9/11 Loose Change Final Cut Released Online

[Vic]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Yeah WTC7 building fell because of "fire" and "structural damage" LOL

My ass it did :roll:

Did you even listen to what he said?

I had to have a gravely sick cat put down once. Does that make me a cat murderer? Was it a conspiracy?

Don't mix the issue. He said "to pull it". Are you really trying to argue this? LOL

He said they made the decision to pull it after it was determined that it was going to collapse anyway.

Here's the transcript:
"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, 'You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And, uh, they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse."

Are you really trying to argue that they should have let the fire spread to other buildings, or allow WTC7 to possibly fall uncontrolled onto other buildings? LOL

:roll:

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

There's the teenage fringe angst coming out again. Too bad the loony toon will always be that way.

A critical mind is much more valuable than a mind that conforms to popular thought.

If you didn't care what others thought about your views, why do you try so hard to espouse them everywhere? It makes no sense.

"try so hard"? No, I let my thoughts out freely, sadly you see such freedom as "fringe" or "loony". The real "fringe loon" is those that conform to whatever the government tells them.

Pull it could mean, pull the team, which an "it". It could mean pull the effort, which is an "it". It could mean he also misspoke. I am sure you might have done that before?

So it could mean either one, yet I'm sure our government has no reason to lie. Of course not

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Yeah WTC7 building fell because of "fire" and "structural damage" LOL

My ass it did :roll:

Did you even listen to what he said?

I had to have a gravely sick cat put down once. Does that make me a cat murderer? Was it a conspiracy?

Don't mix the issue. He said "to pull it". Are you really trying to argue this? LOL

He said they made the decision to pull it after it was determined that it was going to collapse anyway.

Here's the transcript:
"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, 'You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And, uh, they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse."

Are you really trying to argue that they should have let the fire spread to other buildings, or allow WTC7 to possibly fall uncontrolled onto other buildings? LOL

:roll:

Not at all. What I am pointing out is they tell us they are going to "pull" the building and the official report is because of structural fire/damage.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

There's the teenage fringe angst coming out again. Too bad the loony toon will always be that way.

A critical mind is much more valuable than a mind that conforms to popular thought.

If you didn't care what others thought about your views, why do you try so hard to espouse them everywhere? It makes no sense.

"try so hard"? No, I let my thoughts out freely, sadly you see such freedom as "fringe" or "loony". The real "fringe loon" is those that conform to whatever the government tells them.

Pull it could mean, pull the team, which an "it". It could mean pull the effort, which is an "it". It could mean he also misspoke. I am sure you might have done that before?

So it could mean either one, yet I'm sure our government has no reason to lie. Of course not

There is a difference between a critical mind and a loony one. I am very critical, but I can balance what makes sense and what doesn't. The difference is that you think being different is somehow more noble, or "right". It reminds me of Goth people saying they are trying to be different than the "normal" people, yet they are only doing it to be different.

Nice attempt at trying to minimalize logic by saying I am just conforming to popular thought, like I was a thoughtless lemming. Sorry, but agreeing with the majority doesn't mean I didn't come to that conclusion on my own.

Look at monetary policy. I am sure you still think RP is right, despite my repeated attempts to show you he's an utter idiot in the area I repeatedly trounced every idea, yet you probably still think I am not critical, despite knowing volumes more about the topic than you and pretty much everybody else here. Yet, you'll still say that I am "conforming" and lose because of it.

You know what that is? That's stupidity and ignorance refusing to acknowledge a superior intellect.

Additionally, if the majority thinks you are a nut and you don't agree with them, who tends to be more right?

No, the real fringe loon is one who ignores the preponderance of evidence and logic and simply goes against the grain to go against the grain. They then claim some type of superiority by bucking the trend. However, you're just a sad misguided loon who lacks any balance in life.

Keep thinking yourself better for being "different". Pretty much everybody but your fellow loons knows your a fool for being so thick-headed about this stuff. But I guess they are all sheep to. It must be awfully lonely being the only right person around. They have drugs for that type of delusional thinking.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Yeah WTC7 building fell because of "fire" and "structural damage" LOL

My ass it did :roll:

Did you even listen to what he said?

I had to have a gravely sick cat put down once. Does that make me a cat murderer? Was it a conspiracy?

Don't mix the issue. He said "to pull it". Are you really trying to argue this? LOL

He said they made the decision to pull it after it was determined that it was going to collapse anyway.

Here's the transcript:
"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, 'You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And, uh, they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse."

Are you really trying to argue that they should have let the fire spread to other buildings, or allow WTC7 to possibly fall uncontrolled onto other buildings? LOL

:roll:

Not at all. What I am pointing out is they tell us they are going to "pull" the building and the official report is because of structural fire/damage.

Maybe they were evacuating the building because they knew it was about to collapse? Nah, that couldn't be it.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Yeah WTC7 building fell because of "fire" and "structural damage" LOL

My ass it did :roll:

Did you even listen to what he said?

I had to have a gravely sick cat put down once. Does that make me a cat murderer? Was it a conspiracy?

Don't mix the issue. He said "to pull it". Are you really trying to argue this? LOL

He said they made the decision to pull it after it was determined that it was going to collapse anyway.

Here's the transcript:
"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, 'You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And, uh, they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse."

Are you really trying to argue that they should have let the fire spread to other buildings, or allow WTC7 to possibly fall uncontrolled onto other buildings? LOL

:roll:

Not at all. What I am pointing out is they tell us they are going to "pull" the building and the official report is because of structural fire/damage.

And am I a cat murderer?

What lead to the decision to pull the building? There is a legal expression used in these kind of circumstances, called "but for." Used in this manner: but for my cat's total kidney failure, would I have had it put down?
Now let's apply it to WTC7. But for the major structural fire/damage, in which the uncontrollable spread of the fire and collapse of the building was considered imminent, would the fire dept have pulled the building?
No. Therefore, the legal cause of the collapse was the fire and structural damage, which itself was caused by WTC1 falling on it.

 

[ElFenix]

pull the operation to stop putting the fire out? gee, that wouldn't make a lick of sense.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
pull the operation to stop putting the fire out? gee, that wouldn't make a lick of sense.

Heh.

No no they should have stayed in WTC7 and made a heroic effort to put the fire out, that way we could have lost a few hundred more firefighters that day.


Are you really trying to argue this? LOL


:roll:

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

There is a difference between a critical mind and a loony one. I am very critical, but I can balance what makes sense and what doesn't. The difference is that you think being different is somehow more noble, or "right". It reminds me of Goth people saying they are trying to be different than the "normal" people, yet they are only doing it to be different.

Thankfully, you are not the judge of what the difference between a loony mind and a critical mind is. All of your views (that I have seen) follow the status quo.

You are critical? Of whom? Not the government in the least bit. I haven't seen a critical word about government yet from you.

Nice attempt at trying to minimalize logic by saying I am just conforming to popular thought, like I was a thoughtless lemming. Sorry, but agreeing with the majority doesn't mean I didn't come to that conclusion on my own.

Well like it or not, you did conform to popular thought and continue to do so. You do not think for yourself. You fear standing out and letting your voice be heard regardless of what shill may say. I, on the other hand, could care less. This is where we are different.

Look at monetary policy. I am sure you still think RP is right, despite my repeated attempts to show you he's an utter idiot in the area I repeatedly trounced every idea, yet you probably still think I am not critical, despite knowing volumes more about the topic than you and pretty much everybody else here. Yet, you'll still say that I am "conforming" and lose because of it.

That is another topic all together. Yet, you are right, you're conforming again. We can discuss this further anytime you like. Preferably in another thread as to not derail the topic.

You know what that is? That's stupidity and ignorance refusing to acknowledge a superior intellect.

Sadly, you have proven my point. Anyone with different views is seen by you to be a "loon", "fringe" and now "refusing to acknowledge superior intellect". You have put yourself ona pedestal, that you are all mighty and right, anyone who thinks differently is undoubtedly inferior.

You thought wrongly, it is you who are inferior for you fear open and critical thought, of you, the government, or anything you decree to be right.

Additionally, if the majority thinks you are a nut and you don't agree with them, who tends to be more right?

No, the real fringe loon is one who ignores the preponderance of evidence and logic and simply goes against the grain to go against the grain. They then claim some type of superiority by bucking the trend. However, you're just a sad misguided loon who lacks any balance in life.

Actually that can be debated. What appears to be logic to me, appears to be "loony" to you. Many scientists, physicists and scholars have brought out a myriad of evidence against your beloved lie. I guess they are "loony" too. :laugh:

What goes against the grain is the common sense you seem to lack on the subject. You will believe whatever is told to you.

"A sad misguided loon" is your baseless way of attacking me. Sad you resort to such things. Your intellect is far beyond me :laugh:

Keep thinking yourself better for being "different". Pretty much everybody but your fellow loons knows your a fool for being so thick-headed about this stuff. But I guess they are all sheep to. It must be awfully lonely being the only right person around. They have drugs for that type of delusional thinking.

Actually, when you think about it, the real sheep follow the status quo. I don't have to have a pack of wolves beside me berating people to feel good about myself the way you do. Thats why I know you fear having critical thought that many will not receive kindly. Again, you and your personal attacks as if you have the high ground and are spitting on little ole me LOL

Grow up already, aren't you a college grad? Sheesh what are they teaching you these days?

What this has turned into is your lack of respect for differing views. Not only do you have no respect for them, you also denigrate the person as if to puff yourself up. Someone of your stature shouldn't need the support of a pack of wolves in agreement with everything you say. Maybe, just maybe, standing on your own once in a while will build more character than you are willing to admit.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Yeah WTC7 building fell because of "fire" and "structural damage" LOL

My ass it did :roll:

Did you even listen to what he said?

I had to have a gravely sick cat put down once. Does that make me a cat murderer? Was it a conspiracy?

Don't mix the issue. He said "to pull it". Are you really trying to argue this? LOL

He said they made the decision to pull it after it was determined that it was going to collapse anyway.

Here's the transcript:
"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, 'You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And, uh, they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse."

Are you really trying to argue that they should have let the fire spread to other buildings, or allow WTC7 to possibly fall uncontrolled onto other buildings? LOL

:roll:

Not at all. What I am pointing out is they tell us they are going to "pull" the building and the official report is because of structural fire/damage.

And am I a cat murderer?

What lead to the decision to pull the building? There is a legal expression used in these kind of circumstances, called "but for." Used in this manner: but for my cat's total kidney failure, would I have had it put down?
Now let's apply it to WTC7. But for the major structural fire/damage, in which the uncontrollable spread of the fire and collapse of the building was considered imminent, would the fire dept have pulled the building?
No. Therefore, the legal cause of the collapse was the fire and structural damage, which itself was caused by WTC1 falling on it.

Well if that was the official report: "We did implode the building in fear of it causing more damage or more deaths." Then why the secrecy? Why act as though it was because of WTC 1 & 2?

Maybe I'm not readin what you are saying correctly.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Well if that was the official report: "We did implode the building in fear of it causing more damage or more deaths." Then why the secrecy? Why act as though it was because of WTC 1 & 2?

Maybe I'm not readin what you are saying correctly.

No, you're not reading it right. I was just humoring you in order to make a point that EVEN IF they did implode the building, or by some other means bring it down intentionally, it would have been in the public interest to have done so, and for a legitimate reason, and not some conspiracy.

However, that wasn't what happened. By "pull it," Silverstein meant the firefighters battling the fire in the vicinity of the building. As in, pull the operation, pull back. Not pull down the building.

Here's the transcript of that video again:
"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, 'You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And, uh, they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse."

And in this context, I am quite certain that the "terrible loss of life" he was referring to was the ~400 firefighters killed when the towers fell. How many more should have died inside WTC7 in order to satisfy you? Or would that have just been fodder for you to create some whole new conspiracy theory?

Look, if you want to be taken seriously talking about 9/11 conspiracy theories, then the discussion should be things like what did Bush (or someone ranking inside the administration) know and when did he know it? Or if they didn't know, why was our intelligence so bad? Why was our govt so incompetent? And so forth. That's where the REAL conspiracies are. But if you just want to fall back on this "Truther" and "Loose Change" BS, where the buildings were brought down with explosives and (sometimes) the planes didn't even exist, then you can expect to not be taken seriously. Because all you're doing with those is just diluting the discussion and helping an incompetent govt to cover its ass.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
stupidity

lol, you just don't get it. I don't agree with the status quo because it's the status quo. I agree with it, to a certain extent, because it's correct. You see, I look at all scenarios and accept the one that makes the most sense and has the best evidence backing it up. I don't dismiss the "common" one because it's "too common", to do that is silly.

I don't believe in things just because they are different, especially if they are incorrect. Many of my ideas are controversial, many are not, but all are judged by their own merits and if they agree with the status quo, so be it.

I bet you run around trying to prove to people that the sky is red, because blue is just the status quo.

Go ahead and try to be different to be different, it gets you nowhere but an endless cycle of stupidity.

I have an undergrad in psychology with a history minor, a mba with a finance concentration, and am a CFA charterholder. I have my approach on the Fed because everything I have read, learned, and experienced, has shown me it's correct. You just read one viewpoint and dismiss the status quo because it's too "common". Please, that's beyond stupidity and enters into the area of the certifiably insane.

As far as me denigrating others to puff up myself, there's no need to denigrate you beyond what you have done to yourself already. A spade is a spade and everybody already has you labeled. It's too bad you stuck yourself into the loon corner. I do have a lack of respect to your POV, because your POV is simply idiotic. I do not respect people who say the status quo must be wrong because it is the status quo, it means they eliminate the most likely answer just because they don't like to accept the most likely answer. That's stupid. I don't respect your POV also because it defies all logic.

BTW, how's your rebuttal to my money posts going?

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Well if that was the official report: "We did implode the building in fear of it causing more damage or more deaths." Then why the secrecy? Why act as though it was because of WTC 1 & 2?

Maybe I'm not readin what you are saying correctly.

No, you're not reading it right. I was just humoring you in order to make a point that EVEN IF they did implode the building, or by some other means bring it down intentionally, it would have been in the public interest to have done so, and for a legitimate reason, and not some conspiracy.

However, that wasn't what happened. By "pull it," Silverstein meant the firefighters battling the fire in the vicinity of the building. As in, pull the operation, pull back. Not pull down the building.

Here's the transcript of that video again:
"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, 'You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And, uh, they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse."

And in this context, I am quite certain that the "terrible loss of life" he was referring to was the ~400 firefighters killed when the towers fell. How many more should have died inside WTC7 in order to satisfy you? Or would that have just been fodder for you to create some whole new conspiracy theory?

Look, if you want to be taken seriously talking about 9/11 conspiracy theories, then the discussion should be things like what did Bush (or someone ranking inside the administration) know and when did he know it? Or if they didn't know, why was our intelligence so bad? Why was our govt so incompetent? And so forth. That's where the REAL conspiracies are. But if you just want to fall back on this "Truther" and "Loose Change" BS, where the buildings were brought down with explosives and (sometimes) the planes didn't even exist, then you can expect to not be taken seriously. Because all you're doing with those is just diluting the discussion and helping an incompetent govt to cover its ass.

Give it up Vic, some people are hopeless. It's all part of the bell curve of intelligence. Somebody has to fall into the tails. It's somehow not ironic that they mostly seem to be RPBs.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Yeah WTC7 building fell because of "fire" and "structural damage" LOL

My ass it did :roll:

Did you even listen to what he said?

I had to have a gravely sick cat put down once. Does that make me a cat murderer? Was it a conspiracy?

Don't mix the issue. He said "to pull it". Are you really trying to argue this? LOL

Hye PC Surgeon.

I'd like for you to Pull It. :evil: :heart:

What am I referring to?

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Well if that was the official report: "We did implode the building in fear of it causing more damage or more deaths." Then why the secrecy? Why act as though it was because of WTC 1 & 2?

Maybe I'm not readin what you are saying correctly.

No, you're not reading it right. I was just humoring you in order to make a point that EVEN IF they did implode the building, or by some other means bring it down intentionally, it would have been in the public interest to have done so, and for a legitimate reason, and not some conspiracy.

However, that wasn't what happened. By "pull it," Silverstein meant the firefighters battling the fire in the vicinity of the building. As in, pull the operation, pull back. Not pull down the building.

Here's the transcript of that video again:
"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, 'You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And, uh, they made that decision to pull, and we watched the building collapse."

And in this context, I am quite certain that the "terrible loss of life" he was referring to was the ~400 firefighters killed when the towers fell. How many more should have died inside WTC7 in order to satisfy you? Or would that have just been fodder for you to create some whole new conspiracy theory?

Look, if you want to be taken seriously talking about 9/11 conspiracy theories, then the discussion should be things like what did Bush (or someone ranking inside the administration) know and when did he know it? Or if they didn't know, why was our intelligence so bad? Why was our govt so incompetent? And so forth. That's where the REAL conspiracies are. But if you just want to fall back on this "Truther" and "Loose Change" BS, where the buildings were brought down with explosives and (sometimes) the planes didn't even exist, then you can expect to not be taken seriously. Because all you're doing with those is just diluting the discussion and helping an incompetent govt to cover its ass.

I agree there are stronger points and weaker points to this conspiracy. But most when confronted with the word "conspiracy" automatically give a kneejerk reaction as if the word is to imply it isn't true. Which is hardly the case. I do not agree there "were no planes", but most of their points I do agree with. The administrations reluctance to look into the matter only heats up the coals under the already burning fire. If you watched this version (which I don't think you have seeing as though you are using past references to previous versions) you would see that they use their own words against them. Cheney and his "the order still stands", the lack of funding for the 9-11 commission report and the secrecy behind who would know what in that commission. There is a mountain of things to discuss and be critical of, and rightly so.

I could care less if you agree with me, I would still vote for you as P&N president

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
stupidity

Bull shit

See I can do that too

I didn't even read your post. Why? Cause I already know what you will say. How I am a loon than I'm inferior to your superb intellectual mind etc.

:roll:

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Give it up Vic, some people are hopeless. It's all part of the bell curve of intelligence. Somebody has to fall into the tails. It's somehow not ironic that they mostly seem to be RPBs.

Yes give it up, cause almighty know it all LK has decreed as such! :laugh:

Grow up "educated man". :roll:

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
Yeah WTC7 building fell because of "fire" and "structural damage" LOL

My ass it did :roll:

Did you even listen to what he said?

I had to have a gravely sick cat put down once. Does that make me a cat murderer? Was it a conspiracy?

Don't mix the issue. He said "to pull it". Are you really trying to argue this? LOL

Hye PC Surgeon.

I'd like for you to Pull It. :evil: :heart:

What am I referring to?

LOL I am not pulling that unless you supply the gas mask!!

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Give it up Vic, some people are hopeless. It's all part of the bell curve of intelligence. Somebody has to fall into the tails. It's somehow not ironic that they mostly seem to be RPBs.

Yes give it up, cause almighty know it all LK has decreed as such! :laugh:

Grow up "educated man". :roll:

When a few people tell you that you are stupid, maybe they are. When just about everyone tells you that you are stupid, maybe it's time to start listening.

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
stupidity

Bull shit

See I can do that too

I didn't even read your post. Why? Cause I already know what you will say. How I am a loon than I'm inferior to your superb intellectual mind etc.

:roll:

Well, it appears you are starting to agree with at least one status quo idea around here. Good job!

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Give it up Vic, some people are hopeless. It's all part of the bell curve of intelligence. Somebody has to fall into the tails. It's somehow not ironic that they mostly seem to be RPBs.

Yes give it up, cause almighty know it all LK has decreed as such! :laugh:

Grow up "educated man". :roll:

When a few people tell you that you are stupid, maybe they are. When just about everyone tells you that you are stupid, maybe it's time to start listening.

Yes, cause EVERYONE says I am stupid. Again, the pack mentality is very rampant and especially so on this topic. It is very hard for people to believe that our government, at the very least, let it happen. My condolences

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon
stupidity

Bull shit

See I can do that too

I didn't even read your post. Why? Cause I already know what you will say. How I am a loon than I'm inferior to your superb intellectual mind etc.

:roll:

Well, it appears you are starting to agree with at least one status quo idea around here. Good job!

:laugh:

 

[LegendKiller]

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Give it up Vic, some people are hopeless. It's all part of the bell curve of intelligence. Somebody has to fall into the tails. It's somehow not ironic that they mostly seem to be RPBs.

Yes give it up, cause almighty know it all LK has decreed as such! :laugh:

Grow up "educated man". :roll:

When a few people tell you that you are stupid, maybe they are. When just about everyone tells you that you are stupid, maybe it's time to start listening.

Yes, cause EVERYONE says I am stupid. Again, the pack mentality is very rampant and especially so on this topic. It is very hard for people to believe that our government, at the very least, let it happen. My condolences

Again, there you go with the conspiracy theory.

It is very hard for people to believe in the most simple answer. Our government is inefficient, full of conflicting ideals, turf wars, and stupidity. It is incapable of defeating a terrorist act because it cannot possibly match all of the possible scenarios of action, since terrorists, by their very nature, have the initiative and advantage of knowing when/where they will strike, especially in a cell environment, while a government must protect *all* areas and/or get dang lucky.

I believe our government is.

1. faced with the impossible act of facing determined terrorists who will exploit weaknesses with impunity.

2. Woefully inadequate and filled with egocentric assholes who only want to protect their own power and job.


Sure, believe in your conspiracy rather than the problem of facing a celled terrorist war.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: jhbball
Just watch that video with the assholes from loose change vs. the editor of Popular Science if you want a glimpse into how fucking ridiculous these clowns are.

Just watched it for the first time. Now I'm a believer. Those snickering children had the gleam of truth in their eyes, and the evil corporate clones lacked all emotion.

Holy crap, how can anyone seriously believe this stuff?

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: alchemize

Originally posted by: PC Surgeon

Originally posted by: LegendKiller

Give it up Vic, some people are hopeless. It's all part of the bell curve of intelligence. Somebody has to fall into the tails. It's somehow not ironic that they mostly seem to be RPBs.

Yes give it up, cause almighty know it all LK has decreed as such! :laugh:

Grow up "educated man". :roll:

When a few people tell you that you are stupid, maybe they are. When just about everyone tells you that you are stupid, maybe it's time to start listening.

You know I've made that argument before to no avail. Why go for years of undergrad and gradschool in finance, when a couple of youtube videos about fed gives you all the answers you ever need. Nuts will be nuts...

<- B.S. Economics, CompSci, M.A. Finance (this year) and I worked down the block from LegendKiller