T1B

Posted: **Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:08 pm**

Jay in Phoenix wrote:
Roach wrote:We are not talking reality of current law, we are talking about mentally twisted, hallucinating, self serving, ignorant thumpers from times past. And some current, unfortunatly.
Exactly. Too bad mvskook can't differentiate that little fact. No, he has to twiddle his digits in a fret over the semantics of the definition of the cessation of an innocent life. Try to get back on track mv, and quit peeing in the pool with your distractions of the subject at hand.

Let's not forget, this is the same guy who thinks that murder is a violation of the victim's Constitutional rights. He apparently fails to appreciate that the BoR places limitations on the actions of government, but not on the actions of private actors.

Posted: **Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:37 pm**

Van wrote:Who gives a shit? Killing a baby in its bed is murder, and State-sanctioned murder is still murder.

So if the babies had been killed in their wombs instead of their beds, the Jews would be off the hook? Cool.

Posted: **Fri Sep 14, 2012 5:09 pm**

88 wrote:Einstein,

Security cameras take photos at three frames per second. A jetliner traveling at 500 mph would be captured in one frame, if you were very lucky. That video shows the nose of the airliner and the immediate explosion. And, incidentally, no fly over by a "fake 77".

It is OK if you want to be delusional and to hold beliefs that are contradicted by mountains of evidence. Just don't get pissy when no sane people find your rants cogent.

Damn, you are one cornered and frightened lil' willie indeed. I mean...really? You're willing to accept that utterly inconclusive snip (of an explosion) convince you that it's flight 77 hitting that wall? And...you really believe there was no other security cameras in the entire vicinity that might have captured some actually conclusive imagery? Why? How have you come to be so cowed as to accept the ready made (within fifteen minutes of the first WTC hit) explanation? Your claim of the slowness of security cameras is quickly dismissed and your rigid and insistent ignoring of many other glaring holes in the official story is pathetic.

Why aren't you out helping Sherrod Brown retain his seat? Damn, you're sad.

Posted: **Fri Sep 14, 2012 6:51 pm**

Wait...yes two airliners crashed into the towers. Exactly who was flying them remains murky, and when you consider that the alleged pilot's passport was found unscathed in the immediate debris, providing the ONLY evidence of his participation, one should be very suspicious indeed. But..not you. Consider...

* Six of the alleged suicide hijackers turned up alive after the attack -- a fact that the 9/11 Commission failed to even acknowledge. [

* There is no public evidence that the remains of any of the alleged hijackers was recovered.

* None of the flight crews on the targeted aircraft reported hijackings to Air Traffic Control, either by radio or the 4-digit hijacking codes.

* None of the contents of recovered voice data recorder black boxes has been made public, even though the 9/11 Commission has closed its doors.

http://allafrica.com/stories/200109240325.html

And when the WTC towers dropped in controlled demolition fashion because of a fire, you simply accept the Popular Mechanics explanation of "pancaking" floors just all piling straight down--as though the tallest buildings in NY were also the most incompetently designed skyscrapers in history?

you're aware, perhaps, that there had NEVER been a case of progressive collapse of steel-framed buildings. even with massive fires. But...you're cool with the miraculous collapse of WTC 7--no jet fuel, no impact, and a 47-storey steel-framed building just collapsed exactly in the manner of a controlled demolition?

Here's some other steel-frame building disasters with worse fires..

The following table gives a rundown on the extent and duration of other high-rise fires compared to the 9/11/01 fires. As you can see, the WTC buildings had no precedent whatsoever. And of course jet fuel doesn't burn nearly hot enough to melt steel--and the vast majority of the fuel was exploded upon the immediate impact.

building year duration floors burned

One Meridian Plaza 1991 18 hours 8
First Interstate Bank 1988 4 hours 4
Caracas Tower 2004 17 hours 26
North Tower 2001 1.8 hours ~6
South Tower 2001 0.9 hours ~3
Building 7 2001 3 hours ?

Now let's be clear. You've been squirming and offering only smears and little else. The pentagon video is a joke and has been roundly criticized--and has about as much credibility as the Bin Laden "confession" tape, which was completely debunked. Point is, you can run all you like, but I will pound your denialist ass on every point of this Crime Of the Century until your head spins. Got it?

And Sherrod Brown is a completely honorable senator with a great record and the thought of squeezing in the little punk from Beechwood is a disgrace.

Posted: **Fri Sep 14, 2012 7:07 pm**

Bullshit, KC, there's no 757 visible at all--and no evidence of any airliner or anything hitting the pentagon in that humble video clip. Sorry, but the most secured area in the world surely must have had some better security and surveillance. Or what? Do you actually accept that as a "757"? Are you kidding?

Posted: **Fri Sep 14, 2012 7:53 pm**

Clearly Sully landing the USairways flight in the Hudson was a government hoax as well since there is only one poor video shot of the episode.

The government had that plane already in the river and the people just climbed out when instructed.

Posted: **Fri Sep 14, 2012 8:30 pm**

The clear video of captain Sully's heroism only supports my point, not yours--whatever that is.

On 9/11 the pentagon had a full half hour (and btw a general testified they couldn't find Rumsfeld during that panicked interim) and Logan airforce base only eleven miles away fully prepared and drilled for intercepts, etc. It was a stand down, L-seat, just face it.

KC Scott wrote:Yes I do and you are a an idiot that has no idea how surveillance technology works.

The camera shots of the outside walls of the pentagon are there with the idea of identifying cars pulling up to the guard gate not a fucking jumbo jet slamming into the wall

The DVRs available in 2001 used analog cameras, and had finite drive space. Most that were programmed to record continously were set at a low frame rate to preserve that drive space in order to meet the retention goals of the system (ie, week, month etc.)

The systems were programed to jump the frame rate up when motion occured in the frame, but the algorythims used to detect that motion were rudimentary at best and often needed a large % of the image to change in order to increase the frame rate.

Given the speed at which 77 was traveling it's no surpirse the shot only captured the nose of the jet

Truly, we need to lock you and poptard in a room with only one spork

The point isn't whether the video snip offered provides a hint of a plane (though completely inconclusive), but the manner in which all tapes everywhere around the huge facility were impounded and sealed. What the fuck is your major malfunction? How on earth can you guys be so easily duped? Absolutely nothing in official story stands up on any level. From the absurdly incompetent ignoring of warnings to the flabbergasting coincidence of major "practice" maneuvers that day (what, they were that lucky?) to the galling stand down, to the thoroughly botched forensics all around to the lightning fast conclusion of just who did it and why, to the palsied Commission (oversaw by appointees Eliot Abrams and Kissinger), everything stinks horribly of an inside job. Where's your courage to face a very disturbing proposition?

Posted: **Fri Sep 14, 2012 8:35 pm**

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Logan airforce base only eleven miles away

Logan is an int'l airport in Boston, and its fan is a crappy poster.

Think you mean Andrews.

Posted: **Fri Sep 14, 2012 8:58 pm**

Smackie Chan wrote:
LTS TRN 2 wrote:Logan airforce base only eleven miles away
Logan is an int'l airport in Boston, and its fan is a crappy poster.

That drew a smile...

Posted: **Fri Sep 14, 2012 9:11 pm**

Wait... there was a discussion of very basic scientific principles, and LTS made a fool of himself?

Well color me shocked... truly unprecedented.

But at least he follows it up with the notion that steel has to reach its melting point before it loses structural integrity.

Posted: **Sat Sep 15, 2012 12:12 am**

Okay, Andrews Air Force base is of course the one right near by which did absolutely nothing, Thanks smackie.

Posted: **Sat Sep 15, 2012 12:48 am**

Truman wrote:
Van wrote:Who gives a shit? Killing a baby in its bed is murder, and State-sanctioned murder is still murder.
So if the babies had been killed in their wombs instead of their beds, the Jews would be off the hook? Cool.

It ain't a baby while it's still in the womb, it's a fetus.

Golly, semantics are fun!

Posted: **Mon Sep 17, 2012 9:11 pm**

mvscal wrote:Who says these babies were innocent? You? Based on what? Your 21st century ideal of justice? Do you have any idea how utterly stupid it is to apply that to people who lived thousands of years ago?

All babies are innocent moron. How can they not be? Unless you're advocating the whole original sin thing, then that makes you a closet thumper and a hypocrite. And it's you applying 21st century justice to the "legal" concept of killing vs. murder. For the sake of the Commandment, 'Thou shall not kill", manslaughter or homicide fall under the same bracket of "kill". It isn't my quote, check with poptart and his deity on that one. And how can you make a case for any baby being not innocent, in any era, be it biblical fiction or fact. And you can apply the insinuation of "born innocent" (bad Linda Blair t.v. movie aside) to any baby in any time or place. Go ahead, explain your way out of your own Mobius loop of nonsense, I'll wait.

They had some different ideas back then and collective punishment was not only acceptable, it was expected. Those babies were Egyptian people and the Egyptian people were to be punished. It might be unjust in your personal opinion but your personal opinion doesn't count for shit. A lot of people think capital punishment is unjust. That doesn't make executions murder.

That isn't my argument, nor is it the one being discussed here. You were the one who came along spinning this thread into the ground with your claptrap of the legal definitions of 21st century murder and killing, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the biblical edition of said acts. But hey, that's just what you do, take a thread and use some flimsy misdirection to alter the topic into your own antagonistic and contrarian pretzel logic.

Whatever dude, spin away, it's what you do.

Posted: **Mon Sep 17, 2012 9:53 pm**

Jay in Phoenix wrote:All babies are innocent moron.

Who defines innocence and when did these alleged innocents become exempt from the consequences of their guardians' actions or nonactions? Certainly our own culture has no such value of universal innocence.

And it's you applying 21st century justice to the "legal" concept of killing vs. murder.

Wrong. Which part of all cultures have distinguished between unlawful killing and killing are you struggling to comprehend? Headhunting cannibals in darkest Borneo understand the difference. What's your problem?

For the sake of the Commandment, 'Thou shall not kill", manslaughter or homicide fall under the same bracket of "kill".

The command is 'Thou shall not murder,' you brainless streak of shit. Oh and just in case you thought you knew what the fuck you were talking about for a second, homicide isn't a crime. It's an adjective. Also, what we would term manslaughter or negligent homicide was considered a capital offense in the Bible. They would, undoubtedly, view modern jurisprudence as a weak exercise in excuse making and consider it unjust, barbaric and immoral.

And how can you make a case for any baby being not innocent, in any era, be it biblical fiction or fact.

My case is that who or what you believe to be innocent is totally irrelevant. To enslaved, bronze age Israelites, baby Egyptians were fair game. Hell, baby Germans and Japanese were fair game just a few years ago in historical terms.

Posted: **Mon Sep 17, 2012 9:59 pm**

mvscal wrote:Who defines innocence and when did these alleged innocents become exempt from the consequences of their guardians' actions or nonactions? Certainly our own culture has no such value of universal innocence.

Of course it does. When a father commits a crime, his innocent infant isn't also held accountable.

Posted: **Mon Sep 17, 2012 10:12 pm**

It all depends on what the definition of "is" is.

Posted: **Mon Sep 17, 2012 10:14 pm**

Van wrote: Of course it does. When a father commits a crime, his innocent infant isn't also held accountable.

Try telling that to Germans and Japs or even Plains Indians for that matter. It may be that we consider our children to be innocent, but that presumption has not been extended to out groups nor does any other culture extend such courtesies.

In fact, throughout history, the primary objective of warfare is to kill and/or enslave the enemy's women and children and prevent same to your own.

Posted: **Mon Sep 17, 2012 10:17 pm**

mvscal wrote:homicide isn't a crime.

With ya there. Homicide makes no distinction between lawful and and unlawful. It's simply the killing of one human being by another, or, more rarely, the person who kills another.

It's an adjective.

No, it's a noun. Homicidal is the adjectival form.

Posted: **Mon Sep 17, 2012 10:43 pm**

mvscal wrote:
Who defines innocence and when did these alleged innocents become exempt from the consequences of their guardians' actions or nonactions? Certainly our own culture has no such value of universal innocence.

Van wrote:Of course it does. When a father commits a crime, his innocent infant isn't also held accountable.
Try telling that to Germans and Japs or even Plains Indians for that matter.

You said our culture, not the Germans or Japs or Plains Indians, and we're not talking about collateral damage of war. We're talking about legal killings of our own citizens. In our culture we don't also execute the infant when we put his father to death for his crimes.

Posted: **Mon Sep 17, 2012 10:58 pm**

Van wrote: we're not talking about collateral damage of war.

Of course we are. We were talking about the God of the Israelites shitcanning the first born of their Egyptian oppressors and you started flapping about over the poor, innocent little Egyptian babies.

BTW, there is nothing "collateral" about dropping incendiary devices on populated areas.

Posted: **Mon Sep 17, 2012 11:00 pm**

mvscal wrote:
BTW, there is nothing "collateral" about dropping incendiary devices on populated areas.

Where are you going with this?

:?

Posted: **Mon Sep 17, 2012 11:02 pm**

Jay wrote:For the sake of the Commandment, 'Thou shall not kill", manslaughter or homicide fall under the same bracket of "kill". It isn't my quote, check with poptart and his deity on that one.

Mvscal is right.

Kill (as used in the King James, etc.) is understood as murder.

It's quite obvious and easy to see if you just look at other directives God gave to the Israelites.
He told them when (and for what reasons) they SHOULD use capital punishment - and when they SHOULD war with others, which obviously results in the killing of opposition.

From our modern perspective, the killing spoken of in Commandment #6 is understood as murder.

Posted: **Mon Sep 17, 2012 11:29 pm**

poptart wrote:It's quite obvious and easy to see if you just look at other directives God gave to the Israelites.

He told them when (and for what reasons) they SHOULD use capital punishment

Yep. It was only to be used on adulterers, homos, kick returners who field punts within their own ten-yard line, women who jaywalk, teen girls who eat the wrong flavor of Jeno's Pizza Bites on the Sabbath, etc.

Solid applications of just law, it was.

Posted: **Mon Sep 17, 2012 11:54 pm**

I shot a man in Reno...

... just to watch him die.

:|

Posted: **Tue Sep 18, 2012 12:05 am**

Van wrote: It ain't a baby while it's still in the womb, it's a fetus.

Funny, I've never heard of a "fetus shower" or sundry other references to an expectant baby.

Golly, semantics are fun!

sure are, almost as fun as how a thread about 9/11 turns into an abortion debate.

Posted: **Tue Sep 18, 2012 1:00 am**

War Wagon wrote:
Van wrote:It ain't a baby while it's still in the womb, it's a fetus.
Funny, I've never heard of a "fetus shower" or sundry other references to an expectant baby.

There's no such thing as an expectant baby, at least not in the sense that you're mistakenly applying the word. Mothers, not their fetuses, are expectant.

You've also never seen infant clothes given to something that still resides within a mother's womb, nor have you seen anyone attempt to decorate her womb with festive pastel wallprints and cows-jumping-over-the-moon mobiles. (Well, okay, perhaps you have seen such things, depending on how freaky you get with your porn.)

In general, though, people wait until the fetus becomes an actual baby living outside the womb before doing those things.

Posted: **Tue Sep 18, 2012 1:10 am**

Van wrote: There's no such thing as an expectant baby, at least not in the sense that you're mistakenly applying the word. Mothers, not their fetuses, are expectant.

:?

Gimme a break.

grrr.... you shoulda' been a lawyer.

Posted: **Tue Sep 18, 2012 1:17 am**

War Wagon wrote:
Van wrote: There's no such thing as an expectant baby, at least not in the sense that you're mistakenly applying the word. Mothers, not their fetuses, are expectant.
:?

:)

That was a great use of the unhappily confused smilie dude.

Posted: **Tue Sep 18, 2012 6:57 am**

Martyred wrote:
mvscal wrote:
BTW, there is nothing "collateral" about dropping incendiary devices on populated areas.
Where are you going with this?

:?

Just like driving by an orchard and all the rows come clear--he's a lunatic blathered nut job

Posted: **Tue Sep 18, 2012 1:19 pm**

mvscal - putting the laughter back into manslaughter.

Posted: **Tue Sep 18, 2012 2:27 pm**

I think you're trying to hard, Roach.

God gave the Israelites instructions on how, when, and why they should -- KILL-- other people.
He told them to kill... in specific circumstances.

Hence, it's beyond obvious that the "kill" (as English translations give us) God wrote in the 6th Commandment is intended to mean... REDRUM.

Posted: **Tue Sep 18, 2012 2:38 pm**

So, I guess Jesus' teachings don't count.

Posted: **Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:54 pm**

Roach wrote:
poptart wrote:I think you're trying to hard, Roach.
Actually, when I want to be hard, I think of beautiful naked willing women and exotic positions for intercourse with them.

Just don't be making any important decisions when sportin' a woody.

Posted: **Tue Sep 18, 2012 4:19 pm**

As to the thread title...

can I get a show of hands from anyone here who's forgotten 9/11?

Anyone?

Posted: **Tue Sep 18, 2012 4:20 pm**

Dinsdale wrote:As to the thread title...

can I get a show of hands from anyone here who's forgotten 9/11?

Anyone?

That would be War Wagon and the mouse in his pocket.

Posted: **Tue Sep 18, 2012 4:23 pm**

Or maybe the gerbil up his ass.

Posted: **Tue Sep 18, 2012 5:08 pm**

War Wagon wrote:
Van wrote:Who forgot?
That was in reference to a NY Times article I read today that indicated many memorial events and observances had been scaled back or eliminated now that we're past the 10th anniversary.

Posted: **Tue Sep 18, 2012 5:11 pm**

If it was "forgotten," then by definition, there would be no "scaling back."

They're really not particularly complicated terms... really.

Posted: **Tue Sep 18, 2012 5:17 pm**

Dinsdale wrote:If it was "forgotten," then by definition, there would be no "scaling back."

They're really not particularly complicated terms... really.

They are if their definitions have been forgotten.

Posted: **Tue Sep 18, 2012 5:38 pm**

Roach wrote:
They are if their definitions have been forgotten.
Killed or murdered?

pops & mvscal are right about this one.

T1B

how soon we forget

Re: how soon we forget

Re: how soon we forget

Re: how soon we forget

Re: how soon we forget

Re: how soon we forget

Re: how soon we forget

Re: how soon we forget

Re: how soon we forget

Re: how soon we forget

Re: how soon we forget

Re: how soon we forget

Re: how soon we forget

Re: how soon we forget

Re: how soon we forget

Re: how soon we forget

Re: how soon we forget

Re: how soon we forget

Re: how soon we forget

Re: how soon we forget

Re: how soon we forget

Re: how soon we forget

Re: how soon we forget

Re: how soon we forget

Re: how soon we forget

Re: how soon we forget

Re: how soon we forget

Re: how soon we forget

Re: how soon we forget

Re: how soon we forget

Re: how soon we forget

Re: how soon we forget

Re: how soon we forget

Re: how soon we forget

Re: how soon we forget

Re: how soon we forget

Re: how soon we forget

Re: how soon we forget

Re: how soon we forget

Re: how soon we forget

Re: how soon we forget