, is it not plausable to say that is what caused this response?

It is also difficult to be 100% certain on either side since this is the first event of its kind and magnitude

The actual engineers in the 60's had specifically thought out airplanes hitting the buildings and the infrastructure was designed not only to withstand an impact of a Boeing 707 (Although smaller, comparable size to the 767 including fuel capacity) but also designed to withstand the following fires (with the fuel potentially being the main issue.) and they even added additional reserve strength.

Now...that doesnt mean the engineers are perfect...but whats startling is that the event is actually not the first event in history. We actually had 2 events on the same building on the same day with the same outcomes. This means the engineers really screwed up, or both were rigged for perfect demolition.

 

[AE14]

Can you explain that last paragraph?

 

[ax1]

Can you explain that last paragraph?

The engineers say the buildings were designed for impact from planes including the aftermath, but I was acknowledging their engineering plans may have been imperfect due to rare unthought engineering flaw.

We had 2 events on 1 day...buildings were hit in 2 various locations and both pulverized and collapsed. I mentioned 2 events because you noted 1 event of its kind which is actually wrong. The importance of that is not to pick on your minor error, but whats significant is that we do have 2 events to compare the science of the crash and/or inside job of its collapse. (Actually a plane hit the empire state building as well, but that was a bit to small to compare).

Im trying to Factor in that the engineers designed the buildings to withstand collapse for jumbo jet impact, fuel and fire along with the fact that 2 different places/angles of the buildings were hit. That would mean that there wasnt just 1 rare flaw that could have happened in the engineering design but 2, or the engineers were actually just severely off and any jumbo jet impact could have bought the buildings down. My thinking of course based on the evidence of tons of nano-thermite of the scene, and multiple bombs explosions as reported by FDNY, and NYPD as well as multiple other witnesses that hypothesis certainly favors controlled demolition by far.

I was just free thinking when I posted that, it doesnt have to make sense but I hope I cleared up where I was getting at.

 

[AE14]

The engineers say the buildings were designed for impact from planes including the aftermath, but I was acknowledging their engineering plans may have been imperfect due to rare unthought engineering flaw.

We had 2 events on 1 day...buildings were hit in 2 various locations and both pulverized and collapsed. I mentioned 2 events because you noted 1 event of its kind which is actually wrong. The importance of that is not to pick on your minor error, but whats significant is that we do have 2 events to compare the science of the crash and/or inside job of its collapse. (Actually a plane hit the empire state building as well, but that was a bit to small to compare).

Im trying to Factor in that the engineers designed the buildings to withstand collapse for jumbo jet impact, fuel and fire along with the fact that 2 different places/angles of the buildings were hit. That would mean that there wasnt just 1 rare flaw that could have happened in the engineering design but 2, or the engineers were actually just severely off and any jumbo jet impact could have bought the buildings down. My thinking of course based on the evidence of tons of nano-thermite of the scene, and multiple bombs explosions as reported by FDNY, and NYPD as well as multiple other witnesses that hypothesis certainly favors controlled demolition by far.

I was just free thinking when I posted that, it doesnt have to make sense but I hope I cleared up where I was getting at.

I understand where you are coming from and the correction and you are correct

The issue to me is that it is almost impossible to predict exactly how the building would respond when struck by aircraft of that size. I say again, if the structure is compromised even a little, the ability of the building to withstand high level fires is lowered and thus a collapse is probable.

In terms of how it collapses and at what speed I cannot speak to that. I will leave that for the physicists to debate

 

[ax1]

So who is voting for Obamney?

 

[fueledpassion]

So who is voting for Obamney?

I will if he gets to presidential candidate, which he most likely will at this point. But I truly think he is too moderate for my liking but because I do believe he is far more educated that Obama on economic and foreign affairs, I'll vote for him for sure.

 

[ax1]

I will if he gets to presidential candidate, which he most likely will at this point. But I truly think he is too moderate for my liking but because I do believe he is far more educated that Obama on economic and foreign affairs, I'll vote for him for sure.

What I meant by Obamney actually was Obama/Romney. I feel they are a carbon copy of each other since both are being funded by the same corporations/banks such as Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, etc....

 

[carpee]

What I meant by Obamney actually was Obama/Romney. I feel they are a carbon copy of each other since both are being funded by the same corporations/banks such as Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, etc....

speaking of, did you see that Goldman sachs guy quit and come out and say how evil the company is?

 

[ax1]

speaking of, did you see that Goldman sachs guy quit and come out and say how evil the company is?

Yeah....lol. You pay attention

You know, Goldman Sachs has built 200,000 hangar sized warehouses in China of all places. Guess what they are filling them with? Natural Resources.

I wonder if thats where our fresh water from the Great Lakes are being sent to over there in China.

 

[carpee]

Yeah....lol. You pay attention

You know, Goldman Sachs has built 200,000 hangar sized warehouses in China of all places. Guess what they are filling them with? Natural Resources.

I wonder if thats where our fresh water from the Great Lakes are being sent to over there in China.

disturbing.

 

[fueledpassion]

Yeah....lol. You pay attention

You know, Goldman Sachs has built 200,000 hangar sized warehouses in China of all places. Guess what they are filling them with? Natural Resources.

I wonder if thats where our fresh water from the Great Lakes are being sent to over there in China.

You have any links on this topic? I'm interested...

And I'm with Carpee, disturbing :no:

 

[ax1]

You have any links on this topic? I'm interested...

And I'm with Carpee, disturbing :no:

Ill try, that one I know from personal connections its barely discussed on the net, I do know several inside the Chinese government.

 

[ax1]

You have any links on this topic? I'm interested...

And I'm with Carpee, disturbing :no:

I did some searching, I found some evidence to support my claims in a stock/commodity website...it at least does show that not only are they storing resources, but also in large quantities and this is in China. I need to try to link these warehouses to Goldman Sachs a bit more though before I finalize this as evidence, I assume that there is deal making with Goldman Sachs and China of course somehow.

China copper stocks are 500,000 tons, Goldman Sachs says
http://www.futuresmag.com/2012/03/13/china-copper-stocks-are-500000-tons-goldman-sachs?utm_********feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_**********Feed%3A+FuturesMarketWatch+(Futures+Market+Watch)

March 13 (Bloomberg) -- Copper stored in bonded warehouses in China, which don’t disclose their stockpiles, comes to about 500,000 metric tons, said Goldman Sachs Group Inc.
Inventories have climbed by about 450,000 tons since November including both bonded stocks and those monitored by the Shanghai Futures Exchange, Max Layton, an analyst at the bank in London, said in a report dated today. Inventories held outside of bonded and exchange-tracked warehouses may have increased about 150,000 tons in the period, he estimated.

 

[steppinRazor]

 

[AE14]

<img src="http://anabolicminds.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=54338"/>

Awesome!!!!!!

 

[Clickster]

The Republican nominee has my vote.

 

[DerickVonD]

The Republican nominee has my vote.

If Santorum or Romney win the nominee, I'll be doing a write in, or I just won't vote. I wish Rand Paul was running instead of Ron though, not that I don't like Ron, Rand is just a better speaker and can draw the older crowd better and he is more assertive. Ron is too nice for his own good sometimes imo. I won't vote for anyone that supports NDAA, the Patriot Act, or any other unconstitutional legislation.