Where is the free world headed? What can we do?

[conspiracy]

So I've been away for a bit, not posting , been busy with life and such but I always think about what we can do as Americans or humans to make life better. I think often about the state of the world and how morality has been degraded to the point where people actually may not know right from wrong. Actually maybe they do know right from wrong and they choose not to care. My country , most of the people here's country , the good ole' USA is dying slowly.

Dying from immorality , drug addiction, obesity and greed. Our once envied nation is now criticized more than it has ever been. Our nation that practices free speech has seen free speech divide itself from irresponsible media , morality and and the crybabies that sue when things don't go in their favor.
What can we do to change it? Can we change it? If we don't change directions how long will our great nation last on a whole? Is this really , today's world , what our fore fathers had in mind for America? I think they would roll over in their graves and scold most of our leadership today. I can't help thinking that it is possible we are all doomed as a nation.

We can't win a war especially since WWII because of the liberal crybabies that refuse to get the job done. We crumble under every ethnic and social group that cry foul because they can sue even if they have a little bit of money. Our medical industry is a joke that is only driven by money and power. Our children (Yes you can turn it off , but C'mon not many parents care.) are subjected to such media smut as one can handle.

This nation , our very young nation , is on the fast track to destruction. I doubt sometimes the United States of America will make it to see 1000 years old as had many of the greatest nation and civilizations of the old world.

What are you guy's thoughts? What are the problems you see destroying our nation and how can we change them?

[ajk]

To be quite honest, I see our own government as a major threat to our freedom. They want to take it away more and more, heck the Patriot Act makes parts of the Constitution obsolete! Not to mention they orchestrated the worst attack on our soil, that being 9-11. Then you have this whole North American Union thing which is a whole other issue to itself. So yeah our government is the biggest threat to our freedom. We need to fight to make sure they never take it away from us, cause if we don't they'll just strip us of it piece by piece as they've already started doing.

[WhiteRaven]

"Not to mention they orchestrated the worst attack on our soil, that being 9-11."

shut up, shut up, SHUT UP! the government did not cause 9-11. Can we please stop spouting that bullshit. I agree with some of the rest of your post, but the government did not cause 9-11, and it is time for people to realize that.

[England Expects]

From the outside looking in, the US staked its reputation on the Iraq war, and lost (before you start bleating that we were involved too, you're right, but the invasion was US led).

To rebuild that rep (if you want to) you need to stop trying to be "God's Cop" and work towards international consensus, rather than unilateral action.

[ajk]

"Not to mention they orchestrated the worst attack on our soil, that being 9-11."

shut up, shut up, SHUT UP! the government did not cause 9-11. Can we please stop spouting that bullshit. I agree with some of the rest of your post, but the government did not cause 9-11, and it is time for people to realize that.

Yes they did and there's plenty of evidence to support it. For example if they really had nothing to hide, why would Bush when asked to speak for the 9-11 commission, request it to be done privately, with Cheney and off the record? Doesn't that seem a little bit strange to you?

[MrJim]

Yes they did and there's plenty of evidence to support it. For example if they really had nothing to hide, why would Bush when asked to speak for the 9-11 commission, request it to be done privately, with Cheney and off the record? Doesn't that seem a little bit strange to you?

Okay, so you're not just a religious nut job, but a political one as well? The Bush administration would never have coordinated anything like 9/11.

[ajk]

That doesn't answer my question. Why on earth would Bush refuse to go on the record, if he had nothing to hide?

[Loseirdo]

That doesn't answer my question. Why on earth would Bush refuse to go on the record, if he had nothing to hide?

For any number of reasons. Just because he didn't want to publicly say anything doesn't mean he was hiding something.

There is no evidence to support that our government was responsible. That is complete bullshit. Besides, if our government was responsible...

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/conspiracy_tot2.gif

Your argument is completely baseless. I bet you're one of the morons that got all excited when they watched "Loose Change" on YouTube. In fact, I'm going to assume that this is the case just so I can ruin your shit:

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

Read it and shut the fuck up already.

As for America, I really wish there was something we could do. There are just too many idiots in this country (see above) for anything to get done anymore.

[MrJim]

That doesn't answer my question. Why on earth would Bush refuse to go on the record, if he had nothing to hide?

Well, gee, there's like this RESPONSIBILITY THINGY, ya know, like keeping the business of the federal government private so information can't get loose into the hands of the enemy 'n shit??

The president and his elected officials are responsible for keeping the public calm and quickly and diligently tracking down who's responsible for, say, the WORST ATTACK ON AMERICA IN ITS HISTORY!! I'm surprised that someone who has such a strong Christian belief system would sooner blame the government who protects our freedom and security than to blame the filthy Islamic terrorists that have waged war against your very own causes!

And, as reiterated by Loseirdo (through Maddox, heh) it's pretty much entirely impossible for such a conspiracy to have been covered up by so many people. There's no logic behind such claims.

[ajk]

Well what about the fact that not one building BEFORE OR SINCE has been known to collapse from fire damage alone? Or the fact that numerous explosions were heard inside the buildings as they came down?

[MrJim]

Well what about the fact that not one building BEFORE OR SINCE has been known to collapse from fire damage alone? Or the fact that numerous explosions were heard inside the buildings as they came down?

Not one building before or since has been smashed by a huge passenge jet filled with home-cooked explosions either. The hijackers were identified on camera passing through security with a sly look on their faces. The hijacking by middle eastern terrorists is obvious. Even if there was some intervention on the ground, why would't you make the association with more al-qaida operatives helping the hijackers from the ground? Where is your bullshit government connection??

[ajk]

Ok but explain the fact that these towers were built to be able to sustain an actual plane hitting it.

[ajk]

Here's some food for thought for you, Bush claims to have seen the first plane hit the Trade Center before going into a classroom in Florida. Now that's all well and good, except for one thing: THERE WAS NO MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE FIRST PLANE HITTING! I'd like to see you try and explain that one.

[MrJim]

Ok but explain the fact that these towers were built to be able to sustain an actual plane hitting it.

We've all seen this straw man's song & dance before. How does any assumed structural deficiency or foul play on the ground tie the attack to the government? What is so important about it? Did the boogeyman sneak around and plant some bombs in the building? Did the construction workers who built it secretly toss in some weak materials on purpose? Or were there more terrorists than just hijackers that morning?

I have no idea what the final blow to the building was, and unless you were inside it searching for clues as it collapsed (which would make you a pancake), you don't either. We could either assume the obvious, which is that an organization that struck us before did it again; or go on what sounds like the rantings of some doof that probably believes he's seen bigfoot prints in a bowl of mashed potatoes.

[conspiracy]

From the outside looking in, the US staked its reputation on the Iraq war, and lost (before you start bleating that we were involved too, you're right, but the invasion was US led).

To rebuild that rep (if you want to) you need to stop trying to be "God's Cop" and work towards international consensus, rather than unilateral action.

I agree to a point England. You know though if we had done nothing about 9-11 I am afraid that it would have sent a message of " Do what ya want , we don't care"

Yes it could have all been done differently , but how? I'm guessing no matter how it was done this whole thing would be just as unpopular. Honestly in order for something like that to be done correctly , it would need to be done without the media scrutinizing every little action. It would not be pretty but there is a way to end this all right now. Something I believe Richard the Lionheart had done seemed to do the trick for a few hundred years.

You're right , America is policing the world. We are more often than not criticized for helping and shunned if we don't. The world often say "Let America handle it" Surely you see that. Not that I agree with my country trying to get it's hands in on everything , I don't.

[Loseirdo]

Here's some food for thought for you, Bush claims to have seen the first plane hit the Trade Center before going into a classroom in Florida. Now that's all well and good, except for one thing: THERE WAS NO MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE FIRST PLANE HITTING! I'd like to see you try and explain that one.

Bush has never made such a claim, ever. There is actually footage of Bush sitting in the classroom when the first plane hits, and a security agent (or whatever) walks over to inform him of what has happened. You're just pulling this stuff out of your ass.

[ajk]

Yes he has, here's proof:
From a CNN interview 2 months after 9-11:
QUESTION: One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country, and another thing is that how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?

BUSH: Well...

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you, Jordan (ph).

Well, Jordan (ph), you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."

And just if you want to verify it's validity:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/04/se.04.html

[Loseirdo]

Yes he has, here's proof:
From a CNN interview 2 months after 9-11:
QUESTION: One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country, and another thing is that how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?

BUSH: Well...

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you, Jordan (ph).

Well, Jordan (ph), you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."

And just if you want to verify it's validity:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/04/se.04.html

I like that transcript. Maybe if you'd read it you'd see what kind of man Bush is. Do you really think someone like that would let the government orchestrate and pull off an attack on our own country?

There was footage of the first plane hitting. You can find footage of it on YouTube. CNN footage, as a matter of fact. Perhaps they weren't immediately airing it, but they had definitely begun covering it before the second plane hit -- I remember watching it myself in school. Bush may not have seen the first plane hit, but it's quite likely that he saw the aftermath of it, which would have been accompanied by a subtitle like, "PASSENGER AIRLINER HITS WORLD TRADE CENTER". Yes, he said that he saw the plane hit, but that isn't necessarily what he meant. He was impromptu speaking and probably misspoke a bit. I'm sure you'll agree that Bush isn't the best speaker to ever hold a public office, and it's easy to be a little ambiguous when you don't have time to plan your speech (or have someone plan it for you). I mean, is it really so hard to imagine that he meant "I saw an airplane had hit the tower"?

As for the building collapsing from fire damage, there are plenty of things to explain this. First, a passenger liner had crashed into the building, destroying many of the support beams. Second, the fire was burning from jet fuel, which happens to burn at 825°C; steel loses half of its structural integrity at 648°C. Burning jet fuel would be plenty hot enough to cause the steel support beams to give way without necessarily melting them.

[WhiteRaven]

"THERE WAS NO MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE FIRST PLANE HITTING!"

Really?! That's odd, because I vividly recall seeing each plane hit on TV.

Even if they didn't show it... well, read loseirdo's post.

"I mean, is it really so hard to imagine that he meant "I saw an airplane had hit the tower"?"

"Second, the fire was burning from jet fuel, which happens to burn at 825°C; steel loses half of its structural integrity at 648°C. Burning jet fuel would be plenty hot enough to cause the steel support beams to give way without necessarily melting them."

dee de dee

[ajk]

There was footage of the first plane hitting. You can find footage of it on YouTube. CNN footage, as a matter of fact. Perhaps they weren't immediately airing it, but they had definitely begun covering it before the second plane hit -- I remember watching it myself in school. Bush may not have seen the first plane hit, but it's quite likely that he saw the aftermath of it, which would have been accompanied by a subtitle like, "PASSENGER AIRLINER HITS WORLD TRADE CENTER". Yes, he said that he saw the plane hit, but that isn't necessarily what he meant. He was impromptu speaking and probably misspoke a bit. I'm sure you'll agree that Bush isn't the best speaker to ever hold a public office, and it's easy to be a little ambiguous when you don't have time to plan your speech (or have someone plan it for you). I mean, is it really so hard to imagine that he meant "I saw an airplane had hit the tower"?


You raise a good point, but and correct me if I'm wrong here, didn't the video of the first plane hitting not surface until long after the 2nd one had hit? What exactly was the time frame from when the first plane hit, to when people actually saw it for the first time?

[England Expects]

I agree to a point England. You know though if we had done nothing about 9-11 I am afraid that it would have sent a message of " Do what ya want , we don't care"

Yes it could have all been done differently , but how? I'm guessing no matter how it was done this whole thing would be just as unpopular. Honestly in order for something like that to be done correctly , it would need to be done without the media scrutinizing every little action. It would not be pretty but there is a way to end this all right now. Something I believe Richard the Lionheart had done seemed to do the trick for a few hundred years.

You're right , America is policing the world. We are more often than not criticized for helping and shunned if we don't. The world often say "Let America handle it" Surely you see that. Not that I agree with my country trying to get it's hands in on everything , I don't.

The immediate response after 9/11 was exactly the right response. American led action, under a NATO flag, with international consensus.

The same should have been done in Iraq (isn't hindsight great).

If our troops weren't bogged down there, we could have intervened to stop the genocide in Darfour and the US and UK would rightly be held up as defenders of humanity with our reputations intact.

If the US listened more to its traditional allies, there would be no problem.

[General Septem]

Your argument is completely baseless. I bet you're one of the morons that got all excited when they watched "Loose Change" on YouTube. In fact, I'm going to assume that this is the case just so I can ruin your shit:

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

I've seen this. As bad as Loose Change was, this wasn't any better at disproving any of its claims.


Here's some food for thought for you, Bush claims to have seen the first plane hit the Trade Center before going into a classroom in Florida. Now that's all well and good, except for one thing: THERE WAS NO MEDIA COVERAGE OF THE FIRST PLANE HITTING! I'd like to see you try and explain that one.

He was just being a politician, connecting with his people by telling a story. It doesn't necessarily have to be 100% true when you tell a story. That's all.

[MrJim]

Yes he has, here's proof:
From a CNN interview 2 months after 9-11:
QUESTION: One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country, and another thing is that how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?

BUSH: Well...

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you, Jordan (ph).

Well, Jordan (ph), you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."

And just if you want to verify it's validity:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0112/04/se.04.html

Apparantly Bush has a bit of a memory problem (comes with the territory of being an alcoholic)... at any rate, the video does not.

[Walter Weiss]

So I've been away for a bit, not posting , been busy with life and such but I always think about what we can do as Americans or humans to make life better. I think often about the state of the world and how morality has been degraded to the point where people actually may not know right from wrong. Actually maybe they do know right from wrong and they choose not to care. My country , most of the people here's country , the good ole' USA is dying slowly.

Dying from immorality , drug addiction, obesity and greed. Our once envied nation is now criticized more than it has ever been. Our nation that practices free speech has seen free speech divide itself from irresponsible media , morality and and the crybabies that sue when things don't go in their favor.
What can we do to change it? Can we change it? If we don't change directions how long will our great nation last on a whole? Is this really , today's world , what our fore fathers had in mind for America? I think they would roll over in their graves and scold most of our leadership today. I can't help thinking that it is possible we are all doomed as a nation.

We can't win a war especially since WWII because of the liberal crybabies that refuse to get the job done. We crumble under every ethnic and social group that cry foul because they can sue even if they have a little bit of money. Our medical industry is a joke that is only driven by money and power. Our children (Yes you can turn it off , but C'mon not many parents care.) are subjected to such media smut as one can handle.

This nation , our very young nation , is on the fast track to destruction. I doubt sometimes the United States of America will make it to see 1000 years old as had many of the greatest nation and civilizations of the old world.

What are you guy's thoughts? What are the problems you see destroying our nation and how can we change them?

MY THOUGHTS ARE THAT WE HAVE TO GET TO THE ROOT OF THE PROBLEM FAST, AND ACT WITH SWIFT AND DECISIVELY BOLD STROKES....THE DEMO-LIBIAN ELEMENT MUST BE EXPOSED. THE CULTURE HERE HAS TO CHANGE. THE MASSES HAVE TO PURSUE A HIGHER MORAL CALLING, ONE OF ETHICS IN BUSINESS AND IN SOCIAL CUSTOM. THE MILITARY HAS TO BE RESTORED TO IT'S FORMER STRENGTH....THE WORLD MUST ONCE AGAIN TREMBLE AT THE APPROACH OF THE AMERICAN BOOT....THE OPPRESSED HAVE TO ONCE AGAIN REJOICE AT THE APPROACH OF THE LIBERATING AMERICAN SOLDIER....THE INTERNAL ENEMIES OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY AND SOLDIER MUST BE REVEALED AND CONQUERED AS SURELY AS THE ENEMY IS CONQUERED. THAT IS THE ROAD TO NATIONAL STRENGTH AND WORLD PEACE....GOD DAMN THE LIBERAL AGITATORS.....

[Walter Weiss]

The immediate response after 9/11 was exactly the right response. American led action, under a NATO flag, with international consensus.

The same should have been done in Iraq (isn't hindsight great).

If our troops weren't bogged down there, we could have intervened to stop the genocide in Darfour and the US and UK would rightly be held up as defenders of humanity with our reputations intact.

If the US listened more to its traditional allies, there would be no problem.


We need those allies....but they have become too liberal and too weak. They cowtow to the Chinese. They listen to the Russian sharpening an axe, and they tremble....they humble themselves in the presence of an Arab or a Palestinian.....they listen to their liberal based morons among their masses screaming for isolationism....they pat their purses and make them too much of a priority. Where have all the leaders gone???

I hear it is nothing new for the UK to turn a blind eye to genocide.

[Loseirdo]

You raise a good point, but and correct me if I'm wrong here, didn't the video of the first plane hitting not surface until long after the 2nd one had hit? What exactly was the time frame from when the first plane hit, to when people actually saw it for the first time?

Like I said, the major news stations probably had not begun covering the story until after the first plane had hit, but they had begun covering it before the second plane hit. I know because I saw it myself. The TVs were on the news before and after the second plane hit. I distinctly remember talking about it. "Hey, did you hear that a plane hit the world trade center? I bet it was hijacked." "Nah, it was probably a pilot error. Problem with the radar or something." (A few minutes later.) "Another plane has hit. They're saying it was a hijacking." It's very possible that he saw the smoking building before the second collision.

Keep throwing your "evidence" at me and I'll keep debunking it as fast as I can.

[ajk]

If that was the case why would he specifically say that he saw it hit?

[ajk]

Ok here's something else, the plane that hit the Pentagon, was said to have completely vaporized? Uh, what? Explain to me how a huge jumbo jet just vaporizes into thin air! That's absolutely impossible. Also, if that were indeed the case, then how in the hell could fingerprints survive, as it has been claimed?

[Loseirdo]

Ok here's something else, the plane that hit the Pentagon, was said to have completely vaporized? Uh, what? Explain to me how a huge jumbo jet just vaporizes into thin air! That's absolutely impossible. Also, if that were indeed the case, then how in the hell could fingerprints survive, as it has been claimed?

First, I already told you that people say thing that they don't necessarily mean. "I saw a plane hit the building" could easily mean "I saw a plane had hit the building." Southerners have a way of speaking ambiguously sometimes.

Now, if you can show me exactly who said that the plane completely vaporized, I might have a better shot of explaining this one. As it stands, though, the plane was traveling extremely fast with a large tank of jet fuel. If that tank caught fire, there would be a large explosion and very little would be left of the plane -- particularly after colliding with a building at that speed.

Here's another document to read through: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

[Walter Weiss]

Ok here's something else, the plane that hit the Pentagon, was said to have completely vaporized? Uh, what? Explain to me how a huge jumbo jet just vaporizes into thin air! That's absolutely impossible. Also, if that were indeed the case, then how in the hell could fingerprints survive, as it has been claimed?


Budrow....there were many, many security cameras operating in the vicinity from other buildings that picked up much of it. There were police officers also on the streets with video equipment in cars....there were tourists inside and around the area of both the Pentagon and the world trade center, carrying cameras....this is no different than Dealey Plaza and JFK murder....Mr. Zapruder had his own camera at the time, and made one of six videos shot that day.

The plane was never asserted to have vaporized. That's bullshit. The area was combed for every part to that plane, and it was taken to storage at a place where examination could take place. There were bodies, there were plane parts, there was a crash site, and this was an act of war.

Pull that head out of the back of your trap-door pajammas.....thinking will result.

[Walter Weiss]

JHet fuel does not explode....it is not gasoline....it is high grade diesel...JP4 and JP8 will run in any diesel truck....we used it in our trucks in the military....it does not explode anymore than lamp oil will explode.

[Loseirdo]

JHet fuel does not explode....it is not gasoline....it is high grade diesel...JP4 and JP8 will run in any diesel truck....we used it in our trucks in the military....it does not explode anymore than lamp oil will explode.

So then tell me what happens when a tank full of jet fuel traveling more than 600 miles per hour crashes into a building. I seem to remember seeing a video of something like that. I believe there was an explosion.

When fuel erupts from a tank and it all ignites simultaneously, you generally get something close to an explosion. There's a reason planes have a tendency to explode when they crash.

[General Septem]

JHet fuel does not explode....it is not gasoline....it is high grade diesel...JP4 and JP8 will run in any diesel truck....we used it in our trucks in the military....it does not explode anymore than lamp oil will explode.

Diesel is gasoline. Jet Fuel is kerosene.

[Walter Weiss]

Diesel is Diesel.....Gasoline is Gasoline.....Jet Fuel is JP4, JP8 are diesel like, kind of like very clean kerosene

[Walter Weiss]

So then tell me what happens when a tank full of jet fuel traveling more than 600 miles per hour crashes into a building. I seem to remember seeing a video of something like that. I believe there was an explosion.

When fuel erupts from a tank and it all ignites simultaneously, you generally get something close to an explosion. There's a reason planes have a tendency to explode when they crash.

When a prop ship strikes something, it is full of gasoline....high octane aviation grade gasoline, and it goes up like a bomb sometimes...it is GASOLINE, and the very vapors of the gasonline explode. Jet fuel, is like Diesel...the fumes dont burn...the liquid does. It is harder to ignite, and then it burns more slowly, but very surely.

When a Jet crashes, there may or may not be any fire. You have to understand that on that jet, there is LOX for the 0-2 generator. If the lox tanks go, there will be enough heat to ignite the jet fuel and anything else...it will produce an explosion like that. IF there is rapid and violent displacement of certain metallic parts, heat is produced, sometimes sufficient to flare other materials that will flare the jet fuel. If an engine fire is involved, it can cause a fuel tank fire among other things....there is enough heat in that engine to start something burning if something goes wrong. If there is an electrical fire, it can cause a fuel fire.

THE JET FUEL WILL SERIOUSLY SUSTAIN ANY FIRE THAT IS OCCURRING FOR A SERIOUSLY LONG TIME. A FUEL TANK FIRE IS A LONG HOT FIRE, BECAUSE IT BURNS SLOWER THAN GASOLINE, AND IT IS HARDER TO EXTINGUISH. IT IS NOT EXPLOSIVE LIKE GASOLINE....IT BEHAVES LIKE DIESEL.

Not every crash entails a fire with a jet. When there is a fire, there is usually plenty of fuel running into it, and it will be long, hard and hot. Once that stuff flares, it take a lot of effort to put it out. But is is less volatile than gasoline.

The last jets that I know of that ran on simple gasoline (aviation grade) were special numbers that they put on the wings of the old B-36....they ran alongside piston engines, so they designed them to run on the same fuel. They were designed to raise the speed of the bomber to keep pace with later model refuelers.