It is currently Wed Dec 04, 2024 2:44 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 59 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 3:12 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 29461
pizza_Place: Zaffiro's
Have any of you guys seen Loose Change? It's a very interesting documentary that argues 9/11 was an inside job perpetrated by the U.S. government.

Among other things, it claims the following:

--that the World Trade Center towers collapsed as the result of a controlled demolition

--that United Flight 93 did not crash in Pennsylvania, but was directed to and unloaded in Cleveland

--that the Pentagon was not attacked by a commuter plane, but by a missile, and that the part of the building targeted was chosen precisely because it had been reinforced to largely withstand such an impact

--that Osama bin Laden received treatment in a U.S.-operated hospital in Dubai and was visited by a CIA operative shortly before 9/11

Anyway, the movie presents a lot of "alternative" interpretations of the central 9/11 events, and some of the filmakers' arguments are more persuasive than others. There's no denying, however, that the film makes for a compelling viewing. If any of you have seen the documentary, I'd love to hear your comments on it. If you haven't seen it, you can do so by going to http://wwww.seeloosechange.com


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 3:21 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 4:47 pm
Posts: 28634
Location: computer
pizza_Place: Salerno's
the book "Love and Death" about the Kurt Cobain murder is pretty good too....

I've seen some flash stuff on the net about missles and disappearing planes.....etc...
I believe there were pix of the Flight 93 crash site though.
I've also seen plenty of information in ENR (Engineering News Record) regarding the destruction of the towers and such. Column buckling failure and the weight of the upper floors actually causing the chain reaction etc...all kinds of boring finite elemental math stuff that I studied in college.
The Pentagon stuff was pretty creepy. The rest of it I don't necessarily believe.

_________________
@audioidkid
spaulding wrote:
Also if you fuck someone like they are a millionaire they might go try to be one.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 3:33 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB

Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:29 pm
Posts: 34006
Those are good theories about the missle hitting Washington instead of a plane and the plane being unloaded before it hit the towers. But how does that explain all of the husbands and wives not coming home? Jesus. Is the government keeping those people captive?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 3:35 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 4:47 pm
Posts: 28634
Location: computer
pizza_Place: Salerno's
agreed....that's is what makes the Flight 93 hypothesis' difficult to believe.

_________________
@audioidkid
spaulding wrote:
Also if you fuck someone like they are a millionaire they might go try to be one.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 3:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 5:43 pm
Posts: 1216
Location: Chicago, Il
The problem with every conspiracy theory is that it gives the government too much credit. This administration is so incompetent I don't see them pulling something like this off and nary a word of credible speculation in Washington.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 4:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:59 pm
Posts: 248
this is a good video to watch if you have the time http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5946593973848835726&q=9%2F11 or go to http://www.prisonplanet.com

_________________
"Do work, son" -Big Black


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 4:16 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 29461
pizza_Place: Zaffiro's
Quote:
Those are good theories about the missle hitting Washington instead of a plane and the plane being unloaded before it hit the towers. But how does that explain all of the husbands and wives not coming home? Jesus. Is the government keeping those people captive?


Flight 93, which the LC filmakers argue was rerouted to Cleveland, was not one of the planes to hit the WTC. It was the plane that reportedly crashed in Pennsylvania. One of the problems with the movie is that it doesn't tell us what happened to flight 93's passengers if the plane did land safely in Cleveland. Of course, no bodies or blood were ever found in Pennsylvania, either...

The more interesting aspect of the film is the stuff about the Pentagon and the WTC. Plane parts found at the pentagon don't match with the plane type that allegedly hit the Pentagon, the FBI won't release surveillance camera footage of the Pentagon attack, etc. As for the WTC, there are plenty of eyewitnesses--including NYFD members--who talk of multiple explosions inside the building on a variety of different floors and in the basement. Strange stuff.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:25 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 29461
pizza_Place: Zaffiro's
Nas, you might want to check out the most recent version of the film--it was updated in August.

In addition to the stuff I already mentioned, I found the plan to stage terrorist attacks near Guantanamo in the 60s--as a way of justifying an invasion of Cuba--very interesting.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:32 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 4:47 pm
Posts: 28634
Location: computer
pizza_Place: Salerno's
those damn Free Masons!

it's not so much that the gasoline needed to get hot enough as much as all of the office cubicle dividers, carpet, fire proffing technology of the time, furniture, paper, asbestos, etc...that were being torched.
oh, and I forgot to mention that a PLANE WENT INTO THE SIDE OF THE BUILDINGS....

o.k., that being said. i had an English class in college that was all about the Kennedy assination. basically, "there are no right answers, but tons of theories..."
so, i can value the conspiracy theory greatly. i will not dispute that things do not add up with this and other conspiracies. but, some of it IS crap.

_________________
@audioidkid
spaulding wrote:
Also if you fuck someone like they are a millionaire they might go try to be one.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:33 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 29461
pizza_Place: Zaffiro's
Quote:
The problem with every conspiracy theory is that it gives the government too much credit. This administration is so incompetent I don't see them pulling something like this off and nary a word of credible speculation in Washington.


But if you read The One Percent Doctrine and other accounts of the government's response to 9/11, you will see that there is much evidence to support the idea that the neocons have used 9/11 to pursue their long-standing ideological agenda. Thus the question must be asked--did this same group of people either commit the attacks or allow them to happen as the first step to achieve their long-term goal, the restructuring of the world order? In other words, have the neocons simply taken advantage of Al Qaeda's attack, or did they have a more active role in the events of 9/11 because they knew only such a catastrophe would allow them to reshape the world according to their desires?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:34 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 4:47 pm
Posts: 28634
Location: computer
pizza_Place: Salerno's
again.....hard to discredit the theory TM.

_________________
@audioidkid
spaulding wrote:
Also if you fuck someone like they are a millionaire they might go try to be one.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:40 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 29461
pizza_Place: Zaffiro's
Quote:
it's not so much that the gasoline needed to get hot enough as much as all of the office cubicle dividers, carpet, fire proffing technology of the time, furniture, paper, asbestos, etc...that were being torched.
oh, and I forgot to mention that a PLANE WENT INTO THE SIDE OF THE BUILDINGS....


OK, but how did the fire penetrate the concrete to melt the steel frame of the building? I thought engineers explained that the fire went down the elevator shaft, but could this really happen? Was there enough oxygen to sustain such a fire? The movie also points out that similarly constructed buildings have burnt for over 24 hours--and on a larger scale--without collapsing. Not saying the film's hypothesis is reality, but it makes an interesting case about the towers.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 12, 2006 5:57 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 4:47 pm
Posts: 28634
Location: computer
pizza_Place: Salerno's
questions i cannot answer, however...

simply put: a building is designed such that every column is intended to support the the floors above it. to carry and transfer that load to the columns below......and so forth. when you eliminate the structural supports with excessive live loading (snow, rain, airplanes) failure begins to occur. now, there's catasrophic failure. i.e. snapping a twig. and long term plastic and elastic failure... i.e. pulling taffy apart. either way, everything above it collapses and the "weight" of that upper building portion dropping, all of a foot in height, is another live impact load that the structure below was not designed to carry.
Engineers do not design buildings to withstand portions of buildings falling on them. it'd be like building a road 30 feet thick. what's the point? it would last for 2000 years, but would cost 900 zillion dollars.....

_________________
@audioidkid
spaulding wrote:
Also if you fuck someone like they are a millionaire they might go try to be one.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 1:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 12:57 am
Posts: 20709
Location: Westmont
pizza_Place: Tony Weed's
1039 Oliver Ave, Aurora
(630) 892-2772
PNAC white paper from '97 required "Pearl Harbor type event" for justifed invasion of mid-east. Boots back on the ground in Iraq 18 months after 9/11.

Damn doublecross! Real highjackers takeover planes, AWACS put the planes on cruise control to preset locations in NYC.(Can't go to all this trouble and let unqualifed Arabs mess this thing up...) FEMA leaders fly top NYC day before event. Thermite planters?

No plane hit the Pentagram. Somebody would have seen it and/or filmed it. 2 hours after NYC event, no one sees a passenger jet screaming in over the freeway. Uhh riiight. Watch out for the light poles pilot!

Flight 93 is shot down after AWACS lose control of bird. We can't leave these things to chance can we? Todd Beamer goes straight to the propaganda hall of fame. Sidenote: Limp Bizkit video "Rollin'" shot atop Trade Center. How did The Coup design that album cover. That's some scary shit.

Even if the gov't was on the up and up, your mind has been stolen. Too bad, you used almost ten percent of it at a time.

The US military has yet to pull out of Korea, Japan, Germany, Cuba, North Aztlan, and the Dakota territory. Did I leave anybody out?

This nation was founded in blood, we even got around to fighting ourselves. As a matter of fact, the guns never stopped firing to this day.

_________________
CSFMB: Home of the small minded
Beardown wrote:
I'm declaring a victory without research.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 8:18 am 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 11:00 am
Posts: 1730
Location: Pappyland
I've wanted to believe the conspiriacies and I watched "Loose Change" a while back, but much of that film doesn't hold up to the true facts, here is a good book "Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts" and here's a link,
http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Myth ... F8&s=books


I do however believe that the Bush Administration could have stopped 9-11 but Cheney and crew were looking for an excuse to establish themselves in the mideast for oil. Just like we were looking for a way to get involved in WWII, so we cut off the Japs oil supply, we knew they would retaliate and so we allowed Pearl Harbor. I then think Bush can't be that evil, but then I hear Tony Snow dismiss the Senates findings that Iraq was not connected to 9-11 and that Saddam felt threatened by al-qaeda, as "old News". And then 3 day after the senates findings, on 9-11, in a prime time adress of the nation Bush continues to connect 9-11 and Iraq. Hell, only 50% of the country votes and 50% of the country still thinks Iraq was connected to 9-11 so it's pretty bleak.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 9:20 am 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 29461
pizza_Place: Zaffiro's
I've read some of the Popular Mechanics stuff R&B references above and have also heard a radio debate between the PM authors and the LC documentarians. I don't think the case made by the PM scientists is as solid as they claim, particularly on the issue of the WTC collapse. Their dissection of the Flight 93 stuff is much stronger, though still not authoritative. The funny thing about the PM "scientists" is that they came into the radio debate so completely arrogant, boasting about how they had totally debunked LC's theories and seemingly believing that they would steamroll the uneducated filmmakers, but by the exchange's end, they admitted that many of the film's argument's can't be disproven.

Another thing that makes me very uncomfortable about the PM text is the way the authors ridicule LC because of its heavy reliance on reports from the early moments of the attacks. The PM guys say that this is a typical conspiracy theory strategy--to disprortionately credit eyewitness accounts that are generallly confused and unreliable. While this view undoubtedly has some validity, it's also true that if LC used no first-hand accounts to forward its argument, critics would discount it for lacking such primary evidence. Furthermore, the research method used in LC actually mimics those used by scholars in the humanities, social sciences, and, in some cases, the hard sciences as well. Scholars continually revisit early or "primary" sources to uncover overlooked or dismissed facts and ideas. Indeed, the creation of new discoveries relies precisely upon this "overdetermined" dependence on such evidence. Given this context, it seems evident to me that the PM authors are more interested in protecting the conventional wisdom surrounding 9/11 than they are in presenting the truth.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 9:13 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 29461
pizza_Place: Zaffiro's
Here is the National Institute of Standards and Technology's explanation of the WTC collapse. It argues against both a controlled demolition and the "pancake" theory forwarded by the Popular Mechanics book. The NIST study is the most scientifically authoritative examination of the collapse.

Quote:
2. Why did NIST not consider a “controlled demolition” hypothesis with matching computer modeling and explanation as it did for the “pancake theory” hypothesis? A key critique of NIST’s work lies in the complete lack of analysis supporting a “progressive collapse” after the point of collapse initiation and the lack of consideration given to a controlled demolition hypothesis.

NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site, http://wtc.nist.gov. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.

Some 200 technical experts—including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia—reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.

NIST’s findings do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel “trusses” integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.



Diagram of Composite WTC Floor System

NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;

the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.

Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.

3. How could the WTC towers have collapsed without a controlled demolition since no steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires? Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse.

The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day. Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001.

4. Weren't the puffs of smoke that were seen, as the collapse of each WTC tower starts, evidence of controlled demolition explosions?

No. As stated in Section 6.14.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1, the falling mass of the building compressed the air ahead of it—much like the action of a piston—forcing smoke and debris out the windows as the stories below failed sequentially.

These puffs were observed at many locations as the towers collapsed. In all cases, they had the appearance of jets of gas being pushed from the building through windows or between columns on the mechanical floors. Such jets are expected since the air inside the building is compressed as the tower falls and must flow somewhere as the pressure builds. It is significant that similar “puffs” were observed numerous times on the fire floors in both towers prior to their collapses, perhaps due to falling walls or portions of a floor. Puffs from WTC 1 were even observed when WTC 2 was struck by the aircraft. These observations confirm that even minor overpressures were transmitted through the towers and forced smoke and debris from the building.



Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 9:54 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 29461
pizza_Place: Zaffiro's
Ask and you shall receive. This explanation is pretty funny in its incompleteness/inadequacy:

Quote:
14. Why is the NIST investigation of the collapse of WTC 7 (the 47-story office building that collapsed on Sept. 11, 2001, hours after the towers) taking so long to complete? Is a controlled demolition hypothesis being considered to explain the collapse?

When NIST initiated the WTC investigation, it made a decision not to hire new staff to support the investigation. After the June 2004 progress report on the WTC investigation was issued, the NIST investigation team stopped working on WTC 7 and was assigned full-time through the fall of 2005 to complete the investigation of the WTC towers. With the release and dissemination of the report on the WTC towers in October 2005, the investigation of the WTC 7 collapse resumed. Considerable progress has been made since that time, including the review of nearly 80 boxes of new documents related to WTC 7, the development of detailed technical approaches for modeling and analyzing various collapse hypotheses, and the selection of a contractor to assist NIST staff in carrying out the analyses. It is anticipated that a draft report will be released by early 2007.

The current NIST working collapse hypothesis for WTC 7 is described in the June 2004 Progress Report on the Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (Volume 1, page 17, as well as Appendix L), as follows:

An initial local failure occurred at the lower floors (below floor 13) of the building due to fire and/or debris-induced structural damage of a critical column (the initiating event) which supported a large-span floor bay with an area of about 2,000 square feet;

Vertical progression of the initial local failure occurred up to the east penthouse, and as the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, it brought down the interior structure below the east penthouse; and

Triggered by damage due to the vertical failure, horizontal progression of the failure across the lower floors (in the region of floors 5 and 7 that were much thicker and more heavily reinforced than the rest of the floors) resulted in a disproportionate collapse of the entire structure.

This hypothesis may be supported or modified, or new hypotheses may be developed, through the course of the continuing investigation. NIST also is considering whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse. While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios that could have led to the structural failure of one or more critical elements.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Sep 13, 2006 11:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 11:09 am
Posts: 3272
Location: Woodstock (not the trailer part)
pizza_Place: Jobu
Wow.

How about this for a super crazy theory: Mentally deranged Islamic terrorists, who hate the United States, had a plan to kill as many Americans as possible, in addition to obliterating the symbol of American capitalism, the World Trade Center, and the symbol of American military might, the Pentagon.

I know this is goofy and far fetched, considering that our own government wants to spy on all of us and put us in reeducation camps, if not kill us outright.

I also believe the following:

Bush killed Kennedy. Bush killed King and RFK. Bush killed the students at Kent State. Bush escalated the Vietnam combat. Bush broke into the Watergate hotel. Bush created AIDS. Bush took Americans hostage in Iran. Bush bombed the U.S.S. Cole. Bush bombed our Embassies. Bush bombed the World Trade Center in the early 90's. Bush is responsible for genocide in Africa. Bush caused Hurricane Katrina, then blew up the levees in New Orleans. Bush hates black people. Any scandal, tragedy, or disaster that I've omitted is Bush's fault.

Relax. Hillary will make everything all right again.

_________________
1923-1927-1928-1932-1936-1937-1938-1939
1941-1943-1947-1949-1950-1951-1952-1953
1956-1958-1961-1962-1977-1978-1996-1998
1999-2000-2009
----------
XXI - XXV - XLII - XLVI


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 12:24 am 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 29461
pizza_Place: Zaffiro's
One of the central problems with the Bush administration is that almost all of its defining moments are based on fabrications, simulations and manipulations. The 2000 election that Gore actually won; the 2004 election that many researchers believe Kerry won; the justifications for the Iraq War; the declaration of victory in Iraq--all of these instances have a tenuous relationship with reality. In light of Bush's propensity for distortion, it becomes easy to believe that THE defining moment of his presidency, 9/11, is also based on fabrication, simulation and manipulation.


Last edited by Tall Midget on Thu Sep 14, 2006 12:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 12:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 16, 2006 12:57 am
Posts: 20709
Location: Westmont
pizza_Place: Tony Weed's
1039 Oliver Ave, Aurora
(630) 892-2772
Glad you are catching on stoneroses, Dubya's governership was a revenge warmup to taking the big chair of the presidency in 2000.

Follow the money, 'nuff said.

_________________
CSFMB: Home of the small minded
Beardown wrote:
I'm declaring a victory without research.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 12:28 am 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 29461
pizza_Place: Zaffiro's
Quote:
Any scandal, tragedy, or disaster that I've omitted is Bush's fault.


Naahh. Part of all that has to be Cheney's fault, too. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 9:13 am 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 29461
pizza_Place: Zaffiro's
Quote:
I voted for Bush the first time.

I wish Jerry Springer could be President.


"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."--Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 9:34 am 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 4:47 pm
Posts: 28634
Location: computer
pizza_Place: Salerno's
doesn't matter who you vote for in illinois. all the Dems get in anyway.

_________________
@audioidkid
spaulding wrote:
Also if you fuck someone like they are a millionaire they might go try to be one.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 9:38 am 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 29461
pizza_Place: Zaffiro's
Quote:
doesn't matter who you vote for in illinois. all the Dems get in anyway.


You mean the Thompson, Edgar and Ryan administrations were a mirage?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 9:41 am 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 4:47 pm
Posts: 28634
Location: computer
pizza_Place: Salerno's
o.k., so you point out one office.....let's look at the others.

_________________
@audioidkid
spaulding wrote:
Also if you fuck someone like they are a millionaire they might go try to be one.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 10:00 am 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 29461
pizza_Place: Zaffiro's
Quote:
o.k., so you point out one office.....let's look at the others.


Umm, one pretty important office I'd say. In addition, just off the top of my head, Peter Fitzgerald, a Republican, was a U.S. Senator until deciding to relinquish his position in 2005. George Ryan served as IL Secretary of State in the Thompson and Edgar administrations. Dennis Hastert is Speaker of the House. There are obviously a ton of other IL Republicans in the House, not to mention all the Republicans in the state assembly. Judy Baar Topinka was recently state Treasurer. WTF are you talking about?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 10:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2006 11:09 am
Posts: 3272
Location: Woodstock (not the trailer part)
pizza_Place: Jobu
[quote="Nastradamus"]And you would like to give Bush a blow job.[quote]

Very thoughtful, well crafted argument. Alas, that is a task assigned exclusively to White House interns. I am but a mere private citizen, not possessing such privileges.

In truth, I am hardly Bush's biggest supporter. I believe I have been very clear on that point. I also believe very little of what I hear from politicians on either side of the aisle. I simply do not believe that a sitting President of the United States would be involved, directly or indirectly, in the loss of 3,000 lives and the World Trade Center.

If that makes me naive, then "Je suis coupable."

How about this for another crazy theory: If 9/11 had occurred during a Democratic presidency, 80% of these theories would not exist.

_________________
1923-1927-1928-1932-1936-1937-1938-1939
1941-1943-1947-1949-1950-1951-1952-1953
1956-1958-1961-1962-1977-1978-1996-1998
1999-2000-2009
----------
XXI - XXV - XLII - XLVI


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 10:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 24, 2006 5:43 pm
Posts: 1216
Location: Chicago, Il
Bigfan needs to make a Politics section and let you guys duke it out. It would be fun reading.
:x


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 10:55 am 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 4:47 pm
Posts: 28634
Location: computer
pizza_Place: Salerno's
local elections....the blue state status, etc....

_________________
@audioidkid
spaulding wrote:
Also if you fuck someone like they are a millionaire they might go try to be one.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 59 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group