• Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, the built environment, planning adjacent topics, and anything else that comes to mind. No ads, no spam, and it's free. It's easy to join!

NEVERENDING ♾️ The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

As cynical as I am, even I'm surprised that background checks didn't get passed. Even Wayne LaPierre thought it was a supremely good idea... back when an African American Democrat wasn't President and we had sporadic bipartisanship. :r:
 
Suburb Repairman said:
As cynical as I am, even I'm surprised that background checks didn't get passed. Even Wayne LaPierre thought it was a supremely good idea... back when an African American Democrat wasn't President and we had sporadic bipartisanship. :r:
Click to expand...

To me that is the proverbial nail in the coffin of our republic. Not that the checks themselves did not pass, but that something supported by up to an over 90% of Americans and even 87% of gun owners can not pass. The special interests and corporate elites have completely entrenched themselves into the political system and there is no escaping their grasp. Banana republic indeed.
 
imaplanner said:
To me that is the proverbial nail in the coffin of our republic. Not that the checks themselves did not pass, but that something supported by up to an over 90% of Americans and even 87% of gun owners can not pass. The special interests and corporate elites have completely entrenched themselves into the political system and there is no escaping their grasp. Banana republic indeed.
Click to expand...

It is upsetting but I do believe that many of the legislators who voted against the bill will be voted out of office in the next term. The new Senator from NH certainly will be, her state pretty much hates her now. The country is changing and the republican party is becoming increasingly irrelevant.
 
Seems like about every 2 weeks someone there is either news or some opinion article pertaining to the rift in the GOP. Lots of prognosticators saying stuff like "this is the end of the GOP as we know it" or "either they become more inclusive immediately or become irrelevant" and that kinda thing. I tend to dismiss this sort of thing out of hand as mere punditry, but this 'story' has been running more or less continually following the 2012 election. We are going on six months now with no end in sight and even I'm beginning to wonder if there might actually be some truth to it.

Does the GOP simply need a facelift? Social conservatives are forming a shrinking demographic; the GOP couldn't possibly 'cut them loose' at this point, but perhaps a day approaches in the not too distant future where such a move may be seriously contemplated.

How much credence do you give to the whole notion that there's some kind of civil war going on between the social conservatives, establishment, and tea party? Do you think it jeopardizes the party in the short term? What do you see the party doing in the long term, and how will they accomplish it?
 
Maister said:
How much credence do you give to the whole notion that there's some kind of civil war going on between the social conservatives, establishment, and tea party? Do you think it jeopardizes the party in the short term? What do you see the party doing in the long term, and how will they accomplish it?
Click to expand...

I think social conservatives are pretty much out the door. I think the real battle is the Libertarian wing of the party. Rand Paul is pushing the agenda for more laissez faire approach to war, social policy, and regulations. He isn't a friend to big business or the wall street machine that helps run the GOP. He and the libertarians are what are going to crack the GOP in two, if they have their way.

I think the most interesting part is that if the GOP doesn't do something big (which many conservatives don't believe they need to do), the demographics are going to all but assure they can't win in the future. The strategy of "Do nothing" will in the end be their downfall.

Of the three ways forward - democrats vision, republicans vision, and stay the course... two out of three means the GOP won't get their way. I think the mid term elections will be interesting. If the D's win more seats in the House it is a telling sign, not just of the policy decisions of Obama and the D's, but of the changing landscape for the GOP.
 
Hink said:
I think the mid term elections will be interesting. If the D's win more seats in the House it is a telling sign, not just of the policy decisions of Obama and the D's, but of the changing landscape for the GOP.
Click to expand...

Concerning mid-term elections, it seems the GOP has making concerted efforts to redistrict/gerrymander in several key states. Their hope, of course, is to be able to manage to win elections without actually being able to get the majority of the votes. As disenfranchising folks go, it's a time tested technique that has the advantage of being perfectly legal. Successful gerrymandering may well prove critical for the party's future.
 
The GOP was not as successful nationally until they were able to bring together the divergent groups that are now threatening to split out again. The social conservatives, the anti-government libertarians, and the plutocrats. These interets have always been conflicting but with the emergence of new media and a centrist democratic administration I think the conflicts have been pulled to the forefront and are ripping apart that cohesion that allowed the GOP to be a successful national party for the last 30 years. The libertarian side saw what happened during the Bush administration and is appalled. And the social conservatives are appalled that the libertarians are now wanting equal rights for everyone. The plutocrats are now bolting the GOP as well since Obama is coddling them even more than the GOP ever did.
 
Hink said:
I think social conservatives are pretty much out the door. I think the real battle is the Libertarian wing of the party. Rand Paul is pushing the agenda for more laissez faire approach to war, social policy, and regulations. He isn't a friend to big business or the wall street machine that helps run the GOP. He and the libertarians are what are going to crack the GOP in two, if they have their way.

I think the most interesting part is that if the GOP doesn't do something big (which many conservatives don't believe they need to do), the demographics are going to all but assure they can't win in the future. The strategy of "Do nothing" will in the end be their downfall.

Of the three ways forward - democrats vision, republicans vision, and stay the course... two out of three means the GOP won't get their way. I think the mid term elections will be interesting. If the D's win more seats in the House it is a telling sign, not just of the policy decisions of Obama and the D's, but of the changing landscape for the GOP.
Click to expand...

imaplanner said:
The GOP was not as successful nationally until they were able to bring together the divergent groups that are now threatening to split out again. The social conservatives, the anti-government libertarians, and the plutocrats. These interets have always been conflicting but with the emergence of new media and a centrist democratic administration I think the conflicts have been pulled to the forefront and are ripping apart that cohesion that allowed the GOP to be a successful national party for the last 30 years. The libertarian side saw what happened during the Bush administration and is appalled. And the social conservatives are appalled that the libertarians are now wanting equal rights for everyone. The plutocrats are now bolting the GOP as well since Obama is coddling them even more than the GOP ever did.
Click to expand...

Here's an op-ed piece that adds more to this theme: Rand Paul
 
Random dude waiting on a service yesterday told me he was disappointed no one has shot the president yet. Really?? REALLY? :-c
 
Midori said:
Random dude waiting on a service yesterday told me he was disappointed no one has shot the president yet. Really?? REALLY? :-c
Click to expand...

And he was completely serious. That is what is sad. It isn't like a kidding kind of thing... it is serious. I have met these kind of folks as well. Scary really.
 
Hink said:
And he was completely serious. That is what is sad. It isn't like a kidding kind of thing... it is serious. I have met these kind of folks as well. Scary really.
Click to expand...

You must have been driving through Kansas.
 
dandy_warhol said:
I miss my kitties. :(
Click to expand...

Have husband smuggle kitties into hospital. If discovered, produce fake certificates identifying them as "emotional support companion" cats. Rave about your lawyer and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

imaplanner said:
I hear similar stuff in California even.
Click to expand...

WTF. Do you remember things like that being said about previous presidents? Was "acceptable" to talk about assassinating either of the Bushes? Or is this strictly an anti-dem thing? Or (as I suspect), is it a (latent or open) race thing? Other?
 
Midori said:
WTF. Do you remember things like that being said about previous presidents? Was "acceptable" to talk about assassinating either of the Bushes? Or is this strictly an anti-dem thing? Or (as I suspect), is it a (latent or open) race thing? Other?
Click to expand...

I got more of a jokey vibe with Bush. With Obama is is far more blatant hatred. I think I am going to move this to the Political Thread though so we don't get everyone all worked up :)

Moderator note:

Moved discussion from the RTDNTOTO. Man I feel like Maister...
 
Midori said:
WTF. Do you remember things like that being said about previous presidents? Was "acceptable" to talk about assassinating either of the Bushes? Or is this strictly an anti-dem thing? Or (as I suspect), is it a (latent or open) race thing? Other?
Click to expand...

I was never found of 43, however I never joked about assassinating him. Did I have a chuckle about him chocking on a pretzel? Sure. Did i wish the man died of said chocking, ummm no. As a "colored" I really do think its a race thing. I mean Look at 42. People sure did hate him, but any talk of knocking him off. None.

Nuff Said.
 
Hink said:
I got more of a jokey vibe with Bush. With Obama is is far more blatant hatred. I think I am going to move this to the Political Thread though so we don't get everyone all worked up :)

Moderator note:

Moved discussion from the RTDNTOTO. Man I feel like Maister...
Click to expand...

I am of the opinion that it is a more common and accepted trait among those of a different political persuasion currently. That is to say, there were certainly some segments of the political left that acted much as what we are seeing with the opposition to Obama. The extremism and overall venom never made it into the mainstream of the democratic party to the extent it is in the republican party at the moment. As far as racism versus just blind hatred for democratic presidents? That's really hard to say. Certainly the two feed off each other in this case. I'm more inclined to believe it has more to do with the culture of hate for democrats that is fostered on the right. We unfortunately have a lot of fellow Americans who immerse themselves entirely in the right-wing talk radio, Fox News world and are therefore absolutely convinced of their world view. I made an effort for a while to engage people I ran into with that world view, but upon any presentation of information contrary to their established narrative they generally become enraged. I witnessed this behavior among some of the crazier elements of the political left during the Bush years when i would have conversations with what I like to refer to affectionately as "crazy people", but it seems to be a nearly universal trait among the political right to ignore anything contrary to an established narrative and work themselves up into a fit of political rage. My recollection is that the Bush haters would babble for a bit and then go smoke some dope or something. The Obama haters babble forever and then make a point to tell you they aren't afraid to use their guns.
 
imaplanner said:
I am of the opinion that it is a more common and accepted trait among those of a different political persuasion currently. That is to say, there were certainly some segments of the political left that acted much as what we are seeing with the opposition to Obama. The extremism and overall venom never made it into the mainstream of the democratic party to the extent it is in the republican party at the moment. As far as racism versus just blind hatred for democratic presidents? That's really hard to say. Certainly the two feed off each other in this case. I'm more inclined to believe it has more to do with the culture of hate for democrats that is fostered on the right. We unfortunately have a lot of fellow Americans who immerse themselves entirely in the right-wing talk radio, Fox News world and are therefore absolutely convinced of their world view. I made an effort for a while to engage people I ran into with that world view, but upon any presentation of information contrary to their established narrative they generally become enraged. I witnessed this behavior among some of the crazier elements of the political left during the Bush years when i would have conversations with what I like to refer to affectionately as "crazy people", but it seems to be a nearly universal trait among the political right to ignore anything contrary to an established narrative and work themselves up into a fit of political rage. My recollection is that the Bush haters would babble for a bit and then go smoke some dope or something. The Obama haters babble forever and then make a point to tell you they aren't afraid to use their guns.
Click to expand...

Well, don't you know that all information to the contrary is a product of the conspiracy that is the liberal, left-wing media??

I was told that unless I watch Fox, all my information is bullsh!t. I decided to keep to myself that nearly all my info comes from NPR and Cyburbia. ;)
 
So I was helping my dad with some issues on his iPhone settings. My dad is very conservative and watches FoxNews. I deleted his FoxNews app [STRIKEOUT]accidentally [/STRIKEOUT]and replaced it with NPR. :a:

He has a good sense of humor, so I'm just waiting for a text message from him today when he notices.:6::p
 
​
Midori said:
Well, don't you know that all information to the contrary is a product of the conspiracy that is the liberal, left-wing media??

I was told that unless I watch Fox, all my information is bullsh!t. I decided to keep to myself that nearly all my info comes from NPR and Cyburbia. ;)
Click to expand...

The thing that infuriates me to no end is that Fox News still to this day tries to play that they are the only fair and balanced one out there. You could say that MSNBC is the Fox News of the left and to a point I agree, although I have seen a lot more dems called to the carpet on MSNBC then I have ever seen Republicans called out on Fox (to be fair, I don't watch a lot of either channel, and definately watch Fox less). The insistance that Fox is fair and balanced is maddening when there are reams of evidence to the contrary.

I also don't know what it is about some people and President Obama. I have never seen such abject hatred for a President. I think part of it is an uncomfortableness some have towards a President that doesn't look like our last 43 Presidents. There is also this real fear that Obama is destroying this country everyday. I think that comes from places like Fox News, Rush, etc. that push this constant level of hype and anger. Even their websites have this frantic feel to them that "oh no, the world is ending" complete with large text, exaggerated wording, large pictures. "STONEWALL" "Out-of Control" (Fox News) "Senate Attempts to Crucify Apple" (Rush Limbaugh)
 
rcgplanner said:
I have never seen such abject hatred for a President. I think part of it is an uncomfortableness some have towards
Click to expand...

Maybe since I grew up in Detroit this doesn't surprise me one tiny bit. I moved away as fast as I could in part because of that.
 
So it turns out the investment the government made in Tesla wasn't a waste...
http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-05-22/tesla-pays-off-its-465-million-loser-loan

Mitt Romney said:
But don’t forget, you put $90 billion, like 50 years’ worth of breaks, into—into solar and wind, to Solyndra and Fisker and Tesla and Ener1. I mean, I had a friend who said you don’t just pick the winners and losers, you pick the losers, all right? So this—this is not—this is not the kind of policy you want to have if you want to get America energy secure.
Click to expand...

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_t...oser_like_solyndra_in_presidential_debate.htm



Just like any other business, some "win" and some "lose". Can we move past the concept that investing in infrastructure and green energy products is a bad idea though? Please? It can't be worse than investing in oil shale - which has the opportunity to be HUGE. It also has the chance to be a HUGE bust. But personally, I think it is worth exploring. Just as it is worth exploring what we can do with green alternatives.

If we don't invest in the technology, we will never see the benefits.
 
Speaking of winners, and losers.

If we only help the employable, we literally have not done the half of it.

If we gain a better educated population, we find the world littered with better educated populations, doing low wage labor, or not even that.
 
safege said:
Speaking of winners, and losers.

If we only help the employable, we literally have not done the half of it.

If we gain a better educated population, we find the world littered with better educated populations, doing low wage labor, or not even that.
Click to expand...

This is an interesting statement. It presupposes that the only point of education is access to higher wages. I don't buy that, and I never have. I see the point that you're making, but I think the point I would make is that in an enlightened, well-educated world the situation is better for everyone - even those who are earning lower wages.

The "world littered with better educated populations doing low wage labor" just rings badly to me. So the answer is not to try for more widespread education? We should let the government pick and choose who has access to higher education and who is selected for farm work or fisheries? We moved past Plato's Republic a long time ago and I think the point is misdirected.
 
So I got an email from a family member with links to articles purporting to show how President Obama is the most corrupt and lyingest president ever. One of the articles, on how Obama is the worst president ever for lying and cover ups and national security and helping terrorists, was written by Olliver North. I'm afraid my family member is a complete idiot.
 
imaplanner said:
So I got an email from a family member with links to articles purporting to show how President Obama is the most corrupt and lyingest president ever. One of the articles, on how Obama is the worst president ever for lying and cover ups and national security and helping terrorists, was written by Olliver North. I'm afraid my family member is a complete idiot.
Click to expand...

If anyone knows about lying and cover ups it Ollie North.
 
ursus said:
This is an interesting statement. It presupposes that the only point of education is access to higher wages. I don't buy that, and I never have. I see the point that you're making, but I think the point I would make is that in an enlightened, well-educated world the situation is better for everyone - even those who are earning lower wages.
Click to expand...

Excellent point. If I recall my international economics classes accurately, there are a slew of statistics showing that access to education does all kinds of great things for people living in developing nations, particularly women. And I don’t think its any different for the US. In some cases this is about access to jobs, but it also extends to having fewer children, being better at managing household economies, making more informed decisions in general (reducing low risk behaviors, knowing how to access information that can assist you or your family) and, as I think was part of your point, promoting compassion and understanding among the population in general.

Education helps people solve problems. Sometimes the problems are intensely personal, sometimes they are work-related and sometimes they are things that lead to jobs through entrepreneurial action.
 
imaplanner said:
So I got an email from a family member with links to articles purporting to show how President Obama is the most corrupt and lyingest president ever. One of the articles, on how Obama is the worst president ever for lying and cover ups and national security and helping terrorists, was written by Olliver North. I'm afraid my family member is a complete idiot.
Click to expand...

I just found out my best friend from college is a 9-11 truther:r:
 
Hink said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/30/u...ann-wont-seek-re-election-next-year.html?_r=0

Oh Michelle, say it ain't so! You were... umm... soo... umm... crazy?
Click to expand...

There are crazier people in congress. I know it's fun to point and laugh at Bachman and the other crazies for how crazy they are, but they have huge followings and enormous political power. You (and I) think Bachman is crazy as heck, but there is a very serious percentage of Americans that think she is not crazy. And to me that is not funny at all. Bachman in particular has a huge following and remains very well funded. I forsee her continuing to be highly relevant in the american political realm.
 
Mastiff said:
Don't be too quick to dismiss them before you listen. Particularly to engineers and other scientists...
Click to expand...

Any engineer or scientist who does not dismiss the truthers don't understand physics, structural engineering, metallurgy and are lacking in any semblance of common sense. They are probably the same "engineers and scientists" that think the world is 6,000 years old and humans and dinosaurs coexisted.
 
Brocktoon said:
Any engineer or scientist who does not dismiss the truthers don't understand physics, structural engineering, metallurgy and are lacking in any semblance of common sense. They are probably the same "engineers and scientists" that think the world is 6,000 years old and humans and dinosaurs coexisted.
Click to expand...

This has been my thinking of the engineering truthers as well. I've been in an ongoing debate going on close to two years over climate change with a civil engineer who insists his civil engineering background gives him more than the tools he needs to disprove every single bit of scientific evidence regarding climate change. I view this as the tendency of some types of educated people to think so highly of themselves that they claim expertise in fields they don't truly understand.
 
imaplanner said:
This has been my thinking of the engineering truthers as well. I've been in an ongoing debate going on close to two years over climate change with a civil engineer who insists his civil engineering background gives him more than the tools he needs to disprove every single bit of scientific evidence regarding climate change. I view this as the tendency of some types of educated people to think so highly of themselves that they claim expertise in fields they don't truly understand.
Click to expand...

A civil engineer frined of mine jokes that he is not qualified to build anything taller than a fire hydrant...of course his firm mostly does utility lines and roads.

I worked with a phycisan run hospital. Their project manager for a $25M, 36 bed acute care facility was a ER nurse. She was very smart and tried really hard and by the end she was starting to figure it out but it took them 3X times as long and 25% to build than it should. Her skill set was saving lives not managing construction projects.
 
Is anyone up to speed on the DOJ investigating and possibly prosecuting reporters for leaks? I understand the media is really upset about it, but they were totally behind the DOJ going after wikileaks for publishing leaked material. Is there a difference here that I am not picking up on?
 
Sounds like you just did the opposite of what I said. Listen, then dismiss. I watched and listened to arguments from both sides, and there remains some questions in my mind. You believe the Warren Report? How about the Gulf of Tonkin incident? Take what the U.S. government tells you at face value at your own peril.
 
Mastiff said:
Sounds like you just did the opposite of what I said. Listen, then dismiss. I watched and listened to arguments from both sides, and there remains some questions in my mind. You believe the Warren Report? How about the Gulf of Tonkin incident? Take what the U.S. government tells you at face value at your own peril.
Click to expand...

The problem Mastiff, is that the engineers and architects that are truthers, have demonstrated to have a very limited understanding of physics and the properties of steel and other metals. I don't know about Brocktoon, but I've listened to their arguments and discussed this with engineers that I respect. I've come to the conclusion that the truthers are outside their area of expertise. Particularly when much of what they claim is so easily proven false by well established laws of nature and physics. This has absolutely nothing to do with your assertion that non-truthers take everything the government tells us at face value. Talk about a straw man. This has to with the laws of nature and thermodynamics, and the properties of steel and thermite. The engineering 911 truthers are just plain incorrect, as has been demonstrated extensively by ASCE and other professional, peer-reviewed engineering sources.
 
imaplanner said:
The problem Mastiff, is that the engineers and architects that are truthers, have demonstrated to have a very limited understanding of physics and the properties of steel and other metals. I don't know about Brocktoon, but I've listened to their arguments and discussed this with engineers that I respect. I've come to the conclusion that the truthers are outside their area of expertise. Particularly when much of what they claim is so easily proven false by well established laws of nature and physics. This has absolutely nothing to do with your assertion that non-truthers take everything the government tells us at face value. Talk about a straw man. This has to with the laws of nature and thermodynamics, and the properties of steel and thermite. The engineering 911 truthers are just plain incorrect, as has been demonstrated extensively by ASCE and other professional, peer-reviewed engineering sources.
Click to expand...

Some of the things I've read and watched lead me to believe there should be further investigation, or perhaps should have been years ago. It's not a straw man argument to show a pattern of deception to U.S. citizens by their government exists. When the agency responsible for investigating an incident dismisses claims by others because of chain of custody issues, but then refuses to do the same tests themselves, it raises questions. Questions I'd like to have had answered. You know, kind of like, why did the BBC report that Building 7 collapsed 20 minutes before it happened? They honestly just chalk that up to "bad reporting" and move on. Ooops! Sorry, it doesn't pass the smell test...
 
Mastiff said:
Some of the things I've read and watched lead me to believe there should be further investigation, or perhaps should have been years ago. It's not a straw man argument to show a pattern of deception to U.S. citizens by their government exists. When the agency responsible for investigating an incident dismisses claims by others because of chain of custody issues, but then refuses to do the same tests themselves, it raises questions. Questions I'd like to have had answered. You know, kind of like, why did the BBC report that Building 7 collapsed 20 minutes before it happened? They honestly just chalk that up to "bad reporting" and move on. Ooops! Sorry, it doesn't pass the smell test...
Click to expand...

So the BBC had inside information that Building 7 was going to either collapse on its own or be demolished? And then choose to try to cover their tracks when they let it slip? What was the point of letting it slip then?

Maybe they were just hack reporters who didn't have a freaking clue during perhaps the most stunning terrorist attack of modern times.
 
Mastiff said:
Some of the things I've read and watched lead me to believe there should be further investigation, or perhaps should have been years ago. It's not a straw man argument to show a pattern of deception to U.S. citizens by their government exists. When the agency responsible for investigating an incident dismisses claims by others because of chain of custody issues, but then refuses to do the same tests themselves, it raises questions. Questions I'd like to have had answered. You know, kind of like, why did the BBC report that Building 7 collapsed 20 minutes before it happened? They honestly just chalk that up to "bad reporting" and move on. Ooops! Sorry, it doesn't pass the smell test...
Click to expand...

I certainly think there are unanswered questions, and it would have been nice if even half the effort investigating Benghazi had been applied to it, but my issue is with the engineer and supposed scientists for truth. Their claims seem to me to have already been easily refuted by the peer-reviewed scientific community. I'll echo btrage about the bbc. That is not evidence of anything. You would have to believe the US government told media outlets of their plan to murder 3,000 people to believe that was evidence of anything. Like with the various truther claims regarding President Obama, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence IMO. All too often we let out emotional and political perspective lead us to totally unsupported assertions. Bush and Cheney were bad dudes so it makes sense that they caused 911 to happen. Obama is black so it makes sense he is not a citizen and also maybe a muslim.
 
imaplanner said:
I'll echo btrage about the bbc. That is not evidence of anything. You would have to believe the US government told media outlets of their plan to murder 3,000 people to believe that was evidence of anything.
Click to expand...

I'll answer both of you here. No, it would be simply moronic to involve a news agency in something such as that, and it's not what I'm saying occurred. I'm saying I don't know what happened, and this is just one event of several that make me scratch my head. No one knew much about that building, and most still don't. Why would a BBC reporter say it collapsed 20 minutes before it did? I don't know. What I do know is that it's curious that Reuters gave that to the BBC then pulled it. If there had been a source that said the collapse was imminent, and it was misinterpreted, why not just say that?! But no, just an "honest mistake" that had to be the worst reporting of all time.

Any good reason why Larry Silverstein took out a $3.55 billion insurance policy against terrorist attacks in July of '11? My, wasn't he a lucky guy!
 
Mastiff said:
Any good reason why Larry Silverstein took out a $3.55 billion insurance policy against terrorist attacks in July of '11? My, wasn't he a lucky guy!
Click to expand...

Didn't he close on the lease deal that same month? Meaning, the same month he closed the lease deal (which I believe was for $3.2 billion) he also secured insurance to protect against losses. Seems rational to me, especially since there was a previous terror attack in 1994.

See the problem with conspiracy theories is that every theory can usually (note, usually :D) be backed up by a rational explanation.
 
Prefaced with the fact that this is of course all my own opinion

Mastiff said:
I'll answer both of you here. No, it would be simply moronic to involve a news agency in something such as that, and it's not what I'm saying occurred. I'm saying I don't know what happened, and this is just one event of several that make me scratch my head. No one knew much about that building, and most still don't. Why would a BBC reporter say it collapsed 20 minutes before it did? I don't know. What I do know is that it's curious that Reuters gave that to the BBC then pulled it. If there had been a source that said the collapse was imminent, and it was misinterpreted, why not just say that?! But no, just an "honest mistake" that had to be the worst reporting of all time.

Any good reason why Larry Silverstein took out a $3.55 billion insurance policy against terrorist attacks in July of '11? My, wasn't he a lucky guy!
Click to expand...

Yes. There are questions. BUT, none of those questions or circumstances lead me to believe that we blew up the buildings. That's my whole issue Mastiff. The engineers and scientists for truth are crazy. Planes did fly into the buildings, and that damage did take town the buildings. Peer- reviewed scientific studies all conclude that the damage from the planes was enough to take out the buildings AND that the materials the truthers claim prove demolition are naturally occuring elements found in construction materials. The engineering truthers are nuts. That's the whole issue I took with your post.

Now, I think on the topic of unanswered questions you and I will be in agreement. There is plenty of fishiness surrounding the thing. Sure I would like to know why did Cheney lie to the 911 commission about who gave the orders to shoot down or not shoot down the planes (google search will easily show you his testimony and then his later statements which completely contradict his sworn testimony)? And wasn't it convenient that 2.3 trillion dollars was missing in the pentagon and the day after it was announced to the public a plane flew into the exact section of the pentagon that had the records, destroying the accounting records AND most of the accountants responsible for that? Why was the 911 commission prevented from interviewing the people/detainees Bush and Cheney claimed admitted to knowing in advance? All very shady stuff, but it doesn't even come close to proving anything. That's the thing. There is some fishiness regarding it, but there is always fishiness in government. Questions are fine, but to take highly circumstantial evidence and speculations and align them all as some sort of evidence of nefariousness? That might work for the modern republican party as proof of Obama being a terrorist or whatever, but its also faulty logic.
 
imaplanner said:
Now, I think on the topic of unanswered questions you and I will be in agreement.
Click to expand...

That's really where I'm at. And let's face it, I don't trust our government and the people behind the scenes at all. You have to agree there was a profit motive, in that the whole thing started the "war on terror" that has cost billions. Who made the money? You know who...
 
Mastiff said:
I'll answer both of you here. No, it would be simply moronic to involve a news agency in something such as that, and it's not what I'm saying occurred. I'm saying I don't know what happened, and this is just one event of several that make me scratch my head. No one knew much about that building, and most still don't. Why would a BBC reporter say it collapsed 20 minutes before it did? I don't know. What I do know is that it's curious that Reuters gave that to the BBC then pulled it. If there had been a source that said the collapse was imminent, and it was misinterpreted, why not just say that?! But no, just an "honest mistake" that had to be the worst reporting of all time.

Any good reason why Larry Silverstein took out a $3.55 billion insurance policy against terrorist attacks in July of '11? My, wasn't he a lucky guy!
Click to expand...

NIST investigated and wrote a report on why it collapsed. It was peer reviewed and conducted by classically trained scientists and engineers.
http://www.nist.gov/el/wtc7final_112508.cfm

Why did the BBC mis-report...who knows. It happens all of the time. Go back and look at how all of the major news outlets reported the events of the day and how many times was something reported and later corrected. It happened a lot that day.

Silverstein purchased WTC and closed the deal on July 24th. Deal would not fund without insurance.

Clearly you are looking for reasons to find a conspiracy if these are your two "smoking guns." I get you do not trust the government but to think the 9/11 attacks were instrumented by the government is ridiculous. The focus should have been on the intelligence failures. To iamplanner's point more time has been spent on Benghazi than was spent on the 9/11 intelligence failure.

I have spent a ton of time on this...I am I am convinced it was a terrorist attack that included a motivated group that understood and exploited the vulnerabilities of the air traffic security system and a huge failure by the President to properly understand and evaluate the intelligence at the time.

What else I know was the last time I saw Vic Saracini was the summer before the attacks when we had lunch at Miami international airport. His wife is still a widow and his daughter still do not have their father. To save you a Google search he was he Captain of United Flight 175.

Their have been government cover ups and manipulations in the past but this is not one of them. I find the notion that the 9/11 attacks was a government conspiracy is ridiculous advanced by the uneducated, narrow minded hatemongers on the level of the Westboro Baptist Church. In 12 years every "theory" has been disproven beyond a scientific and reasonable doubt. Those that keep saying it was a government effort only disrespect those that died that day and their families.
 
Back
Top