Re: you know what's astonishing?

Both Bush and Obama have used the line "we will not tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories" in the past but surely allowing them to continue is tolerating them. :NotMe:

Re: you know what's astonishing?

Alex Jones I wouldn't doubt is working for the FBI. Just like white supremecist Hal Turner was. Just part of the propaganda machine..

Re: you know what's astonishing?

I don't know if you have seen this film but its quite interesting

9/11 - Press For Truth

[URL]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3979568779414136481[/URL]

Released September 8th; a video from the families who fought to create The 9/11 Comission -- and succeeded Headline: LA Weekly reported Mahmmud Ahmed (Top ISI Official) ordered the transfer of funds from Pakistani banks to Florida, where it was picked up and distributed by Mohammed Atta to the 9/11 hijackers via money orders throughout the United States to sponsor the attacks. This documentary presents the many-faceted events that led up to, and then scrutinizes, the 9/11 Comission hearings. Massive injustices and mis-representations are brought to light and "exposed" by respected members of the mainstream American media, and from the families themselves in the narrative of events that shaped most greatly our world today; "9/11: Press for Truth" The families present their 2 1/2 year struggle to create an investigation and inquiry into the events of 9/11 -- which was at first heavily resisted and even explicity prohibited by the President and Vice-President. For an example of contrast in funding; the internal disruption of a Clinton-Lewisnki "sex scandal" the event was awarded a budget of 100 million dollars in total. Initially the 9/11 Comission was only alotted 3 million dollars and their time-limit was severly cut beyond the expecations of those who brought it into existence

Re: you know what's astonishing?

ya I have seen it. The families want the truth more than anybody.

Re: you know what's astonishing?

While the Bush administration allow the so called terrorists escape from Pakistan.

Re: you know what's astonishing?

I find it funny how Osama to this day still (according to the FBI's most wanted list) hasn't been charged with the 9/11 attacks. It doesn't even mention 9/11 on the sheet.

[URL]http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm[/URL]

Maybe it is a typo eh Slava?

Re: you know what's astonishing?

Asch Conformity Experiment

[YOUTUBE]TYIh4MkcfJA[/YOUTUBE]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

My associate actually is a structural engineer and worked with Martin Marietta for 12 years (now lockheed). He now is the president of his own Structural Engineering Firm.

I'm actually sitting with him now discussing 9/11 and the buildings and the way they fell etc.

He's never heard any structural engineers that he knows (and he knows quiet a few), including his former employee who was a structural PHD from New York, that have agreed with any of the conspiracy theories.

Additionally he mentioned that "the heat retardant in the Towers to protect the steel was not adequate to withstand the heat."

I think it's important that anyone who believes in these allegations that the buildings were controlled demolitions and not caused by the planes hitting them to sit down for an hour with a reputable Structural Engineer and then come back to MS and post their findings.

Re: you know what's astonishing?

did you ask him about building 7?

Also no name and title is kind of sketchy. Have him watch the Jeff King presentation and ask him to refute it. The MIT engineer.

Ask him if there should have been resistance from each floor on the way down? Why wasn't there? Ask him if he was aware of any other building on record that imploded because of fire.

Re: you know what's astonishing?

[QUOTE=floridaorange;787438]My associate actually is a structural engineer and worked with Martin Marietta for 12 years (now lockheed). He now is the president of his own Structural Engineering Firm.

I'm actually sitting with him now discussing 9/11 and the buildings and the way they fell etc.

He's never heard any structural engineers that he knows (and he knows quiet a few), including his former employee who was a structural PHD from New York, that have agreed with any of the conspiracy theories. [/QUOTE]

He's never heard any structural engineers that he knows, sounds like he needs to get out more. Did he explain to you why they where never able to recreate the melted structure in the furnaces. Or how the collapses defied the laws of physics. What did you say your associates name was?

Lets not forget it was only 1 man who questioned what was going one in abu ghraib, everyone else towed the line and didn't question anything. Was that one man wrong? A lot of his colleagues and superiors thought so. I think NO.

Re: you know what's astonishing?

he is a lockheed guy he would probably prefer to stay anonymous.

How about Robert Merceau? 40 years on the job, PHD in Structural Engineering Science. Made numerous high rises. Is that credible?

[URL]http://www.ae911truth.org/info/88[/URL]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

[QUOTE=floridaorange;787438] Additionally he mentioned that "the heat retardant in the Towers to protect the steel was not adequate to withstand the heat." [/QUOTE]

Sound's like the fold up wings again to me.

Re: you know what's astonishing?

What does a structural engineer do at lockheed. Lockheed tend to like blowing things up.

Re: you know what's astonishing?

[QUOTE=floridaorange;787438]I think it's important that anyone who believes in these allegations that the buildings were controlled demolitions and not caused by the planes hitting them to sit down for an hour with a reputable Structural Engineer and then come back to MS and post their findings.[/QUOTE]

I think it's important that anyone who believes in these allegations that the buildings were controlled demolitions and not caused by the planes hitting them to ask the American Government to have a proper public investigation, looking at all the facts, getting all relevant people interviewed on oath, looking at all the evidence, with 100% transparency. then come back to MS and post their findings

Re: you know what's astonishing?

hey chunky have you seen Zero - 9/11. That is the best one I have seen yet. Here you go guys Nobel PRIZE winning commentators. Miro your gonna like this one they talk about the fold up wings..

[GVIDEO]http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=2296490368603788739&ei=JcqqSu3bCJC2rgKIoMDxCg&q=zero+9%2F11&hl=en&client=firefox-a#[/GVIDEO]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

[QUOTE=chunky;787455]I think it's important that anyone who believes in these allegations that the buildings were controlled demolitions and not caused by the planes hitting them to ask the American Government to have a proper public investigation.[/QUOTE]

I agree...

And therein lies the issue, there are not enough credible individuals that think 911 was a bunch of controlled demolitions.

Re: you know what's astonishing?

Because anyone "credible" is not about to challenge the very system that made him "credible" thats the whole point.

Re: you know what's astonishing?

what makes someone credible? Someone on TV?

A new investigation just might happen. A big victory today from the 80,000 NYC residents that signed a petition for a new investigation. The 80,000 people consist of 9/11 family members as well as rescue professionals and their families.

[URL]http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/09/10/new-911-investigation-gets-legal-opening-in-nyc/[/URL]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

[QUOTE=runningman;787966]what makes someone credible? Someone on TV? [/URL][/QUOTE]

no

Re: you know what's astonishing?

[IMG]http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20090911/capt.f6167300f0ff455da6bf538e0c9511f7.belgium_us_9_11_terror_attacks_gvw103.jpg[/IMG]

Two women pose with a poster demanding information about the 9/11 terror attacks, Friday Sept. 11, 2009, as a group of people demonstrate outside the U.S. Embassy in Brussels to remember the September 11, 2001, attacks. (AP Photo/Geert Vanden Wijngaert)

Re: you know what's astonishing?

[QUOTE=floridaorange;787983][IMG]http://d.yimg.com/a/p/ap/20090911/capt.f6167300f0ff455da6bf538e0c9511f7.belgium_us_9_11_terror_attacks_gvw103.jpg[/IMG]

Two women pose with a poster demanding information about the 9/11 terror attacks, Friday Sept. 11, 2009, as a group of people demonstrate outside the U.S. Embassy in Brussels to remember the September 11, 2001, attacks. (AP Photo/Geert Vanden Wijngaert)[/QUOTE]

now THAT is my kind of protest:lol:

Re: you know what's astonishing?

Was over my friends families (he's a banker and real estate investor by trade) house last night and found out through conversation that his cousin was on the flight that hit the south tower. Interestingly, although he was clearly upset talking about 9/11, not once did he mention anything about a new investigation or any such conspiracies.

He had lived in NYC for most of his life and has family there now.

He was thankful the buildings fell the way they did, because if they had fallen any other way, many more lives would have been lost.

You guys talked personally with many victims families?

Re: you know what's astonishing?

[QUOTE=floridaorange;789841] He was thankful the buildings fell the way they did, because if they had fallen any other way, many more lives would have been lost. [/QUOTE]

Building 7 fell and no lives where lost, not on the day anyhow.

Re: you know what's astonishing?

^He was thankful the WTC towers fell the way that they did, rather than on their sides...

What exactly are you trying to say Chunky? I don't know what you mean, sorry.

Re: you know what's astonishing?

ya it was a good thing it was controlled demo because if it would have fell over side ways it would have been a real mess.

Re: you know what's astonishing?

[QUOTE=runningman;789849]ya it was a good thing it was controlled demo because if it would have fell over side ways it would have been a real mess.[/QUOTE]

[IMG]http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/gif/ppreflex.gif[/IMG]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

[QUOTE=floridaorange;789841]Was over my friends families (he's a banker and real estate investor by trade) house last night and found out through conversation that his cousin was on the flight that hit the south tower. Interestingly, although he was clearly upset talking about 9/11, not once did he mention anything about a new investigation or any such conspiracies.

He had lived in NYC for most of his life and has family there now.

He was thankful the buildings fell the way they did, because if they had fallen any other way, many more lives would have been lost.

You guys talked personally with many victims families?[/QUOTE]

check out this page and watch the video

[URL]http://www.wanttoknow.info/911video[/URL]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

^Starts out pretty well yesme, will watch this tonight and post my response/questions this week.

Re: you know what's astonishing?

ok so finally found some time to do this... To be honest, after I put this down for a while...I got busy with life and stopped trolling around on the internet so much. I've been happier as a result. But anyways, back to my old ways for a bit...

I will start off saying that I don't know everything and I don't have the answers. What I do think I have, though, is a pretty good respect for Occam's Razor, particularly in cases where I don't have a full set of information.

[QUOTE=yesme;785367]again, not pointing out any argument, just stating these are things that need investigating. i mean 2.3 trillion dollars "unaccounted" for is alot of dough, 1/6th our national debt right?

do you mean do i think there would of been an easier way for a government agency tell the public they lost 2.3trillion bucks, and then get record budget amounts every year after that?[/quote] Here's what you don't get: in his speech, Cheney said 2.3 trillion dollars of TRANSACTIONS unaccounted for. In accounting speak, a transaction can be a cash inflow, a cash outflow, or a completely non-cash event for an organization (i.e., simply stated: you're paying bills, you're getting paid, or you're allocating/expensing/amortizing/etc). So when someone says 2.3 trillion [I]in transactions[/I], that does not mean that a stack of 2.3 trillion dollars; much of those transactions offset one another and some have no cash impact at all, so the net amount of dollars is generally in magnitudes smaller than the total transaction amount in question. This is why no one with any business sense got all freaked out by the $2.3 trillion. Every organization has a transaction base that is many factors in magnitude bigger than its actual cash flow, budgets, or revenue.

And come on...you really though that the military's transactions account for 1/6th of our economy? That 1/6th of the dollars in our economy were being somehow stolen by Cheney or whoever in the governmeny?? Don't be so ridiculous. [B]The entire 2009 budget for the military is only a bit more than $500 billion![/B] Even if they drastically overspend, they couldn't get to the magniture of 2.3 trillion in terms of cash outflow. If Cheney skimmed and misallocated all of the dollars he cound, he still couldn't get to a number of that magnitude with these kinds of budget numbers. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States[/url]

And do you really think that there would not be a simpler way for the government to hide accounting issues than to shoot cruise missiles (or whatever) at the Pentagon? In this day and age, most money (and information about it) exists only electronically and can be manipulated electronically. [B]Did you know that the government controls the money supply and can print money?[/B] :lol: Taking out a big chunk of the Pentagon for this would be like using a sledge hammer to scratch your nose; it's simply needless overkill. Occam's Razor...google it.

And so really, it seems to me that you are leaping to wild, unsubstantiated conclusions in asserting that the government had to hit its own Pentagon in order to stop people from getting mad about the "$2.3 trillion" (which, as I've said, is not a pile of $2.3 trillion dollars, as you're thinking of it). It's the most combersome explanation I could think of for something that you don't even seem to understand. And based on this example of your reasoning, I have to say that my suspicion of everything else you have to say is definitely heightened.

[QUOTE=yesme;785367]straw man much? no i did not say they took out the towers for this one guy, they might have gotten him the job already knowing what was going to happen.

right, silly of me to believe the american sheep would listen to the worlds foremost expert on bin laden.[/quote] Or perhaps you're just jumping to lots of unsubstantiated conclusions here.

[QUOTE=yesme;785367]are you kidding me here or what? we have explained every building collapse for the last 50 years, except for this one right?:roll:[/quote] No sir, I am not kidding you. First of all, how many other cases do we have out there of planes being deliberately flown into huge skyscrapers? And second of all, you may want to reconsider what we mean by "explain" in a situation involving a phenomenon as complex as this where things happen so rapidly and irreversibly that no one with expertise had time to stop the clock and properly witness and measure exactly what was happening. Think about it:

No one can [I]exactly[/I] tell you all of the exact physics of the planes' impacts into the buildings and the exact damage done as a result; they can only [I]estimate[/I] it to a fairly precise degree (but it's still an estimate).

No on can [I]exactly[/I] tell you the contribution of the insulation and other building materials to the subsequent fire; it can only be [I]estimated[/I] to a fairly precise degree (but it's still an estimate).

No one can [I]exactly[/I] tell you how long the fire burned for and what temperatures it reached in each different square foot of the tower; it can only be [I]estimated[/I] to a fairly precise degree (but it's still an estimate.

No one can [I]exactly[/I] tell you the kinetic energy released by the fall of the towers and the translation of that into kilowatt hours per ton of concrete crushed; it can only be [I]estimated[/I] to a fairly precise degree (but it's still an estimate).

And so it goes with a lot else that occurred in those relatively brief time periods. You follow?

And furthermore...when you're dealing with a physical phenomenon this complex, small changes in assumptions can yield significant differences of results. So things are not as exact and precise as you may think.

[QUOTE=yesme;785367]whats there to argue about? you have no evidence that fires went ABOVE 250c.[/quote] I don't. See, I said I didn't have all of the answers (again, no one does). [B]But according to the reports, the steel components that they recovered to use for those tests represented less than 1% of the overall steel in those particular parts of the building. [/B] [B]If you had less than 1% of the evidence, would you draw a 100% conclusion based on that? [/B]

[url]http://www.scribd.com/doc/295093/NIST-Mechanical-and-Metallurgical-Analysis-of-WTC-Structural-Steel[/url] See the section on Inventory of Steel Recovered.

Here's what we do see anecdotally: runningman has posted lots of pictures of molten stuff coming out the sides of the building. That's quite likely aluminum, and it has a melting point of about 660c. We also know that the fuel from the planes must have produced a [I]much[/I] higher heat for a brief period. And we know that steel loses its strength at temperatures well below its melting point.

And furthermore, you conspiracy folks like to have it both ways, as I've pointed out... first, it was a cool burn and there was no inferno. Then, you say that there was molten stuff all around the wreckage and that stuff was super hot because they used explosives. That Steve E. Jones guy seems to be a huge fan of this. So which is it?

[QUOTE=yesme;785367]miro, tell us about the path of least resistence and "an object in motion tends to stay in motion" with respect to this picture.

[IMG]http://cnparm.home.texas.net/911/911/SouthTowerCollapse.jpg[/IMG]

what should the upper block do according to physics?[/QUOTE] You're probably expecting me to say that the top should have fallen over. It would probably depend on the resistance of the material underneath it relative to any longitudinal movement of the top part of the building...but again, I don't have all the answers. But from everything I've read online, this guy seems to have the most reasonable ones - he says it better than me:

[url]http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/911nutphysics.htm[/url] [url]http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/911NutPhysics0.HTM[/url] [url]http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/911NutPhysics1.HTM[/url]

As for the dispersion of the concrete and materials as the tower fell - well, it IS mostly concrete, and that's what it tends to do when subjected to huge forces. There are lots of academics out there who can show you plenty of fairly detailed calculations that show that the result observed is quite within line of expectations. The links above also show that.

So again... (a) I don't have all the answers, (b) you don't either, and your penchant for the most complex, sensationalist explanations doesn't convince me of what you say, and (c) look up Occam's Razor. All in all, it's going to take a lot more hard evidence to convince me of these kinds of claims, and I haven't seen them yet.

;)

Re: you know what's astonishing?

Miroslav there were molten metal pools at the bottom of the buildings!! Pools of the stuff. Not just welding spots. Why don't you do yourself a favor and watch the video that yesme posted. You won't look so stupid in the future if you watch it.

Also You have no way of knowing if it is aluminum the same way I can't confirm it is steel when the buildings are standing. When the buildings were imploded the molten steel formed in pools at the bottom.

Re: you know what's astonishing?

[QUOTE=Miroslav;790609]

No sir, I am not kidding you. First of all, how many other cases do we have out there of planes being deliberately flown into huge skyscrapers? And second of all, you may want to reconsider what we mean by "explain" in a situation involving a phenomenon as complex as this where things happen so rapidly and irreversibly that no one with expertise had time to stop the clock and properly witness and measure exactly what was happening. Think about it:

No one can [I]exactly[/I] tell you all of the exact physics of the planes' impacts into the buildings and the exact damage done as a result; they can only [I]estimate[/I] it to a fairly precise degree (but it's still an estimate).

No on can [I]exactly[/I] tell you the contribution of the insulation and other building materials to the subsequent fire; it can only be [I]estimated[/I] to a fairly precise degree (but it's still an estimate).

No one can [I]exactly[/I] tell you how long the fire burned for and what temperatures it reached in each different square foot of the tower; it can only be [I]estimated[/I] to a fairly precise degree (but it's still an estimate.

No one can [I]exactly[/I] tell you the kinetic energy released by the fall of the towers and the translation of that into kilowatt hours per ton of concrete crushed; it can only be [I]estimated[/I] to a fairly precise degree (but it's still an estimate).

And so it goes with a lot else that occurred in those relatively brief time periods. You follow?

And furthermore...when you're dealing with a physical phenomenon this complex, small changes in assumptions can yield significant differences of results. So things are not as exact and precise as you may think.

[/QUOTE]

So because no one could tell exactly what happened clearing the crime scene and disposing of all the physical evidence. Then failing to have any sort of investigation until relatives of the victims gave you no option seemed to be the right thing to do.:roll:

This mite be the only time a plane was deliberately flown into a skyscraper but the scenario had been considered by anyone who had a role designing one in at least the last 30 years. I'm fairly sure there was a passenger plane that crashed into a block of flats in Holland in the 1970's. It didn't demolish the building.

Re: you know what's astonishing?

he's just grasping at straws Chunky. He knows deep down what happened.

Re: you know what's astonishing?

[QUOTE=chunky;790692]So because no one could tell exactly what happened clearing the crime scene and disposing of all the physical evidence. Then failing to have any sort of investigation until relatives of the victims gave you no option seemed to be the right thing to do.:roll:

This mite be the only time a plane was deliberately flown into a skyscraper but the scenario had been considered by anyone who had a role designing one in at least the last 30 years. I'm fairly sure there was a passenger plane that crashed into a block of flats in Holland in the 1970's. It didn't demolish the building.[/QUOTE] Tell you what, buddy... why don't you listen to the INTERVIEW with Leslie Robertson, one of the CHIEF STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER:

[URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/broadband/archive/leslie_robertson/[/URL]

He talked specifically about how the building was designed to withstand the impact[B] of a 707 traveling at a much slower speed[/B] and how it is apples and oranges in terms of the plane that actually hit the building. He says when he heard of the news of the modern, fast planes hitting the building that he wasn't sure if the buildings would be able to stay standing for long. And he was involved in the FEMA and NIST reports.

And the building did survive the impact. It didn't survive the subsequent uncontrolled fire - how many steel-supported buildings are made with 100% certainty to withstand an uncontrolled fire at very high elevations where firefighters cannot get to it? Has it ever occurred to you that the building in the Holland flats case was very different from WTC??

[QUOTE=runningman;790697]he's just grasping at straws Chunky. He knows deep down what happened.[/QUOTE] Nobody knows every detail of what happened, least of all you. :lol: You've probably never even heard of Leslie Robertson until I just pointed it out.

Re: you know what's astonishing?

your arguments are weak at best. So explain to me again how aluminum fucks up steel? So aluminum travelling really fast will destroy 5'' steel columns?

[IMG]http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/arch/docs/corebase1.jpg[/IMG]

Even after the plane was cheese grated by the exterior steel supports that made the building equivalent to a pencil going through a screen?

You are also avoiding the main points here. Why did it take the 9/11 families 14 months to get the investigation started? Why didn't the gov't start it right away?

How did the media and state officials know right away that it was OBL with no real investiagtion being done? Oh thats right they found the passport of one of the hijackers.....HAHAHAHA please.

Re: you know what's astonishing?

So now they where only designed for a plane to crash at slow speed! I think the interview would be a lot more interesting if they had shown him the footage and asked him to explain what he thought had happened and what he was witnessing. Did he build building 7 as well. Was he worried about building 7 collapsing when it was hit by a chunk of column that wasn't carrying any fuel. One of the criticisms of the 9/11 commission is they went easy on some of the people who testified. I wouldn't be surprised if some of them knew what questions they would be asked before they testified.

Yes it had occurred to me that the flats in Holland where different to the WTC. But it would be interesting to get some more information on the Dutch crash as the flats where made of concrete and the Plane was fully laden with fuel as it has on just taken off. I would be interested in hearing how the fuel burnt after the impact and the effect on the concrete

Re: you know what's astonishing?

[QUOTE=Miroslav;790710]he was involved in the FEMA and NIST reports. [/QUOTE]

He says here that he didn't participate in the NIST reports directly but he has read it. He doesnt want to talk about building 7 as he wasn't involved in the construction.

[YOUTUBE]WAdcNEa6PTQ[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]053IpeEBji0[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]vMZ38mY31cM[/YOUTUBE]

Re: you know what's astonishing?

[QUOTE=runningman;790712]your arguments are weak at best. So explain to me again how aluminum fucks up steel? So aluminum travelling really fast will destroy 5'' steel columns?[/QUOTE] How many times do we have to go over this same thing? First of all, a modern jet made partially of aluminum composits and laden with fuel traveling at top speed has massive kinetic energy and could obviously do a LOT of damage to the building - but no one is saying that it actually made the building fall. The damage to the steel columns comes into play primarily from the uncontrolled fires, which can weaken the steel to the point where it can't support the load - well below the actual melting point.

Now critics can rightly claim that the pieces of steel taken from the wreckage didn't register very high fires, but they represent less than 1% of the total beams in the entire area, and the fires were localized to a section of the building... so that is just not enough evidence for me to immediately leap to the conclusions of no plane hitting, government shooting buildings down, etc.

[QUOTE=runningman;790712]You are also avoiding the main points here. Why did it take the 9/11 families 14 months to get the investigation started? Why didn't the gov't start it right away?[/QUOTE] I don't know...I don't have the government folks on my direct dial. But that is not enough for me to pitch common sense out the window and start speculating how all of these nefarious things are going on to cover up "$2.3 trillion", or whatever other bullshit people come up with. I really take any comments with a grain of salt from people who always theorize that Mossad, the CIA, or the FBI is behind everything that happens.

But hey...we started this whole thing saying that this is more a religion than anything else...so by all means, believe what you want.

Re: you know what's astonishing?

[QUOTE=runningman;790672]Miroslav there were molten metal pools at the bottom of the buildings!! Pools of the stuff. Not just welding spots. Why don't you do yourself a favor and watch the video that yesme posted. You won't look so stupid in the future if you watch it.

Also You have no way of knowing if it is aluminum the same way I can't confirm it is steel when the buildings are standing. When the buildings were imploded the molten steel formed in pools at the bottom.[/QUOTE]

Quote Leslie Robertson referring to NIST

"they did no chemical analysis"

Re: you know what's astonishing?

Miro won't believe you anyway.

Re: you know what's astonishing?

[QUOTE]Here's what you don't get: in his speech, Cheney said 2.3 trillion dollars of TRANSACTIONS unaccounted for. In accounting speak, a transaction can be a cash inflow, a cash outflow, or a completely non-cash event for an organization (i.e., simply stated: you're paying bills, you're getting paid, or you're allocating/expensing/amortizing/etc). So when someone says 2.3 trillion [I]in transactions[/I], that does not mean that a stack of 2.3 trillion dollars; much of those transactions offset one another and some have no cash impact at all, so the net amount of dollars is generally in magnitudes smaller than the total transaction amount in question. This is why no one with any business sense got all freaked out by the $2.3 trillion. Every organization has a transaction base that is many factors in magnitude bigger than its actual cash flow, budgets, or revenue. [/QUOTE]

you know before you said something i never realized it would take about 20-30 years of skimming to reach this huge number, thus showing america that there really is no difference between D or R.

[QUOTE]And come on...you really though that the military's transactions account for 1/6th of our economy? That 1/6th of the dollars in our economy were being somehow stolen by Cheney or whoever in the governmeny?? [/QUOTE]

1/6th our national debt was what i said, and in 2001, 2.3 trillion was more like 1/5th of our debt, but you get the point..............now.

[QUOTE]And do you really think that there would not be a simpler way for the government to hide accounting issues than to shoot cruise missiles (or whatever) at the Pentagon?[/QUOTE]

is this the one time you want to use the "simpler" arguement, if so let me respond.

would it not been simpler for the terrorists to fly str8 into the building instead of doing a top gun turn?

[IMG]http://guardian.150m.com/pentagon/small/flight77path.jpg[/IMG]

would it not have been simpler to just drop down(land) onto the roof instead of trying to come in thru poles/signs/etc?

[QUOTE][B]Did you know that the government controls the money supply and can print money?[/B][/QUOTE]

nope, never heard of that at all in my research.:roll:

[QUOTE]Taking out a big chunk of the Pentagon for this would be like using a sledge hammer to scratch your nose; it's simply needless overkill. Occam's Razor...google it[/QUOTE]

no need to google it, anti-debunkers have been using it for years to get out of the debate.

[QUOTE]And so really, it seems to me that you are leaping to wild, unsubstantiated conclusions in asserting that the government had to hit its own Pentagon in order to stop people from getting mad about the "$2.3 trillion" (which, as I've said, is not a pile of $2.3 trillion dollars, as you're thinking of it).[/QUOTE]

2.3 trillion is still 2.3 trillion, no matter if it was stolen in one day or twenty years. it's money the taxpayer has to pay back, with interest mind you.to assume the american public would of given the dod record budgets every year since 9-11 after it found out about the missing 2.3 trillion(99% of public does not know about this) is a huge f-ing stretch dont you think?

[QUOTE]It's the most combersome explanation I could think of for something that you don't even seem to understand. And based on this example of your reasoning, I have to say that my suspicion of everything else you have to say is definitely heightened. [/QUOTE]

good, perhaps it will get you to do some serious research then, lets keep going on, shall we?

[QUOTE]Or perhaps you're just jumping to lots of unsubstantiated conclusions here.[/QUOTE]

of course it's a huge leap that anyone would listen to the foremost expert on bin laden, about bin laden. who would listen to him about bin laden, clearly he knows nothing.

i'll have to finish tonight, my wife is nagging me to get off the net.