RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible

RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

farglebargle -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/29/2007 11:14:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle If it was a cruise missile, why wasn't that shot down? Shit, what's a few R2D2's cost? I take it by that you mean CIWS. There are two immediate reasons why such a system is not practicable 1. Range, given the approach path (that even Realone appears to agree with) the resulting detonation would have occured somewhere near the highway. Seeing as 3000 US Troops are dead, and 300,000-600,000 Iraqis, a few dead on the highway would have been a small price to pay, wouldn't it? quote: 2. CIWS requires either a primary search radar to give it a clue where to look (standard ATC radar is not sufficient, it does not have the communications required) or it must be always "hot" and trained out, this of course requires multiplying the number of weapons stations exponentially as given the approach speed of modern weaponry it would have to be locked in one direction rather than operating in a scan and search mode Take a USN aircraft carrier, a common home for CIWS. We have the unit radars, the ships main radars (if not operating under EmCon, an unlikely situation if CIWS is "hot") and probably a minimum of one, normally at least two airborne radars. To accurately plot and predict the course of an incoming threat all three of these systems must talk to each other and reach some sort of consensus as to when and where to open fire on the inbound threat. What's the Pentagon's budget? To say that it's impractical to defend the CENTER OF OUR NATIONS MILITARY OPERATIONS because it costs too much is Just Plain Dumb. quote: Show me one single picture, pre-2001 that shows an air defence system within the metropolitan DC area. I will not accept treasury agents on roof tops with stingers as they are solely for the president and not there 24/7 and so do not constitute a system Who is naive enough to believe that the pentagon can't defend itself? The real question is WHY DIDN'T THEY? Q1, Not naive, just realistic, how would the residents of the area feel if 10, 20 years ago the nations buildings were all equipped to deal with every concievable threat? Imagine the outcry at the cost, imagine how all the anti-government tyoes would have a field day complaining about mitilitary hardware scattered around the nations cities? This isn't "scattering hardware around the nation's cities" This is DEFENDING THE PENTAGON. quote: Q2, They did, it may have slipped your memory that the area hit was in the midst of a strike hardening program against what was deemed most likely threat scenario, namley a ground delivered explosive such as a truck bomb. Any bets that people complained about the costs of that particular project and how in this day and age it was unecessary? So, once again, the Administration proves they're incompetent to the task. Tapping everyone's phones and internet is OK, but spending the money to defend the freaking Pentagon? That's too much of an expense?

stef -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/29/2007 11:15:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy Gonna be mighty difficult to convince many folks then. He's just engaged in mental masturbation. The last time he was asked to prove his 'interesting' theories, he replied with the following: "I can, but I won't. I am willing to discuss information that other people have uncovered and publicized, but I will not discuss information that I have discovered and that is not yet publicized." You can read the kavalkade of kookery that he and his bretheren spouted the last time this topic came up in this thread. Don't forget to ask about the empty, radio controlled planes that hit the towers. ~stef

Rule -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/29/2007 11:21:28 AM)
I suspect your master/mistress always has a gag handy, Warped Woman. Edited to add: Hey! This is my 950th post.

sleazy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/29/2007 11:22:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy Repair costs to pentagon 700(a) to 925(b) Million dollars first 2 links on google that actually contained figures within the summary Paid for by the taxpayer or insurance companies. So at no cost to the conspirators. quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy Compensation to victims ? Provided for by the government (i.e. taxpayers). So at no cost to the conspirators. quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy Buying 100+ witnesses to see a large jet impact ? Easy. Piece of cake. (But if you can refer me to a list of those 100+ witnesses I will appreciate it.) http://eric-bart.net/iwpb/witness.html www.unknownnews.net/cdd061002.html http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm http://home.planet.nl/%7Ereijd050/JoeR/911_dump_of_Pentagon_quotes.html quote: quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy Cost of brand new off the shelf 757 when in production 82 million(c) In 2006 Dart Group purchased 3x757 and 1x737 for under 50 million(d) Yes, so? I suppose that they may have used two grave yard 737's for flights 93 and 175. I do not know what was used on the Pentagon or for flight 11. But insurers will cover the hull as a 757, so why not use a 757? or is making a couple of million bucks profit out the operation that important. After all you are happy to dump other costs on insurers quote: quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy Buying silence of evidence planters? Easy. Really? Ask an organised crime gang about people who speak up even under threat of death? Silence cannot be bought. Lets assume you work for ANY major news network, either domestic such as Fox or CNN, or a foriegn one that has an anti US bias say the BBC or lets go right out and go for the arabic Al Jazeerah station. Now how much would you pay for just one verfiable statement from a conspirator, a planted witness, someone who carried just one piece of wreckage into the pentagon, any account that stands scrutiny from anyone involved. Now of course the govt have to make sure they pay every conspirator enough to never consider such an offer, the media only have to pay one. Hell a brand new off the production line 747-400 would be cheaper, create a heap more mess too! quote: quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy Given the unlimited resources of a government, why not use a 757 rather than risk leaks? Indeed, why not? If only they had used a 757, then they would not have left some trails. What trails? the only trails point straight at a 757, unless you are prepared to actually back up you claims with evidence I am pretty much done quote: quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy Time of impact? Time of arrival of first fire truck? Difference in minutes between the two? Bet the difference is barely enough to drive a dump truck from concealment into the middle of the lawn and start tipping, let alone produce a realistic scatter pattern for pieces, and lets not forget there is a lot of traffic on a nearby highway now stopped to look what is going on Another mystery! Interesting, isn't it? Nope, not a mystery, just damn near impossible unless you would care to back up your allegations quote: quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy Look I hate to get pissy, you have stated you will not publicly offer an alternative, so unless you are willing to put up a viable intelligent theory that meets least hypothesis(x) quit making me repeat the same time and time again You are least hypothesis obsessed. I am evidence obsessed. You got that the wrong way round there, least hypothesis can only be built on existing evidence. You have yet to show any evidence to even build a fantasy on, let alone a nearly workable vaguely logical hypothesis quote: quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy You do not believe it was something else as you do not support any alternatives Simple fact, it was a 757, or it was something else, pick one! It was something else. I just lack any clue as to what that something else was. So show me just one piece of firm evidence that it was not a 757, heck I will even settle for intelligent conjecture.

stef -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/29/2007 11:24:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule I suspect your master/mistress always has a gag handy, Warped Woman. What you suspect holds even less weight than what you repeatedly fail to prove. ~stef

sleazy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/29/2007 11:25:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stef quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy Gonna be mighty difficult to convince many folks then. He's just engaged in mental masturbation. The last time he was asked to prove his 'interesting' theories, he replied with the following: "I can, but I won't. I am willing to discuss information that other people have uncovered and publicized, but I will not discuss information that I have discovered and that is not yet publicized." Already had a very similar line, never mind soon be time to go to work and have some real fun :) quote: You can read the kavalkade of kookery that he and his bretheren spouted the last time this topic came up in this thread. Don't forget to ask about the empty, radio controlled planes that hit the towers. ~stef Oh good, been at least a month since I had a go at debunking that one :)

Rule -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/29/2007 11:30:38 AM)
Find your own evidence. Answer your own questions. Solve your own mysteries. I feel no need to convince anyone of anything. Nor do I feel the need to teach them to discern between credible evidence and suspect evidence.

sleazy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/29/2007 11:36:36 AM)
So why start questioning others?

cyberdude611 -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/29/2007 12:15:00 PM)
Notice that most conspiracy theorists are political radicals. Those that believe that 9/11 was an inside job usually hate the American government or policy.

sleazy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/29/2007 12:33:13 PM)
I have noticed several common aspects to a lot of such theorists. Thank goodness all us gullible sheep types that make up the unwashed masses are unlikely to vote for them, having such a stubborn, blind to the obivous, illogical, radical in power scares me even more than having the Bush/Blair combo

farglebargle -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/29/2007 1:31:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 Notice that most conspiracy theorists are political radicals. Those that believe that 9/11 was an inside job usually hate the American government or policy. Credit where credit is due. The policies of the Government of the united States are worthy of contempt. That said, please remember to qualify "Conspiracy Theories" as "Crackpot Conspiracy Theories", to differentiate between reasonable theories and nuttery.

sleazy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/29/2007 1:51:20 PM)
No, I do not differeniate in that way. There are conspiracy facts, my city, the girl at the ticket counter, a few drivers, some track layers, and goodness knows how many others all conspired to get me to work by public transport today. How knowing or willing they were to be involved is not really an issue. This is justified by the fact that I got from home to work with the majority of the distance sat reading a book. Nothing that remains theory is "crackpot" in my eyes after all many of the greatest advances of humanity have come around as a result of theories that were once thought crackpot, once Columbus, Magellan et al were the nuts, now its the flat earthers. Until a theory meets the requirements of Occams razor or is proven by science it is no less valid than any other, remember the "nuts" have been right in the past :) I may not regard some of the people who voice such theories as sane, rational, or any one of a dozen other labels, but as long as they can accept logical and constructive arguments that pick at holes in their theories I dont dismiss them. I reserve dismissall for those that evade probes or accuse me of being blind, stupid, part of the problem etc. And that my friends is a problem I have encountered here and other forums with such posters, their inability to answer questions or justify their positions in a logical and consistent manner. I personally believe I have been fair, answered questions, accepted just criticism and asked what I believe to be intelligent questions, not to trap anyone, but with an open and accepting mind, after all there is always a possibility no matter how slim that sometimes the "nuts" are right. On the subject of government policies, I would suggest that not all policies are worthy of contempt, after all somebody voted for at least some of them :)

farglebargle -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/29/2007 1:57:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy No, I do not differeniate in that way. There are conspiracy facts, my city, the girl at the ticket counter, a few drivers, some track layers, and goodness knows how many others all conspired to get me to work by public transport today. How knowing or willing they were to be involved is not really an issue. This is justified by the fact that I got from home to work with the majority of the distance sat reading a book. That usage is inconsistent with the accepted usage of "Consipracy". e.g.: 18USC371 If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. quote: On the subject of government policies, I would suggest that not all policies are worthy of contempt, after all somebody voted for at least some of them :) Prove it. Show all work. Provide calculator tapes to support all computations. Can't do it, eh? That's the problem when elections are unauditable. They're untrustworthy, and aren't useful in proving anything.

cyberdude611 -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/29/2007 2:36:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy On the subject of government policies, I would suggest that not all policies are worthy of contempt, after all somebody voted for at least some of them :) Prove it. Show all work. Provide calculator tapes to support all computations. Can't do it, eh? That's the problem when elections are unauditable. They're untrustworthy, and aren't useful in proving anything. Were they autitable when there was a paper trail? Remember Florida in 2000? There was about 10 different ways to count the votes. Do you count the "pregnant chads?" What do you do about overvotes or undervotes? How do you count those? Part of the problem with elections has nothing to do with paper trails. It has to do with voter error. They did a study I think it was at the University of Florida where even the design of the ballot shifted the result of a mock election using 2004 candidates. A few things they found out: -The first name on the ballot seemed to always recieve more votes. -Races that were listed near the bottom of the ballot had a high number of undervotes, meaning a vote was not picked. -Each ballot design caused a different count of votes for each candidate. The study concluded that ballot design and how the races are positioned on the ballot DOES change the outcome of the election. This is in agreement with similar studies that show that the design of a test and the placement of questions causes a change in test scores. In 2000, Palm Beach county used a "butterfly ballot." The ballot was approved by a local senior citizen organization and both political parties. Yet when the election occured, many complained that they found the ballot confusing. Election results showed a much higher result for Reform Party candidate Patrick Buchanan compared to the rest of the state, while a lower than usual turnout for the Democratic candidate, Al Gore. Now whose fault is it? In reality, it's the fault of the voters. Bush won Florida's 25 electoral votes by only 537 popular votes. Had it not been for the butterfly ballot in Palm Beach County, which has a heavy population of senior citizens, Bush would have never stepped foot in the White House. As a member of a democratic system, each voter has a responsibility to not only keep informed of current events and their leader's positions on those events, but they need to know how to vote and where to vote. The average American has no idea what is going on in this world. 70% of Americans cannot locate Iraq on a globe. 33% of High School seniors think Russia won the Civil War. 70% of college students cannot tell the difference between excerpts of the US Constitution and the Communist Manifesto. And yet you expect these people to go to the polls and make informed decisions about how this country should be lead? And you wonder why the people running our government are a bunch of bafoons???....well, look at the people who elected them! The only thing the average American cares about when they go to the polls is which political party to vote for. THAT'S IT! And half the time, the average voter can't even do that right! So don't give me this BS about stolen elections. When the voters can figure out how to vote and the votes are still wrong, then talk to me about stolen elections.

farglebargle -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/29/2007 2:48:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy On the subject of government policies, I would suggest that not all policies are worthy of contempt, after all somebody voted for at least some of them :) Prove it. Show all work. Provide calculator tapes to support all computations. Can't do it, eh? That's the problem when elections are unauditable. They're untrustworthy, and aren't useful in proving anything. Were they autitable when there was a paper trail? Remember Florida in 2000? There was about 10 different ways to count the votes. Do you count the "pregnant chads?" What do you do about overvotes or undervotes? How do you count those? That is for the State Legislature to decide, in accordance with State Law. Florida proved it didn't deserve Statehood when it went to the Supreme Court of the united States for a decision. quote: Part of the problem with elections has nothing to do with paper trails. It has to do with voter error. Who cares? Seriously. It's a JOKE without proper audit controls in the first place. Do you do business with banks who can't prove out? quote: So don't give me this BS about stolen elections. When the voters can figure out how to vote and the votes are still wrong, then talk to me about stolen elections. I never said anything about stolen elections. I'm saying the elections we have are so MEANINGLESS and UNTRUSTWORTHY that it's not worthwhile to try and steal them. Just make up whatever results you want.

sleazy -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/29/2007 3:02:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy No, I do not differeniate in that way. There are conspiracy facts, my city, the girl at the ticket counter, a few drivers, some track layers, and goodness knows how many others all conspired to get me to work by public transport today. How knowing or willing they were to be involved is not really an issue. This is justified by the fact that I got from home to work with the majority of the distance sat reading a book. That usage is inconsistent with the accepted usage of "Consipracy". e.g.: 18USC371 If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. Correct it does not match the legal definition, however a dictionary defines conspiracy as the act of conspiring, so lets look at conspire, the to agree to work togther or to act together to the same goal. quote: quote: On the subject of government policies, I would suggest that not all policies are worthy of contempt, after all somebody voted for at least some of them :) Prove it. Show all work. Provide calculator tapes to support all computations. Can't do it, eh? That's the problem when elections are unauditable. They're untrustworthy, and aren't useful in proving anything. Did one person vote for the current incumbent and one of their policies? If so that is enough to validate my point, Unless of course you are seriously suggesting that every single person that voted did so against the current president, I think that argument would fail any statistical analysis. As for an auditable election, well then you run into the prospect of real abuse of power, the secret ballot exists for a very good reason

cyberdude611 -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/29/2007 3:15:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle That is for the State Legislature to decide, in accordance with State Law. Florida proved it didn't deserve Statehood when it went to the Supreme Court of the united States for a decision. The State of Florida never went to the Supreme Court...Bush did. And the only reason the Supreme Court accepted the case was because the Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court basically said the judiciary in his state cannot solve this issue on its own. In fact, the Florida legislature was prepared to void the election and declare their own slate of electors if the US Supreme Court did not make a ruling. And according to Article 2, Section 1 of the US Constitution, the state legislature CAN do that.

farglebargle -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/29/2007 3:19:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: sleazy No, I do not differeniate in that way. There are conspiracy facts, my city, the girl at the ticket counter, a few drivers, some track layers, and goodness knows how many others all conspired to get me to work by public transport today. How knowing or willing they were to be involved is not really an issue. This is justified by the fact that I got from home to work with the majority of the distance sat reading a book. That usage is inconsistent with the accepted usage of "Consipracy". e.g.: 18USC371 If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. Correct it does not match the legal definition, however a dictionary defines conspiracy as the act of conspiring, so lets look at conspire, the to agree to work togther or to act together to the same goal. Sorry, but an essential element of a Conspiracy is an unlawful act. American Heritage, for example: 1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act. 2. A group of conspirators. 3. Law. An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action. 4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design: a conspiracy of wind and tide that devastated coastal areas. So, you may want to use Conspiracy in a casual way, but it is incorrect. quote: On the subject of government policies, I would suggest that not all policies are worthy of contempt, after all somebody voted for at least some of them :) Prove it. Show all work. Provide calculator tapes to support all computations. Can't do it, eh? That's the problem when elections are unauditable. They're untrustworthy, and aren't useful in proving anything. Did one person vote for the current incumbent and one of their policies? If so that is enough to validate my point, Unless of course you are seriously suggesting that every single person that voted did so against the current president, I think that argument would fail any statistical analysis. As for an auditable election, well then you run into the prospect of real abuse of power, the secret ballot exists for a very good reason I don't think you can PROVE even ONE person voted any particular way. The elections are a joke. But then again, I have 20 years of financial auditing and information security experience, so my perceptions may not be shared popularly. Your PARIMUTUAL WAGERING ticket is more secure than your Vote.

cyberdude611 -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/29/2007 3:30:54 PM)
In March 2003, polls showed that 70% of Americans supported the Iraq war. The support only started to fall when the people found out the war wasn't going to be easy and that people will die. And 57 million people voted for George W. Bush in 2004 (54% of votes cast). That is more votes than any other president recieved in history. It is also the first time since 1988 that a candidate recieved a majority of total popular votes cast. So Bush did have a mandate in 2004. The problem he ran into is what plagues every 2nd term president...it is never the same as the first term. He got too caught up in special interests. He was unable to keep together his 1st term cabinet. His own party is throwing him under the bus. And he can't get anything done with Congress. The same thing happened to Bill Clinton. His first term was very popular, he balanced the budget and rode a booming economy. But Clinton's second term was plagued with scandal after scandal. He was unable to make any progress with Congress on any issue. Reagan also had that problem. In his 2nd term, he was haunted by the Iran-Contra scandal. No president has had a good second term since FDR in the 1930s and 40s. I just think after a while, the administration gets stale. And that's why George Washington said in 1800 that 8 years is more than enough for anyone. You just need fresh ideas after awhile.

farglebargle -> RE: Hold the true terrorists responsible (1/29/2007 3:33:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle That is for the State Legislature to decide, in accordance with State Law. Florida proved it didn't deserve Statehood when it went to the Supreme Court of the united States for a decision. The State of Florida never went to the Supreme Court...Bush did. And the only reason the Supreme Court accepted the case was because the Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court basically said the judiciary in his state cannot solve this issue on its own. Q.E.D. Not worthy of Statehood.

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875