BILLIONAIRE BLOOMBERG DUCKING DEBATES!
Freedom Fighter
NY Daily News - Sunday, May 3rd 2009
Dinkins throws support behind Thompson for mayor - but says he likes
Bloomberg OK
Spring is in full bloom in New York - with bright green leaves on the trees,
flowers sprouting from window boxes - and Mayor Bloomberg retreating into
his rose garden.
Last week found him introducing a city budget for tough times and managing
the swine flu outbreak, while barely acknowledging that he's running for
reelection.
--
"Managing" the swine flu outbreak? Where did Bloomberg get his medical
degree?
Bloomberg is really EXPLOITING the swine flu outbreak - to get as much media
attention as he can, mugging for the cameras at every opportunity just as
his malevolent predecessor in office did.
--
It's a classic rose garden strategy: Burnish your image in the job you hold,
leave the campaigning to your surrogates, and let your opponent fume that
you won't engage.
Because while Bloomberg is spending millions to saturate the city with his
TV ads, he keeps ducking campaign related-questions and denying that
anything he does has a political component.
--
In which we see the typical lies and deceptions of a politician - especially
a Republican one!
--
Friday, he claimed he "literally had forgotten" that he drew up his budget
proposals in an election year. A day earlier, he claimed there is "no
political advantage" in his increasing tendency to speak Spanish in front of
microphones.
--
No comprende Ingles? Most of the NYC Hispanics he is sucking up to for votes
speak perfect English! And if he could literally forget his budget proposals
and when he made them, that alone should disqualify him from office.
--
And when he was asked whether he would commit to even a single debate
against his opponents, he ducked.
---
He ducked, because in a real debate he'd get fucked!
---
"I'm going to focus on running the city," Bloomberg said. "That's my job.
And as we get into the campaign, the campaign office would be happy to
answer questions about how we do it."
---
The thing he's really running is not the city, but for a 3rd term as mayor.
This despite the will of the people, expressed TWICE at the polls, that term
limits stay in place - limits that would not allow him to run again, had he
not arrogantly sabotaged them!
--
For the record, the campaign's response is, "We look forward to discussing
debates in the fall."
--
Just watch him buy or finagle his way out of any meaningful issue-oriented
debates!
--
The Working Families Party, for one, has been trying to draw Bloomberg into
a debate on New York issues, without success.
--
Billionaire Bloomberg afraid of a minority party like Working Families? I
wonder why??
--
Yet his likely opponent this fall, Controller William Thompson, believes
there's something more than a simple rose garden strategy at work.
If Bloomberg just wanted to portray himself as a hardworking incumbent above
the political fray, asks Thompson campaign manager Eduardo Castell, why is
he running all those ads?
--
Among other things, to buy the favor (and favorable bias) of the coperate
media he has to date spent around 10 million dollars with!
--
"It's not too early to spend $7.5 million on advertisements, but it's too
early to debate? He can't have it both ways," Castell said.
--
Arrogant, elitist billionaires think they CAN have it, ALL ways!
--
"The public doesn't give you an easy pass unless things are easy," he said.
"He needs to do some explaining. If he didn't feel that he needs to do some
messaging and some packaging, he wouldn't be doing this much media this
early."
Bloomberg shot a fresh batch of ads late last month in Brooklyn, walking the
factory floor at the Aladdin Bakery in Sunset Park and strolling through
Xaverian High School in Bay Ridge. "He filmed in hallways, in classrooms,
outside the school," said Robert Oliva, the alumni director at Xaverian. "He
was very friendly and very down to earth."
The mayor would love to stay in his rose garden forever. But as times get
tough in New York, can he?
--------------------------------------
He is afraid to mention it in his ads, but make no mistake about it,
BILLIONAIRE
BLOOMBERG IS A REPUBLICAN!
What has Bloomberg's Republican party done for America in recent years?
* At the very least, the Republicans allowed the 9/11 attack disaster to
happen. All warnings were ignored, and where was NORAD on 9/11? And at the
very most - well, can you say TREASON? So at the least, the Rupublicans
committed criminal negligence; at the most, a treasonous conspiracy - one
that killed 3000 innocent Americans in the nation's worst disaster ever!
They've come a long way since their Watergate crimes, haven't they?
* The Republicans gave us a bumbling, incompetent president with the IQ of
a cockroach. When told of the planes striking the WTC towers on 9/11, this
president continued to read a story about goats to schoolchildren!
* The Republicans gave us the unnecessary Iraq war, the lies used to
justify it, and the liars that used them.
* The Republicans gave us the Constitution-nullifying, freedom-stealing
"Patriot Act."
* The Republicans gave us the draconian torture of terror suspects that
disgraced America in the eyes of the world.
* The Republicans and their corporate cronies gave us four-dollar-a-gallon
gasoline.
* The Republicans gave us the worst economic meltdown since the Great
Depression through allowing their white-collar criminals to freely run
amuck. But for the middle and working classes, it's police-state law and
order!
Billionaire Bloomberg is a REPUBLICAN, in party affiliation, lifestyle,
philosophy, and conduct.
Restore democracy - BOOT BRAZEN BILLIONAIRE BLOOMBERG!
grammatim
Nothing to do with NYC transit, as usual.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Billionaire Bloomberg is a REPUBLICAN, in party affiliation, lifestyle,
> philosophy, and conduct.
Wasn't Firoello La Guardia, one of the best mayors the city ever had,
a Republican?
Wasn't Gov. Nelson Rockefeller, one of the most progressive governors,
a Republican?
Wasn't Mayor John Lindsay, the darling of the liberals, a Republican?
Wasn't Gov. Thomas E. Dewey, the builder of the NY Thruway, a highway
obviously vital to you motorists, a Republican?
Wasn't master highway builder Robert Moses a Republican?
For someone supposedly interested in motorists and "freedom", it is
strange to criticize the Republican Party.
Bolwerk
I dunno. Democrats are probably often more hostile to transportation
reform than Republicans, mainly because they're so easily tarred and
feathered when they support it. That, and they need to pander to
suburbanites to keep their power (at the NYS or federal levels, anyway).
You'll note that Freedom Frigther employs the same rhetorical tactics
(i.e., spamming vapid political propaganda) as rightwingers, and even
supports many of their goals. The only difference is the party he
claims to support.
Freedom Fighter
news:2318274b-ee25-4680...@j32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
-----------
The Republican party, though never exactly defenders of freedom and
democracy, has sunk to new lows since the few individuals you mentioned
above held office. What have you to say regarding their recent record, as
follows?
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> * At the very least, the Republicans allowed the 9/11 attack disaster to
> happen.
That's the most ridiculous thing I ever heard.
I wasn't aware that the City of New York was responsible for airport
security in other cities. Nor was I aware that the City of New York
possessed the capability to shoot down approaching aircraft. Silly
me, I thought those canons on Gov. Is. were just for show.
Nor was I aware that Bloomberg was mayor on 9/11.
Well, I guess you learn new things every day.
grammatim
1. Bloomberg is not a republican. (He was a republican for about 6
years, in order to avoid the Democratic primary fight.)
2. FF did not blaime 9/11 on either the city or Bloomberg.
Clark F Morris
>On May 22, 3:06�pm, "Freedom Fighter" <libe...@once.net> wrote:
>
>> Billionaire Bloomberg is a REPUBLICAN, in party affiliation, lifestyle,
>> philosophy, and conduct.
>
>Wasn't Firoello La Guardia, one of the best mayors the city ever had,
>a Republican?
From a transit point of view he stunk and cheated the private
companies.
>
>Wasn't Gov. Nelson Rockefeller, one of the most progressive governors,
>a Republican?
>
>Wasn't Mayor John Lindsay, the darling of the liberals, a Republican?
>
>Wasn't Gov. Thomas E. Dewey, the builder of the NY Thruway, a highway
>obviously vital to you motorists, a Republican?
>
>Wasn't master highway builder Robert Moses a Republican?
Another person that from a transit and commuter rail point of view
stunk.
Clark F Morris
wrote:
><hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message
>news:2318274b-ee25-4680...@j32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>On May 22, 3:06 pm, "Freedom Fighter" <libe...@once.net> wrote:
>
>> Billionaire Bloomberg is a REPUBLICAN, in party affiliation, lifestyle,
>> philosophy, and conduct.
>
>Wasn't Firoello La Guardia, one of the best mayors the city ever had,
>a Republican?
>
>Wasn't Gov. Nelson Rockefeller, one of the most progressive governors,
>a Republican?
>
>Wasn't Mayor John Lindsay, the darling of the liberals, a Republican?
>
>Wasn't Gov. Thomas E. Dewey, the builder of the NY Thruway, a highway
>obviously vital to you motorists, a Republican?
>
>Wasn't master highway builder Robert Moses a Republican?
>
>For someone supposedly interested in motorists and "freedom", it is
>strange to criticize the Republican Party.
>
>-----------
>The Republican party, though never exactly defenders of freedom and
>democracy, has sunk to new lows since the few individuals you mentioned
>above held office. What have you to say regarding their recent record, as
>follows?
I would agree with you on the patriot acts.
>
>* At the very least, the Republicans allowed the 9/11 attack disaster to
>happen. All warnings were ignored, and where was NORAD on 9/11? And at the
>very most - well, can you say TREASON? So at the least, the Rupublicans
>committed criminal negligence; at the most, a treasonous conspiracy - one
>that killed 3000 innocent Americans in the nation's worst disaster ever!
>They've come a long way since their Watergate crimes, haven't they?
NORAD wasn't and isn't designed to handle rogue airlines. The
warnings seemed to get lost in the bureaucracy much of which,
including attitude was inherited from Clinton. Obama and any other
president faces the same problem that a good portion of the
bureaucracy along with its mindset is inherited from the predecessor.
>
>* The Republicans gave us a bumbling, incompetent president with the IQ of
>a cockroach. When told of the planes striking the WTC towers on 9/11, this
>president continued to read a story about goats to schoolchildren!
>
Given that there was little he could do at that point, probably
keeping things calm in the classroom probably was smart.
>* The Republicans gave us the unnecessary Iraq war, the lies used to
>justify it, and the liars that used them.
I suspect that most of the intelligence establishment and the people
in the Clinton administration believed Saddam had WMDs. Saddam may
have believed he had WMDs. Also the Bush administration did not take
over and protect the bureaucratic HQs in Iraq so we will never have a
true picture. I still am not convinced the invasion was a good idea.
>
>* The Republicans gave us the Constitution-nullifying, freedom-stealing
>"Patriot Act."
I believe that a good percentage, probably a majority, of the
Democrats went along with it. Given World War II precedent, this kind
of stupidity and overkill is bi-partisan.
>
>* The Republicans gave us the draconian torture of terror suspects that
>disgraced America in the eyes of the world.
Read the Wall Street Journal for some interesting caveats and
defenses. Again, the appropriate people in the Democratic Party in
Congress knew AT THE TIME about this and probably approved. Again,
this sort of thing was happening in previous wars under both
administrations. Also there were limits which many of the US allies
in the past had not adhered to.
>
>* The Republicans and their corporate cronies gave us four-dollar-a-gallon
>gasoline.
That was coming sooner or later. Many believe that to be a good thing
(or at least 3 dollars a gallon). Gas in most countries, including
Canada where I now live, is noticeably more expensive than in the US.
>
>* The Republicans gave us the worst economic meltdown since the Great
>Depression through allowing their white-collar criminals to freely run
>amuck. But for the middle and working classes, it's police-state law and
>order!
>
Here again, the blame can be shared with people like Barney Frank and
the allies in Congress who protected Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
Bolwerk
> On Fri, 22 May 2009 19:25:45 -0700 (PDT), hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com wrote:
>
>> On May 22, 3:06 pm, "Freedom Fighter" <libe...@once.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Billionaire Bloomberg is a REPUBLICAN, in party affiliation, lifestyle,
>>> philosophy, and conduct.
>> Wasn't Firoello La Guardia, one of the best mayors the city ever had,
>> a Republican?
>
> From a transit point of view he stunk and cheated the private
> companies.
>> Wasn't Gov. Nelson Rockefeller, one of the most progressive governors,
>> a Republican?
>>
>> Wasn't Mayor John Lindsay, the darling of the liberals, a Republican?
>>
>> Wasn't Gov. Thomas E. Dewey, the builder of the NY Thruway, a highway
>> obviously vital to you motorists, a Republican?
>>
>> Wasn't master highway builder Robert Moses a Republican?
>
> Another person that from a transit and commuter rail point of view
> stunk.
They all were pretty unsuccessful in the area of transit. Rockefeller
and Lindsay maybe meant well, but didn't get much done.
(Rockefeller had dreams of HSR to LI and the distant northern burbs. He
got us the MTA, but that's proved pretty unhelpful.)
Freedom Fighter
news:If6dnSDebfho8YrX...@earthlink.com...
"Spamming" is not what I've done here, and I suspect that you don't know the
definition of this word.
"Vapid" likewise, as that means inane, insipid, lifeless - and I challenge
you to show how this applies to what I've posted here
I do not support and even oppose most of the right-wing agenda, though a few
of their goals do make sense to me - such as the freedom of the trained and
qualified citizen to bear arms.
My party affiliation can be summed up as independent, if not "none of the
above."
Freedom Fighter
news:79ece0c6-debb-4a86...@h11g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On May 22, 11:30 pm, "Freedom Fighter" <libe...@once.net> wrote:
> * At the very least, the Republicans allowed the 9/11 attack disaster to
> happen.
That's the most ridiculous thing I ever heard.
I wasn't aware that the City of New York was responsible for airport
security in other cities. Nor was I aware that the City of New York
possessed the capability to shoot down approaching aircraft. Silly
me, I thought those canons on Gov. Is. were just for show.
--
Better airport security would not have prevented the 9/11 disaster.
NORAD WOULD have intercepted and probably shot down the allegedly hijacked
planes, but on 9/11 NORAD was, if not ordered to "stand down," deliberately
incapacitated. Normally, they intercept all out-of-communication or
off-course flights within minutes, but on 9/11 FOUR "hijacked" jets, flying
at subsonic speeds, were in the air for over an hour, heading towards known
terrorist targets, and NOT EVEN ONE was intercepted!
Can you say TREASON?
--
Nor was I aware that Bloomberg was mayor on 9/11.
--
Giuliani was mayor, and I consider that malevolent tyrant a probable
co-conspirator in 9/11. Somehow he knew of the tower collapses BEFORE they
happened. And as any good detective knows, when seeking criminals you
investigate those that most benefitted from the crime.
I'm sorry to see that you have not only been misinformed, but that your
beliefs re. 9/11 have been shaped by the controlled corperate media and the
government propaganda they mindlessly disseminate.
For starters, below are two informative articles - long, but very much worth
reading, and something you'll never see in the newspapers:
Take a look at what the top military leaders, intelligence professionals,
scientists, structural engineers, architects, members of Congress, 9/11
Commissioners, legal scholars, heroic first responders, family members of
9/11 victims and psychiatrists say before you make up your mind about what
the truth is regarding 9/11:
MILITARY LEADERS
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under President Ronald Reagan
(Col. Ronald D. Ray) said that the official story of 9/11 is "the dog
that doesn't hunt" (bio)
Director of the U.S. "Star Wars" space defense program in both
Republican and Democratic administrations, who was a senior air force
colonel who flew 101 combat missions (Col. Robert Bowman) stated that
9/11 was an inside job. He also said:
"If our government had merely [done] nothing, and I say that as an
old interceptor pilot?I know the drill, I know what it takes, I know how
long it takes, I know what the procedures are, I know what they were,
and I know what they?ve changed them to?if our government had merely
done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of
9/11, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead
Americans would still be alive. [T]hat is treason!"
U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director, decorated with the
Purple Heart, the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal (Capt. Daniel
Davis) stated:
"there is no way that an aircraft . . . would not be intercepted
when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders,
or stop communication with Air Traffic Control ... Attempts to obscure
facts by calling them a 'conspiracy Theory' does not change the truth.
It seems, 'Something is rotten in the State.' "
President of the U.S. Air Force Accident Investigation Board, who also
served as Pentagon Weapons Requirement Officer and as a member of the
Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review, and who was awarded Distinguished
Flying Crosses for Heroism, four Air Medals, four Meritorious Service
Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals (Lt. Col. Jeff Latas) is a
member of a group which doubts the government's version of 9/11
U.S. General, Commanding General of U.S. European Command and Supreme
Allied Commander Europe, decorated with the Bronze Star, Silver Star,
and Purple Heart (General Wesley Clark) said "We've never finished the
investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused
the intelligence information it had. The evidence seems pretty clear to
me. I've seen that for a long time."
Air Force Colonel and key Pentagon official (Lt. Colonel Karen
Kwiatkowski) finds various aspects of 9/11 suspicious
Lieutenant colonel, 24-year Air Force career, Vice Chancellor for
Student Affairs at the Defense Language Institute (Lt. Colonel Steve
Butler) said "Of course Bush knew about the impending attacks on
America. He did nothing to warn the American people because he needed
this war on terrorism."
Two-Star general (Major General Albert Stubbelbine) questions the attack
on the Pentagon
U.S. Air Force fighter pilot, former instructor at the USAF Fighter
Weapons School and NATO?s Tactical Leadership Program, with a 20-year
Air Force career (Lt. Colonel Guy S. Razer) said the following:
"I am 100% convinced that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were
planned, organized, and committed by treasonous perpetrators that have
infiltrated the highest levels of our government ....
Those of us in the military took an oath to "support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and
domestic". Just because we have retired does not make that oath invalid,
so it is not just our responsibility, it is our duty to expose the real
perpetrators of 9/11 and bring them to justice, no matter how hard it
is, how long it takes, or how much we have to suffer to do it.
We owe it to those who have gone before us who executed that same
oath, and who are doing the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan right
now. Those of us who joined the military and faithfully executed orders
that were given us had to trust our leaders. The violation and abuse of
that trust is not only heinous, but ultimately the most accurate
definition of treason!"
U.S. Marine Corps lieutenant colonel, a fighter pilot with over 300
combat missions flown and a 21-year Marine Corps career (Lt. Colonel
Shelton F. Lankford) believes that 9/11 was an inside job, and said:
"This isn't about party, it isn't about Bush Bashing. It's about
our country, our constitution, and our future. ...
Your countrymen have been murdered and the more you delve into it
the more it looks as though they were murdered by our government, who
used it as an excuse to murder other people thousands of miles away.
If you ridicule others who have sincere doubts and who know factual
information that directly contradicts the official report and who want
explanations from those who hold the keys to our government, and have
motive, means, and opportunity to pull off a 9/11, but you are too lazy
or fearful, or ... to check into the facts yourself, what does that make
you? ....
Are you afraid that you will learn the truth and you can't handle
it? ..."
U.S. Navy 'Top Gun' pilot (Commander Ralph Kolstad) who questions the
official account of 9/11 and is calling for a new investigation, says
"When one starts using his own mind, and not what one was told, there is
very little to believe in the official story".
The Group Director on matters of national security in the U.S.
Government Accountability Office said that President Bush did not
respond to unprecedented warnings of the 9/11 disaster and conducted a
massive cover-up instead of accepting responsibility
Additionally, numerous military leaders from allied governments have
questioned 9/11, such as:
Canadian Minister of Defense, the top military leader of Canada (Paul
Hellyer)
Assistant German Defense Minister (Andreas Von Bulow)
Commander-in-chief of the Russian Navy (Anatoli Kornukov)
Chief of staff of the Russian armed forces (General Leonid Ivashov)
INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS
Former military analyst and famed whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg recently
said that the case of a certain 9/11 whistleblower is "far more
explosive than the Pentagon Papers". He also said that the government is
ordering the media to cover up her allegations about 9/11. And he said
that some of the claims concerning government involvement in 9/11 are
credible, that "very serious questions have been raised about what they
[U.S. government officials] knew beforehand and how much involvement
there might have been", that engineering 9/11 would not be humanly or
psychologically beyond the scope of the current administration, and that
there's enough evidence to justify a new, "hard-hitting" investigation
into 9/11 with subpoenas and testimony taken under oath.
A 27-year CIA veteran, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and
personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan
and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials
(Raymond McGovern) said ?I think at simplest terms, there?s a cover-up.
The 9/11 Report is a joke?, and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was
an inside job.
A 29-year CIA veteran, former National Intelligence Officer (NIO) and
former Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis
(William Bill Christison) said ?I now think there is persuasive evidence
that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration
and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. ... All three [buildings
that were destroyed in the World Trade Center] were most probably
destroyed by controlled demolition charges placed in the buildings
before 9/11." (and see this).
20-year Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer, the
second-ranking civilian in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence, and former
CIA clandestine services case officer (David Steele) stated that "9/11
was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war", and it was
probably an inside job (see Customer Review dated October 7, 2006).
A decorated 20-year CIA veteran, who Pulitzer-Prize winning
investigative reporter Seymour Hersh called "perhaps the best
on-the-ground field officer in the Middle East?, and whose astounding
career formed the script for the Academy Award winning motion picture
Syriana (Robert Baer) said that"the evidence points at" 9/11 having had
aspects of being an inside job .
The Division Chief of the CIA?s Office of Soviet Affairs, who served as
Senior Analyst from 1966 - 1990. He also served as Professor of
International Security at the National War College from 1986 - 2004
(Melvin Goodman) said "The final [9/11 Commission] report is ultimately
a coverup."
Professor of History and International Relations, University of
Maryland. Former Executive Assistant to the Director of the National
Security Agency. Former military attach� in China. 21-year career in
U.S. Army Intelligence (Major John M. Newman, PhD, U.S. Army)
questions the government's version of the events of 9/11.
The head of all U.S. intelligence, the Director of National Intelligence
(Mike McConnel) said "9/11 should have and could have been prevented"
A number of intelligence officials, including a CIA Operations Officer
who co-chaired a CIA multi-agency task force coordinating intelligence
efforts among many intelligence and law enforcement agencies (Lynne
Larkin) sent a joint letter to Congress expressing their concerns about
?serious shortcomings,? ?omissions,? and ?major flaws? in the 9/11
Commission Report and offering their services for a new investigation
(they were ignored).
9/11 COMMISSIONERS
The 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials lied to the
Commission, and considered recommending criminal charges for such false
statements, yet didn't bother to tell the American people (free
subscription required).
Indeed, the co-chairs of the Commission (Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton)
now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political
considerations.
9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says "I don't believe for a minute
we got everything right", that the Commission was set up to fail, that
people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate
should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only "the first
draft" of history.
9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that "There are ample reasons to
suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our
version . . . We didn't have access . . . ."
9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer said "We were extremely frustrated with
the false statements we were getting"
Former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission,
stating: "It is a national scandal"; "This investigation is now
compromised"; and "One of these days we will have to get the full story
because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House
wants to cover it up".
The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) who led the 9/11
staff's inquiry, said "I was shocked at how different the truth was from
the way it was described .... The tapes told a radically different story
from what had been told to us and the public for two years.... This is
not spin. This is not true."
SCIENTISTS
A prominent physicist with 33 years of service for the Naval Research
Laboratory in Washington, DC (Dr. David L. Griscom) said that the
official theory for why the Twin Towers and world trade center building
7 collapsed "does not match the available facts" and supports the theory
that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition
A world-renowned scientist, recipient of the National Medal of Science,
America's highest honor for scientific achievement (Dr. Lynn Margulis) said:
"I suggest that those of us aware and concerned demand that the
glaringly erroneous official account of 9/11 be dismissed as a fraud and
a new, thorough, and impartial investigation be undertaken."
The former head of the Fire Science Division of the government agency
which claims that the World Trade Centers collapsed due to fire (the
National Institute of Standards and Technology), who is one of the
world?s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, a Ph.D.
in mechanical engineering (Dr. James Quintiere), called for an
independent review of the World Trade Center Twin Tower collapse
investigation. "I wish that there would be a peer review of this," he
said, referring to the NIST investigation. "I think all the records that
NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see
someone else take a look at what they've done; both structurally and
from a fire point of view. ... I think the official conclusion that NIST
arrived at is questionable."
Former Director for Research, Director for Aeronautical Projects, and
Flight Research Program Manager for NASA's Dryden Flight Research
Center, who holds masters degrees in both physics and engineering (Dwain
A. Deets) says:
"The many visual images (massive structural members being hurled
horizontally, huge pyroclastic clouds, etc.) leave no doubt in my mind
explosives were involved [in the destruction of the World Trade Centers
on 9/11].''
A prominent physicist, former U.S. professor of physics from a top
university, and a former principal investigator for the U.S. Department
of Energy, Division of Advanced Energy Projects (Dr. Steven E. Jones)
stated that the world trade centers were brought down by controlled
demolition
A U.S. physics professor who teaches at several universities (Dr.
Crockett Grabbe) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down
by controlled demolition
An expert on demolition (Bent Lund) said that the trade centers were
brought down with explosives (in Danish)
A Dutch demolition expert (Danny Jowenko) stated that WTC 7 was imploded
A safety engineer and accident analyst for the Finnish National Safety
Technology Authority (Dr. Heikki Kurttila) stated regarding WTC 7 that
"The great speed of the collapse and the low value of the resistance
factor strongly suggest controlled demolition."
A 13-year professor of metallurgical engineering at a U.S. university,
with a PhD in materials engineering, a former Congressional Office of
Technology Assessment Senior Staff Member (Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn), is
calling for a new investigation of 9/11
A Danish professor of chemistry (Dr. Niels Harrit) said, in a mainstream
Danish newspaper, "WTC7 collapsed exactly like a house of cards. If the
fires or damage in one corner had played a decisive role, the building
would have fallen in that direction. You don't have to be a woodcutter
to grasp this" (translated)
A former guidance systems engineer for Polaris and Trident missiles and
professor emeritus, mathematics and computer science at a university
concluded (Dr. Bruce R. Henry) that the Twin Towers "were brought down
by planted explosives."
A mechanical engineer with 20 years experience as a Fire Protection
Engineer for the U.S. Departments of Energy, Defense, and Veterans
Affairs, who is a contributing Subject Matter Expert to the U.S.
Department of Energy Fire Protection Engineering Functional Area
Qualification Standard for Nuclear Facilities, a board member of the
Northern California - Nevada Chapter of the Society of Fire Protection
Engineers, currently serving as Fire Protection Engineer for the city of
San Jose, California, the 10th largest city in the United States (Edward
S. Munyak) believes that the World Trade Center was destroyed by
controlled demolition.
The former Chief of the Strategic and Emergency Planning Branch, U.S.
Department of Energy, and former Director of the Office of Engineering
at the Public Service Commission in Washington, D.C., who is a
mechanical engineer (Enver Masud) , does not believe the official story,
and believes that there is a prima facie case for controlled demolition
of the World Trade Center.
A professor of mathematics (Gary Welz) said "The official explanation
that I've heard doesn't make sense because it doesn't explain why I
heard and felt an explosion before the South Tower fell and why the
concrete was pulverized"
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS AND ARCHITECTS
A prominent engineer with 55 years experience, in charge of the design
of hundreds of major building projects including high rise offices,
former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former
member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council
(Marx Ayres) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by
controlled demolition (see also this)
Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss
university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on
9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition
(translation here)
Charles Pegelow, structural engineer, of Houston, Texas (and see this)
Dennis Kollar, structural engineer, of West Bend, Wisconsin
Doyle Winterton, structural engineer (retired)
Haluk Akol, Structural Engineer and architect (ret.)
Michael T. Donly, P.E., structural engineer
William Rice, P.E., structural engineer, former professor of Vermont
Technical College
An architect, member of the American Institute of Architects, who has
been a practicing architect for 20 years and has been responsible for
the production of construction documents for numerous steel-framed and
fire-protected buildings for uses in many different areas, including
education, civic, rapid transit and industrial use (Richard Gage)
disputes the claim that fire and airplane damage brought down the World
Trade Centers and believes there is strong evidence of controlled
demolition (many other architects who question 9/11 are listed here)
LEGAL SCHOLARS
Former Federal Prosecutor, Office of Special Investigations, U.S.
Department of Justice under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan;
former U.S. Army Intelligence officer, and currently a widely-sought
media commentator on terrorism and intelligence services (John Loftus)
questions the government's version of 9/11.
Former Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation; former
Professor of Aviation, Dept. of Aerospace Engineering and Aviation and
Professor of Public Policy, Ohio State University (Mary Schiavo)
questions the government's version of 9/11.
Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois, Champaign;
a leading practitioner and advocate of international law; responsible
for drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the
American implementing legislation for the 1972 Biological Weapons
Convention; served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International
(1988-1992), and represented Bosnia- Herzegovina at the World Court,
with a Doctor of Law Magna Cum Laude as well as a Ph.D. in Political
Science, both from Harvard University (Dr. Francis Boyle) questions the
government's version of 9/11.
Former prosecutor in the Organized Crime and Racketeering Section of the
U.S. Justice Department and a key member of Attorney General Bobby
Kennedy?s anti-corruption task force; former assistant U.S. Attorney for
the Northern District of Illinois (J. Terrence "Terry" Brunner)
questions the government's version of 9/11.
Professor Emeritus, International Law, Professor of Politics and
International Affairs, Princeton University; in 2001 served on the
three-person UN Commission on Human Rights for the Palestine
Territories, and previously, on the Independent International Commission
on Kosovo (Richard Falk) questions the government's version of 9/11.
Bessie Dutton Murray Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus and
Director, Center for Human Rights, University of Iowa; Fellow, World
Academy of Art and Science. Honorary Editor, Board of Editors, American
Journal of International Law (Burns H. Weston) questions the
government's version of 9/11.
Former president of the National Lawyers Guild (C. Peter Erlinder), who
signed a petition calling for a real investigation into 9/11. And see
petition.
Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at Troy University; associate
General Counsel, National Association of Federal Agents; Retired Agent
in Charge, Internal Affairs, U.S. Customs, responsible for the internal
integrity and security for areas encompassing nine states and two
foreign locations; former Federal Sky Marshall; 27-year U.S. Customs
career (Mark Conrad) questions the government's version of 9/11.
Professor of Law, University of Freiburg; former Minister of Justice of
West Germany (Horst Ehmke) questions the government's version of 9/11.
Director of Academic Programs, Institute for Policy and Economic
Development, University of Texas, El Paso, specializing in executive
branch secrecy policy, governmental abuse, and law and bureaucracy;
former U.S. Army Signals Intelligence officer; author of several books
on law and political theory (Dr. William G. Weaver) questions the
government's version of 9/11.
Famed trial attorney (Gerry Spence) questions the government's version
of 9/11.
Former Instructor of Criminal Trial Practice, Boalt Hall School of Law,
University of California at Berkeley 11-year teaching career. Retired
Chief Assistant Public Defender, Contra Costa County, California 31-year
career (William Veale) said:
"When you grow up in the United States, there are some bedrock
principles that require concerted effort to discard. One is the
simplest: that our leaders are good and decent people whose efforts may
occasionally warrant criticism but never because of malice or
venality... But one grows up. ... And with the lawyer's training comes
the reliance on evidence and the facts that persuade... After a lot of
reading, thought, study, and commiseration, I have come to the
conclusion that the attacks of 9/11 were, in their essence, an inside
job perpetrated at the highest levels of the U S government."
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Current U.S. Senator (Patrick Leahy) states "The two questions that the
congress will not ask . . . is why did 9/11 happen on George Bush's
watch when he had clear warnings that it was going to happen? Why did
they allow it to happen?"
Current Republican Congressman (Ron Paul) states that "we see the [9/11]
investigations that have been done so far as more or less cover-up and
no real explanation of what went on"
Current Democratic Congressman (Dennis Kucinich) hints that we aren't
being told the truth about 9/11
Former Democratic Senator (Mike Gravel) states that he supports a new
9/11 investigation and that we don't know the truth about 9/11
Former U.S. Republican Congressman and senior member of the House Armed
Services Committee, and who served six years as the Chairman of the
Military Research and Development Subcommittee (Curt Weldon) has shown
that the U.S. tracked hijackers before 9/11, is open to hearing
information about explosives in the Twin Towers, and is open to the
possibility that 9/11 was an inside job
FAMILY MEMBERS AND HEROIC FIRST RESPONDERS
A common criticism of those who question 9/11 is that they are being
"disrespectful to the victims and their families".
However, half of the victim's families believe that 9/11 was an inside
job (according to the head of the largest 9/11 family group, Bill Doyle)
(and listen to this interview). Many family and friends of victims not
only support the search for 9/11 truth, but they demand it (please
ignore the partisan tone). See also this interview.
Indeed, it has now become so clear that the 9/11 Commission was a
whitewash that the same 9/11 widows who called for the creation of the
9/11 Commission are now demanding a NEW investigation (see also this video).
And dying heroes, soon-to-be victims themselves, the first responders
who worked tirelessly to save lives on and after 9/11, say that
controlled demolition brought down the Twin Towers and that a real
investigation is necessary.
PSYCHIATRISTS AND PSYCHOLOGISTS
Finally, those who attack people who question the government's version
of 9/11 as "crazy" may wish to review the list of mental health
professionals who have concluded that the official version of 9/11 is false:
Psychiatrist Carol S. Wolman, MD
Psychiatrist E. Martin Schotz
Associate Clinical Professor of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke
University Medical Center, as well as Radiology, at Duke University
Medical Center D. Lawrence Burk, Jr., MD
Board of Governors Distinguished Service Professor of Psychology and
Associate Dean of the Graduate School at Ruters University Barry R.
Komisaruk
Professor of Psychology at University of New Hampshire William Woodward
Professor of Psychology at University of Essex Philip Cozzolino
Professor of Psychology at Goddard College Catherine Lowther
Professor Emeritus of Psychology at California Institute of Integral
Studies Ralph Metzner
Professor of Psychology at Rhodes University Mike Earl-Taylor
Retired Professor of Psychology at Oxford University Graham Harris
Ph.D. in Clinical Psychology from the University of Nebraska and
licensed Psychologist Ronald Feintech
Ph.D. Clinical Neuropsychologist Richard Welser
THOUSANDS OF OTHERS
The roster above is only a sample. There are too many Ph.D. scientists
and engineers, architects, military and intelligence officials,
politicians, legal scholars and other highly-credible people who
question 9/11 -- literally thousands -- to list in one place. Here are a
few additional people to consider:
The former director of the FBI (Louis Freeh) says there was a cover up
by the 9/11 Commission
Former air traffic controller, who knows the flight corridor which the
two planes which hit the Twin Towers flew "like the back of my hand" and
who handled two actual hijackings (Robin Hordon) says that 9/11 could
not have occurred as the government says, and that planes can be tracked
on radar even when their transponders are turned off (also, listen to
this interview)
Perhaps "the premiere collapse expert in the country", who 9/11
Commissioner Timothy Roemer referred to as a "very, very respected
expert on building collapse", the head of the New York Fire Department's
Special Operations Command and the most highly decorated firefighter in
its NYFD history, who had previously "commanded rescue operations at
many difficult and complex disasters, including the Oklahoma City
Bombing, the 1993 World Trade Center Bombing, and many natural disasters
worldwide" thought that the collapse of the South Tower was caused by
bombs, because the collapse of the building was too even to have been
caused by anything else (pages 5-6).
Former Deputy Secretary for Intelligence and Warning under Nixon, Ford,
and Carter (Morton Goulder), former former Deputy Director to the White
House Task Force on Terrorism (Edward L. Peck), and former US Department
of State Foreign Service Officer (J. Michael Springmann), as well as a
who's who of liberals and independents) jointly call for a new
investigation into 9/11
Former FBI agent (Robert Wright) says "The FBI, rather than trying to
prevent a terrorist attack, was merely gathering intelligence so they
would know who to arrest when a terrorist attack occurred."
Former FBI translator, who the Department of Justice's Inspector General
and several senators have called extremely credible (free subscription
required) (Sibel Edmonds), said "If they were to do real investigations
we would see several significant high level criminal prosecutions in
this country. And that is something that they are not going to let out.
And, believe me; they will do everything to cover this up". She also is
leaning towards the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job
--------------------------------------
SIMPLE PHYSICS EXPOSES THE BIG 9/11 LIE -
GOVERNMENT BUILDING COLLAPSE
EXPLANATION FAILS REALITY CHECK
On September 11, 2001, the world watched in horror as the World Trade Center
(WTC) Twin Towers collapsed, killing thousands of innocent people. Videos of
the collapses were replayed ad nauseam on TV for days. About 5 hours after
the towers fell, WTC building 7 also collapsed suddenly, completely, and
straight down at near free-fall speed. This steel-framed building was not
touched by the planes that struck the towers, and had sustained relatively
minor debris damage and small fires. Nearby buildings far more heavily
damaged remained standing.
In June 2005, in an apparent response to an article by Morgan Reynolds,
former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated,
"The American people know what they saw with their own eyes on September 11,
2001. To suggest any kind of government conspiracy in the events of that day
goes beyond the pale."
We will prove here, with scientific rigor, that it's the government's tale
that's "beyond the pale"!
Did most of the American people really understand the unprecedented
phenomena they had witnessed? Could a lack of knowledge of physics, and the
emotional shock of this mass-murderous "terrorist attack" have stymied
objective thinking and led to the blind acceptance of authoritarian
assertions?
The government and the media TOLD US what we saw. The government told us
that we had witnessed a "gravitational" collapse; what is now referred to as
a "pancake collapse". According to the government claims, the plane crashes
and subsequent kerosene (like lamp oil - jet fuel is NOT exotic) fires
heated the UL-certified structural steel to the point where it was
significantly weakened, which is very difficult to believe, never mind
repeat in an experiment. Even with massive fires that incinerate everything
else, the steel frames of such buildings generally remain standing.
According to the "pancake theory", this purported (all physical evidence was
quickly and illegally destroyed) weakening supposedly caused part of the
tower to collapse downward onto the rest of the tower, which, we've been
repeatedly told, somehow resulted in a chain reaction of the lower floors
sequentially, one at a time, yielding to the weight falling from above.
There are some problems with that theory - it does not fit the observed
facts:
* It cannot account for the total failure of the immense vertical steel core
columns - as if they were there one moment and gone the next.
* The collapse times were near free-fall, far too rapid to be due to gravity
alone. This article focuses on the latter of these two discrepancies.
Those that concocted the "pancake theory" made a fatal error - they didn't
check their story against the inviolate laws of physics! This is easy to do,
even without any physical evidence to examine. We can test that incredible
pancake tale using basic high-school physics. Let's do that - use a simple,
unassailable, incontrovertible conservation-of-energy analysis to perform a
reality check that establishes once and for all that the government, and
such government story backers as PBS, Popular Mechanics, and Scientific
American have falsified the true nature of the 9/11 disaster.
How Gravity Acts:
Sir Isaac Newton noticed that apples fell from trees. Others had also
noticed this, but none had ever devised a theory of gravity from the
observation. Over the years, mankind has learned that the force of gravity
at and near Earth's surface produces an acceleration of known constant
magnitude. That doesn't mean we know HOW it works, or WHY, but we have
become able to predict its effects with a high degree of precision and
certainty - gravity has always had the same, predictable, effect.
Galileo Galilei used the leaning tower of Pisa to demonstrate that a large
ball and a small one (of lesser mass) fell (accelerated downward) at the
same rate. Prior to Galileo, people had just assumed that heavier objects
fall faster, much the way they had assumed the Earth was flat.
So while an object of greater mass will exert more force (its weight) upon
anything supporting it against gravity's pull, it does not experience any
greater acceleration when gravity's pull is not opposed - when it is
falling. Earth's gravity at and near the surface of the planet can only
accelerate objects downward at one known, constant rate: 32 feet per second
for each second of free fall. As Galileo demonstrated centuries ago, heavier
objects are not accelerated any quicker than are lighter objects.
So Earth's gravity produces a downward acceleration of 32 feet per second
per second. This means that an object, after falling one second, will be
falling at a speed of 32 ft/sec. After the 2nd second, it will be falling at
64 ft/sec. After the 3rd second, it will be falling at 96 ft/sec., and so
on.
Further, since gravity's acceleration is constant, and an object is falling
at 32 ft/sec after one second has elapsed, we know that it has averaged 16
ft/sec for the entire distance. Thus after one second, the object has fallen
16 feet.
Scientists have derived simple free-fall equations that can be used to
harness this knowledge mathematically. These equations can be found in any
high-school physics book:
* Falling velocity = acceleration of gravity x time. (V = G x T)
And
* Distance fallen = 1/2 x acceleration of gravity x time squared. (D = 1/2
x G x T x T)
So if we want to know how far an object has free-fallen after 3 seconds:
Distance = 1/2 x 32 x 9 = 144 feet
So after 3 seconds in Earth's gravity, an object will have fallen 144 feet
and will be falling at 96 ft/sec.
Checking Our Work:
We've just solved a simple physics problem. Now let's check our work, using
conservation of energy.
We know that energy can neither be created nor destroyed - it merely changes
form. If we take the potential (in this case chemical, molecular) energy in
a barrel of oil and burn it, it changes to heat energy. When we burn
gasoline in our car's engine, we get kinetic (motional) energy, plus some
heat, as an engine is not 100% efficient. When we use our car's brakes to
bleed off some of that kinetic energy (slow down), that energy is converted
into heat (the brakes get hot). Explosives convert potential energy
[molecular or atomic] to kinetic energy (explosive force) quickly enough to
shatter or even pulverize concrete.
In the case of the free-falling object, the two kinds of energy we are
concerned with are kinetic energy and potential energy. Examples of
potential (gravitational) energy are the energy available from water stored
up high in a water tower, or a boulder perched atop a hill. If whatever is
holding it up there is removed, it will fall under the influence of
gravity's pull. As it accelerates downward, the potential energy is
converted to the kinetic energy of the object's motion.
So, as an object falls, it changes its potential energy into kinetic energy.
The equation for potential energy is:
* Potential Energy = Mass (or weight) x Gravity x Height. (PE = M x G x H)
The equation for kinetic energy is:
* Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x Mass x Velocity squared. (KE = 1/2 x M x V x V)
So let's just say, for the sake of simplicity, that our falling object has a
mass of 1. (Remember, the object's mass will affect its energy, and its
momentum, but not its rate of free-fall.)
The potential energy given up by falling 3 seconds (144 ft) is: 1 x 32 x 144
= 4608
The kinetic energy gained after falling 3 secs is 1/2 x 1 x 96 squared = 1/2
x 9216 = 4608
So, the available potential energy was converted into kinetic energy. Seeing
that energy was, in fact, conserved is how we know that the answer in the
simple case above was correct. We've checked our work, using an independent
analysis, based upon the sound physical principle of conservation of energy.
Now, and only now, we can be certain that our answer was correct.
One Little Complication - the effect of air resistance:
The free-fall equations above reflect a perfect, frictionless world. They
perfectly predict the behavior of falling bodies in a vacuum. In fact, you
may have seen a science class demonstration in which the air is pumped out
of a tube and then a feather will fall, in that vacuum, just as fast as will
a solid metal ball.
That's how parachutes work: much of the falling object's potential energy
gets expended doing the work of pushing a lot of air out of the way in order
for the object to fall. As a result, not all of the gravitational potential
energy can go towards accelerating the object downward at gravity's rate of
32 ft/sec/sec.
In other words, only when there is zero frictional resistance can any
falling object's potential energy be completely converted into kinetic
energy. Anything that resists a falling object's downward velocity reduces
its acceleration from the maximum gravitational acceleration of 32 feet per
second per second, as some of gravity's potential energy is consumed in
overcoming frictional resistance.
This explains the phenomena of "terminal velocity". The free-fall equations
predict that a falling object's velocity will continue to increase without
limit. But in air, once a falling object reaches a certain speed, its
propensity to fall will be matched by the air's resistance to the fall. At
that point the object will continue to fall, but its speed will no longer
increase over time. Another way of looking at it is this: gravity's
incessant force produces a downward acceleration, but friction with the air
creates an upward force and thus an upward acceleration. When falling at
terminal velocity, the acceleration downward equals the acceleration upward,
they cancel each other out, and a constant downward velocity is maintained.
Thus the parachute, with its high air friction resistance, allows the person
attached to it to float to earth unharmed.
A Quick Recap:
Earth's gravity causes objects to fall, and they fall according to precise
physical equations. The equations assume no air or other resistance. Any
resistance at all will cause the object to fall less rapidly than it would
without that resistance. If a falling object is affected by air resistance
it falls slower than it would if free-falling, and it will take longer to
fall a given distance.
Free-fall From WTC Building Heights:
The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall; average = 1355 feet. Let's start by
using our free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to
free-fall from the towers' height.
Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time squared. (D = 1/2 x G x T x T)
With a little basic algebra, we solve the equation for the fall time, T:
2 x Distance = Gravity x Time(squared) (2 x D = G x T x T)
Time squared = (2 x Distance) / Gravity (T x T = 2 x D / G)
Time squared = 2 x 1355 / 32 = 84.7 (T = square root of (2 x D / G))
Time = 9.2
So our equation tells us that it takes 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the
ground from the height of the WTC towers.
Using our simpler equation, V = G x T, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, the
free-falling object's velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is just over
200 mph.
But that can only occur IN A VACUUM.
Since the WTC was in Earth's atmosphere at sea level, you might be able to
imagine how much air resistance that represents. Think about putting your
arm out the window of a car moving even half that fast! Most free-falling
objects reach their terminal velocity long before they reach 200 mph. For
example, the terminal velocity of a free-falling human body is around 120
mph. The terminal velocity of a free-falling cat is around 60 mph.
Therefore, it is clear that air resistance alone will make it take longer
than 9.2 seconds for anything falling from the towers' height to reach the
ground.
Observations from 9/11:
On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government's
"complete and final report" on 9/11, that the South Tower collapsed in 10
seconds. Here is the exact quote:
"At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds". That's the
government's official number. With all the videos that show it, they could
not lie about this.
But as we've determined above, the FREE-FALL TIME IN A VACUUM is 9.2
seconds, and 10 seconds is an exceptionally short fall time through the air.
This "collapse" was not without far more physical resistance than from the
air alone. It proceeded through all the lower stories of the tower. Those
undamaged floors below the plane impact zone offered resistance thousands of
times greater than that of air. Those lower stories, and the central steel
core columns, had successfully supported the mass of the tower for 30 years
despite hurricane-force winds and tremors. Air cannot do that.
Can anyone possibly imagine undamaged lower floors getting out of the way of
the upper floors as gracefully and relatively frictionlessly as air would?
Can anyone possibly imagine the lower stories slowing the fall of the upper
floors less than would, say, a parachute?
It is beyond the scope of the simple but uncontested physics here to tell
you how long such a collapse should have taken. Would it have taken a
minute? Ten minutes? Hard to say, but certainly it would take far more than
10 seconds!
What is certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the towers could not
have collapsed gravitationally, through their intact lower stories, as
rapidly as was observed on 9/11. Not even close. This is shown above to be
physically impossible!
Not only was tremendous energy expended in causing the observed massive
high-speed sideways debris ejections, but virtually all the concrete and
glass of the tower was pulverized - actually dissociated is a better word.
Never mind what happened to all the supporting steel core columns! The
energy requirements to do anything like that, alone, rival the total amount
of potential energy that the entire tower had to give. Gravity alone is
sufficient to cause some things to fall that far, even through air, in close
to the observed 10 second collapse time. But that is without the huge
expenditure of energy necessary to pulverize all of that concrete and glass,
eject debris, plus cause the steel core columns to effectively disappear.
The gravitational potential energy present was certainly not enough to have
done all these things at once.
Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; it only changes form. So WHERE
DID ALL THAT ADDITIONAL DESTRUCTIVE ENERGY COME FROM?
Conclusions:
In order for the towers to have collapsed "gravitationally" in the observed
duration, as we've been told over and over again, one or more of the
following zany-sounding conditions must have been met:
* The undamaged structure below the impact zone offered zero resistance to
the collapse.
* The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any expenditure
of energy.
* The massive vertical steel core columns simply vanished, as if by magic.
* On 9/11 alone, in that location alone, gravity was much stronger than
gravity.
* On 9/11 alone, in that location alone, energy was not conserved.
None of these laws-of-physics-violating, and thus impossible, conditions can
be accounted for by the official government theory of 9/11, nor by any of
the subsequent analyses and arguments designed to prop up this official myth
of 9/11.
The Bottom Line:
The government explanations for the WTC collapses fail the most basic
conservation-of-energy reality check. Therefore the government theory is
FALSE; it does not fit the observed facts, and the notion of a "pancake
collapse" cannot account for what happened. The "pancake collapse"
explanation is impossible, and thus absurd. It is A LIE.
It is utterly impossible for a gravitational collapse to proceed so
destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near
free-fall time. This fact debunks the preposterous contention that the WTC
collapses can be blamed solely upon damage resulting from the plane impacts.
The unnaturally short durations of the top-down collapses reveal that the
towers did not disintegrate because they were coming down, but rather they
came down because something else was causing them to disintegrate.
So, to the extent that people accept the ridiculous "pancake collapse"
story, former CIA Director and current Secretary of Defense Gates' other
premise, that people know what they saw, is also false. It is left to you to
decide if his conclusion, which was based upon clearly incorrect
presumptions, is also flawed.
The collapse of WTC building 7, which was NOT hit by any plane, and which
also collapsed within a second of free-fall time later that same day,
similarly fails the conservation-of-energy analysis. The 9/11 Commission
made no attempt to explain it.
Just how and why so many highly-accredited and credentialed people all so
miserably failed to check the "pancake collapse" theory, by giving it this
basic physics reality check, is beyond the scope of this analysis.
---------------------------------
FURTHER IRREFUTABLE PROOF BY PHYSICS OF THE 9/11 INSIDE JOB:
http://vehme.blogspot.com/2007/12/glaring-proof-of-something-hotter-than.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck's_law_of_black_body_radiation
Freedom Fighter
news:ibgg1511nor5rp7m5...@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 23 May 2009 03:30:44 GMT, "Freedom Fighter" <lib...@once.net>
> wrote:
>
>><hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message
>>news:2318274b-ee25-4680...@j32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>>On May 22, 3:06 pm, "Freedom Fighter" <libe...@once.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Billionaire Bloomberg is a REPUBLICAN, in party affiliation, lifestyle,
>>> philosophy, and conduct.
>>
>>Wasn't Firoello La Guardia, one of the best mayors the city ever had,
>>a Republican?
>>
>>Wasn't Gov. Nelson Rockefeller, one of the most progressive governors,
>>a Republican?
>>
>>Wasn't Mayor John Lindsay, the darling of the liberals, a Republican?
>>
>>Wasn't Gov. Thomas E. Dewey, the builder of the NY Thruway, a highway
>>obviously vital to you motorists, a Republican?
>>
>>Wasn't master highway builder Robert Moses a Republican?
>>
>>For someone supposedly interested in motorists and "freedom", it is
>>strange to criticize the Republican Party.
>>
>>-----------
>>The Republican party, though never exactly defenders of freedom and
>>democracy, has sunk to new lows since the few individuals you mentioned
>>above held office. What have you to say regarding their recent record, as
>>follows?
>
> I would agree with you on the patriot acts.
Good.
>>* At the very least, the Republicans allowed the 9/11 attack disaster to
>>happen. All warnings were ignored, and where was NORAD on 9/11? And at the
>>very most - well, can you say TREASON? So at the least, the Rupublicans
>>committed criminal negligence; at the most, a treasonous conspiracy - one
>>that killed 3000 innocent Americans in the nation's worst disaster ever!
>>They've come a long way since their Watergate crimes, haven't they?
>
> NORAD wasn't and isn't designed to handle rogue airlines. The
> warnings seemed to get lost in the bureaucracy much of which,
> including attitude was inherited from Clinton. Obama and any other
> president faces the same problem that a good portion of the
> bureaucracy along with its mindset is inherited from the predecessor.
Please read the article "9/11 Testimony" below.
>>* The Republicans gave us a bumbling, incompetent president with the IQ
>>of
>>a cockroach. When told of the planes striking the WTC towers on 9/11, this
>>president continued to read a story about goats to schoolchildren!
>>
> Given that there was little he could do at that point, probably
> keeping things calm in the classroom probably was smart.
There was little that THE PRESIDENT could do??
He is only the Commander in Chief of our armed forces!
Can't have kids getting upset when a treasonous act of mass murder is
unfolding, can we?
>>* The Republicans gave us the unnecessary Iraq war, the lies used to
>>justify it, and the liars that used them.
>
> I suspect that most of the intelligence establishment and the people
> in the Clinton administration believed Saddam had WMDs. Saddam may
> have believed he had WMDs. Also the Bush administration did not take
> over and protect the bureaucratic HQs in Iraq so we will never have a
> true picture. I still am not convinced the invasion was a good idea.
I am convinced it was intended before 9/11, and 9/11 was the means through
which the public was made to accept it.
>>* The Republicans gave us the Constitution-nullifying, freedom-stealing
>>"Patriot Act."
>
> I believe that a good percentage, probably a majority, of the
> Democrats went along with it. Given World War II precedent, this kind
> of stupidity and overkill is bi-partisan.
They were intimidated by 9/11 as were most of us. Any that suspected the
INSIDE JOB nature of the attacks would be especially afraid to say
otherwise - lest they get an anthrax letter or some other means of
persuasion.
>>* The Republicans gave us the draconian torture of terror suspects that
>>disgraced America in the eyes of the world.
>
> Read the Wall Street Journal for some interesting caveats and
> defenses. Again, the appropriate people in the Democratic Party in
> Congress knew AT THE TIME about this and probably approved. Again,
> this sort of thing was happening in previous wars under both
> administrations. Also there were limits which many of the US allies
> in the past had not adhered to.
>>
>>* The Republicans and their corporate cronies gave us
>>four-dollar-a-gallon
>>gasoline.
>
> That was coming sooner or later. Many believe that to be a good thing
> (or at least 3 dollars a gallon). Gas in most countries, including
> Canada where I now live, is noticeably more expensive than in the US.
For a Canadian you show a praiseworthy interest in America, but try to
observe it from a more detached viewpoint.
If you were originally an American citizen, why did you move?
>>* The Republicans gave us the worst economic meltdown since the Great
>>Depression through allowing their white-collar criminals to freely run
>>amuck. But for the middle and working classes, it's police-state law and
>>order!
>>
> Here again, the blame can be shared with people like Barney Frank and
> the allies in Congress who protected Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> Better airport security would not have prevented the 9/11 disaster.
The point is that Bloomberg had NOTHING to do with 9/11, yet you are
blaming him for it.
That's guilt by association. That's McCarthyism.
Are you copying Sen. McCarthy's old speeches? Sure sounds like it.
Do you even know who McCarthy is?
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> They all were pretty unsuccessful in the area of transit. Rockefeller
> and Lindsay maybe meant well, but didn't get much done.
But they were big road builders. Why doesn't "one who fights freedom"
want that? He loves roads.
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> 2. FF did not blaime 9/11 on either the city or Bloomberg.
He posted a _massive_ diatribe about 9/11 as a reason not to vote for
Bloomberg.
I guess he missed the current Newsweek lauding Bloomberg's
accomplishments.
grammatim
> "Bolwerk" <bolw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
You continue to post nothing relevant to nyc.transit, and Bloomberg is
not a republican.
Vince
"Freedom Fighter" <lib...@once.net> wrote in message
news:UU%Rl.272573$4m1.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> "Clark F Morris" <cfmp...@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:ibgg1511nor5rp7m5...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 23 May 2009 03:30:44 GMT, "Freedom Fighter" <lib...@once.net>
>> wrote:
>>
I recall when the first tower came down a woman called out "Look its another
bomb"
No one ever made anything out of this, anyway the planes might have acted
like bombs, BUT they were Not!
A few weeks after 9/11 I saw part of "Like it is" a local show highlighting
Black related subjects
On thei EP one of the guest said something about the idea of crashing planes
into office buildings to rile up the public or whatever
they were trying to do came up during the Kennedy years.
Freedom Fighter
news:96a8b676-edef-490b...@y9g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
On May 23, 7:36 pm, "Freedom Fighter" <libe...@once.net> wrote:
> Better airport security would not have prevented the 9/11 disaster.
The point is that Bloomberg had NOTHING to do with 9/11, yet you are
blaming him for it.
--
WHERE did I blame Bloomberg for 9/11? You are reading something into it that
I did not write!
My point is that to vote for Bloomberg is to vote to keep a REPUBLICAN in
power.
--
That's guilt by association. That's McCarthyism.
--
No, that tactic has been used many times, many ways, and in many places. It
was not specific to McCarthyism. And it is not without some merit to be
suspicious that the friends of criminals may be criminals themselves.
--
Are you copying Sen. McCarthy's old speeches? Sure sounds like it.
Do you even know who McCarthy is?
--
I certainly do - he was a fanatic right-wing liberal-basher. And while
Bloomberg is no McCarthy, do we, after the recent history of egregious
abuses and treasonous conduct by the Republican party, want to keep an
arrogant, elitist Republican billionaire ruling over New York City?
Freedom Fighter
news:89a9ff60-7766-4a11...@z14g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
----------
No surprise that the corporate media, with which Bloomberg is literally
spending millions of dollars on electioneering ads, would speak highly of
him! Would you publicly criticize your best customer?
Freedom Fighter
news:44a19928-a5e9-4c42...@k8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
---
The mayor of New York and his policies are not relevant to the city's
transit system?
Bloomberg is understandably downplaying his party affiliation, but he surely
is no Democrat!
grammatim
> <hanco...@bbs.cpcn.com> wrote in message
It would be a pretty stupid mayoral candidate who bought advertising
in a national magazine.
This continues to have nothing to do with nyc.transit.
grammatim
> "grammatim" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in message
Bloomberg was a registered Democrat (and continues to act like one)
until he decided to buy the mayoralty, which was a lot easier to do if
he didn't have to get past a whole lot of much better known Democratic
politicians. He left the republican party several years ago.
Name some mayoral policies relevant to the city's transit system.
State what authority the mayor has over the city's transit system.
In fact the closing of Broadway at Times and Herald Squares will
probably have a beneficial effect on maintaining bus schedules on
Sixth and Seventh Avenues, but that's hardly a major impact on
transit.
You, however, have brought up no issues whatsoever bearing on transit.
Bolwerk
What do you want me to call your tendency to post irrelevant messages to
groups that have nothing to with what you're posting about? Your spiels
about Republicans, which I probably mostly agree with, are arguably even
off-topic to nyc.politics, nevermind the other four ny*.* groups you
post to - particularly nyc.transit.
Your complete disregard for etiquette is also quite telling. Not only
do you post off-topic, but do it by posting the same things repeatedly.
Posting about Bloomberg to off-topic New York groups might have been
reasonable *once*. That you continue to do it is a sign that you don't
care what others think, as long as you can flood the ether with your
opinions to try to drown out everyone else's. Everything you post reeks
of trying to draw attention to yourself, regardless of relevancy, right
down to the all-caps subjects you use.
> "Vapid" likewise, as that means inane, insipid, lifeless - and I challenge
> you to show how this applies to what I've posted here
See above, especially the fact that you mostly just repeat the same
things (parking, Bloomberg sucks) you've posted before. Little if any
thoughts go into your top posts.
> I do not support and even oppose most of the right-wing agenda, though a few
> of their goals do make sense to me - such as the freedom of the trained and
> qualified citizen to bear arms.
And every drooling idiot to be as dumb as he wants to be with his car,
damn the consequences. Ideology hardly even matters. When you behave
the way you do, you pollute one of the last, dwindling bastions of
unregulated free expression on the Internet in the same way the thuggish
right-wing trolls in nyc.politics do.
> My party affiliation can be summed up as independent, if not "none of the
> above."
So can most right-wingers' in NYC.
ob...@real.com
>NORAD wasn't and isn't designed to handle rogue airlines. The
>warnings seemed to get lost in the bureaucracy much of which,
>including attitude was inherited from Clinton. Obama and any other
>president faces the same problem that a good portion of the
>bureaucracy along with its mindset is inherited from the predecessor.
>>
From 911Encyclopedia:
http://911review.org/Sept11Wiki/911Encyclopedia.shtml
North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) has become important
part of many investigations due to its navigational background. On
September 11th, 2001, NORAD wasn't in charge- for the first time in US
Aviation history. This is why many 911 Skeptics are still
concentrating on NORAD only: "...Note the oddities: 8:01: United
Airline Flight 93, a Boeing 757, bound for San Francisco, is delayed
for 40 minutes on runway, with 45 people onboard. Why was this flight
delayed?
http://www.ecologynews.com/cuenews43updates2.html "Normally, NORAD
escort aircraft will take the required action. However, for the
purpose of these procedures, the term "escort aircraft" applies to any
military aircraft assigned to the escort mission. " --FAA Order
7610.4J 7-1-2 (9)
"A NORAD spokesman says its fighters routinely intercept aircraft.
When planes are intercepted, they typically are handled with a
graduated response. The approaching fighter may rock its wingtips to
attract the pilot's attention, or make a pass in front of the
aircraft. Eventually, it can fire tracer rounds in the airplane's
path, or, under certain circumstances, down it with a missile."
[Boston Globe, 9/15/01] On September 11, 2001, there are only 4
fighters on ready status in the Northeastern US, and only 14 fighters
on ready status in the entire US. [BBC, 8/29/02]
In the Eastern U.S., NORAD has at its disposal, several Air Force
Bases from which F-16s and F-15s can be scrambled at a moment's
notice. Among these bases are Otis AFB in Cape Cod, Mass, Griffis AFB
in Rome, NY, Andrews AFB just outside D.C., and Langley AFB in Eastern
Virginia. NORAD's mission statement on its website states: "The
Northeast Air Defense Air Sector's area of responsibility covers more
than one-half million square miles of airspace including that over New
York City; Washington, D.C.; Chicago and other major metropolitan
areas." On September 11th 2001, the FAA reported on the hijackings and
other threats to NORAD's First Air Force Commander, who is based in
Tyndall, FLA. On Sept. 11, this was Gen. Larry K. Arnold.Mp B: The
First Air Force Commander then relays this info to The Commander in
Chief (CINC) of NORAD. On 9/11, this was Gen. Ralph "Ed" Eberhardt.
The fact that NORAD was well aware that a major attack was a
possibility is made obvious by the command's planning, well before
Sept. 11, for a major exercise, slated for June 4, 2002. This is from
a NORAD announcement: "On June 4, 2002, the North American Aerospace
Defense Command (NORAD) will sponsor a multi-agency, bi-national
exercise, Amalgam Virgo 02, involving an airborne terrorism scenario
over the United States and Canada. The exercise, which was planned
prior to the events of Sept. 11, is designed to allow many U.S. and
Canadian agencies to test, improve and validate their coordination and
operational procedures."
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/May2002/b05312002_bt279-02.html In
fact, Amalgam had already its first exercise in 2001, before September
11th
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/indict-1.htm
http://www.dcmilitary.com/baseguides/airforce/andrews/partnerunits.html
And it says: "Training for air combat and operational airlift for
national defense is the 113th's primary mission. However, as part of
its dual mission, the 113th provides capable and ready response forces
for the District of Columbia in the event of a natural disaster or
civil emergency. Members assist local and federal law enforcement
agencies in combating drug trafficking in the District of Columbia."
DCANG MISSION To provide combat units in the highest possible state of
readiness. We will support the Air Force and other DOD agencies. We
will provide operational support to our local communities whenever
possible. DCANG VISION To be the premier organization in the Air
National Guard recognized as the benchmark for fulfilling our federal,
state, and community missions.
http://emperors-clothes.com/indict/update630.htm or in the
Tenc-Archive (->) We cannot say *exactly* when the Mission Statement
was removed. We can only say with certainty that it was between April
19 and September 13, 2001. Here's a step-by-step guide to access the
Mission Statement: 1) Go to http://www.archive.org 2) You will see
their logo, 'WAYBACK MACHINE.' Just below the logo is a search box.
After " http://" paste-in the following url:
http://www.dcandr.ang.af.mil/ 3) Hit "enter." You will be taken to the
index of backups for DCANG. 4) Click the hyperlink for "April 19,
2001." 5) This will take you to the DCANG website as it looked April
19th.
http://web.archive.org/web/20010419082824/http://www.dcandr.ang.af.mil/
Other responsible individuals on September 11th had been: Air Force
Lt. Col. Vic Warzinski Maj. Gen. Richard A. Mentemeyer Commander,
305th Air Mobility Wing, McGuire Air Force Base, New Jersey Lieutenant
Colonel Brad O. Buchanan, commander of the 459th Aircraft Generation
Squadron, Andrews AFB Col. Ken McClellan, Air Force spokesman Ben
Sliney (->), FAA (responsible for the stand down order)
http://911review.org/Sept11Wiki/McGuire.shtml
http://911review.org/Sept11Wiki/McClellan.shtml
Peterson, Peterson in Colorado (CO) : AFB/ NORAD (North American
Aerospace Defense Command )
Sep11th air protocol from Mark Elsis (->):
8:13:31: American Airlines Flight 11 (AA11) last transmission with
Boston Air Traffic Control (ATC). 8:13:32 to 8:20: AA11 goes off
course and is hijacked. 8:20: AA 11 transponder signal stops. 8:36:
NORAD spokesman, Major Mike Snyder, confirmed that the FAA notified
NORAD of AA 11 hijacking. 8:38: Boston ATC notifies NORAD that AA11
has been hijacked. 8:39: AA11 flies directly over our # 1 terrorist
target, Indian Point nuclear stations. 8:40: FAA notifies NORAD that
AA11 has been hijacked. 8:43: FAA notifies NORAD that United Airlines
Flight 175 (UA175) has been hijacked. 8:46:26: AA11 impacts the North
Tower of the WTC between the 94th and 98th floors. 8:46: NORAD finally
orders Otis to scramble two F-15's. NORAD has held on to this vital
information for at least 6, 8 or 10 minutes, and probably up to 26 or
32 minutes. 8:52: Two F-15's from Otis are airborne. 9:02:54: UA175
impacts the South Tower of the WTC between the 78th and 84th floors.
NORAD says the F-15's from Otis are still 71 miles away. This means
their average flight speed was only 23.9% of their top speed in trying
to intercept UA 175. Otis is 153 miles from WTC - F-15's have a top
speed of 1875 MPH. Minus 71 miles from 153 miles = 82 miles covered in
11 minutes from 8:52 to 9:03 60 minutes divided by 11 minutes = 5.45 x
82 miles = 447.3 MPH divided by 1875 MPH = 23.9%. 9:30: Three F-16's
from Langley are airborne. 9:37: American Airlines Flight 77 hits the
Pentagon. NORAD says the F-16's from Langley were still 105 miles and
12 minutes away. 9:49: It takes the F-16's from Langley 19 minutes to
reach Washington. This means their average flight speed was only 27.4%
of their top speed in trying to protect our nations capital. Langley
is 130 miles from the Pentagon - F-16's have a top speed of 1500 MPH -
60 minutes divided by 19 minutes = 3.16 x 130 miles = 410.5 MPH
divided by 1500 MPH = 27.4%. Andrews Air Force Base has two fighter
wings that are 10 miles from the Pentagon, yet they inconceivably
waited till after all of the attacks were over to finally get
airborne. Source:
http://www.mycountryrightorwrong.net/NORAD911standdownmath.htm
NORAD in charge on Sep9th, 2001, on a russian exercise: "The North
American Aerospace Defense Command shall deploy fighter aircraft as
necessary to Forward Operating Locations (FOLS) in Alaska and Northern
Canada to monitor a Russian air force exercise in the Russian arctic
and North Pacific ocean. "NORAD is the eyes and ears of North America
and it is our mission to ensure that our air sovereignty is
maintained," said Lieutenant-General Ken Pennie, Deputy
Commander-in-Chief of NORAD. "Although it is highly unlikely that
Russian aircraft would purposely violate Canadian or American
airspace, our mission of vigilance must be sustained."
http://www.norad.mil/pressreleaseshtml/NORADRelease090901.htm (Release
No. 09-09-01)
http://www.911review.org: Home Page, Search.
ob...@real.com
wrote:
>Security Agency. Former military attaché in China. 21-year career in
Additional food for thought:
Nobody would know what the destination of those wayward aircraft
was on 9-11. But they would know that the planes had turned south!
They would know, that in that southward path, there stood a nuclear
reactor and that the reactor was proximal to the vast NYC population
center. So it derives, that if any nefarious intent was suspected,
Indian Point was the most likely destination of that wayward jet.
With this "clue" in mind, something of real importance and of vast
significanse to any protective agency tasked with dealing with attacks
on American soil, it is obviously of utmost importance that
something, anything be done, at all costs, to prevent these jets
from accessing these theoretical targets. You can't just sit and
wait, and hope that they won't hit the nuclear reactors, your job is
to make absolutely certain that they do not, using everything within
your power!
Freedom Fighter
--
No, he continues to act like a Republican, using his wealth to buy a
powerful political office.
--
Name some mayoral policies relevant to the city's transit system.
--
Fare increases. Of course he'll blame others - -
--
State what authority the mayor has over the city's transit system.
--
Every time he opens his mouth, the corporate media gives him a massive
audience. Thus he has authority over far more than just the transit system,
but that too.
--
In fact the closing of Broadway at Times and Herald Squares will
probably have a beneficial effect on maintaining bus schedules on
Sixth and Seventh Avenues, but that's hardly a major impact on
transit.
--
Obviously you don't drive.
--
You, however, have brought up no issues whatsoever bearing on transit.
--
NO? What about fare increases? Tolling the East River bridges? Deceptive
parking ticket scams?
It seems that you only read what you want to read -
Freedom Fighter
It's called CROSSPOSTING, not spamming.
It IS relevant to ALL New Yorkers who their next mayor will be. I do not
have the millions of dollars needed to counter Bloomberg's media crap, so
Usenet and blogs will have to do. No one is forcing you to read what I say.
It's FREE SPEECH, and the Internet is it's last stand - unless of course you
have Bloomberg's Billion$!
> Your complete disregard for etiquette is also quite telling. Not only do
> you post off-topic, but do it by posting the same things repeatedly.
You don't believe in free speech, and I suspect the reason is that you do
not agree with what I say.
> Posting about Bloomberg to off-topic New York groups might have been
> reasonable *once*. That you continue to do it is a sign that you don't
> care what others think, as long as you can flood the ether with your
> opinions to try to drown out everyone else's. Everything you post reeks
> of trying to draw attention to yourself, regardless of relevancy, right
> down to the all-caps subjects you use.
If you can provide me with the money needed to buy media ads, I'll say no
more here.
Until then, you'll just have to ignore me if you don't like my speech or
style.
>> "Vapid" likewise, as that means inane, insipid, lifeless - and I
>> challenge you to show how this applies to what I've posted here
>
> See above, especially the fact that you mostly just repeat the same things
> (parking, Bloomberg sucks) you've posted before. Little if any thoughts
> go into your top posts.
Those are the HEADLINES, used to get readers' attention. The substance is in
the content of the post.
>> I do not support and even oppose most of the right-wing agenda, though a
>> few of their goals do make sense to me - such as the freedom of the
>> trained and qualified citizen to bear arms.
>
> And every drooling idiot to be as dumb as he wants to be with his car,
> damn the consequences. Ideology hardly even matters. When you behave the
> way you do, you pollute one of the last, dwindling bastions of unregulated
> free expression on the Internet in the same way the thuggish right-wing
> trolls in nyc.politics do.
Free speech, by its nature, requires that access be granted to those we
disagree with, even the most idiotic among them. But no one can FORCE you to
listen to them. I find most commercial advertising to be objectionable;
should it be banned?
>> My party affiliation can be summed up as independent, if not "none of the
>> above."
>
> So can most right-wingers' in NYC.
If anything, I am LEFT wing.
Freedom Fighter
--
There are corporate/financial ties between many TV and radio networkss and
the print media.
--
This continues to have nothing to do with nyc.transit.
--
People that live and travel in New York City vote for the mayoral
candidates, and mayoral policies affect them.
Freedom Fighter
news:naqk15lk3ibli0me4...@4ax.com...
< snip >
> Additional food for thought:
>
> Nobody would know what the destination of those wayward aircraft
> was on 9-11. But they would know that the planes had turned south!
> They would know, that in that southward path, there stood a nuclear
> reactor and that the reactor was proximal to the vast NYC population
> center. So it derives, that if any nefarious intent was suspected,
> Indian Point was the most likely destination of that wayward jet.
>
> With this "clue" in mind, something of real importance and of vast
> significanse to any protective agency tasked with dealing with attacks
> on American soil, it is obviously of utmost importance that
> something, anything be done, at all costs, to prevent these jets
> from accessing these theoretical targets. You can't just sit and
> wait, and hope that they won't hit the nuclear reactors, your job is
> to make absolutely certain that they do not, using everything within
> your power!
If the specific targets (the WTC towers) were not known in advance and the
intention to attack them was not pre-planned, NORAD would have been allowed
to function normally and the planes would have been shot down. It was not
any concern for human life that prevented targeting Indian Point for attack,
but the symbolic nature of the WTC and the financial and political benefits
to be derived by the conspirators. Bush, Cheney, Giuliani, Silverstein - -
let the war crimes tribunal be convened!
grammatim
What does the Mayor of New York have to do with fare increases, or
indeed any aspect of MTA financing?
> --
>
> State what authority the mayor has over the city's transit system.
> --
> Every time he opens his mouth, the corporate media gives him a massive
> audience. Thus he has authority over far more than just the transit system,
> but that too.
So you don't know the meaning of the word "authority."
> --
>
> In fact the closing of Broadway at Times and Herald Squares will
> probably have a beneficial effect on maintaining bus schedules on
> Sixth and Seventh Avenues, but that's hardly a major impact on
> transit.
> --
> Obviously you don't drive.
Whyever would I drive in Manhattan? There is a superb subway and bus
system that takes me anywhere I need to go.
Though today I did drive to the Memorial Day band concert in Green-
Wood Cemetery, because the reconfiguration of the WTC PATH station
resulted in a very, very long walk to either the City Hall or the
Rector St. R station (just in case that line was in service this
weekend -- on some recent weekends all trains were going via bridge).
There was no delay in tbe Holland Tunnel, no traffic on Canal St., no
traffic on Flatbush Avenue, and no traffic on 4th Ave.
And the remark about transit was because you are continuiong to post
your off-topic bullshit in nyc.transit.
> --
>
> You, however, have brought up no issues whatsoever bearing on transit.
> --
> NO? What about fare increases? Tolling the East River bridges? Deceptive
> parking ticket scams?
> It seems that you only read what you want to read --
I certainly don't read the screeds that start with screaming, lying
headlines about Bloomberg.
Do point out where in this thread you have mentioned any of the above.
grammatim
> "grammatim" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in message
This is not a newsgroup for "people who live and travel in NYC." It is
a newsgroup for the discussion of NYC subways and buses. (And their
depiction in movies and TV.)
grammatim
> <ob...@real.com> wrote in message
>
> news:naqk15lk3ibli0me4...@4ax.com...
>
Relevance to nyc.transit?
dogg...@yahoo.com
> Bush, Cheney, Giuliani, Silverstein - -
> let the war crimes tribunal be convened!
Be convened?
I haven't heard any talk of war crimes on anyone...except in newsgroup
chatter. Why is that? Why hasn't the Democratic congress started any
of this yet?
Phil
ob...@real.com
wrote:
...And there you have it! As I said before a long time ago:
Terrorists don't do "symbolic", because that only makes people
mad as hell! They go for maximum damage where ever they can,
because that's debilitating in addtion to stiring up a "hornets nest",
while they represent only a small and very unworthy target. Had they
hit Indian Point and cause the evacuation of the Greater Metropolitian
area, the response would have been a highly focused search for the
guilty parties. Something we've all seen play out on tv live! Like
"amber alerts" or the hunt for the Virginia snipers. But we note
that 9-11 went nothing like that at all. No collection and/or
analysis of any evidence... Four 100 ton jetliners crashed in one
day, and left only controversial evidence that they ever existed!
Those jetliners aren't just air filled aluminum balloons. They are
filled with milies of wires and cables, cargo, luggage, seats,
carpet and plastic. Yet, while we are told that a small plastic or
paper id card, fell out of the pocket of the lead skyjacker pilot,
and fluttered to the ground un-singed, the rest of the aircraft
vaporised! But hey, doesn't that mean that the id card had to
leave the aircraft, before the aircraft hit the building? How did
Atta accomplish this feat?
ob...@real.com
Hmmm... looks like you haven't been paying attention!
Washington is abuzz with talk about investigating and prosecuting
war crimes.
Sancho Panza
> If the specific targets (the WTC towers) were not known in advance and the
> intention to attack them was not pre-planned, NORAD would have been
> allowed to function normally and the planes would have been shot down.
Except for the fact that the prior administration had removed the weaponry
from the fighters based in the U.S., as the 9/11 commission learned.
Freedom Fighter
How could the mayor's policies and actions NOT impact transit financing?
--
> State what authority the mayor has over the city's transit system.
> --
> Every time he opens his mouth, the corporate media gives him a massive
> audience. Thus he has authority over far more than just the transit
> system,
> but that too.
So you don't know the meaning of the word "authority."
--
As I frequently "question authority," which you seem to resent, I'd say I
have a good understanding of what constitutes it.
Giuliani was a perfect example of authoritarianism. Bloomberg is relatively
not as bad, but that doesn't make him good.
--
> In fact the closing of Broadway at Times and Herald Squares will
> probably have a beneficial effect on maintaining bus schedules on
> Sixth and Seventh Avenues, but that's hardly a major impact on
> transit.
> --
> Obviously you don't drive.
Whyever would I drive in Manhattan? There is a superb subway and bus
system that takes me anywhere I need to go.
--
I use the bus and subway system when driving is not advisable, but it is
relatively slow during non-rush hours. With all the construction delays and
route changes lately, especially on weekends, it is anything but "superb!" I
can go door to door, Manhattan to Brooklyn or vice versa, by car in much
less than half the time it takes by public transit.
--
Though today I did drive to the Memorial Day band concert in Green-
Wood Cemetery, because the reconfiguration of the WTC PATH station
resulted in a very, very long walk to either the City Hall or the
Rector St. R station (just in case that line was in service this
weekend -- on some recent weekends all trains were going via bridge).
There was no delay in tbe Holland Tunnel, no traffic on Canal St., no
traffic on Flatbush Avenue, and no traffic on 4th Ave.
And the remark about transit was because you are continuiong to post
your off-topic bullshit in nyc.transit.
NOT off topic. If you think so, you are free to NOT read what I write.
> You, however, have brought up no issues whatsoever bearing on transit.
> --
> NO? What about fare increases? Tolling the East River bridges? Deceptive
> parking ticket scams?
> It seems that you only read what you want to read --
I certainly don't read the screeds that start with screaming, lying
headlines about Bloomberg.
--
You evaded my point, which is that what I discuss here IS relevant to
transit and all other urban concerns in New York.
You obviously love Bloomberg, and resent my criticizing him. You said I lie,
but you cannot cite anything specific thing I've said that is untrue.
Freedom of speech - grant it to others if you want it for yourself.
Freedom Fighter
TRANSIT is a word you need to look up. It includes autos, bicycles, mopeds,
planes, helicoptors, and even old-time trolleys. Start a newsgroup called
"nyc.subway&bus," and you'll have something to complain about when I post
about cars, tolls, and ticket traps.
Freedom Fighter
news:d9jn15df6djjjvvmf...@4ax.com...
Obviously he didn't, just as Osama bin Laden didn't sabotage NORAD. It was a
setup, as was the entire conspiracy.
The aircrafts' remains stayed mostly within the towers, and were destroyed
along with them when collapse was brought about with the demolition
explosives placed BEFORE the "attack" occurred.
MILITARY LEADERS
INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS
Security Agency. Former military attach� in China. 21-year career in
Freedom Fighter
news:4a1c010a$0$5389$607e...@cv.net...
It astounds me - the lengths these apologists for mass-murder will go to, to
divert the blame from those under whose watch the conspiracy unfolded.
MILITARY LEADERS
INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS
Security Agency. Former military attach� in China. 21-year career in
dogg...@yahoo.com
> Hmmm... looks like you haven't been paying attention!
> Washington is abuzz with talk about investigating and prosecuting
> war crimes.
Can you cite some sources for me, Obwon? I'd like to get up to date
with this.
Phil
grammatim
> "grammatim" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:94b05f50-8e08-48fc...@x3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On May 25, 4:27 pm, "Freedom Fighter" <libe...@once.net> wrote:
> > "grammatim" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> >news:a096035c-8248-48f1...@z5g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> > > You continue to post nothing relevant to nyc.transit, and Bloomberg is
> > > not a republican.
>
> > > ---
> > > The mayor of New York and his policies are not relevant to the city's
> > > transit system?
> > > Bloomberg is understandably downplaying his party affiliation, but he
> > > surely
> > > is no Democrat!-
>
> > Bloomberg was a registered Democrat (and continues to act like one)
> > until he decided to buy the mayoralty, which was a lot easier to do if
> > he didn't have to get past a whole lot of much better known Democratic
> > politicians. He left the republican party several years ago.
> > --
> > No, he continues to act like a Republican, using his wealth to buy a
> > powerful political office.
> > --
>
> > Name some mayoral policies relevant to the city's transit system.
> > --
> > Fare increases. Of course he'll blame others - -
>
> What does the Mayor of New York have to do with fare increases, or
> indeed any aspect of MTA financing?
> --
> How could the mayor's policies and actions NOT impact transit financing?
> --
You can try to duck the question all you want. The mayor has no say in
MTA financing.
> > State what authority the mayor has over the city's transit system.
> > --
> > Every time he opens his mouth, the corporate media gives him a massive
> > audience. Thus he has authority over far more than just the transit
> > system,
> > but that too.
>
> So you don't know the meaning of the word "authority."
> --
> As I frequently "question authority," which you seem to resent, I'd say I
> have a good understanding of what constitutes it.
> Giuliani was a perfect example of authoritarianism. Bloomberg is relatively
> not as bad, but that doesn't make him good.
> --
You can try to duck the question all you want. State what authority
the mayor has over the city's transit system.
> > In fact the closing of Broadway at Times and Herald Squares will
> > probably have a beneficial effect on maintaining bus schedules on
> > Sixth and Seventh Avenues, but that's hardly a major impact on
> > transit.
> > --
> > Obviously you don't drive.
>
> Whyever would I drive in Manhattan? There is a superb subway and bus
> system that takes me anywhere I need to go.
> --
> I use the bus and subway system when driving is not advisable, but it is
> relatively slow during non-rush hours. With all the construction delays and
> route changes lately, especially on weekends, it is anything but "superb!" I
> can go door to door, Manhattan to Brooklyn or vice versa, by car in much
> less than half the time it takes by public transit.
> --
I'm hardly ever in the city during rush hours, and I have never had a
problem with "slow" trains or buses in the concomitant absence of
traffic jams.
> Though today I did drive to the Memorial Day band concert in Green-
> Wood Cemetery, because the reconfiguration of the WTC PATH station
> resulted in a very, very long walk to either the City Hall or the
> Rector St. R station (just in case that line was in service this
> weekend -- on some recent weekends all trains were going via bridge).
>
> There was no delay in tbe Holland Tunnel, no traffic on Canal St., no
> traffic on Flatbush Avenue, and no traffic on 4th Ave.
>
> And the remark about transit was because you are continuiong to post
> your off-topic bullshit in nyc.transit.
>
> NOT off topic. If you think so, you are free to NOT read what I write.
Since you know nothing about NYC transit, you are incapable of posting
on the topic.
> > You, however, have brought up no issues whatsoever bearing on transit.
> > --
> > NO? What about fare increases? Tolling the East River bridges? Deceptive
> > parking ticket scams?
> > It seems that you only read what you want to read --
>
> I certainly don't read the screeds that start with screaming, lying
> headlines about Bloomberg.
> --
> You evaded my point, which is that what I discuss here IS relevant to
> transit and all other urban concerns in New York.
> You obviously love Bloomberg, and resent my criticizing him. You said I lie,
> but you cannot cite anything specific thing I've said that is untrue.
> Freedom of speech - grant it to others if you want it for yourself.-
If you want your points not to be evaded, start by not evading mine.
Set out the specific ways in which the mayor of New York determines
transit fares or policies.
If I ever said you lied, it was with reference to some specific false
statement you made.
Since you are here, as your name says, to Fight Freedom, what suddenly
gives you an interest in freedom of speech? (If you understood the
concept, you wouldn't even be mentioning it here -- there isn't the
slightest whisper of a hint that Congress is attempting to make a law
abridging your access to this or any other newsgroup.)
Steve Stone
>>>>> Wasn't Mayor John Lindsay, the darling of the liberals, a Republican?
Not one of the working class stiffs I knew who lived under the realm of
Mayor John Lindsay have one good thing to say about the man.
grammatim
Even if you were right, which you're not, you also don't talk about
autos, bicycles, mopeds, planes, helicopters, or trolleys in the
threads you start with screaming antisemitic headlines.
Bolwerk
>
> candidates, and mayoral policies affect them.
See, Freedom Fighter is doing a public service. Kind of like those guys
who politely stuff useless leaflets for fried food under your door
without asking.
Bolwerk
Gee, I didn't realize the two were mutually exclusive. I'll remember
that next time I have some boner pills to sell.
> It IS relevant to ALL New Yorkers who their next mayor will be.
I never said it wasn't. That doesn't excuse you from using your brain
to determine the proper time, place, and manner.
> I do not
> have the millions of dollars needed to counter Bloomberg's media crap, so
> Usenet and blogs will have to do.
Here you go justifying your antisocial behavior. You'd probably have
more impact if you'd respect boundaries. Anti-Bloomberg rants belong in
nyc.politics, not nyc.transit.
Anti-Republican rants belong...well, who knows really? Somewhere you'd
find lots of Republicans.
> No one is forcing you to read what I say.
> It's FREE SPEECH, and the Internet is it's last stand - unless of course you
> have Bloomberg's Billion$!
Hey, no one is saying you don't have free speech. Frankly, beyond
plonking you, there's very little anyone can do about your spamming.
And plonking you is probably even more annoying because of the
disjointed subthreads it encourages.
>> Your complete disregard for etiquette is also quite telling. Not only do
>> you post off-topic, but do it by posting the same things repeatedly.
>
> You don't believe in free speech, and I suspect the reason is that you do
> not agree with what I say.
Regardless of what I think about your points, which are sometimes
agreeable and sometimes not, I don't agree with where/how you're saying
them. People would probably take you more seriously and have more
respect for you if you didn't act like the very thing you despise.
>> Posting about Bloomberg to off-topic New York groups might have been
>> reasonable *once*. That you continue to do it is a sign that you don't
>> care what others think, as long as you can flood the ether with your
>> opinions to try to drown out everyone else's. Everything you post reeks
>> of trying to draw attention to yourself, regardless of relevancy, right
>> down to the all-caps subjects you use.
>
> If you can provide me with the money needed to buy media ads, I'll say no
> more here.
> Until then, you'll just have to ignore me if you don't like my speech or
> style.
Sadly, that's more annoying than not ignoring you.
Honestly: you'd win more support if you didn't act like usenet is your
toilet and your ideas are turds waiting to gush out.
>>> "Vapid" likewise, as that means inane, insipid, lifeless - and I
>>> challenge you to show how this applies to what I've posted here
>> See above, especially the fact that you mostly just repeat the same things
>> (parking, Bloomberg sucks) you've posted before. Little if any thoughts
>> go into your top posts.
>
> Those are the HEADLINES, used to get readers' attention. The substance is in
> the content of the post.
Oh, good, here's the egocentricity. In others words, your "headlines"
are more important than everyone else's descriptive subject lines. LOOK
AT ME - I'M THE MOST IMPORTANT AWESOME DUDE HERE.
Maybe you're a 12-year-old, but I've been on usenet since the early
1990s, and that kind of thing has always been considered obnoxious
(traditionally it was used to convey yelling).
>>> I do not support and even oppose most of the right-wing agenda, though a
>>> few of their goals do make sense to me - such as the freedom of the
>>> trained and qualified citizen to bear arms.
>> And every drooling idiot to be as dumb as he wants to be with his car,
>> damn the consequences. Ideology hardly even matters. When you behave the
>> way you do, you pollute one of the last, dwindling bastions of unregulated
>> free expression on the Internet in the same way the thuggish right-wing
>> trolls in nyc.politics do.
>
> Free speech, by its nature, requires that access be granted to those we
> disagree with, even the most idiotic among them. But no one can FORCE you to
> listen to them. I find most commercial advertising to be objectionable;
> should it be banned?
No. Where did I once say anything about banning your idiocy? I'm
talking about using some sense and discretion. I'm probably talking to
a wall, but maybe people would even listen to you.
Bolwerk
>> What does the Mayor of New York have to do with fare increases, or
>> indeed any aspect of MTA financing?
>
The city offers a yearly subsidy to the MTA. Other than that, fares and
state taxes/fees pay for MTA financing.
It probably shouldn't be this way, but the state controls the purse
strings. The city asked to partly change this last year with the
congestion charge, but the legislature ignored the request.
Freedom Fighter
--
And you can try to evade my issue all you want, but the fact is that the
policies and actions of the mayor, especially one as wealthy as Bloomberg,
cannot but help impact all aspects of city finance.
My point all along here is not transit per se, but that Bloomberg should not
be re-elected to an office he has no right to even run for, given the
voters' TWICE rejecting an end to the term limits that prohibit his doing
so.
--
--
NO? Just watch me!
You need to read the Constitution, specifically the First Amendment.
--
> > You, however, have brought up no issues whatsoever bearing on transit.
> > --
> > NO? What about fare increases? Tolling the East River bridges? Deceptive
> > parking ticket scams?
> > It seems that you only read what you want to read --
>
> I certainly don't read the screeds that start with screaming, lying
> headlines about Bloomberg.
> --
> You evaded my point, which is that what I discuss here IS relevant to
> transit and all other urban concerns in New York.
> You obviously love Bloomberg, and resent my criticizing him. You said I
> lie,
> but you cannot cite anything specific thing I've said that is untrue.
> Freedom of speech - grant it to others if you want it for yourself.-
If you want your points not to be evaded, start by not evading mine.
Set out the specific ways in which the mayor of New York determines
transit fares or policies.
--
See above. Transit in one of many issues, and is relatively irrelevant to
the overall subject of Bloomberg's re-election being undesirable.
--
If I ever said you lied, it was with reference to some specific false
statement you made.
Since you are here, as your name says, to Fight Freedom, what suddenly
gives you an interest in freedom of speech?
--
Ah, as is so often the case when outwitted, the troll resorts to insulting
wordplay, ad-hominem attack, and distortions of language. I have been
discussing this matter with you in a rational way, but you are close to
being killfiled and ignored. If you are so intolerant of my opinions, you
are welcome to ignore me likewise.
--
Freedom Fighter
Antisocial? Exactly how and where have I been antisocial? You are grasping
at straws in your desperation to silence me.
I do not "rant," I make specific, fact-backed statements.
Don't like what I say? Ignore it. I'm certainly not going to shut up because
you don't like it.
> Anti-Republican rants belong...well, who knows really? Somewhere you'd
> find lots of Republicans.
RepubliKKKan sour grapes for losing the Presidential election big-time!
>> No one is forcing you to read what I say. It's FREE SPEECH, and the
>> Internet is it's last stand - unless of course you have Bloomberg's
>> Billion$!
>
> Hey, no one is saying you don't have free speech. Frankly, beyond
> plonking you, there's very little anyone can do about your spamming. And
> plonking you is probably even more annoying because of the disjointed
> subthreads it encourages.
Too intolerant and closed-minded to consider the validity of what I say?
Then plonk away!
>>> Your complete disregard for etiquette is also quite telling. Not only
>>> do you post off-topic, but do it by posting the same things repeatedly.
>>
>> You don't believe in free speech, and I suspect the reason is that you do
>> not agree with what I say.
>
> Regardless of what I think about your points, which are sometimes
> agreeable and sometimes not, I don't agree with where/how you're saying
> them. People would probably take you more seriously and have more respect
> for you if you didn't act like the very thing you despise.
Whatever New York TV station I tune to, I constantly am subject to
Bloomberg's electioneering ads. There's nothing I can do to avoid them
beyond turning off the TV, as they even appear on more than one station at
the same time. I don't agree with how he is doing this, but I cannot stop
it, and I acknowledge his right to advertise. It will be a cold day in hell
however when I allow my own rights to free speech to be silenced!
>>> Posting about Bloomberg to off-topic New York groups might have been
>>> reasonable *once*. That you continue to do it is a sign that you don't
>>> care what others think, as long as you can flood the ether with your
>>> opinions to try to drown out everyone else's. Everything you post reeks
>>> of trying to draw attention to yourself, regardless of relevancy, right
>>> down to the all-caps subjects you use.
>>
>> If you can provide me with the money needed to buy media ads, I'll say no
>> more here.
>> Until then, you'll just have to ignore me if you don't like my speech or
>> style.
>
> Sadly, that's more annoying than not ignoring you.
Not my fault if you are so easily annoyed. Turn off the computer, just as I
sometimes turn off the TV or radio.
> Honestly: you'd win more support if you didn't act like usenet is your
> toilet and your ideas are turds waiting to gush out.
It really says something about you that you would resort to potty talk in
voicing your objections.
What has Bloomberg done for the sewage system lately?
>>>> "Vapid" likewise, as that means inane, insipid, lifeless - and I
>>>> challenge you to show how this applies to what I've posted here
>>> See above, especially the fact that you mostly just repeat the same
>>> things (parking, Bloomberg sucks) you've posted before. Little if any
>>> thoughts go into your top posts.
>>
>> Those are the HEADLINES, used to get readers' attention. The substance is
>> in the content of the post.
>
> Oh, good, here's the egocentricity. In others words, your "headlines" are
> more important than everyone else's descriptive subject lines. LOOK AT
> ME - I'M THE MOST IMPORTANT AWESOME DUDE HERE.
I thusly call attention to my message. All the media do this, so why can't
we?
You are jealous of my self-confidence, perhaps?
> Maybe you're a 12-year-old, but I've been on usenet since the early 1990s,
> and that kind of thing has always been considered obnoxious (traditionally
> it was used to convey yelling).
I am what some refer to as a "senior citizen!" Unlike most of the sheeple, I
have learned the lessons of history over the years since I was 12, and I now
view the world accordingly. Wisdom DOES come with age, if one keeps an open
mind and continues to learn.
>>>> I do not support and even oppose most of the right-wing agenda, though
>>>> a few of their goals do make sense to me - such as the freedom of the
>>>> trained and qualified citizen to bear arms.
>>> And every drooling idiot to be as dumb as he wants to be with his car,
>>> damn the consequences. Ideology hardly even matters. When you behave
>>> the way you do, you pollute one of the last, dwindling bastions of
>>> unregulated free expression on the Internet in the same way the thuggish
>>> right-wing trolls in nyc.politics do.
>>
>> Free speech, by its nature, requires that access be granted to those we
>> disagree with, even the most idiotic among them. But no one can FORCE you
>> to listen to them. I find most commercial advertising to be
>> objectionable; should it be banned?
>
> No. Where did I once say anything about banning your idiocy? I'm talking
> about using some sense and discretion. I'm probably talking to a wall,
> but maybe people would even listen to you.
Ad-hominem attack - how desperate you've become!
So just plonk me. Don't argue with me, I'll only make a fool of you.
Actually, I need do nothing - I'll just let you make a fool of yourself.
Freedom - always worth fighting for!
So long, sheeple!
Freedom Fighter
--
"ANTISEMITIC" ????
Not only are you becoming increasingly irrational in your desperation, but
you have revealed for all to see that you are one of those that has been
brainwashed to accuse everyone you disagree with of being an "antisemite!"
SCREAM IT LOUD: ANTISEMITE!! ANTISEMITE!! ANTISEMITE!!
BWAHAHAHAHA!
grammatim
So finally you admit it. So get the hell out of nyc.transit.
Well, you haven't managed to do it yet, over all the weeks you've been
polluting the newsgroup.
> You need to read the Constitution, specifically the First Amendment.
> --
I semi-quoted it for you a moment ago. "Congress shall make no law
respecting the Freedom of Speech." I don't see Congress interfering in
this thread, so you whining "freedom of speech" is utterly irrelevant.
> > > You, however, have brought up no issues whatsoever bearing on transit.
> > > --
> > > NO? What about fare increases? Tolling the East River bridges? Deceptive
> > > parking ticket scams?
> > > It seems that you only read what you want to read --
>
> > I certainly don't read the screeds that start with screaming, lying
> > headlines about Bloomberg.
> > --
> > You evaded my point, which is that what I discuss here IS relevant to
> > transit and all other urban concerns in New York.
> > You obviously love Bloomberg, and resent my criticizing him. You said I
> > lie,
> > but you cannot cite anything specific thing I've said that is untrue.
> > Freedom of speech - grant it to others if you want it for yourself.-
>
> If you want your points not to be evaded, start by not evading mine.
>
> Set out the specific ways in which the mayor of New York determines
> transit fares or policies.
> --
> See above. Transit in one of many issues, and is relatively irrelevant to
> the overall subject of Bloomberg's re-election being undesirable.
Then stop posting your hate mail to nyc.transit.
> --
>
> If I ever said you lied, it was with reference to some specific false
> statement you made.
>
> Since you are here, as your name says, to Fight Freedom, what suddenly
> gives you an interest in freedom of speech?
> --
> Ah, as is so often the case when outwitted, the troll resorts to insulting
> wordplay,
That was hardly original with me. If you've never noticed it before,
you reveal how carefully you read the responses to your bullshit.
> ad-hominem attack, and distortions of language. I have been
> discussing this matter with you in a rational way, but you are close to
You have evaded every question about the relevance of your screeds to
nyc.transit.
> being killfiled and ignored. If you are so intolerant of my opinions, you
> are welcome to ignore me likewise.
I don't give a damn about your opinions when they are posted in
nyc.transit and don't concern transit in New York City.
grammatim
Touched a nerve, did I?
Maybe you feel so insulted that you'll stop posting your bullshit
here.
You are not welcome unless you post about subways and buses.
(That doesn't include "cars, tolls, and ticket traps" -- the last
being the one where you best exposed your astounding stupidity.)
Bolwerk
Spamming is very antisocial. It takes a public forum and reduces its
quality for personal gain. In doing so, you're pretty much saying you
don't care what other people think.
In this year, you've made 11 top posts to nyc.transit. Most of them
were repetitive, and few were on topic (I'm counting 3-4).
> You are grasping
> at straws in your desperation to silence me.
No one but you has mentioned silencing you.
> I do not "rant," I make specific, fact-backed statements.
> Don't like what I say? Ignore it. I'm certainly not going to shut up because
> you don't like it.
I didn't tell you to shut up. I pointed out you make off-topic posts.
Hell, I don't even care about the odd off-topic post. But you repeat
the same thing over and over again without regard to relevancy of the
group. That's impolite.
>> Anti-Republican rants belong...well, who knows really? Somewhere you'd
>> find lots of Republicans.
>
> RepubliKKKan sour grapes for losing the Presidential election big-time!
>
>>> No one is forcing you to read what I say. It's FREE SPEECH, and the
>>> Internet is it's last stand - unless of course you have Bloomberg's
>>> Billion$!
>> Hey, no one is saying you don't have free speech. Frankly, beyond
>> plonking you, there's very little anyone can do about your spamming. And
>> plonking you is probably even more annoying because of the disjointed
>> subthreads it encourages.
>
> Too intolerant and closed-minded to consider the validity of what I say?
> Then plonk away!
For the nth time, the validity is irrelevant.
>>>> Your complete disregard for etiquette is also quite telling. Not only
>>>> do you post off-topic, but do it by posting the same things repeatedly.
>>> You don't believe in free speech, and I suspect the reason is that you do
>>> not agree with what I say.
>> Regardless of what I think about your points, which are sometimes
>> agreeable and sometimes not, I don't agree with where/how you're saying
>> them. People would probably take you more seriously and have more respect
>> for you if you didn't act like the very thing you despise.
>
> Whatever New York TV station I tune to, I constantly am subject to
> Bloomberg's electioneering ads. There's nothing I can do to avoid them
> beyond turning off the TV, as they even appear on more than one station at
> the same time. I don't agree with how he is doing this, but I cannot stop
> it, and I acknowledge his right to advertise. It will be a cold day in hell
> however when I allow my own rights to free speech to be silenced!
Poor Freedom Frigther. Helplessly glued to the television, forced to
watch Bloomberg ads. Better to have your eyes pecked out by vultures
whilst you're buried to your neck in the desert drenched in honey with
fire ants crawling all over you!
Usenet is not television. The 11 or so mostly repetitive posts you've
made this year to nyc.transit have been seen by everyone. There's no
need to repeat the same thing over and over anymore - we get it, you
hate Bloomberg.
>>>> Posting about Bloomberg to off-topic New York groups might have been
>>>> reasonable *once*. That you continue to do it is a sign that you don't
>>>> care what others think, as long as you can flood the ether with your
>>>> opinions to try to drown out everyone else's. Everything you post reeks
>>>> of trying to draw attention to yourself, regardless of relevancy, right
>>>> down to the all-caps subjects you use.
>>> If you can provide me with the money needed to buy media ads, I'll say no
>>> more here.
>>> Until then, you'll just have to ignore me if you don't like my speech or
>>> style.
>> Sadly, that's more annoying than not ignoring you.
>
> Not my fault if you are so easily annoyed. Turn off the computer, just as I
> sometimes turn off the TV or radio.
>
>> Honestly: you'd win more support if you didn't act like usenet is your
>> toilet and your ideas are turds waiting to gush out.
>
> It really says something about you that you would resort to potty talk in
> voicing your objections.
It really says something about you that you would resort to
misconstruing what I say so much. Regardless, the analogy is very apt.
> What has Bloomberg done for the sewage system lately?
Nice try. I probably like Bloomberg less than you do, you know.
>>>>> "Vapid" likewise, as that means inane, insipid, lifeless - and I
>>>>> challenge you to show how this applies to what I've posted here
>>>> See above, especially the fact that you mostly just repeat the same
>>>> things (parking, Bloomberg sucks) you've posted before. Little if any
>>>> thoughts go into your top posts.
>>> Those are the HEADLINES, used to get readers' attention. The substance is
>>> in the content of the post.
>> Oh, good, here's the egocentricity. In others words, your "headlines" are
>> more important than everyone else's descriptive subject lines. LOOK AT
>> ME - I'M THE MOST IMPORTANT AWESOME DUDE HERE.
>
> I thusly call attention to my message. All the media do this, so why can't
> we?
> You are jealous of my self-confidence, perhaps?
I don't care two wits about your self-confidence or what "all the media
do." You're interacting in a forum with *other people*, not reading a
paper or watching a television channel. When you interact with other
people you can be respectful, even if there's no authority around to
make you act respectfully. You don't go into pubs with bullhorns
screaming about Bloomberg, do you?
>> Maybe you're a 12-year-old, but I've been on usenet since the early 1990s,
>> and that kind of thing has always been considered obnoxious (traditionally
>> it was used to convey yelling).
>
> I am what some refer to as a "senior citizen!" Unlike most of the sheeple, I
> have learned the lessons of history over the years since I was 12, and I now
> view the world accordingly. Wisdom DOES come with age, if one keeps an open
> mind and continues to learn.
...could've fooled me....
>>>>> I do not support and even oppose most of the right-wing agenda, though
>>>>> a few of their goals do make sense to me - such as the freedom of the
>>>>> trained and qualified citizen to bear arms.
>>>> And every drooling idiot to be as dumb as he wants to be with his car,
>>>> damn the consequences. Ideology hardly even matters. When you behave
>>>> the way you do, you pollute one of the last, dwindling bastions of
>>>> unregulated free expression on the Internet in the same way the thuggish
>>>> right-wing trolls in nyc.politics do.
>>> Free speech, by its nature, requires that access be granted to those we
>>> disagree with, even the most idiotic among them. But no one can FORCE you
>>> to listen to them. I find most commercial advertising to be
>>> objectionable; should it be banned?
>> No. Where did I once say anything about banning your idiocy? I'm talking
>> about using some sense and discretion. I'm probably talking to a wall,
>> but maybe people would even listen to you.
>
> Ad-hominem attack - how desperate you've become!
Referring to your idiocy is not an ad hominem "attack." If I were to
say you're wrong *because* of your idiocy, that would be an ad hominem
and therefore a fallacy. If you're going to try to make a fool out of
me, please try to learn these distinctions.
> So just plonk me. Don't argue with me, I'll only make a fool of you.
> Actually, I need do nothing - I'll just let you make a fool of yourself.
(Look, when he does it, it's not an ad hominem.)
ob...@real.com
The latest buzz about why Cheney bothered to speak out is that
he's now in fear of a trial. That's from Liz Cheney! I already
posted an article about it. But hey, go to crooks and liars and you
can start your research there.
Obwon
dogg...@yahoo.com
Well, if his daughter says something....
I'm asking for any proof that Washington is actually preparing to
bring anyone in the Bush administration up on war crimes...or that it
was involved in 9/11. So far, all I've seen is usenet wetdreams.
Phil
Vince
<ob...@real.com> wrote in message
news:gfkn15t2p62d3ugma...@4ax.com...
Talk is cheap, myself I'm a man of action, so lets see some