Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => General Topics => Topic started by: 240 is Back on September 17, 2006, 02:23:23 AM
-
Listening to him on larry King live tonight. Don't know much about him, as I was like 1 at the time. Anyone have any general impressions? 1976 to 1980 in WH.
-
he started habitat for humanity...i really wasnt old enough to remember..I do remember once he was not elected again the iran hostages were released..thats about all i remember...I know my mom liked him..
-
he fucked up the hostage crisis, couldnt hack it basically.
-
Listening to him on larry King live tonight. Don't know much about him, as I was like 1 at the time. Anyone have any general impressions? 1976 to 1980 in WH.
Gas Lines, Huge Inflation, Interest Rates at 18%, Made to look like a C4%^ buy Iran, want more????
-
I hate it when you kids make me feel old. Reagan is the first President my students remember and they barely remember him! Oye! I need to retire!
As for Carter, people tend to remember him for his administration’s failures surrounding the hostage crisis but his presidency was more than that one event. He is credited with
• the Panama Canal treaties
• the Camp David Accords
• the treaty of peace between Egypt and Israel (a HUGE deal at the time)
• the SALT II treaty with the Soviet Union (strategic arms limitation talks)
• the establishment of U.S. diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China (also a huge deal)
And he did go on to win the Nobel prize.
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2002/index.html
When you think of who has won the peace prize over the years (Desmond Tutu, Mother Teresa, Martin Luther King, Nelson Madela, Lech Walesa, Oscar Arias Sánchez) it’s not exactly bad company.
-
Gas Lines, Huge Inflation, Interest Rates at 18%, Made to look like a C4%^ buy Iran, want more????
I was going to say the same thing....
Prime Rate was at 21% at one point under Carter!!! 21%!!!! WTF.
During all of his inflation rising, he was the President that came on television, wearing a sweater, and told everyone that beating inflation will be best accomplished by everyone turning down their heat in their homes and wearing more clothing. Haha, what a joke.
-
he fucked up the hostage crisis, couldnt hack it basically.
there are a lot of rumors on the web about the CIA holding off the iranian hostage release until a few hours after Reagan was sworn in. This was done to make Carter look weak and get him voted out; they were ready to release our guys but we actually told them to "hold off" til after the election.
Anyone know anything about this, or is it BS? (And please, don't chime in with "crazy CTer" or "we'd never do that", because I am asking not asserting, and because we've done worse).
-
there are a lot of rumors on the web about the CIA holding off the iranian hostage release until a few hours after Reagan was sworn in. This was done to make Carter look weak and get him voted out; they were ready to release our guys but we actually told them to "hold off" til after the election.
Anyone know anything about this, or is it BS? (And please, don't chime in with "crazy CTer" or "we'd never do that", because I am asking not asserting, and because we've done worse).
I really suggest you go to a library and read a book about Jimmy Carter, or at least try to find reputable sources.
Getting your info here isn't gonna amount to jack shit IMO. The info will always be quite biased, either leftish or rightish.
Don't have any expectations about being the very first person who is able to see through biased information, either.
Read some political biographies, Nixon and Carter are two interesting guys to begin with, as they were presidents during a controversial era. Reagan is also interesting, seeing how he was able to get away with many breaches of international law.
FWIW, it's interesting that people have a hard time finding flaws in what is most important, the domestic politics, when it comes to Carter. Carter is a great diplomat, and a non-aggressor who probably would have been able to deal with the Islamic world, using both sugar and flogging to get the results.
But realistically, would the Carter politics have been as successful as the Reagan Chicken Race tactics with the Russians?
No. Reagan's obsession with arming up forced the Russians bankrupt.
You can't argue with results.
Ironically, without Reagan, the Iron Curtain would've lasted probably another 5-10 years.
Reagan would have been a risk as a president these days, especially with him having alzheimers and shit. But in those days... He was perfect for bringing the Perverted Russian System down.
Reagan's domestic politics seldom gets discussed. Poverty did increase, but other than that, I don't remember much.
You need to read it all yourself I guess. ;D
YIP
Zack
-
Terrible president. Much better after he left office. Too bad he couldn't have gone straight to "former president." He has done a lot of great things since leaving office.
-
Born James Earl Carter, Jr. on October 1, 1924, in Plains, Georgia, Jimmy Carter was raised in a peanut farming, Baptist family. In 1946 he graduated from the Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland and soon thereafter married Rosalynn Smith, with whom he would father three sons and a daughter. Carter served seven years as a naval officer and then returned to Plains. In 1962 he entered state politics, and in 1970 was elected Governor of Georgia. Six years later he was elected President of the United States, serving one term before losing his 1980 re-election bid to a Ronald Reagan landslide; the electoral vote margin was 489 to 49.
While Carter's administration brought the U.S. some of its worst economic conditions in living memory - with soaring interest and inflation rates - his worst failing as President was in the realm of foreign policy. His human rights policy led to human rights disasters in Nicaragua and Iran, where he facilitated the rise to power of Marxists and Islamist despots, respectively. Both of those new tyrannies far surpassed the brutality of their predecessors. The fruits of the Iran disaster are still very much with the United States today. If the U.S. would have supported the Shah or his successors, the history of the past 25 years in the Middle East would have been very different, and the Iranian people would have fared much better. Moreover, the Soviet Union would have hesitated greatly over invading Afghanistan in 1979. Carter's timid approach to international conflicts emboldened the USSR to extend its reach further into the Third World. By letting the Soviets know he would not respond if they invaded Afghanistan, Carter spawned a war that ultimately saw one million dead Afghans, five million displaced, and a situation of evil that nurtured the Islamic hatred and militancy that ultimately turned on the West and brought about 9/11.
During his Presidency and the years since then, Carter has demonstrated a refusal to acknowledge the hard reality that evil must sometimes be met with overwhelming force; that negotiation cannot always win the day when one is dealing with an enemy that has no interest in mutual respect or peaceful coexistence. Even Neville Chamberlain, the arch-appeaser of England in the 1930s, eventually came to understand the dark truth about the Nazis, but Carter and similarly minded leftists cannot be shaken from their sentimental view of the world, even by something as stark as 9/11.
Carter is a mixture of neo-Kantianism—that is, the philosophical view that one's good intentions outweigh the practical consequences of one's actions and words—and leftwing Christian pacifism that believes the use of force is always wrong. Although Carter, like most leftists, says that the use of force is always to be available as "the last resort," in practice Carter would never reach "the last resort." There is always one more negotiation to be held, one more appeal to the United Nations, one more "last-ditch effort" to try. Whereas Ronald Reagan believed in "peace through strength," Carter believes in "peace through talk"; this was the hallmark of his Presidency.
According to Steven Hayward (the F. K. Weyerhaeuser Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and Senior Fellow at the Pacific Research Institute, who authored the 2004 book The Real Jimmy Carter: How Our Worst Ex-President Undermines American Foreign Policy, Coddles Dictators and Created the Party of Clinton and Kerry), Carter's worldview is consistent with what Malcom Muggeridge called "the great liberal death wish." Says Hayward, "I recently reread James Burnham's classic 1964 book, Suicide of the West, and it reads like a perfect description of the Carter . . . worldview that holds our own national interests in great suspicion and sympathizes with our enemies out of guilt. Burnham wrote the following: 'If he [the liberal] thinks that his country's weapons or strategy menace peace, then Peace, he feels, [and] not his country's military plans, should take precedence.' This certainly explains . . . Carter's own policy about arms during his Presidency."
In the years following his Presidency, Carter aggressively pursued the Nobel Peace Prize, seeing it as a means of gaining official redemption for his 1980 humiliation at the hands of American voters. He lobbied quietly behind the scenes for years to get the prize, and finally met with success in 2002 when the leftwing Nobel Prize committee saw an opportunity to use Carter as a way of attacking President Bush and embarrassing the United States. The head of the Nobel Prize committee openly admitted that this was the panel's motivation in selecting Carter. Any other ex-President would have refused to be a part of such an obvious anti-American intrigue, but not Carter, who views himself much more as a citizen of the world than as a citizen of the United States. It is highly revealing that Carter is most popular overseas in those nations that hate America the most, such as Syria, where throngs of people lined the streets cheering him when he visited.
Steven Hayward was asked, "Let us suppose that you were invited to a political history conference in which the top scholars were asked to rate Carter as a President on a scale of 1-10 (10 being a superb President, 0 being an absolute disaster) and then to give a short verdict on his Presidency and legacy, what would you say?" Hayward replied, "He would get a zero. He has already been identified as such. Nathan Miller, author of The Star-Spangled Men: America's Ten Worst Presidents, ranks Carter number one among the worst. Miller wrote that 'Electing Jimmy Carter President was as close as the American people have ever come to picking a name out of the phone book and giving him the job.' I concur. Everyone old enough recalls the high inflation under Carter, and his foreign record was just as bad. Henry Kissinger summarized it this way: 'The Carter administration has managed the extraordinary feat of having, at one and the same time, the worst relations with our allies, the worst relations with our adversaries, and the most serious upheavals in the developing world since the end of the Second World War.'"
In May 2006, Carter penned an article for the International Herald Tribune, in which he condemned the United States for being "the driving force behind an apparently effective scheme of depriving the [Palestinian] general public of income, access to the outside world and the necessities of life." At issue was the U.S. government's decision, in the wake of Hamas's electoral victory earlier in the year, to cut off aid to the Palestinian Authority. "Innocent Palestinian people are being treated like animals, with the presumption that they are guilty of some crime." Praising Hamas (which refuses to recognize Israel's existence and has sworn itself to destroying the Jewish state) for having "continued to honor a temporary cease-fire, or hudna, during the past 18 months," Carter stated: "There is no doubt that Israelis and Palestinians both want a durable two-state solution."
-
He said on larry King last night that Cheney has lied to the American people.
Agree or disagree?
-
He said on larry King last night that Cheney has lied to the American people.
Agree or disagree?
I don't believe it, but who cares anyway, all I know is if there was anyone else in office I'd be scared to death of what would become of our major cities and ports!
-
BTW, I personally think they all lie, just not to the extent that you suggest to put our security at risk. There's somethings the American people need to know and some they don't!
-
I am trying to be as objective as possible. Aside from believing he knows more about 911 than he lets on, I have never really considered Cheney to be a liar.
Hearing Carter say it - made me think there might be something to it.
I think it's one thing for Americans to not be told something. To tell us something completely false - do you think that is okay?
-
BTW, I personally think they all lie, just not to the extent that you suggest to put our security at risk. There's somethings the American people need to know and some they don't!
I wonder if the pre-911 intelligence was one of those things that American people didn't "need to know".
Leaders of 11 nations warned bush about the 9/11 attacks. Pentagon brass with flights on 9/11 all cancelled their flights the day before.
I wonder why these folks needed to know, but 2,972 other people didn't.
-
He was in way over his head.
-
I really suggest you go to a library and read a book about Jimmy Carter, or at least try to find reputable sources.
Getting your info here isn't gonna amount to jack shit IMO. The info will always be quite biased, either leftish or rightish.
Don't have any expectations about being the very first person who is able to see through biased information, either.
Read some political biographies, Nixon and Carter are two interesting guys to begin with, as they were presidents during a controversial era. Reagan is also interesting, seeing how he was able to get away with many breaches of international law.
FWIW, it's interesting that people have a hard time finding flaws in what is most important, the domestic politics, when it comes to Carter. Carter is a great diplomat, and a non-aggressor who probably would have been able to deal with the Islamic world, using both sugar and flogging to get the results.
But realistically, would the Carter politics have been as successful as the Reagan Chicken Race tactics with the Russians?
No. Reagan's obsession with arming up forced the Russians bankrupt.
You can't argue with results.
Ironically, without Reagan, the Iron Curtain would've lasted probably another 5-10 years.
Reagan would have been a risk as a president these days, especially with him having alzheimers and shit. But in those days... He was perfect for bringing the Perverted Russian System down.
Reagan's domestic politics seldom gets discussed. Poverty did increase, but other than that, I don't remember much.
You need to read it all yourself I guess. ;D
YIP
Zack
I was born in 1961 and remember those days well. It was tough during Carters years. The out of control interest rates. The lines to get gas. The Vietnam war was still fresh in peoples minds. The Iran hostage crisis. Things started to turn around in 1981 under Reagan. By 1983/1984 things were a lot better.
-
I wonder if the pre-911 intelligence was one of those things that American people didn't "need to know".
Leaders of 11 nations warned bush about the 9/11 attacks. Pentagon brass with flights on 9/11 all cancelled their flights the day before.
I wonder why these folks needed to know, but 2,972 other people didn't.
Of course the American people didn't need to know the intell. Also, you cannot cancel all flights because of a threat, it would devistate the travel world and the economy everywhere. And about the 2972 people, did they know what flights were going to be hijacked??
-
Jimmy Carter was a president who was too soft. Carter should have definitely lost to Gerald Ford in 1976 because Ford was truly in the center when domestic political issues were still not very stable in America. Ford's foreign policy was serious and rational at the same time. Carter didn't have the experience to be president in the late 70's when he tried to make this country look like "the kinder, gentler super power". Carter moved to the left politically and that made America look like it was getting softer and softer after the wounds from Vietnam were still fresh. Carter alienated all the "pick-up truck patriots" that regrettably decided to support him in the 76 campaign.
One of the worst things about Carter is that he got really exposed by Ronald in the debate about a week before the 1980 election. Just by watching it, you would have thought Ronald knew more about what it took to be president than that Georgian diplomat turned polite president.
I dislike Carter because he never admitted that he should have lost to Gerald Ford because he had much more experience than Carter, who became frozen at the wheel because he wasn't prepared to meet the challenge as the federal CEO of America.
-
Of course the American people didn't need to know the intell. Also, you cannot cancel all flights because of a threat, it would devistate the travel world and the economy everywhere. And about the 2972 people, did they know what flights were going to be hijacked??
The intel was very specific, they knew the dates and they knew the targets in Wash and DC.
I argue that the job of the govt is to protect its citizens, right? Even something as simple as putting out a notice of "be extra careful on the 11th" might have prevented some of the problems. Or putting air marshals up there. Or just telling the airlines to keep the cockpit doors shut. The nature of the intel was very specific - For them to weigh 3000 lives against the impact on the airline industry - when they KNEW an attack was coming - was them not doing their job. If you had lost your only child on one of those flights, and Condi had told you there was no warning, and it later came out there were specific warnings, how would you feel?
Then, they denied they knew of any threat. This turned out to be a lie. Condi cuold have at least said "this is classified" when asked on the stand. Looking American in the eye and saying there was no warning - that was a lie.
How are we to believe her a year later when she says this country has WMD or that country is planning something?
It's a credibility issue. If they wanna say "that is classified", then fine. I understand. But Condi and Bush made statements after 911 which were shown to be lies, Joe. They lied to our faces. They didn't decline answering, they lied, and they did this to secure public support for overseas goals. And this is why when they say iran is an imminent threat, I suspect they might again be lying, to garner support for their agenda.
-
I was born in 1961 and remember those days well. It was tough during Carters years. The out of control interest rates. The lines to get gas. The Vietnam war was still fresh in peoples minds. The Iran hostage crisis. Things started to turn around in 1981 under Reagan. By 1983/1984 things were a lot better.
In the 70's, there were the oil crisis and economic depression throughout the world. I don't think neither Nixon, Ford or Carter should be directly blamed for it, although it is interesting studying how they all handled the situations.
To someone living outside of USA, the foreign policy is what matters most. And then Reagan's chicken race with Russia was the quickest way to get rid of that shit - bankrupting Russia.
So Reagan was an excellent president in many ways. The support of Contras and bombings of Libya... lets call it minor mistakes. ;D
YIP
Zack
-
I'm interested in the book he has to be released. Don't remember the name. He hardly even seemed to remember the name when he mentioned it on Larry King. Anyway, for those who don't know, apparently he has written a book on what he thinks should be the plan for the middle east. I'd love to read that. If you know a release date late me know!
-
Jimmy Carter is a great person, however his presidency was tainted by the hostage crisis. Without that cirsis he'd have won the election vs Reagan.
-
Wow....
From Wiki:
1980 Carter vs. Reagan
Main article: October surprise conspiracy
During the Iran hostage crisis, the Republican challenger Ronald Reagan feared a last-minute deal to release the hostages, which would hand incumbent Jimmy Carter a goodwill vote winning the election.
Due to the release of the hostages at the precise moment of Reagan's inauguration on January 20, 1981, rumors surfaced that the Reagan campaign made a "secret hostage deal with the Iranian government" whereby the Iranians would hold the hostages until Reagan was inaugurated, ensuring that Carter would lose the election. Two separate congressional investigations as well as several investigave journalists looked into the charges, both concluding evidence was insufficient.
Three books, all titled October Surprise are major sources detailing the allegations by senior Carter and Reagan staffs (Gary Sick, Barbara Hoeneger) and Robert Parry (an investigative journalist).
-
In the 70's, there were the oil crisis and economic depression throughout the world. I don't think neither Nixon, Ford or Carter should be directly blamed for it, although it is interesting studying how they all handled the situations.
To someone living outside of USA, the foreign policy is what matters most. And then Reagan's chicken race with Russia was the quickest way to get rid of that shit - bankrupting Russia.
So Reagan was an excellent president in many ways. The support of Contras and bombings of Libya... lets call it minor mistakes. ;D
YIP
Zack
I liked President Ronald during that infamous time despite what happened in 1986 and 1987 because he proved that very old-fashion punishing politics is what this republic is all about and proved that God is American and the United States is the property of power patriot politicians.
-
Reagan was hella likable. I was a little kid and always wished he was my grandpa.
-
Reagan was hella likable. I was a little kid and always wished he was my grandpa.
Yeah he sure was, I liked Ol' Ron too.
-
Reagan was hella likable. I was a little kid and always wished he was my grandpa.
Reagan is for a good reason known as The Great Communicator.
He was very good in being "likeable", and someone reputable.
What his domestic politics amounted to... well..
YIP
Zack
-
I wonder if the pre-911 intelligence was one of those things that American people didn't "need to know".
Leaders of 11 nations warned bush about the 9/11 attacks. Pentagon brass with flights on 9/11 all cancelled their flights the day before.
I wonder why these folks needed to know, but 2,972 other people didn't.
lol I thought the US government carried out the 9/11 acts, you need to get your propaganda straight. So did 11 nations call George Bush on the phone and remind him he was killing his fellow Americans that day?
-
lol I thought the US government carried out the 9/11 acts, you need to get your propaganda straight. So did 11 nations call George Bush on the phone and remind him he was killing his fellow Americans that day?
11 nations gave the US warnings that an attack was imminent - some of them even gave the date and location. They knew about the group of AlQ and the money transfers.
it is my belief that some in the us govt knew about the attacks, allowed them to happen, then fought an investigation then lied in the 911 commish.
propaganda? um, i think that's what you've been spoonfed, big guy.
-
11 nations gave the US warnings that an attack was imminent - some of them even gave the date and location. They knew about the group of AlQ and the money transfers.
it is my belief that some in the us govt knew about the attacks, allowed them to happen, then fought an investigation then lied in the 911 commish.
propaganda? um, i think that's what you've been spoonfed, big guy.
It's just odd to me that you post such an array of information about the attacks. One minute the US government used thermite to weaken the steel in the wtc buildings, the next they planted a bunch of bombs (and you even have a fantastic home made chart complete with snoopy to use as hard evidence), and the next minute Al Queada did it but people from all over the world had Bush on speed dial and told him how it was going down. It just seems to me that you need to stick with one story.
-
In the 70's, there were the oil crisis and economic depression throughout the world. I don't think neither Nixon, Ford or Carter should be directly blamed for it, although it is interesting studying how they all handled the situations.
To someone living outside of USA, the foreign policy is what matters most. And then Reagan's chicken race with Russia was the quickest way to get rid of that shit - bankrupting Russia.
So Reagan was an excellent president in many ways. The support of Contras and bombings of Libya... lets call it minor mistakes. ;D
YIP
Zack
Hedge, One thing I have noticed is you are very objective about things. You judge Reagan very fairly and you don't have the knee jerk "hate Bush, hate America" mentality some people on this board have who aren't American have.
-
Hedge, One thing I have noticed is you are very objective about things. You judge Reagan very fairly and you don't have the knee jerk "hate Bush, hate America" mentality some people on this board have who aren't American have.
Appreciate it bro.
And I'm very grateful for my exchange HS year in the Mid West, getting to know America by heart, a year I will always remember.
YIP
Zack
-
It's just odd to me that you post such an array of information about the attacks. One minute the US government used thermite to weaken the steel in the wtc buildings, the next they planted a bunch of bombs (and you even have a fantastic home made chart complete with snoopy to use as hard evidence), and the next minute Al Queada did it but people from all over the world had Bush on speed dial and told him how it was going down. It just seems to me that you need to stick with one story.
Do you have reading comprehension issues?
- Thermate was used to bring down the building. As our govt steadfasedly refuses to test the metal for thermate despite it being found by a physicist on a piece he tested, this clearly shows a coverup. When two 110-story buildings fall in one hour, you usually check for things like bombs.
- Al Q DID do it. They hijacked planes. But they sure as hell didn't call off NORAD or deny an investigation. That was white guys in ties.
- Bush was told that a terror attack was coming by 11 nations leading up to 911. He ignored these, even the very very specific ones that gave the date and locations of the hijackings. It was easy for foreign nations to follow the terrorists' actions - they were sending money and messages all over.
-
Do you have reading comprehension issues?
- Thermate was used to bring down the building. As our govt steadfasedly refuses to test the metal for thermate despite it being found by a physicist on a piece he tested, this clearly shows a coverup. When two 110-story buildings fall in one hour, you usually check for things like bombs.
Do you have chemistry comprehension issues?
A thermite reaction is simply a reaction between aluminum and rust. The products are aluminum oxide and iron. I promise I can find evidence of that in my house right now.
-
Do you have chemistry comprehension issues?
A thermite reaction is simply a reaction between aluminum and rust. The products are aluminum oxide and iron. I promise I can find evidence of that in my house right now.
He found very traceable military grade nanothermite.
Do you have that in your house too?
If so, you'd better log off and run like hell :)
Seriously - the explosives used were rare and very traceable. Not used in any way with buildings or planes, nor with controlled demo companies. Only by military and paramilitary units. Do you see why testing one pound of metal could reveal so much about what really happened that day?
You DO want to know the truth about that day, right? If explosives WERE used, it should come out, right? ???
-
He found very traceable military grade nanothermite.
Do you have that in your house too?
If so, you'd better log off and run like hell :)
Seriously - the explosives used were rare and very traceable. Not used in any way with buildings or planes, nor with controlled demo companies. Only by military and paramilitary units. Do you see why testing one pound of metal could reveal so much about what really happened that day?
You DO want to know the truth about that day, right? If explosives WERE used, it should come out, right? ???
I don't claim to know too much about any of this, but I took some college chemistry and saw a thermite reaction carried out, that's about it though. Since I didn't know anything about nanothermite I looked it up.
http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=14105&ch=nanotech
Nanothermite is really small particles of aluminum reacted with rust. Since the surface area is so small the reaction goes alot faster and it makes alot more heat. Okay....so how is it that "military and paramilitary units" are the only people that know how to react really small particles of aluminum with rust. Since these reactions create so much more heat, they don't need as much. So get me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that mean the products would be the same, but there would just be less? The products are still aluminum oxide and iron....and I promise I can find traces of that right now.
-
Nanothermite has a different chem composition than regular thermite. It also burns cooler and has a few other characteristics which makes it a very expensive, very rare, yet very effective tool if you wanted to bring down a building.
The most exciting thing about it - it can be traced. Much like they can smell a nuclear bombing site and trace the nuke 'signature' to the country and often year of origin, nanothermite is the same way. People really want to know if it was used, or not. One small test, if it showed none was used, would shut up 50% of the 911 skeptics, easily. Or, it could ignite a nation's emotions and leave a lot of people very very pissed off, if it showed that explosives were used. Especially if these explosives were mae by a friendly nation or our own :(
-
Nanothermite has a different chem composition than regular thermite. It also burns cooler and has a few other characteristics which makes it a very expensive, very rare, yet very effective tool if you wanted to bring down a building.
The most exciting thing about it - it can be traced. Much like they can smell a nuclear bombing site and trace the nuke 'signature' to the country and often year of origin, nanothermite is the same way. People really want to know if it was used, or not. One small test, if it showed none was used, would shut up 50% of the 911 skeptics, easily. Or, it could ignite a nation's emotions and leave a lot of people very very pissed off, if it showed that explosives were used. Especially if these explosives were mae by a friendly nation or our own :(
It burns cooler....hmmm wouldn't that defeat the whole purpose of using it to melt steel. Not to mention that would also break the laws of thermodynamics. It puts out more energy, that energy is released in the form of heat.
-
It burns cooler....hmmm wouldn't that defeat the whole purpose of using it to melt steel. Not to mention that would also break the laws of thermodynamics. It puts out more energy, that energy is released in the form of heat.
research it.
they needed something to melt steel to cut the support beams. It didn't have to burn at 3000 to do it. There are great videos out there, and lots of webpages, where peolpe who have spent years researching the topic, can say it better than I can.
All I want is a new investigation to look at the questions that remain. A truly independent investigation - the leaders of the last one had monster Bush Co oil ties..
-
research it.
they needed something to melt steel to cut the support beams. It didn't have to burn at 3000 to do it. There are great videos out there, and lots of webpages, where peolpe who have spent years researching the topic, can say it better than I can.
All I want is a new investigation to look at the questions that remain. A truly independent investigation - the leaders of the last one had monster Bush Co oil ties..
That comes back to my original question. Let's say they used thermite to cut the support beams(which I don't believe but that's not what this is about), a plane could hit it and knock the building down easily. Why would they need all of these bombs you say they had?
Second question- Do you watch Loose Change while you rub one out?
-
That comes back to my original question. Let's say they used thermite to cut the support beams(which I don't believe but that's not what this is about), a plane could hit it and knock the building down easily. Why would they need all of these bombs you say they had?
Because no, they could not "knock over the buildings easily" with planes. Those buildings could take a 140 mph hurricane. You are absolutely incorrect in your statement and I challenge you to find ANYTHING which says that planes could "knock over the buildings easily"
Second question- Do you watch Loose Change while you rub one out?
Grow up man. 3000 dead Americans, the biggest crime of our lifetimes.
Here is some pretty good demolition info:
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-7143212690219513043
-
Forget about what kind of president he was. Any former president that comes out and rips into a current president, should be put away for treasen...
-
Forget about what kind of president he was. Any former president that comes out and rips into a current president, should be put away for treasen...
people drop that word like it's no big thang.
-
Because no, they could not "knock over the buildings easily" with planes. Those buildings could take a 140 mph hurricane. You are absolutely incorrect in your statement and I challenge you to find ANYTHING which says that planes could "knock over the buildings easily"
What I meant is that a plane could knock down a building easily if the steel supports were melted with thermite. I meant that there would really be no need for bombs on top of that. Just seems like overkill to me. And by the way, I understand that the buildings were built to handle a category 4 hurricane, but how do you compare 140 mph wind to a 500 mph plane.
-
What I meant is that a plane could knock down a building easily if the steel supports were melted with thermite. I meant that there would really be no need for bombs on top of that. Just seems like overkill to me. And by the way, I understand that the buildings were built to handle a category 4 hurricane, but how do you compare 140 mph wind to a 500 mph plane.
The thermite had to be ignited. Explosives were used for this. As you can see when the buildings fall, there are a series of dustjet, or squibs. Explosions of bringing down 1/110 of a building ae massive. The plane could hit one area, but all those areas nderneath couldn't just explode at the same time. Instead, a collapse was used to mask the demo going on beneath each floor
-
Hahahaha . . . 240 getting owned all over the place.
-
The thermite had to be ignited. Explosives were used for this. As you can see when the buildings fall, there are a series of dustjet, or squibs. Explosions of bringing down 1/110 of a building ae massive. The plane could hit one area, but all those areas nderneath couldn't just explode at the same time. Instead, a collapse was used to mask the demo going on beneath each floor
lol like I said I've seen a thermite reaction in a college chemistry class and my teacher didn't need a bomb to start it.
-
i give up. Do your research. No way possible that you can watch the 911 Mystery video and believe the official story. No way at all.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003
If you can watch this, seriously watch it, and tell me that you still buy the official story, I'll be completely shocked. This movie came out on 9/11/06 and most agree that it demonstrates the case for a controlled demolition better than any other clip to date.
If you're honestly interested in a very strong case for controlled demolition, check it out. If not, feel free to call it crazy conspiracy crap and have a laugh and yell 'owned'. This movie was made by a very strong republican and avoids politics. Just evidence.
-
people drop that word like it's no big thang.
Carter is the single reason the extremist run Iran...