The Greenwich Township School District will have to cut $479,000 from its proposed $1

[EDAman]

Originally Posted by tom69z

# Foreign "terrorists" who were clever enough to coordinate hijacking four commercial airliners seemingly did not know that the least damage to the Pentagon would be done by hitting its west wing. How is this possible?

Was this common knowledge? How would they have known this? Can you provide some links/information that shows the West Wing would sustain the least amount of damage due to a plane or other terrorist attack? You are making assumptions on what the hijackers knew or didn't know without actually interviewing them.

Originally Posted by tom69z

# Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, in an underground bunker at the White House, watched Vice President Cheney castigate a young officer for asking, as the plane drew closer and closer to the Pentagon, "Do the orders still stand?" The order cannot have been to shoot it down, but must have been the opposite. How is this possible?

You are basically saying, "if A is not true, then B must be true". Yet, you have not proven A is not true, let alone prove that B is true. How do you know "the order cannot have been to shoot it down"? Just because you declare it to be true, doesn't make it true. You then state "But must have been the opposite". Why? You are now declaring B to be true, again without any proof. It is difficult to use worse logic than this. And lastly, how do you know what order he is referring to?

[EDAman]

Originally Posted by tom69z

# Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, in an underground bunker at the White House, watched Vice President Cheney castigate a young officer for asking, as the plane drew closer and closer to the Pentagon, "Do the orders still stand?" The order cannot have been to shoot it down, but must have been the opposite. How is this possible?
# A former Inspector General for the Air Force has observed that Flight 93, which allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania, should have left debris scattered over an area less than the size of a city block; but it is scattered over an area of about eight square miles. How is this possible?

I have these two together because I am confused. In the first item, it is trying to imply that there was a standing order to NOT shoot the planes down. Is that correct? The second item then implies that Flight 93 was shot down (the reason being the large debris field). Is that correct? Your conspiracy theory seems at conflict here.

Also, you state that debris was "scattered over an area of about eight square miles." This statement is incorrect. Here is the correct statement "Flight 93 fragmented violently upon impact. Most of the aircraft wreckage was found near the impact crater. Investigators found some very light debris including paper and nylon scattered up to eight miles (13 km) from the impact point in New Baltimore, Pennsylvania. Other tiny aircraft fragments were found 1.5 miles (2.4 km) away at Indian Lake, Pennsylvania.

You and your friends are confusing 8 miles away and 8 square miles. By taking the statement that some very light debris was found up to eight miles away and changing it to debris (leaving out the light part, thus implying it could have been part of the plane) and stating it was found over an area of eight square miles (again, implying a largely scattered debris field), you are changing facts to better fit your (conspiracy) theory. This is bad science. In science, you generate a theory, analyze data and modify the theory to fit the data. What you are doing is modifying the data to fit your theory. You are doing it backwards.

Originally Posted by tom69z

# A tape recording of interviews with air traffic controllers on duty on 9/11 was deliberately crushed, cut into very small pieces, and distributed in assorted places to insure its total destruction. How is this possible?

I don't know how to answer this. Are you asking how a tape could be crushed, then cut into very small pieces and then distributed in assorted places? If you are, it is a good question. I can honestly say I don't know how you could crush something and then cut it into very small pieces. It would seem that once you crushed it, that implies it is already in very small pieces. So, I say, Tom69z, excellent question!

Originally Posted by tom69z

# The Pentagon conducted a training exercise called "MASCAL" simulating the crash of a Boeing 757 into the building on 24 October 2000, and yet Condoleezza Rice, among others, has repeatedly asserted that "no one ever imagined" a domestic airplane could be used as a weapon. How is this possible?

Back to more bending of the truth, or in this case, connecting two unrelated events. In the first case, the Pentagon did in fact simulate a crash of a Boeing 757 into the Pentagon. That is because the Pentagon is less than 1 mile from Reagan International, so it is not unreasonable for them to simulate a potential plane crash into the Pentagon.
You then combine that with a quote from Ms. Rice stating "no one ever imagined" a domestic airplane could be used as a weapon. That is also true, using an airplane as a weapon is very different from the simulation of a plane crash (not a hijacked plane, simply a, still catastrophic, crash). Again, two different events and trying to tie them together by implication. Because they simulated a plane crash, does not mean they were planning to use a plane as a weapon.
Do you see how they fooled you into thinking they were related, when in fact, they are not? Good try, too bad we are smarter than the conspiracy theorists and can see through their web of lies!!

[tom69z]

McChrystal was talking to you


Peter Heck - Guest Columnist - 6/28/2010 10:20:00 AM


The ink had not yet dried on my last column that discussed the fact that Barack Obama was woefully unprepared for the presidency and as a result is making deadly missteps in the execution of that role, when news broke of General Stanley McChrystal in essence saying the exact same thing toRolling Stone magazine. This isn't just a story to be brushed off. This is a bombshell.

Don't be distracted by the media comically chastising the General for daring to speak out against "The One" (yes, the same media that hailed military officers who were willing to "speak truth to power" in criticizing George Bush). That isn't the story.

The true meaning of the McChrystal episode is titanic, because it is quite apparent the General was sending a stern message directly to the American people.

For more reasons than I can count, it is beyond obvious that McChrystal's public criticism of Obama was not a lapse in judgment or a mistake. It was unquestionably intentional. First, four-star generals have not achieved that rank without knowing the chain of command and the expectation of subordination to superiors. Second, all of McChrystal's advisers were touting the same message, demonstrating this was no fluke, nor an offhand comment taken out of context. Third, McChrystal spoke the inflammatory words to Rolling Stone, a well known anti-war, anti-military magazine. Fourth, reports are that McChrystal actually saw the piece before it went to print and offered up no objections to its content.

If all that is true, then it naturally begs the question: Why did he do it?

McChrystal is one of the lead authors of the "counterinsurgency" strategy that, despite the nay saying of liberals like then-Senators Obama and Biden, transformed Iraq from a quagmire into a success. He knows the strategy works. But as its architect, he also knows this new military policy requires two vital elements: lots of troops, and as much time as necessary for them to do their job..

While other factors are important (cultural bonds, regional partnerships, financial investment, troop morale, etc.), the two most crucial ingredients to making counterinsurgency work (in Afghanistan or anywhere) is a massive amount of troops on the ground to overwhelm the enemy and live among the people, and a commitment to stay as long as necessary to break the will of the enemy.

This is precisely why counterinsurgency worked in Iraq. Over the ignorant objections of both Obama and Biden, then-President Bush listened to his military commanders and ordered the troop surge. And while being pummeled by the media and Democrat political opportunists for not setting a hard deadline for withdrawal, Bush committed to stay in Iraq until the job was finished. The result speaks for itself.

As the Afghan war began to deteriorate, Stanley McChrystal was put in charge to implement that effective strategy there. But he quickly found that Barack Obama is no George W. Bush. First, Obama – having championed himself as the anti-war candidate – cut the number of troops McChrystal requested. And then, in what has to be one of the most foolish wartime moves in history, he announced an arbitrary date for the beginning of American troop withdrawal.

This may please the ex-hippies in the anti-war crowd that Obama courted during the 2008 campaign, but it has emboldened our enemy, imperiled our troops, and created a giant mess of our counterinsurgency efforts in Afghanistan.

Having pressed his case privately with Obama's war team in Washington, McChrystal certainly saw the handwriting on the wall, and as a final recourse, pled his case to the American people.

Were his actions a breach of protocol? Yes. Did they rise to the level of insubordination? Probably. Was Obama justified in removing him from command? I think so. But after we're done hammering McChrystal for going over the President's head, we better give some serious thought as to why he was so willing to put his career on the line like that.

The reason is as clear as it is frightening: our political leadership in Washington is clueless. And their incompetence is costing us not only resources and money, but most importantly the precious lives of brave American soldiers.

General Stanley McChrystal was willing to lose his job to send that message to the only people who can do something about it. He was talking to you.

[Copperlad]

Originally Posted by tom69z

But he quickly found that Barack Obama is no George W. Bush.

Thank you, Baby Jesus.

[concernedcitizen]

[EDAman]

Originally Posted by tom69z

"
However, what was not in the official report and never discussed in the media, were the many eyewitness accounts of multiple building explosions, identical to those of demolition charges being fired inside and throughout the buildings immediately before both the Towers collapsed.

Sorry, I had to edit down the number of quotes. A few questions here. Why do you say the media never discussed the "explosions". Thanks to your YouTube links, there are many, many examples of the explosion being reported. This is hardly anything that was kept quiet. And the NIST report dedicated a section to the possibility of bombs being placed in the building and used to create a controlled demolition. So, again, you are not being truthful (shocking, I know) when you state it was not in the official report.

And lastly, no one is discounting what the witnesses saw and heard. We can all see the same things on the video's of the towers collapsing. However, in a time of crisis when the towers collapsed, would you be able to tell the difference between a bomb being detonated and the sound of Electric Transformers exploding, windows being blown out due to air being compressed by the falling floors? In other words, what we see and hear leads us to theories (Bombs, planes, nuclear weapons, etc) and then we use science to determine the real cause. Simply listing quotes from folks saying they hear a bomb is not proof of a bomb. That's why there is a show called Crime Scene Investigation, not Crime Scene Speculation.

Another way to look at this is, stand outside all day and describe the movement of the sun. Does it appear to move around you or do you appear to move around the sun? For most of man's existence, we thought the sun (and all stars) moved around us because that is what it looks like to us as an observer. But thanks to science (and math), we now know that we are not the center of the universe. Point is, observation is a good starting point, but not always the absolute truth.

[steve447]

Who would WANT to be George W. Bush?

Probably better than being Barack H. Obama, but still.

Then again, who would want to be John McCain? Or Barney Frank? Or Nancy Pelosi's husband, who has seen her nake...

(I apologize for almost finishing that last sentence. If you have been rendered temporarily blind, have had a seizure, or are in some other way incapacitated by the thought of seeing Nancy Pelosi in a state of undress, please have Friendly's deliver 2 chocolate Fribbles to your house as soon as they can. Apply the Fribbles directly to your eyeballs until they melt completely.)(the Fribbles melt, not your eyeballs)

(I hope)