Third Party & Independents: Archives

This is obviously just another showing of cowardice by the administration. Everyone knows that Bush can’t put together a strong, meaningful, and cohesive sentence on his own, let alone a sentence to counter an argument by an opponent. It is really sad when the president of a democratic country goes to such great lengths to keep dissenters out of his supposedly “open” Q&A sessions. I thought that the Secret Service was meant to protect the life of the president, not protect his reputation when he can’t create a good, meaningful answer to the questions or comments of his opponents.

This seems to be extremely dumb, though I can see the Secret Service’s point. Basically, while I might call it dumb, I wouldn’t get too worried about it if the opposite had happened - say Kerry was elected and the Secret Service shooed a few people out because they had “Swift-boats for Truth” bumper stickers. Basically, if I were the Secret Service leader, I would let them in (though maybe take a quick look at them). If I was one of the people escorted out, I would be annoyed, but not terribly so. It’s not a big deal.

Not a big deal? Do you know how many corrupt myopic Leaders surround themselves with Yes-Men? ALL OF THEM!!! When you close yourself off from dissent, you will soon believe the hype you spout.

Case in point. There are already reports that Bush is planning an airstrike against Iran in April. Who wants to take bets it will happen?

Remember that “promise” by Condi Rice that an invasion of Iran isn’t on the adiminstration’s agenda? I’d warn everyone to beware of an attempt to clarify that “promise” by the administration very soon. Hell, they might even be able to manipulate the media so far that the average American might actually believe that the “promise” was never made.

Daniel -

This seems to be extremely dumb, though I can see the Secret Service’s point.

The Secret Service’s point? What point is that? To restrain individuals who have done no wrong? To prevent our right to public assembly? Saying that this is not that big of a deal is exactly what will gradually sell out all of the freedom we have, bit by bit. This is another example of the government’s increasing exercise of power, designed to gradually adjust the American public to our new police state.

On the Secret Service’s having a point …

To protect the president. If I am a guard, I might be a little nervous if I thought a member of the audience hated the person I was supposed to guard. Like I said, I think it wasn’t a good idea. I just also think this isn’t a big deal.

I’ve noticed that the center column overwhelmingly tends to post on subjects critical of the current administration, not its opposition. This doesn’t seem quite fair - don’t you guys ever have a problem with the Democrats? I suppose it might be just that the Republicans happen to be in power now, so you oppose whatever group is in power. I’ll have to wait and see what happens if a Democrat wins the White House.

“Case in point. There are already reports that Bush is planning an airstrike against Iran in April. Who wants to take bets it will happen?”

When the left was screaming about invading Iraq and saying that it made more sense to invade Iran or N.Korea and that Bush should have done it…. now it’s a bad idea?

Case in point. Even if Bush did exactly as the left wants they would still say it is wrong.

Daniel,

While it may seem like it, most people who show opposition to the administration do not hate Bush, they simply disagree with his views. You can’t simply assume that someone is going to be violent based solely on a non-violent bumpersticker. “No More Blood For Oil” shows absolutely no threat of violence towards Bush. If anything it is anti-agression.

I don’t believe that this move had anything to do with security. It was simply to keep anyone out of the assembly who might ask a question that Bush might not be able to answer “intelligently”. As if he could for any amiable question.

Ryan -

Then the Secret Service would have orders to deny entrace to everyone except a chosen few.

Daniel,

And you don’t believe that they screen people who go into there? It’s widely known that the questions are either scripted or pre-censored before anyone can ask them.

bugcrazy:

I have no problem going to war. I have a problem going to war ignorant and stupid. Then they have the gall to blame Enlisted Men and the CIA for the foul-up.

And how productive would any of these assemblies be if they were full of people screaming ‘You Suck.’
Democrats don’t like it either and I haven’t seen any big stories that read ‘100 Hecklers let in to a Dems Assembly - Yelling ‘you suck’ in unison.’

bugcrazy,

Of course an assembly that is just screaming back and forth is not going to help anyone. It will only be torn up my the media.

But you can’t be against a solid debate on issues. That is exactly what the administration is trying to avoid. They allow questions that are slightly dissenting, on topics on which the president has already been briefed, to make it seem as if he can come up with some answers. But they aren’t allowing any true debate. It is pure propaganda. Bush would have it no other way.

“Then they have the gall to blame Enlisted Men and the CIA for the foul-up.”

I never heard anyone blame enlisted men for starting the war under false pretenses. I know people who are and have served over there and none of them have been blamed for anything.

Are you trying to say that the CIA had no responsibility in the matter? None at all? I’d say that opinion comes from someone who can’t or won’t find fault with anyone but Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld. Last I knew, there are a lot more people in charge of what our government does than those 3.

Which foul-up? There have been so many according to the left * because they would have done it all better * after the fact.

Ryan,

Bush is not the only one who has questions screened.
It seems as though people are trying to claim that he is the only one.
Yes. Debate. Hecklers are not there to debate.
I have heard plenty of questions asked of Bush that he had to think of an answer and not just recite it.
The guy from CNN (Anderson Cooper maybe?)is good at asking things Bush hasn’t rehearsed for.
It is easy to tell with him when it isn’t rehearsed.
Just because he doesn’t speak ‘like’ a lawyer or ‘politician’ doesn’t mean he is ignorant.
That would mean that the majority of us are ignorant. Unless of course there are more lawyers than us ordinary folk now.
There are just as many people on the left that are not debating.
Debates work much better when someone doesn’t start out with ‘Your idea is stupid and will never work.’

Daniel, if you look as some articles in the archives here during the run up to the election, you will find a fair amount of critical articles of Kerry and his platform. I was one, and there were two other writers I remember who were just as critical of Kerry’s potential as of Bush’s performance now.

To respond to some accusations of bias:

The current administration is receiving criticism because they are the ones currently making and implementing the policies which encroach upon our freedoms. You don’t have to look too far back to see my columns on the Red side.

Daniel:

If I am a guard, I might be a little nervous if I thought a member of the audience hated the person I was supposed to guard.

As it has been pointed out, a bumpersticker hardly indicates hatred, for one. Even if a sticker could be used in such a way, it is not certain that the sticker was placed on the car by one of the three individuals attending the meeting that night. So dismissal of this incident as ‘protection’ of the president is ludicrous.

As far as this being “not a big deal”:
Taken by itself, it may be dismissable, but it is not by itself. It is a piece of a larger picture which shows a lack of commitment to due process by those who are charged with protecting our freedoms. Tell me how that is not of the utmost importance to all of us.

And as for the discussion of Bush screening questions:

That’s not really the point either. Do you think that any question or comment from the public will cause Bush to change his rhetoric on policy? Do you think that he’s scared of the media painting him as an idiot? It didn’t seem to stop him from getting a second term…

We have seen this administration pushing for power over personal liberty, and small steps like this make headway towards the public accepting a military state. And if we don’t stand up for the little things, we may end up losing our opportunity to take a stand at all, and that is the point.

AParker,

The problem is, when you cry wolf people are not going to listen when a wolf does indeed come after you. This story is about as much of a non-story as can exist and here you are making a big deal about it.

When the time does come when Bush (or anyone else) does do something that needs addressed, it’s ignored mostly because of people who cry wolf for years when only sheep are on the scene.

Has there been overreaches by the government? Yeah, it happens all the time, and the judicial is brought in and sorts it out and sets the lines in place. No administration that I can remember (and I’m going back to the Nixon days) has avoided overstepping it’s bounds in this sort of thing and for the most part the judicial branch has done it’s job. Unfortunately, not in all cases and we must be diligent, but those of us that are genuinely concerned about personal rights can’t help feeling that the cause is being hurt by those who cry wolf…

Aldous and Ryan, and surprise! AParker, I completely agree with your points.

For all W’s use of the word, we are not living in Freedom when American’s are being removed preemptively from public events in order to silence them.
I think the secret service has the right to pat down anyone who they suspect might pose a threat to the president, but certainly not pre-emptively remove them from his presence simply because they may ask a question he is either embarrassed over, clueless of, or made uncomfortable by.
If people begin loudly heckling at public events they are almost always quickly removed — I’m sure we’ve all seen this at once at one time or another. But I don’t think this is about the threat of heckling, I think it is about limiting our first amendment right to free speech so that the president may avoid having to answer perfectly reasonable questions.
These guys are proving time and again — in the TV media, within public events, and as we all now know, even in the White House press room, that it is THEY who will control the message.
And all of it is an insult to our intelligence.

When you add up so many things that this administration does, from this articles topic, to the Patriot Act, to citizens being held without charge in jail, to the way they went to war, to our tax dollars going for government propaganda, and even to their actions during the recent Terri Schiavo case (has anyone else read what the Fla. Supreme Court Judge came out and said today?), they continue to display the scarily ominous fact that they have not a single shred of respect for our for our Constitution — the very lifeblood of American Democracy — and that they are trying to destroy both it, and the whole foundational idea of the balance of powers.
I don’t know about you guys, but more time goes by, the more sobering this fact becomes for me.

I know that many feel that we shouldn’t overreact as they go about abridging our rights and changing things bit by bit — but the truth is, we’re really supposed to view any leaders who are the enemy of the Constitution as the complete and total enemies of We the People.

Case in point.

From a story about the Secret Service removing a few people they felt, rightly or wrongly, might be a problem from an event to the end of freedom as we now it and the further entreanchment of a fasciast regieme.

And normal people are suppose to take this serious?

Oh, and I might add that it’s a bit hard to take serious the ‘news article’ that has a problem with such an obvious typo in the title of the story, especially a couple of days after it was posted. I normally like wired news but come on…

REMOVEL?

There’s also nothing to back up any of the claims. Amazing what passes for journalism these days.

You’ll forgive me if I don’t start the revolution tomorrow…

Rhinehold-

but those of us that are genuinely concerned about personal rights can’t help feeling that the cause is being hurt by those who cry wolf…

And there are those of us who are genuinely concerned that the american public is being convinced that its okay if the government oversteps its bounds every once in a while. Because, of course, they’re all well intentioned and are only interested in protecting us. Besides, most of the time, things get worked out in the end and that’s just the price you pay for freedom. You may have your freedom stepped on, but its for the greater good, and doesn’t that make you feel okay about it?

When the time does come when Bush (or anyone else) does do something that needs addressed, it’s ignored mostly because of people who cry wolf for years when only sheep are on the scene.

Or perhaps it will ignored because it won’t be played by the major media and it doesn’t involve celebrity scandal. I’m not calling for public outrage at this individual situation. Rather I’m pointing out how those in power are getting bolder in their encroachment of personal liberties.

Rhinehold-

So, you’ll trust that the Bush administration cares about protecting your freedoms, but you’ll throw out items on the AP wire? This is not some fringe story on a conspiracy site. The typo doesn’t discredit the story, it’s an AP problem, since it’s like that on all 27 sites from Google News.

… to the end of freedom as we now it and the further entreanchment of a fasciast regieme.

Are you claiming that I’m heralding the ‘end of freedom as we know it’? Because if you read what I wrote, I’m only saying things like this are important, and we must take them seriously to protect our rights lest such ‘entrenchment of a facist regime’ (your words, not mine) come upon us.

For someone who is “genuinely concerned”, you seem to like putting extremist statements in my mouth, and discrediting me for those views which I never purported in the first place.

Excellent article, Andrew. Just FYI, the Secret Service didn’t remove those guys, it was a Bush staffer. The guys thought it was done by order of the Secret Service, but the SS (ahem) claim they knew nothing about it until after the fact.

Here’s the part that kills me: Bush is going around the country, supposedly to convince Americans that privatizing Social Security is a good thing. But he, or his handlers, only invite like-minded conservatives to hear his argument.

If anybody in the packed and sweltering gym objected to Bush’s plan, it was not evident. The White House distributes tickets to congressional offices and organizations to hand out to supporters to prevent heckling.

While it looks good on TV to have everyone in lockstep giving standing ovations every five seconds, it’s really not going to help when it comes to getting constituents to write their representatives in support of Bush’s scheme.

That seems obvious, so why are they going through the motions? Where’s the flaw in my reasoning? Is the image of everyone agreeing with the President really enough to change other people’s minds?

BTW, Kerry always had plenty of hecklers with banners at his rallies. If you can’t handle that kind of thing, you’re just a big pussy.

AP-

Thanks for your support.

The guys thought it was done by order of the Secret Service, but the SS (ahem) claim they knew nothing about it until after the fact.

Yes, certainly Bush staffers have the capacity to screeen all the vehicles of all participants in the meeting without assistance. I don’t know how many were in attendance, but matching three people with their car after they’ve passed security and were being seated? Unreal, they had to have assistance.

“For all W’s use of the word, we are not living in Freedom when American’s are being removed preemptively from public events in order to silence them….If people begin loudly heckling at public events they are almost always quickly removed — I’m sure we’ve all seen this at once at one time or another. But I don’t think this is about the threat of heckling, I think it is about limiting our first amendment right to free speech so that the president may avoid having to answer perfectly reasonable questions. These guys are proving time and again — in the TV media, within public events, and as we all now know, even in the White House press room, that it is THEY who will control the message.”

Well said, Adrienne. This is just another example of “controlling the message”.

- W

“That seems obvious, so why are they going through the motions? Where’s the flaw in my reasoning? Is the image of everyone agreeing with the President really enough to change other people’s minds?”

AP, who was it that said if you repeat the lie often enough, people will begin to belive it?

You don’t need to answer, I am just trying to make a point.
If you remove the dissenters before they have a chance to dissent, are they realy dissenters?

The right doesn’t want to hear anything from anybody that doesn’t fit their small ideas of the way America should be.
Mr. Bush knows whats better for America than Americans, in the ramp up to Iraq he said so himself.

Rhinehold:
“From a story about the Secret Service removing a few people they felt, rightly or wrongly, might be a problem from an event to the end of freedom as we now it”

No, its by comtemplating everything that they’ve been doing and looking at it as a whole that we are able see that they are, and indeed already have, changed the meaning of freedom as America has always known it.

“And normal people are suppose to take this serious?”

Every attack on our rights and every deviation from the Constitution should be viewed as Deadly Serious.
If you think I’m abnormal for feeling that way and can’t take my word for it, just read a few of these quotes from the concurrence issued by Judge Birch (who btw, was appointed to his position by a republican) regarding the unconstitutionality of what they did in the Schaivo case.

“You’ll forgive me if I don’t start the revolution tomorrow…”

The revolution, in my opinion, needs to happen within the Republican Party. The real Republicans need to unload these Neocons because whatever it is they think they’re doing, it sure ain’t American.

Why shouldn’t people be screened? The left are violent at these public events. For a group of people that promote passivism, the left is extremely violent. Would you rather see someone attack the president with pies as they did Bill Crystal, or throw salad dressing on him as they did Pat Buchanan, or perhaps threaten bodily harm as they tried to do to Ann Coulter? I’m sure some of you will answer yes, because that’s just the way you are. If I were in the president’s shoes I would do the same because you people on the left can not be trusted to act civilized. Can you tell us of a time when a conservative physically attacked a liberal because they didn’t like what he was saying. The left are like the “playground bully”. If a conservative says something he doesn’t like, he is attacked. So much for debate. Throw a pie or throw a punch, it doesn’t make any difference. Liberal groups such as PETA physically attack people from behind a mask. Liberal environmental groups burn houses and destroy property and hide behind a mask. Why shouldn’t liberal groups act this way? Didn’t they learn these tactics from their forefathers, such as the Klan? Hide in darkness and attack from behind a mask.

It has nothing to do with free speech or debate. This topic is like so many others on this site. Just an opportunity to bash the president. The left are loosing on every front: the House, the Senate, the Presidency, ideas, and a place in history. The next fight you have is the Judiciary. Fight for those liberal judges who assume the role of the legislative. Fight for them while you can because they will be the next to go. Then the only thing left will be the liberal whores in the institutions of higher learning. The left is loosing there too. They may require students to write papers and answer tests according to their liberal ideals under threat of a failing grade, but when those students face the real world they will know the truth. A professor (if you can call him that) like Churchill is a disgrace and a shame to those who dedicate their lives to teaching and yet, the left would defend this slug to their dying breath. You cry about Constitutional rights and yet would support a man like this who could pervert young minds.

I agree with an earlier writer, this center column is no different from the left column. So many of you are quick to write, “I’m a moderate”, but except or a few, you are all liberals. You sound like so many broken records, each sounding like the other. For all the pseudo education you have, is there not one on the left who can think for himself and come up with an original thought?

“Why shouldn’t people be screened? The left are violent at these public events. For a group of people that promote passivism, the left is extremely violent. Would you rather see someone attack the president with pies as they did Bill Crystal, or throw salad dressing on him as they did Pat Buchanan, or perhaps threaten bodily harm as they tried to do to Ann Coulter?”

Blaine,

That is just crap. There is enough security at a Presidential event that nothing such as that would ever happen.
The three you mention deserve pies in the face. Especialy Coulter.
The threat to this country through lack of discourse, is greater than the possibility that Mr. Bush would ever get hit in the face with a pie.

Blaine -

Your attempts to point this as an unfounded attack on the right will not succeed.

Look at the list of writers in the Red Column, you will find me there. I’m not a ‘liberal’, I’m a conservative evangelical christian, but not like the ones the media puts on TV to control your stereotypes, I’m a true believer in Christ and his message.

Why shouldn’t people be screened? The left are violent at these public events.

What is your point? The reason for law enforcement is to punish those who break laws, not to prevent persons from breaking laws. To quote one of my favorite movies, “The Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint!” And that is exactly what this story is. Prior restraint, and it seems, by your comments, that you’ve already swallowed the bait and the hook. You really believe that law enforcement should be granted the power to restrain individuals who they think might break the law. Wake up and realize that this is unconstitutional, and we shouldn’t lie down and take it, saying “its not that big of a deal”.

Any one who believes that this is a “non-story” is willfully blinding themselves to a repeated and large-scale effort by this administration to remove dissent from the public eye. Dissent still exists, as I’m sure you can find many examples on this site, however, the vast majority of the public relies upon television (or even newspapers) as their source of daily news. These mainstream sources display the carefully orchestrated theatre with pre chosen questions that the Administration masquerades as a free and open debate. This deception alone should be enough to alarm any “genuinely concerned” member of the electorate.
Bush and his handlers have removed citizens who had tickets from what was supposed to be a “town hall meeting”. This is a fact, another fact is that this is a nation based upon government for the people and by the people, and this is slowly being changed to Government over the people dictated by a small elite group of like-minded people who are convinced that they know what is best for the world. The fact that their manipulation is beautiful in its execution and has so many people believing them is scary; it makes me think about how the German people were able to let a group like the Nazi’s come to power.

Blaine,

The Ann Coulters of the world would only allow you exercise your first amendment rights only if they aggreed with you.

I don’t care what side of the political fence you’re on, this story has to scare the bejesus out of you.

BTW, Rocky, have you seen the video clip of Coulter getting hit with those pies? Google it and watch if you haven’t, it’s amusing.

Rocky:

“The three you mention deserve pies in the face. Especialy Coulter.”

Thank you Rocky, you proved my point. That’s the way you are, you can’t help it. Playground bullies, and you hate another point of view.

AParker:

Don’t jump to conclusions, I said, “I agree with an earlier writer, this center column is no different from the left column.”

I was talking about Daniel, who said, “I’ve noticed that the center column overwhelmingly tends to post on subjects critical of the current administration, not its opposition. This doesn’t seem quite fair - don’t you guys ever have a problem with the Democrats?”

I never said anything about law enforcement, you brought that up. I believe anyone has the right to protect themselves from an antagonist, and trust me, that is what those people are.

Would you go to speak before a group of people about your “conservative evangelical christian” beliefs if you knew someone was going to throw a pie in your face?

Vex:

You are right, to a certain extent, they are orchestrated. Now be truthful with me, do you think Kerry’s of Hillary’s, or any other politician’s town hall meetings would be any different? Are they not all set up, except for the occasional party crasher?

I don’t think this calls for a comparison to the nazis.

Blaine:
“anyone has the right to protect themselves from an antagonist, and trust me, that is what those people are.”

Wait, wait, don’t tell me…
Adolph Hitler in 1935?

Blaine, Kerry’s rallies always had hecklers with banners. He didn’t kick them out before they started trouble. It’s a free country - so far…

AP:

Kerry couldn’t kick them out. He was campaigning. Bush is not. He already won, “twice”.

Adrienne:

It’s a shame you haven’t lived under a dictator like Hitler. Then you could tell us all about.

Blaine,
Why are you trolling? Just curious.

I’m sure cake would fix the problem… Why don’t we all just sit down and have some cake together? Then we could stop all this blog hatin’ T_T

“Thank you Rocky, you proved my point. That’s the way you are, you can’t help it.”

Blaine,

Whatever are you talking about? I would think that Miss Coulter is the “schoolyard bully”.

Have you ever attended a speach or event where the Secret Service provided security?

I had they opportunity to work as a tech at the ‘96 Republican Convention. During the production meeting we were told the the Secret Service had no sense of humor at all, and not to mess with them. This was obviously before Sept,11.

It is important that “Town Hall” political meetings are open to every voter, not just sychophants.

Daniel,

Please enlighten me, where did this “liberal” caused violence take place?

Adrienne said:

“Why are you trolling? Just curious.

I’m not quite sure what you mean by trolling. I’m assuming you believe I do not have the right to have an opinion or maybe to express that opinion. Are you critiquing the message or the messenger? I have noticed that when a liberal posts a message, it is followed by a list of liberals praising the post. But, when someone disagrees, they are attacked as uninformed and ignorant. You are so concerned about your constitutional rights and yet try to deny my 1st amendment rights. Typical leftist.

Rocky said:

“Whatever are you talking about? I would think that Miss Coulter is the “schoolyard bully”….Please enlighten me, where did this “liberal” caused violence take place?”

The “schoolyard bully” is the one who is violent. Can you tell me when Ann Coulter physically attacked another person on a stage? It was reported just a couple of days ago, the attack on Bill Crystal with pies and Pat Buchanan with salad dressing. AParker was able to find the video of Coulter being hit and I’m sure you couild too, since you are a “tech”. Is this considered violence or do think it’s just fun and games? If I remember correctly, the man who attacked Ann Coulter was taken down by a couple of men and was ruffed up a little before the police arrived.

Let me ask you the same question I asked earlier, would you go to speak before a group of people about your beliefs if you knew someone was going to throw a pie in your face? If they did attack you, would you consider it a violent act?

Blaine:
“I’m not quite sure what you mean by trolling.”

Let’s see, how about:

* “the left is extremely violent”
* “people on the left can not be trusted to act civilized.”
* “The left are like the “playground bully”.”
* “Why shouldn’t liberal groups act this way? Didn’t they learn these tactics from their forefathers, such as the Klan?”
* “liberal whores in the institutions of higher learning.”
* “you are all liberals. You sound like so many broken records, each sounding like the other. For all the pseudo education you have, is there not one on the left who can think for himself and come up with an original thought?”
* “anyone has the right to protect themselves from an antagonist, and trust me, that is what those people are.”
* “Typical leftist.”

Trolling. Your comments are full of hate. How you square that with your Christianity, I haven’t a clue.
Trolling adds nothing to a discussion, in fact, it derails discussion. All it does is incite incendiary outrage at those it is directed toward. It may well be free speech, but it isn’t intelligent speech.

“I have noticed that when a liberal posts a message, it is followed by a list of liberals praising the post.”

Praise is good. And conservatives also do this.

“But, when someone disagrees, they are attacked as uninformed and ignorant.”

Argument and Debate is good. And conservatives do this too.

Why blog on a site with three separate columns and people who hold many and various political viewpoints if you are fearful or made angry when challenged to defend yours?

“You are so concerned about your constitutional rights”

Yes, that is the topic, and they are important to all American’s, left, right, and center. Personally, I’ve been surprised and delighted to find myself wholeheartedly agreeing with AParker — someone whose posts I often don’t go along with — because I am a liberal and he is either a libertarian or a conservative. If you hadn’t decided to merely troll, I just might have found something I agreed with you about, but instead, all I’ve seen is sweeping statements and generalized distain for liberalism.

Blaine,

Coulter is a pompus moron and while she has the right to speak what she belives, doesn’t belive that anyone that dissaggrees with her, should be able to do the same. She is more interested in her bile filled, derisive, message of hate, than anyone else’s opinion. She is typical of the neo-con right, who’s goal is to divide America.

So much for the first amendment.

“If I remember correctly, the man who attacked Ann Coulter was taken down by a couple of men and was ruffed up a little before the police arrived.”

A shaving cream pie in the face is violence?
I suppose that “ruffing the guy up” is ok.
Grow up pal.
Unlike Ms. Coulter, Mr Buchanan and Mr. Crystal have my respect, and probably took the pie in the spirit it was given.
Have we in this country come so far away from our collective introspection, that our ego’s rule everything?

Humility is a virtue.

The neo-con right could use a healthy dose of it.

This is absolutely outrageous. We’ve got someone here whose only interest is to derail the actual topic, and start people arguing with him instead of talking about what actually happened.

Blaine:

Don’t jump to conclusions, I said, “I agree with an earlier writer, this center column is no different from the left column.”

So tell me how I’m jumping to a conclusion here. You quote yourself as saying exactly what I responded to. I countered this statement by explaining that I’m a conservative evangelical Christian.

I believe anyone has the right to protect themselves from an antagonist, and trust me, that is what those people are.

Trust you? Why? Do you know these three individuals? Do you have evidence that they had some nefarious scheme going? You don’t know that these individuals are antagonistic just like you don’t even know that any one of them placed the sticker on their car. There is absolutely no evidence to assert that these people even disagreed with Bush.

Would you go to speak before a group of people about your “conservative evangelical christian” beliefs if you knew someone was going to throw a pie in your face?

Sir, I do tell people about my beliefs although quite a number of people are clearly quite opposed to my viewpoint. The point is that you can never know what someone else is going to do, and if your message is important enough to you, you will share it regardless of the consequences.

I don’t think this calls for a comparison to the nazis.

Really? It seems to have all the characteristics of Nazi political ideology written all over it. It has the characteristics of every socialist ideology, not just the Nazis… It may seem extreme to make the comparison, but do the research for yourself. If we don’t learn from history, we’re bound to repeat it.

It’s a shame you haven’t lived under a dictator like Hitler. Then you could tell us all about.

Where the heck does that come from? First, this seems rather offensive, and second, we don’t need first hand experience to recognize historical fact. Hitler did similar things in his rise to power.

The �schoolyard bully� is the one who is violent.

So, physical violence seems to be the only thing you’ll accept as violent. We see all kinds of hate speech from Ms. Coulter in her lectures and publications. Your claims here are clearly outrageous.

It is obvious to me that you are here to try and turn our concern about this situation into hatred for you, and along with it, increase our dislike of conservatives (especially those who like Coulter). It will not work, just like I said in my previous post.

So, Blaine, I guess the question is - are you an independent agitator, or do you work for the government? Because I can’t really understand what your point is through all of your posts, except to make outlandish statements towards the people who have been making solid points on this thread. You know, traditional methods of agitation don’t work too well in a forum like this. We can see exactly what you’ve said, and you can’t talk over us. You can’t obscure our message like you could in real life by shouting us down. You can make whatever response to my statements here that you like, but since you refuse to make a point with your statements, I will treat your posts like I do the other agitating posts, and ignore them. That’s another reason this forum doesn’t work for agitators. You can try all you like, but we don’t have to respond, and you can’t interrupt us, or cloud our message.

“From an interview on the October 22 edition of ABC Radio Networks’ The Sean Hannity Show:

COULTER: A couple alleged males attempted to sucker punch a 100-pound woman and missed. And they ended up with their faces smashed in and spending the night in the Pima County Jail, where I’m sure — being good liberals — their views on gay marriage will serve them well.”

This from a fine upstanding American.

So are we supposed to give a pass to the White House for closing “Town Hall” meetings on the subject of Social Security reform, to anyone but the most sympathetic?
If Mr. Bush only hears what he wants to hear, it only serves to create an even greater gap between the President and reality.

To All:

You must excuse me; perhaps I’m not up on the proper protocol for writing on this web page. I thought we were supposed to insult the opposition as much as possible. That is what I gathered from reading many posts in all three columns. In this column alone, I have noted a few things:

Ryan said, “This is obviously just another showing of cowardice by the administration.”
I consider calling a man a coward as an insult.

Aldous said, “There are already reports that Bush is planning an airstrike against Iran in April.”
If this can’t be proven, then it is an unfounded lie.

Adrienne said, “The revolution, in my opinion, needs to happen within the Republican Party. The real Republicans need to unload these Neocons because whatever it is they think they’re doing, it sure ain’t American.”
So anyone with a different opinion is un-American?

Rocky said, “The three you mention deserve pies in the face. Especially Coulter.”
I think anyone should be able to speak on any subject without fear of intimidation. This intimidation is what Hitler’s thugs did. I would be ashamed if anyone on the right threw a pie in Hillary’s face and I completely disagree with her.

Vex compared the Bush administration to the Nazi’s.
I think that type of talk is uncalled for.

Aparker said, “BTW, Rocky, have you seen the video clip of Coulter getting hit with those pies? Google it and watch if you haven’t, it’s amusing.”
Now that statement is a good Christian testimony.

Rocky said, “Coulter is a pompus moron…She is more interested in her bile filled, derisive, message of hate, than anyone else’s opinion. She is typical of the neo-con right”.
What can I say about Rocky’s words, I’m sure there is no hate there? Are neo-cons anything like neo-nazis? I wonder?

To Adrienne:
Is trolling like trolling for a fish? Or is it like the “Troll in Central Park”? Who are you to judge my Christian beliefs? Are you insinuating that because I am a Christian I should merely laugh at our President being called ignorant, shub, illiterate, fool, a joke, or how many other terms has the left called him, on these very pages? Many years ago, I took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States. I would have taken a bullet for the Democratic President at that time and if called upon, I would do it today. I’m sorry you don’t have enough pride in the country that has given you so much to feel the same way.

To Aparker:

What is outrageous is the total lack of respect for a man who was duly elected twice to the seat of President of the United States. The pages of this web site are merely a place where people, domestic and foreign, can cast their insults at anyone who disagrees with them. Don’t accuse me of hatred. I have no hatred except for ignorance. The topic of this post was whether the President’s men have the right to screen people, and I say yes they do. I find no conspiracy in this screening process.

You said, “Trust you? Why? Do you know these three individuals? Do you have evidence that they had some nefarious scheme going? You don’t know that these individuals are antagonistic just like you don’t even know that any one of them placed the sticker on their car. There is absolutely no evidence to assert that these people even disagreed with Bush.”
I believe we have a big misunderstanding. I was not talking about the three who were screened; I was talking about the three who attacked Coulter, Crystal, and Buchanan. Sorry if I gave you the wrong impression. I know nothing about the three who were removed.

If you are a conservative and you admit comparing the administration to the Nazi party is extreme, then I believe you give the left fuel for the fire. In case you have never noticed, the first thing out of the mouth of a liberal Democrat is to quote a Republican in order to prove their liberal viewpoint.

I did not say, only physical violence qualified as violence. Can you agree with me that throwing a pie or salad dressing at someone is a form of violence and that it is uncalled for?

If you are a conservative, how could anything I say increase your dislike for conservatives? I do not work for the government and I don’t consider myself an independent agitator. I just hear a lot of talking points that sound as if they come from the mouth of James Carville, Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Palosie, and many others. I believe there should be some original thought and not quoting talking heads.

A while back, Howard Dean said he hated Republicans. Does this qualify as hate speech? This is a man chosen to be the head of the DNC. Does he represent the feelings of those in the Democratic Party?

Many of the posts stray from their original message. If I stray or as the old saying goes “chase rabbits”, then don’t respond. But I have found the left cannot resist attacking when a conservative says anything contradictory to what they believe.

I’m sorry if I have offended anyone, but in the same sentence I ask for all those who speak hatefully to or about any person to also be brought to task..

Idiots are everywhere. Under rocks, up trees, in caves, and in every political party known to man. The problem is that these idiots tend to drag the other-wise sensible people into a despicable and senseless argument. Then, in the confusion it seems as though everyone is an idiot. It’s shortly after this that people start throwing the generalizations around. Now, everyone with [insert belief here] is a Nazi, or everyone with [insert belief here] is a baby-killer.

Everynow and then, just take step back, look at the big picture, think about what you’ve said, about what other people have said, and what you’re beliefs are. Then, take a deep breath, and rejoin the discourse.

Who knows? Maybe you’ll even grow as a person…

It is doubtful this implicates the First Amendment. Of all the necessary rights it grants, it does not grant anyone the right to go to a private event and disrupt it. Just because Bush is the President does not mean every event he holds is public. Now maybe this is bad policy, but it does not violate the Const. Prior restraint only deals with publication. Kicking someone out of your meeting - wheher Left or Right, is not prior restraint. If these people were standing outside protesting and got locked up then it may be an issue - I say may, because the mere fact that you are protesting something doesn’t automatically give you immunity from all the other laws or allow you to disrupt everybody else’s life.
Also, one thing I think has not been mentioned, is that I read these people were wearing T-shirts underneath their shirts and at some point may have removed their overshirts to reveal their message and disrupt the event. So, maybe there was a good reason for these people to get kicked out. Again, it may be bad policy, but it is likely not a violation.

Blaine,
Since you don’t seem to want to contribute to the discussion, other than with character assination, I for one will answer your charges against me.

“I did not say, only physical violence qualified as violence. Can you agree with me that throwing a pie or salad dressing at someone is a form of violence and that it is uncalled for?”

No, I personally do not look at pie throwing as a form of violence. I see this as a political statement. If the subject of the pie cannot step asside from their ego long enough to understand the reason, that is the reason.
To charge someone with assault for a simple prank, is the height of hypochracy. If someone from the right had the presence of mind to pull the same prank, for the same reasons, I for one, would applaud them.

“Rocky said, ?The three you mention deserve pies in the face. Especially Coulter.?
I think anyone should be able to speak on any subject without fear of intimidation. This intimidation is what Hitler?s thugs did. I would be ashamed if anyone on the right threw a pie in Hillary?s face and I completely disagree with her.”

Intimidation? Give me a break.
Please see the above comment.

“Rocky said, ?Coulter is a pompus moron?She is more interested in her bile filled, derisive, message of hate, than anyone else’s opinion. She is typical of the neo-con right?.
What can I say about Rocky?s words, I?m sure there is no hate there? Are neo-cons anything like neo-nazis? I wonder?”

http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html

Please see the above http address to see the definition of a Neo-Con.
I don’t need to defend my opinion of Ms. Coulter. I belive her words speak for themselves. She and those of her ilk have gone out of their way to divide this country more than any time since the Civil War.
Ms. Coulter seems to think that anyone that doesn’t belive like her or her buddies are treasonus leftists that should be rounded up and shipped off to God knows where.

Well pal, that ain’t what this country is about.

Democracy isn’t something you spread at gunpoint.
America isn’t about closed “public” meetings.
If you question that, go back and read Civics 101.

The Democracy in this country was built by dissenters, not by those that wanted the status quo.

Blaine:

You’ll notice that most of the insults were not responded to. We have our discussion regardless. As for your attack on my Christian witness:

I hardly think that my finding humour in the public humiliation of a paid agitator goes against my witness. It shows how the efforts of Ann Coulter and her ilk have worked. They’ve helped to expand the left/right war in America. I can see through their ruse, and I find it funny when outrageous things occur as a result.

I thought we were supposed to insult the opposition as much as possible.

What kind of outlandish statement is this? You cannot expect anyone to fall for this explanation of your actions. You are still responsible for your own insults.

What is outrageous is the total lack of respect for a man …

Now stop right here. I’m not disrespecting Bush, and I don’t comment on those who do, because that’s not the point. This quote of yours comes from the section directed at myself, who never said anything about Bush.

Now this next one gets me…

I have no hatred except for ignorance.

So, you’re not ignorant about anything? That seems like a rather pompous statement.

Again, you’re not ignorant? You seem to be a Bush supporter, tell me, are you mad at the administration about 9/11? You ought to be when you consider the facts… Can you explain to me how F-16’s were intentionally grounded so as not to intercept the 747’s which were reported off-course? 4 crashed 747s in 2 hours and somehow fighter planes did not follow mandatory standard protocol and immediately pursue them?

Can you explain to me how jet fuel melted STEEL support girders which don’t begin to melt until 3000 degrees? Not only that, but how they melted the girders all the way down the towers so that they both entirely collapsed, instead of the tops merely sliding off? Explain to me why, despite the requests of the victims families and other skeptics, the US insisted on shipping all the evidence/wreckage to China?

Don’t give me this about hating ignorance until you yourself aren’t ignorant about anything. As someone else said, “The more I know, the more I know I don’t know.”

I believe we have a big misunderstanding. I was not talking about the three who were screened; I was talking about the three who attacked Coulter, Crystal, and Buchanan.

My point still stands. Everyone has a right to disagree, and until someone ACTS aggressively, they should not be forcibly removed from a PUBLIC meeting.

Can you agree with me that throwing a pie or salad dressing at someone is a form of violence and that it is uncalled for?

I can agree that it is uncalled for, but not violent. There is not intent to harm, unless the pie has razorblades in it… or if the salad dressing thrown was still contained in its bottle.

BTW, I’m not comparing the administration to the Nazi party, I’m describing their actions as similar to those taken by the Nazis during their rise to power. This isn’t about giving one side power over the other, I’ve explained how I view the left/right war as a worthless waste of people’s time and energy, and it’s designed to be that way. People are paid well to antagonize the other side to keep people busy, and away from the real issues.

I did not say, only physical violence qualified as violence.

You exonerate Ms. Coulter while condemning her detractors. I would say she’s just as harmful (if not more so) than pie-throwers, stirring up anger and resentment.

I believe there should be some original thought and not quoting talking heads.

Are you kidding me? Whose ideas and opinions are being recited here? No one (mainstream) is even talking about the constitutional breaches which are occuring.

Tfian:

It is doubtful this implicates the First Amendment. Of all the necessary rights it grants, it does not grant anyone the right to go to a private event and disrupt it.

Did you read the article? Your first statement indicates that you did not. These people were not disrupting anything. The meeting hadn’t started, and they were finding their seats.

I read these people were wearing T-shirts underneath their shirts and at some point may have removed their overshirts to reveal their message and disrupt the event.

How would anyone know ahead of time what shirts these people wore under their clothes? So how could that enter into their being asked to leave? Think about it! You even said they MAY have removed their overshirts… Since when is someone MAYBE commiting a crime guilty?

I did read the article. But how does my first sentence imply I did not? I said it is DOUBTFUL this implicates the First Amendment. No one has a right to go to a meeting and disrupt it. I would hate it if I could not hear a speaker because someone was always shouting them down. And the fact that an agent tells a reporter that First Amendment rights are important sounds like the prudent thing to say, even if the people had no right to be there.

This is from the 4-1 Wash. Post
“We had on suits; we didn’t have any buttons or pins,” Bauer said in a telephone interview. Beneath their sober attire, they wore T-shirts that read “Stop the Lies,” but decided to keep them covered.

Perhaps someone saw their shirts before they entered or perhaps someone knew who they were or perhaps this group has a history of disrupting events. Regardless, they have no right to disrupt the meeting. And this holds for any person of any political bent. People have the right to say whatever they want, but they do not have the right to scream it in my ear. But, unfortunately, it seems liberals only have screams and no courteousy.

And BTW, is it just me or is it mostly lefties that disrupt stuff they disagree with? I can’t think of any conservative groups that routinely do this. The anti-abortion nuts are at least barred by statute from crowding clinic entrances. I wish someone would pass a law to keep the anti WTO people and their bikes out of the middle of street. Every few months my drive into DC is hell.

From AParker:
“Can you explain to me how jet fuel melted STEEL support girders which don’t begin to melt until 3000 degrees? Not only that, but how they melted the girders all the way down the towers so that they both entirely collapsed, instead of the tops merely sliding off?”

You were talking to Blaine but I would be happy to answer your question. The girders did not melt, nor did they need to melt. When the plane struck the South Tower, the impact destroyed a sufficient number of perimeter columns on several floors to severely weaken the ENTIRE support system. As the fire continued to burn for several hours, the heat eventually reduced the strength of the remaining steel structure. This lead to the collapse of an entire floor, creating the chain “pancake” affect as each floor collapsed onto the one below it. So, instead of sliding off (as would have happened if the girders had melted) the entire thing collapsed to the ground.

The North Tower is a slightly different story. The plane hit at a more sever angle and higher up the building. This steeper angle of collision caused a greater compromised steel structure than would be guessed from a spectator’s point of view. With the destruction of several floor’s support columns, the remaining perimeter columns picking up the extra weight began to bend outwards. Eventually, the heat and weight were sufficient to push the entire thing down, creating (as with the North Tower) a pancake effect.

Tf-

No one has a right to go to a meeting and disrupt it.

Again, you repeat exactly what I shot down. They had not disrupted anything. Disruptive people are removed from meetings in all sorts of places, but not BEFORE they’re disruptive! You go on about how its bad to be disruptive, and no one is arguing that point. Answer my assertions that it is unconstitutional to remove someone from a public gathering (they had tickets, and passed security) prior to any disruptive behaviour.

Zeek,

Sorry, but your explanation doesn’t hold water. The man in charge of designing the towers claims that they designed the towers to withstand the impact of multiple jumbo jets 707s from his time, but not terribly different than the 747s. You claim that structural damage at the base caused the towers to collapse symmetrically? They didn’t tip over… they collapsed straight down. Perhaps you’d like to explain the seismograph data from Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory during the towers incident. They show 2.3 and 2.5 richter tremors immediately preceeding the collapse of each tower. The same type of seismographic activity seen during controlled demolition of buildings.

How about explaining the lack of air support? 4 hijacked planes in 2 hours and we can’t get our fighters to them?

Not to mention the controlled demolition of WTC 7, hours after the planes crashed. Nothing hit WTC 7, it had some modest fires, and they demolished it. Any answers?

AParker, I suspect that if you conspiracy theories held any truth, I would have heard of them by now (from a credible source).

Anyways, onto your claims. First, you accuse me of claiming “that structural damage at the base caused the towers to collapse symmetrically.”

Nowhere in my entire post did I say that the towers tipped over, nor did I use the word symmetrically (or any word to that affect). And when I said perimeter, I was referring to the perimeter at the level where the plane struck, not the base of the tower. In fact, I don’t know whose post you were reading because I didn’t mention any of that stuff. Maybe you should read what I posted more carefully.

You also stated that, “The man in charge of designing the towers claims that they designed the towers to withstand the impact of multiple jumbo jets 707s from his time, but not terribly different than the 747s.”

He didn’t account for fire. The heat played a major role in weakening the support columns sufficiently so that they eventually gave way. So, had not the 747s been full of jet fuel, the towers may not have collapsed.

As for the Columbia University’s seismograph data, I would like to know what you find so sinister about that. As far as I can tell, it’s at best a queer coincidence. If you would like to explain how that data proves any sort of plot, I’m all ears.

“Is trolling like trolling for a fish? Or is it like the “Troll in Central Park”?”

Like Trolling for Fish. Feeding out a steady stream of insults with every post, adding nothing to an argument but ill will and outraged reactions.

“Who are you to judge my Christian beliefs?”

I said I didn’t know how so much hatred could be squared with being a Christian. “Love thy Neighbor”, “Turn the other cheek”, “Judge not, lest ye be judged” all seem to be directing followers away from hate and toward tolerance among all people.

“Are you insinuating that because I am a Christian I should merely laugh at our President being called ignorant, shub, illiterate, fool, a joke, or how many other terms has the left called him, on these very pages?”

Being a Christian has nothing to do with it.
Public figures, especially political ones, are fair game for namecalling and jokes.
Even Thomas Jefferson knew that:
“When a man assumes a public trust he should consider himself a public property.”

What you’ve been doing on the other hand, is stereotyping and a generalized bashing of an entire group of people. This displays ignorance and rudeness.

“Many years ago, I took an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States.”

I didn’t, but most of the male members of my family have. Some of them have fought, some of them have been wounded, both lightly and severely, and some of them have died for this country.
Whether or not I have personally taken a military oath doesn’t mean I don’t know that for American’s the Constitution is the most important document ever written and that anyone who tries to abridge it or deviate from it is clearly not acting like an American.
Currently the political leaders who are running the country are doing quite a bit of both.
It is the patriotic duty of every American to be aware of their rights, to protect those rights for themselves and for their fellow citizens, and to loudly complain when they are being violated in any way, shape, or form.
Just because you aren’t aware that our Constitutional rights are being violated, or would rather not believe that this administration is capable of doing so, doesn’t mean it isn’t taking place and that others aren’t perfectly aware that this is happening. AParker for one, being a conservative who is aware, myself being another, a liberal who is aware. You see, this really isn’t a partisan issue in any sense, because the Constitution belongs to all of us.
Your trolling-for-liberals routine in this case is completely and utterly uncalled for, and is therefore, ridiculous.

“I’m sorry you don’t have enough pride in the country that has given you so much to feel the same way.”

Another pompous, rude, ignorant, sweeping generalization. You sir, don’t know shit about me or mine.
Say what you like, this will be my last reply to you.

Aparker and Zeek,

Not to burst you guy’s bubble, but the planes were 757s. The original impact explosion blew the fireproofing off of the internal structure leaving the beams vunerable to the fire. The beams without the fireproofing couldn’t withstand the original spec temperature.
The speculation was this happened with both towers.

Whoops, good catch rocky :)

Rocky and Zeek -

1) 747, 757, it doesn’t matter, they both use jet fuel, and jet fuel cannot melt steel. Even if it did, it would have melted the steel support girders on the levels where the impact occured, and the tops of the towers would have slid off instead of the entire things collapsing straight down.

2) “I would have heard of it from a credible news source” Check the news, quite a few of the alleged hijackers have been found alive in other parts of the world. Some of them are even legitimate airline pilots.
(The linked site has sources for their info at the bottom of the page, legitimate sources)

3) You have yet to even touch the impossible situation that we were incapable of reaching these 757s with F-16s. It is standard policy to scramble fighters to intercept planes which deviate from their course. Yet in two hours, we sent no fighters to intercept these airliners?

Zeek-

Seismic data which would indicate a controlled demolition is quite damning as far as this not being a terrorist event. There are reports from eye witnesses, that they saw floors blowing out one by one as the towers fell. The NY Chief of Public Safety told a reporter from CNN that he heard a secondary explosion immediately preceeding the collapse of each of the towers.
Don’t wait for a credible news source. Do the research yourself, and do your own evaluation.

But don’t listen to me. Look into it for yourself. I’m not credible, I’m just passing on what I’ve found. Look for yourself, don’t base your opinions on speculations that you’ve heard. Look for the facts, and ask what YOU think.

AParker,

1) What is it with you and melting? Why is it that no matter how many times I say that the support columns DIDN’T HAVE TO MELT IN ORDER FOR THE TOWERS TO COLLAPSE, you simply don’t get it? Constant heat + steel = weakened steel. Get it?

2) Your so called credible source is hardly credible, nor does it explain or give proof that there was any internal conspiracy going on.

3) Could I see some evidence that F-16’s should have “intercepted” the 757’s?

As for your “eyewitnesses” claiming that they saw the floors blowing out, I’m going to have to ask you to clarify. Did they blow out from the top-down, or from the base-up?

I have looked at the facts and thus far there is not a shred of plausible evidence supporting any sort of conspiracy theory.

AParker,

Please take this in the spirit it is given.

Could this be a nefarious real estate conspiracy?

Seriously, my greater question has to do with the absence of any leadership on Sept. 11.
Mr. Bush was at a well documented public appearence, and yet he didn’t want to needlessly scare schoolchildren in the face of a crisis of this magnitude?
Who made the decission to keep the President “on the run” for 9 hours”.
Why did the President take so long to react to the crisis?
Why did Mr. Bush wait until Sept. 14 to declare a national emergency?

On the towers.
After the Boston flights turned south, toward New York, how much time elapsed before anyone even realized what was going on?

http://www.communitycurrency.org/LEFT.html

Check out this link to read about one man’s investigation.

I was on a plane in Oregon when this all happened. I was due to land at National Airport in DC at 10 that night. Needless to say I didn’t make it there.

Zeek:

Constant heat + steel = weakened steel.

Um. Weakened steel + halfway up the building = top falling off, and leaving the bottom intact. I’m not saying I’m a structure expert, but there were published articles by experts saying that jet fuel fires couldn’t have sufficiently weakened the columns and caused the collapse. Look this stuff up yourself, I’m not going to convince you by stating what I’ve found in my own research. Otherwise, believe whatever you want to.

Your so called credible source is hardly credible,

So now, washingtonpost.com, bbc.co.uk and cnn.com are not credible?

Nowhere in my entire post did I say that the towers tipped over, nor did I use the word symmetrically (or any word to that affect).

I’m saying that they didn’t tip over, thats fact. They collapsed symmetrically, thats fact. Structural damage as you claimed would have caused the buildings to tip, not collapse.

Could I see some evidence that F-16’s should have “intercepted” the 757’s?

Look it up for yourself, do some research. This is not from some publication, its from the fact that there are numerous bases which provide air support for NY and DC through NORAD. Do you remember when Payne Stewart’s plane crashed? He was off course for just over 20 minutes before his plane was intercepted by f-16s from NORAD.

I’m done trying to convince you. If you want a good quick and dirty collection of some of the evidence try watching Alex Jones’s documentary Martial Law: 9/11 Rise of the Police State.

Rocky:

Real estate was involved, Larry Silverstein bought the entire WTC complex a few months before 911, and took out a huge 3.5 billion dollar insurance policy on it. Ever wonder why WTC 7 collapsed? No plane hit it, it was out of the debris field of the towers, yet about 8 hours after the towers, WTC 7 also collapsed, again in demolition type fashion. All of Larry’s buildings collapsed, and the buildings right next to the towers survived?

Why wasn’t Bush in a hurry? Because he knew (perhaps) ahead of time. Remember when Howard Dean insinuated that maybe Bush knew ahead of time, what happened to him? Kerry was the DNC choice instead…

Tell me why Jeb Bush declared martial law in FL BEFORE 9/11 even occured?

I’m done with talking about the conspiracy, there are way better sites out there with video clips, sound bites and pictures. Google for them, you’ll have no problem finding them. But you won’t believe just by my word, look for it yourselves. If it isn’t important enough for your time, you probably wouldn’t believe it anyways.

From AParker:

“I’m not saying I’m a structure expert, but there were published articles by experts saying that jet fuel fires couldn’t have sufficiently weakened the columns and caused the collapse.”

There were also published articles by experts saying that jet fuel fire COULD have sufficiently weakened the columns and caused the collapse. So obviously the title “expert” doesn’t really count as evidence here.

“Weakened steel + halfway up the building = top falling off”

You were right, you’re not a structure expert. Hell, you’re not even an amateur. If you were, you’d know that the World Trade Towers weighed 300,000 t each; meaning they had such large amounts of inertia that it would be almost impossible for the Towers to do anything other than implode in on themselves (which was quite easy considering they were 95% air). I’m guessing you don’t know how the support system worked either.

The outer perimeter box column of the World Trade Towers were connected to the inner core of the building by floor joists (made of 100% steel) mounted on angle clips. Once the most heavly burned floors’ joists gave way, the outer perimeter column bent outwards causing the floor to collapse. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly +45,000 t of ten floors above crashing down on these angle clips.

I hope to God this explains to you why the tops of the Towers didn’t slide off.

Did I do all that? Way off subject.

Sounds like a conspiracy theorist to me.

I did read that the elevator shafts in the towers provided a flow of air to the burning fuel. I can tell you something I do know, an acetylene torch will not melt anything until oxygen is added. Then it will melt steel.

Blaine, the steel was not melted in the Towers, it was weakened. The fire you described is that of a pre-mixed flame; the fires that burned the World Trade Towers were diffuse flames, which do not achieve the heat intensity an acetylene torch can nor could they have melted steel without a pure oxygen environment.

BTW, I mistakenly said the towers weighed roughly 300k t each when they weigh 500k t each. Sorry for any confusion.

I did not mean the steel in the towers would melt. I was using the torch as an example. I just meant a flow of air through the elevator shafts could possibly increase the heat. It would become hotter with a flow of air than without. This would weaken the steel structure at a faster rate.

Blaine:

I assume you agree with Ann Coultier that Islam is an Evil Religion and that Muslims are Scum? I am not really surprised. I suppose you also share her remarkable ability to present false facts and brush of contradictions in her rationality?

Zeek-

I’m done discussing the details, Zeek, and not because your explanations have satisfied me. I’m surprised that you actually think that that explantion is satisfactory. Looking at video of the towers collapsing seems to show quite clearly that these were very controlled collapses. You must not know much about how carefully planned out the demolition of a building must be (i.e. a collapse which doesn’t hardly damage structures which were right across the street), much less one that weighs 500k tons.

I mean, you’ve called CNN, BBC and the Washington Post out as not being credible sources of information.

But I’ve told you throughout that I don’t expect you to take my word for things, I only ask that if anything I’ve asked has raised questions, that you look into it for yourself. I doubt you will, since your posts bristle with arrogance, but who knows. I hardly think you can explain away all the questions I’ve asked, so all that remains is what you choose to do with them. Give Alex Jones’s documentary a try, it’ll give you a basic flavor of the whole cover-up. From the beginnings, when Dick Cheney wrote in the Project for the New American Century (1999) that we needed another “Pearl Harbor”, to NORAD running drills which exactly match what happened the morning of Sept 11.

Aldous:

Is this an example of trolling? Your question is off the main subject of the post. I believe you are trying to steer me toward another confrontation. I do not know or care about Ann Coulter’s views of Islam.

But I will answer as to mine: I have no problem with with the Muslim people as long as they worship without violence. However I do have a problem with the teachings of the religion. It is absolutly intolerant af anyone who is not a Muslim. The religion teaches anyone who is not a Muslim is an infidel (dog, unbeliever) and you either conform to the religion or die. The goal of Islam is to either conform the world to worship of Allah or to destroy them.

For anyone that doesn’t agree with Zeek’s opinion;(this is getting to be a habit, me agreeing with him), I could offer to sell you stock in a brass mine, or go to a liberary and read “machinerys handbook”, or better yet, buy one!

Its a big-ole thick book of nothing but facts, costs about $60 and proves he understands metals, strenth of materials, and the effects of heat on them.

You may agree that the crash weakened the steel or whatever, but do you really believe that the structural damage, all coming from one side of the building, would cause the tower to fall straight down? Because if you believe that, I’ve got a cliche to sell you too.

I might point out that no one has touched the other questions I’ve raised.

- Why did WTC 7 collapse? fires on two floors and it collapses? Why did Larry Silverstein go on PBS and say they planned to “pull the building”?

- How did NORAD not intercept any of the flights? They had no problem intercepting Payne Stewarts off-course Lear Jet in 21 minutes. The whole system of NORAD is designed to get fighters anywhere quickly. Their standard policy is to scramble and intercept any plane not following its designated course. Look into the Payne Stewart crash, and see what the implications are for our inability to reach the hijacked planes.

- Larry Silverstein made $7 billion off of his insurance policy for the WTC complex. He bought them only a few months before 9/11, and took out an enormous policy.

- Remember the passports they found in the wreckage? Fire hot enough to weaken steel, but two passports survive? And the story got dropped right away when the man to whom the passport belonged was reported alive by BBC news.

- How is it that 7 of the suspected terrorists have turned up alive? This link shows that 4 have been found. I’m looking for a more recent one.

How about this clip from CNN?

No one seems to want to comment on those…

I haven’t been following this thread and it is very confusing.

Are you saying that someone engineered the WTC bombings to collect on an insurance policy?

As for the buildings collapsing, I have read several explanations about how and why it happened as it did, but you also have to remember that this was a unique event. A lot of people had theorized about what would happen in such a situation, but this is the only time it actually did. Engineering is an applied science and engineers learn from real experiences all the time. A lot of elegant theories don’t stand up to the real word.

Yep, it was all about the insurance money from the get-go.
Here’s something you don’t know: Shrub sold Silverstein the deed to the Pentagon on Septerber 10th.
But I’m not going to show you any evidence. Find it your self!

Perhaps there should be a WatchBlog section specifically for conspericy theories… we discuss them enough!

I’ve got a great post to answer to you Jack, but I’m having difficulties posting it.

Your comment submission failed for the following reasons:

You are not allowed to post comments.

Please correct the error in the form below, then press Post to post your comment.

Jack-

The implication is more than a scam to collect insurance money. Quite a number of people with high level connections profitted handsomely from the destruction of the two towers, as though they had pre-knowledge. Also, do you remember any of the news reports telling of how government officials cancelled their flights for the morning of 9/11? There are also reports of children telling their teachers that the WTC towers wouldn’t be there much longer.

-AParker

The whole motivation for 9/11 is laid out in the Project for a New American Century which I linked above. This panel included Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz among others. They signed their statement of principles in 1997, and released the report which I linked above in September 2000. In it, reference is drawn to a “Pearl Harbor”-like event which would be needed to speed up changes in policy. The changes happened faster than you can say PATRIOT act.

-AParker

Concerning NORAD, prior to 9/11 the ability to command the shoot-down of a potentially dangerous aircraft was taken from the commanding Generals and given to Dick Cheney. This is the first time in the history of NORAD such a thing has occurred. If you consider NORAD, and its duty to intercept dangerous aircraft, and to do so speedily, how were we unable to meet either aircraft which crashed into the towers? There were 20 minutes between the first and second crash, not to mention air traffic control knew these planes were off-course before they even approached NYC. In a relevant similar story, Payne Stewart, the golfer, went off course in his lear jet, and NORAD intercepted his plane in roughly 21 minutes. You’re telling me that after the first explosion, we couldn’t meet the second jet, or the third jet even later at the PENTAGON? What the heck kind of security are we running around our center of government?

-AParker

(Sorry for posting this way, but it won’t let me post under AParker)

There are plenty of unanswered questions, like those I mentioned above, but there are even more. There are claims by former DOD operatives that they planned attacks on the the WTC back in 1976. But the administration claims they never imagined an attack of this fashion? Even ABC news did a report on how NORAD ran drills where the towers and the pentagon were attacked in exactly the fashion of 9/11. You can see the clip in Alex Jones’s documentary. Do remember when Frank Corder allegedly stole an aircraft in Baltimore and flew it into the White House? What was the date for that? Sept 11, 1994. What is with security around Washington DC?

-AParker

There was a link in this paragraph which was denied for questionable content. I removed it.

The war on terror in Afghanistan? How about the war for control of the worlds heroin supply? The taliban stopped producing heroin in Afghanistan, and only restarted to resume trading with Russia and China for weapons. When they did this, America was left out of the profit loop, so we went and put our people back in charge. Any strange business surrounding the war in Afghanistan? In the days following our success in Afghanistan, the US loaded leaders of the Taliban and Al`queda onto planes and flew them out of the country, to safety in Pakistan. Many of the leaders of the Taliban and Al`queda, freed, by our government. Here is a copy of the New Yorker article from January 2002, covering India’s unhappiness with our airlift.

-AParker

perhaps my attempt to post a ‘questionable’ link got me banned from posting? I had to break up my post so I could find what was ‘questionable’, My apologies.

Beagle, your vote of confidence makes me feel all warm and tingly inside ^_^

AParker, to answer your questions:

Again you show your lack of understanding. It would take wind loads 30 times the aircraft’s weight to push the world trade center’s top over. Perhaps you never learned what INERTIA is. Also, you seem to think it was the perimeter columns that caused the collapse when they were not an important factor. Floor joists and angle clips were the source of the problem.

I don’t know what happened exactly with the collapse of WTC 7. In any event, it is not as important as the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 and does not support your theory of how WTC 1 and 2 collapsed.

NORAD would not have had ample time to intercept the planes even if they were notified immediately. Please, show me some evidence contrary to this instead of “oh, it should have happened so obviously there’s a conspiracy going on.”

Larry Silverstein is not proof.

Passports are an after-the-fact matter. They do not support your theory in any way.

Ditto on the terrorists.

In the end, all you have is suspicious circumstance and no evidence or scientific explanation. Believe me, I’ve gone to the best 9/11 conspiracy websites and the best evidence I can find is molten steel found in the basement of the towers and in WTC 7. And molten steel is hardly enough evidence to carry an entire conspiracy theory on.

Zeek -

You answer nothing and dismiss everything.

This is my final post on the subject toward you.

Zeek,

I could care less if my comments make you feel warm, fuzzy, or like you just rolled in itch-weed, what you stated that caused the towers to come down is exactly what caused it.

Whoami,

Thank you for siteing the Pane Stewart case, norad and others were on that in 20 min.’s or less, the military planes tracking that said that nobody onboard could possibly be alive, President Clinton was informed and told that everyone on that jet was dead and they wanted to shoot it down, Clinton refused to make a desision and allowed it to crash several HOURS later when it ran out of fuel!

Beagle-

whoami is me, I think I was temporarily banned from posting. Still not sure why.

The fact that NORAD was all over Payne Stewart, but couldn’t shoot down a 757 before it hit the pentagon is possibly the most ludicrous fact in this whole mess. That simple question is what started me into researching all of this. This is probably the most well organized, factual site I’ve found, complete with videos.

Isn’t a lot of this covered in the 9/11 commission report?

I buy into the commissions information.

In addition, never underestimate the incompetence of human beings when it comes to reacting to a crisis. I’ve had friends in the entertainment world build conspiracies for JFK shows and the like… always based on the “No one would ever be that stupid” rule, when in reality, people are that stupid.

Julia

I am not a big believer in conspiracy theories. In my experience if more than a couple people know something big, it doesn’t stay a secret.

Re politicians on the flights, I don’t know the whole roster, but I do recall that the wife of solicitor general Fred Olsen, a real Bush insider, was killed on the plane that hit the Pentagon. I guess he didn’t get the news.

Refuting conspiracy theories is difficult because they have the advantage of ex-post-facto reasoning. When you know the outcome of an event, you can find a myriad of possible causes and connections. Knocking down each new outburst of facts and connections is like playing whack-a-mole. Look at the big picture.

This theory just doesn’t make any sense overall. It would take way too much secrecy and coordination to make it happen. There would have to be thousands of people involved and they would have to include a variety of individuals who don’t usually get along well. Beyond that, the payoff was way too low and the reaction of the USG way to slow. Who would engage in a conspiracy to allow you to attack Afghanistan? That is a very risky venture for almost no payout.

Beyond that, there is the believability factor. I don’t believe you could get the thousands of Americans needed to make this work, people with responsible jobs in government, the military and the intelligence community, to accept the murder of thousands of Americans and an attack on the American mainland. I react viscerally to the very thought. I personally would die before I would accept such a plan and so would most people I know.

I have met many politicians and federal officials I don’t like, but almost all of them are patriots. We tend to discount that old fashioned virtue, but that is why many people work for their country earning less than they could in private business. Nothing in my experience lets me believe that you could find that enough people that cold, calculating and quiet to carry out such an act.

Beagle -

If you believe the whole angle clips thing, check out the explanation here. Its a specific address to the collapse of the towers in answer to the truss theory given by FEMA; which seems to have some popularity around here.

Jack-

You’re telling me its reasonable to believe that Andrews AFB is incapable of protecting our capital? It’s practically IN DC, and NORAD was notified 19 minutes before the crash.

I understand your reluctance towards conspiracy theories. But the explanations given for the WTC towers defy physics. Just look at the collapse times… They’re hardly more than the time it’d take a block of wood to fall from the top of one of them. This indicates little more resistance than air to the falling debris.

All I can say is reason it out for yourself. If you think the explanations are reasonable, then nothing will really change your mind.

Also, Jack, I wouldn’t be too hasty to dismiss man’s greed and lust for power. Look what Hitler was able to do with Germany. Do you think the psychological methods he used for control died with the Third Reich?

Andrew

Hitler is Hitler. Americans are not like that, at least not that many of them in important postions.

Andrews is not far from the Capital, but Reagan National literally a stone’s throw from the Pentagon. You can see the Pentagon from the airport.

But it was Andrews AFB had at least 2 F-16s on-call that morning. Protocol requires that fighters immediately scramble to intercept/make visual contact with planes which go off course. Why didn’t they?

As for Hitler being Hitler, men are men. Don’t sell short the atrocities man is capable of in their quests for domination, regardless of nationality. Let’s not forget lessons taught by history. During Hitler’s rise to power, he firebombed his own office building, and used the scandal to enforce his own brand of Homeland Security. Its amazing the rights people will give up to feel secure.

I have read most of your comments and for those of you who are Bush supporters and think this couldn’t possibly be happening, I say put down the KoolAid.

Ken Mehlman was just at Howard University in D.C. where he “attempted” to reach out to young blacks.
What’s the big deal about that you ask?

The catch was in order to be admitted your questions had to be prescreened. What is Kenny so afriad of? If he truly wants my vote why couldn’t he open the floor for honest debate?

Instead it was all scripted propoganda along with all of the skewed facts he gave on what a wonderful job Bush and Co were doing for the African American Community.

Bush is not interested in a honest debate. He is more interested in photo ops.

Thanks, Robin, for bringing us back to the original issue. Why is Bush interested in holding these ‘meetings’ if its only going to consist of his supporters, and softball questions?

The point is to have an appearance of solidarity, I think. Bush shows how many supporters he has, and how rabidly they applaud his every suggestion. This is probably convincing to some, but then again, he must know that there are quite a few who will see through such a ruse. So what else could it be? He certainly doesn’t need to convince those in attendance on his policies, they all appear to be sold on them beforehand. Then again, it may be for the simple purpose of uninterrupted repetition to create a meme for his new policies.

Hitler is Hitler.

Hitler’s method for achieving dictatorship in Germany was simple, and ingenious. Exploit a common enemy that the people could all agree on, use the conduits of democracy to make it vulnerable to itself, feed the people repetitous propaganda and lots of it, make up a few things if you need to to keep consistent with the previous…. and voila, seize complete power when the time is right.

Bush and co. have taught me one thing. I always believed in the statement “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it”. Now I also believe “Those who do learn from history are enabled to repeat it”.

Let us pray that the public awakens to Bush and co. tactics before it is too late.

Taylor-

Try reading the fairly in depth account of Hitler’s rise here. I’m not sure what you mean by his method being simple, it seems to be ingenious and complex. You might be surprised by some of the things Hitler used to gain power. That site has tons of material, but I recommend reading the entire thing.

I misread your quote at first, but I really like it now:

“Those who do learn from history are enabled to repeat it.”

It does seem as though the current system is incredibly ‘enabled’. I guess they’ve not only learned from history, they’ve improved on it.

I did read it AParker, before I made the post, thanks for the link, it’s a good read.

You’re correct, there were a lot of complexities to it, and it’s probably way more complex than any political coup in history. I guess I mistakenly said simple, because once the objective of undermining the government through itself was established, that plan was carried out with impressive expediency. Simple was a poor choice of words.

In any case, yes, I’m worried Bush and co. may have indeed improved upon the method.

AP,

Another link on the towers..

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7236

I read that article, and it doesn’t answer the most basic questions raised by the laws of physics. If you look at the time it took for the towers to collapse, you will see that it is not even twice the amount of time it would take for an object dropped from the top of the tower to reach the ground. Supposedly this building collapsed in on itself, crushing the steel supports and concrete, but somehow it fell almost as quickly as something with only air resistance? These theories are set up to smokescreen people from actually thinking about the laws of physics involved. They cannot explain away the speed of the collapse without claiming that somehow the resistance to falling provided by steel and concrete is less than twice that of air.

This is regardless of the fact that the article still claims that fires weakened the steel. In testing open air fires, temperatures have never been measured in excess of 1000 degrees, at which steel will not be weakened. Temperatures need to be roughly twice that for any sort of weakening of steel. I mean, look at the pictures of the towers just a few minutes before they collapsed. There was no more roaring inferno coming from the gashes in the building. There are tapes from the firefighter’s radios indicating that they had the fires under control… But the structure was weakened, and collapsed as though there were little more than air below it.

Articles like that are just more of the repetition, trying to bury real questions of physical reality under a mound of reports.

Ap,

I don’t want to argue, but if you call any local MET. Prof. in your area they can explain that the very worst thing that can be done to any type of steel(bar none) is to heat it to 650 deg.F and allow it to cool from there.

Its called the “blue brittle stage” and every type of steel is effected in the exact same way, it turns into weak, worthless, crap.

Just as there is no such thing as a “brass mine” (only copper and alloys), steel is only iron ore refined to remove inpureitys and things are added to improve qualitys for whatever purpose it is to be used for.

I respect your opinions and enjoy your articles, but on this issue I think you are wrong/mistaken.

AP, you need to specify which form of temperature measurement you are using. “Degrees” doesn’t mean crap if you don’t tell whether you’re referring to Celsius or Farenheit.

Also, if it had been a free fall, the towers would have collapsed in 8 seconds (as opposed to 10). However, the force of the fall would have been 300 km/h instead of the 200 km/h that it was. As you can see, momentum and speed are not the same thing. The supports managed to cut the momentum by a 1/3 of what it would have been, but the speed was only cut 1/5.

If you can’t understand why this is I would be happy to explain it to you.