COMMENTS:
You can please some of the people all of the time , and all of the people some of the time , but you can't please all of the people all of the time.- Phinneus.T.Barnum.
And when you're displeasing 95% of the world population it's time to change your tactics.
learn from it's mistakes and stop repeating them, excellent poll btw.
NUKE Europe!
the best thing would be to learn tollarance for things you don't like or don't agree with. then you got one sort country. oh yer get rid of the guns, then it's a top place. sorry get shut of that dick head g.w.bush he is getting you hated around the world. usa cool place but you need to chill. peace
Just because we're hated doesn't mean we're wrong.
How do we get other nations to stop hating us? Simple, get them to stop envying us. How do we do that? Collapse down to their level. If we were to become a weak, socialist, third world hellhole like most other nations, then they would ignore us, not like, but ignore. There you go.
As far as envy goes, the US is hated by many countries that are not 3rd world socialist hellholes. Countries consitantly ranked higher by the UN for living conditions. Envy is not the reason.
herzog.
i think there been a miss understanding. were do you get envy from? who in this world would want to be in your shoes? by this i mean what your trying to defend. please tell me why, you think the rest of the world dislikes you. try thinking! theres more to this world than america, maybe thats what you need to understand. no level dropping, no 3ed world... shit just Tolerance.
Sorry, but it really is quite as simple as mere envy. The third world envies us because we are wealthy. Europe envies us because we are strong and politically relevent, just as they used to be and still long for.
herzog,
are you on crack or just dumd. europe envies you lot, what a joke. you should be on stage. come on your country is run by a complete ass hole, the only thing he knows is war, which he seems to love. your hated for the wars you make, and you only make war with people you think you can bet, and still you don't. vietnam 2 is under way now how many people have to die, before you learn anything. there is no chance you can beat these people. but you run your mouths off. yer lets kick ass, would you like a can of kick ass.
the 3ed world are to bizzy trying to live. you honistly think that the 3ed world is thinking about the usa, get a grip of life. your the same as 60% of americans. a sheep, following blindly were ever your twat of a leader takes you... big is better... you have no class, stop trying to run other peoples life other conutry lifes and put your own shit in order.
good job matje. too bad americans tend to think of their country as the center of the universe. for them to think that 3rd world countries spend any real amount of time thinking about how much they envy the US is far fetched at best. Like you said, people in a third world country are just trying to survive, besides, how would they know what life in the US is like? they dont have tv's or computers, at least not anywhere near the rate the US does. All they know of the US is that they come in, take their resources, blow shit up and leave whenever it suits them, that is why the US is hated. If Iraq was a country that depended on the breeding of prize winning poodles to support their economy, the US wouldnt be anywhere near it. Oil and money are driving this war, as it drives anything else Bush(big oil) and Cheney (halliburton, anyone?) do. WMD dont exist, the US does not care about the Iraqi people, and Bush is a national guard, silver spoon daddys boy who hasnt worked for a thing in his life. 'Nuff said.
educate your children about the rest of world, the US is a great country but they should be taught that there is many other great countries, the rest will take care of itself
by ABC on Wed May 19, 04 12:35pm
[+]
captain _canuck.
tell it like it is dude,
ABC
your talking sence spread the word.
peace
I've never been called dumd before. What does that mean? Does it mean that I can't spell properly?
And if the rest of the world hates us for invading iraq and afghanistan (thought europe supported us on that one) then how do you explain 911? Or the bombing of the USS Cole, or the 1st WTC attack? Or the pearle execution? Or the hostages taken in Iran? I'll help you out there, all those things I just mentioned were prior to the war in iraq, most were prior to that 'asshole' bush taking office. So your explanation please?
And chuck, if we were after oil saudi arabia would have been the first on the list, alot more oil, and a weaker army. Try again.
Let me add that it was France and Russia that cut deals with Saddam for oil. They all voted for Resoulution 1441 thinking that this was a soft administration like the last and that we would not act. Wonder where they got that Idea from..anyways when It came down to getting their hands dirty and jepordizing the OIL deal, they quickly turn and run.
I think for once it's time to put Euroupe on the defensive.
What would Euroupeans have to do to change the minds of the American people and it's coallition of the Willing.
by NE0 on Wed May 19, 04 6:06pm
[+]
herzog,
i'm so sorry i made a spelling fuck up. shoot me dead i think you understand what i ment. all you said in the above dribble is crap. you bring everything on to yourselfs. don't look to us for your own fuck ups. you act like you rule the world and you expect everyone to kiss your ass. well fuck no, your country has been attacked for a reason. you know the reasons like we all do. i feel for everyone who has been killed or hurt in these attacks, but people will stand up for what they belive in.
better to live in peace then have a megga stronge army. you should read about the roman empires, it's time to chill.
The reason your little country is able to live in peace and not have a "megga stronge army" is that the US does have one, and we protect you. Expect the world to kiss our ass? Ha! We expect you to leave us alone, which of course you can't. How many billions of dollars have we spent fixing european mistakes? Actually I think it's it in the trillions now. If anyone has a right to be pissed at anyone else it's the US.
Now I don't expect you, under any circumstances to admit that the reason for your hatred is that you envy us, that goes against the whole principle of the thing. You know deep down that we are better than you, better than you could ever hope to become. And so you try to find other reasons to hate us rather than admit this obvious fact to yourself. Simple psychology. It's sad really.
MATJE
well fuck no, your country has been attacked for a reason.
And what reason is that? Tell me please. What did the 3,000 people in those building and planes do to give those monsters a reason for killing them? If you say it was the Governments fault then you saying that any one could kill you for something your leader did. Lemme guess your leader is Chirac?
by NE0 on Thu May 20, 04 3:31pm
[+]
neo,
yes thats what i'm saying. it's what the US goverment say and do. then american people pay the price. at no point have i said the attacks were right, but if you look at england. look at all the shit we have done, only now after 100s of years are we sorting it out. ie ira, us english do understand we have had the same, bombs in all over england, the english public have had to pay for what its goverement have said and done. 100s and 100s of people have been killed. in the end we had to sit down and talk, begin to understand each other.wars sort nothing, go on far to long and people die, and most of the times people views stay the same. it's all about understanding and tollarance like i said at the top, and yer blair is a chirac twat, and not alot of people like or surport him. he's lost his place. i would just like to say, i think the usa is cool i have always had a good time there. i don't want you to think i hate all amerians. cause i don't...
herzog.
stop with the envy, and a question for you when did i say i hated the usa? why are you telling me i envy your country when i've told you i don't.
become isolationist, and have foreign countries BEG to trade with us. i'll bet we will become super popular, then. you see, suddenly every ungrateful foreign country will realize they need our dollars to survive.
Herzog, these little panty-waist, English, nancy boys are just envious because the U.S. is pure like angels and their shitty little blighty is controlled by paki's who fuck their ugly daughters and sisters and bring home little future terrorists. Limey-lands pigs will soon come home roost. The English hate us because they have to memorize the koran while we wipe our asses with it...poor poor blighty..plenty of blight for those tossers..
The Europeans are certainly annoyed by the fact that Americans don't need to listen to anyone else. But they don't envy much else. Europe is a far better place to live.
It never ceases to amaze me how Americans think all these poor countries hate them because they're a free, wealthy, powerful nation, like they're jealous. Where do you people get your lunatic reasoning? What kind of bullshit, corndog propaganda are you being fed down there anyways?
These countries don't hate America because it's powerful and free and full of liberty for everybody. Nobody hates freedom and liberty, EVERYBODY wants that.
Yes, go back to 1920's isolationism, and only concentrate on dominating world trade at all costs. Use the U.S. armed forces for BORDER CONTROL, anti-terrorist policing, and self defense from invaders. Kick the League of Nations...AHEM..United Nations out of New York and never intervene in any other country's national affairs (although this didn't quite happen in the 1920's, either) for ANY perceived reason, good or ill. When the jihadist army sweeps into Europe, tell the E.U. to go get bent if they ask for any assistance. Don't intervene for so-called humanitarian reasons or any other damn reason anywhere. Take on a pure mercantilistic approach to dealings with any other country.
Yeah, that's about how I'd set things up.
Yes, please do that. And put a complete stop to your massive arms exports (which accounts for the greater part of US 'foreign aid', so much for your humanitarian principles...).
And in return we'll promise not to ask for your assistance when the... er, jihadist army comes sweeping into Europe.
What's that? Stop laughing at the back there, I'm sure this felix character isn't really a deranged and paranoid nutter.
"What kind of bullshit, corndog propaganda are you being fed down there anyways?" What makes you think Canada has the slightest significance internationally?
"And in return we'll promise not to ask for your assistance when the... er, jihadist army comes sweeping into Europe.
What's that? Stop laughing at the back there, I'm sure this felix character isn't really a deranged and paranoid nutter." Obviously, there's some truth to the statement that the Continentals once called syphilis the "English disease," as something's clearly rotted out most of your cerebellum. I'm speaking with some hyperbole and comic intent in that regard when referencing "jihadist armies." Your own dismal birthrates and massive immigration will take care of the job with no violence. You're no Romans fighting off the Goths and Vandals overruning the limes, just a bunch of old enfeebled gits, rolling over in your beds, and dying of fright when you see what's peering in your windows from all the new mosques built over razed cathedrals.
However, more seriously, don't ring us up the next time a Stalin, Hitler, or Hirohito appears on the world stage either. We shouldn't provide any arms or assistance for that, either. We should give up on any internationalist approach and just focus on trade, because, as the Chinese know, that's the real seat of power in the world, not playing Santa Claus or school master, benign or otherwise.
Oh, sorry, you're just a stupid, snotty Anglophile who enjoys using Briticisms, aren't you? Well, stiff upper lip, old wanker and all that, wot?
Felix, if someone's cerebellum was rotted it would impair their fine motor control and co-ordination. You daft tit.
And stop watching CBN for your opinions, as well. The world needs to lower its birthrates. And if the ethnic makeup of Europe changes as a result of low birthrates and high immigration, so what? How do you think the USA was formed if not by immigration? Or are you basically a racist, tacitly assuming that a smaller proportion of white caucasians means a worse area of the world? Extremist forms of religions tend to be prevalent when their believers are a minority who feel threatened. Do I expect fundamental Islam to sweep across Europe? Of course not. Confidence and education leads to secularism. Do you think that it's a coincidence that the most religious areas of the USA are also the poorest and least educated?
"Felix, if someone's cerebellum was rotted it would impair their fine motor control and co-ordination. You daft tit." Yes, and that would explain all of the drool on your keyboard, wouldn't it?
"The world needs to lower its birthrates. And if the ethnic makeup of Europe changes as a result of low birthrates and high immigration, so what?" The "what" is this: you're dealing with a radically different culture, to some extent not compatible with post-Enlightenment cultural values, and, if polls can be believed in France and the like, not particularly caring much for said values or wanting to become acculturated to them. If anything, 2nd and 3rd generations of such immigrants become less and less enamored with the "foreign" culture that surrounds them. The reasons for this would be complex--good old-fashioned Euro xenophobia and racism appear to play a part in alienating and marginalizing these newcomers--but it doesn't augur well for your future. What we are witnessing is the most profound cultural and demographic change since the invasions of the Germanic tribes in the 5th century. As their birthrate exceeds your own by a 3 to 5 times ratio, let us hope for your sake that they embrace secularism rather than seeking shariah once they attain majority.
Oh, and religiosity is a fairly common trait across all U.S. regions, although fundamentalism is more prevalent in some regions that have been traditionally poorer.
Oh, and one more parting shot across the bow, my little neurologist: modern fMRI studies show that the cerebellum is important for attention, reading, perception of time, and may be impaired in dyslexia, Alzheimer's disease, and other neurological disorders. So, yes, it does appear to be an important component in a number of higher cognitive functions. Of course, yours have deteriorated to such a large extent, that you'll merely have to take my word for it! *L*
You really have to hand it to some people. Any time someone makes a legitimate critique about the USA and their policies, the same hackneyed argument is thrown in rebuttal i.e. 'We are all envious'.
What on earth is there to be envious of?
The USA, arguably the richest nation on Earth, cannot fund a free health system for all. 85 million of your fellow citizens cannot get access to healthcare.
The USA consume close to 70% of the worlds resources, but some posters decry any immigrations from these poor countries. Why are they poor? Because huge US multinational companies own huge tracts of the farming land in these countries and so most of the food produced is shipped to the US.
The USA will happily sell arms and other agents of war to any country. This includes the Philipines, Malaysia, Africa and not forgetting Afghanistan and Iraq. It then throws its hands up in horror when the tin pot dictator they funded and armed decides not to play ball.
The tired argument of 'we saved your arses in the world wars' is a false one. Lets not forget, the US didnt even get involved until it was well under way. In the case of world war two, the Russians were primarly responsible for winning that conflict.
Like a lot of super powers in the past, the US want to rewrite history and to nullify any contribution from any other country. If it makes them feel important, then fine.
A silent majority in the US know that George W Bush is a bad mistake. He is a draft dodger and a felon (he was convicted of DIU twice) but he demanded that people go off to war, when called.
John Kerry may be no better, but he can surely be no worse.
I certainly don't envy America, it's a trashy and vulgar place that's full of its own self-importance. And I don't expect Kerry or any other US politico to make the slightest bit of difference to that.
Had to laugh at "parting shot across the bow" though, nice mixed metaphor from the deranged & paranoid nutter.
"Had to laugh at "parting shot across the bow" though, nice mixed metaphor from the deranged & paranoid nutter." I must chuckle even more at the typically ill-informed reponse from the incessantly moronic braying ass from Can-a-duh who's not even familiar with terms from nautical warfare. Unless, of course, your understanding of the meaning of "mixed metaphor" would be as faulty as your grasp of most matters of international politics. I suppose you're trying to be a pedant and argue that I was implying a naval battle with a neurologist, but, that's not how it's used in context and the term's been applied to a disparate number of contexts by well-respected journalists. If you want one example, see the 9/5/2003 edition of the WASHINGTON POST, wherein a story about the Senate Appropriations Committee's taking the FCC to task is prefaced by the title "Panel Fires Shot Across FCC's Bow." So, ooh, looks as if the POST mixed a metaphor by combining naval battle imagery with a senate hearing!
The phrase has also been applied by the same paper to a story about the government loan agency Sallie Mae coming under scutiny.
The more of your posts that I have the distinct misfortune of reading, the more I realize that the cold must have severaly impaired the function of what passes for your brain.
Oh, sorry, you're another idiot clone of the original--but equally stupid, I see.
Drop Nuclear Missiles on all of the islamic countries Capitols!
Then round up all of you European Liberal Pussies and execute you!
In any incident or so called "war"
Just follow the bouncing ball. you'll know the tune very well
a number of financial and industrial figures of World War II and several members of the government served the cause of money before the cause of patriotism. While aiding the United States' war effort, they also aided Nazi Germany's.
p xiv
It thus came as a severe shock to learn that several of the greatest American corporate leaders were in league with Nazi corporations before and after Pearl Harbor, including I.G. Farben, the colossal Nazi industrial trust that created Auschwitz. Those leaders interlocked through an association I have dubbed The Fraternity. Each of these business leaders was entangled with the others through interlocking directorates or financial sources. All were represented internationally by the National City Bank or by the Chase National Bank and by the Nazi attorneys Gerhardt Westrick and Dr. Heinrich Albert. All had connections to that crucial Nazi economist, Emil Puhl, of Hitler's Reichsbank and the Bank for International Settlements.
The tycoons were linked by an ideology: the ideology of Business as Usual. Bound by identical reactionary ideas, the members sought a common future in fascist domination regardless of which world leader might further that ambition.
Several members not only sought a continuing alliance of interests for the duration of World War II but supported the idea of a negotiated peace with Germany that would bar any reorganization of Europe along liberal lines. It would leave as its residue a police state that would place The Fraternity in postwar possession of financial, industrial, and political autonomy. When it was clear that Germany was losing the war the businessmen became notably more 'loyal.''
Then, when war was over, the survivors pushed into Germany, protected their assets, restored Nazi friends to high office, helped provoke the Cold War, and insured the permanent future of The Fraternity.
p xv
To this day the bulk o~ Americans do not suspect The Fraternity. The government smothered everything, during and even (inexcusably) after the war. What would have happened if millions of American and British people, struggling with coupons and lines at the gas stations, had learned that in 1942 Standard Oil of New Jersey managers shipped the enemy's fuel through neutral Switzerland and that the enemy was shipping Allied fuel? Suppose the public had discovered that the Chase Bank in Nazi-occupied Paris after Pearl Harbor was doing millions of dollars' worth of business with the enemy with the full knowledge of the head office in Manhattan? Or that Ford trucks were being built for the German occupation troops in France with authorization from Dearborn, Michigan? Or that Colonel Sosthenes Behn, the head of the international American telephone conglomerate ITT, flew from New York to Madrid to Berne during the war to help improve Hitler's communications systems and improve the robot bombs that devastated London? Or that ITT built the Focke-Wulfs that dropped bombs on British and American troops? Or that crucial ball bearings were shipped to Nazi-associated customers in Latin America with the collusion of the vice-chairman of the U. S. War Production Board in partnership with Goring's cousin in Philadelphia when American forces were desperately short of them? Or that such arrangements were known about in Washington and either sanctioned or deliberately ignored?
For the government did sanction such dubious transactions-both before and after Pearl Harbor. A presidential edict, issued six days after December 7, 1941, actually set up the legislation whereby licensing arrangements for trading with the enemy could officially be granted. Often during the years after Pearl Harbor the government permitted such trading. For example, ITT was allowed to continue its relations with the Axis and Japan until 1945, even though that conglomerate was regarded as an official instrument of United States Intelligence. No attempt was made to prevent Ford from retaining its interests for the Germans in Occupied France, nor were the Chase Bank or the Morgan Bank expressly forbidden to keep open their branches in Occupied Paris. It is indicated that the Reichsbank and Nazi Ministry of Economics made promises to certain U.S. corporate leaders that their properties would not be injured after the Fuhrer was victorious. Thus, the bosses of the multinationals as we know them today had a six-spot on every side of the dice cube. Whichever side won the war, the powers that really ran nations would not be adversely affected.
And it is important to consider the size of American investments in Nazi Germany at the time of Pearl Harbor. These amounted to an estimated total of $475 million. Standard Oil of New Jersey had $120 million invested there; General Motors had $35 million; 111 had $30 million; and Ford had $17.5 million. Though it would have been more patriotic to have allowed Nazi Germany to confiscate these companies for the duration-to nationalize them or to absorb them into Hermann Goring's industrial empire-it was clearly more practical to insure them protection from seizure by allowing them to remain in special holding companies, the money accumulating until war's end. It is interesting that whereas there is no evidence of any serious attempt by Roosevelt to impeach the guilty in the United States, there is evidence that Hitler strove to punish certain German Fraternity associates on the grounds of treason to the Nazi state. Indeed, in the case of ITT, perhaps the most flagrant of the corporations in its outright dealings with the enemy, Hitler and his postmaster general, the venerable Wilhelm Ohnesorge, strove to impound the German end of the business. But even they were powerless in such a situation: the Gestapo leader of counterintelligence, Walter Schellenberg, was a prominent director and shareholder of ITT by arrangement with New York-and even Hitler dared not cross the Gestapo.
As for Roosevelt, the Sphinx still keeps his secrets. That supreme politician held all of the forces of collusion and betrayal in balance, publicly praising those executives whom he knew to be questionable. Before Pearl Harbor, he allowed such egregious executives as James D. Mooney of General Motors and William Rhodes Davis of the Davis Oil Company to enjoy pleasant tete-a-tetes with Hitler and Goring, while maintaining a careful record of what they were doing. During the war, J. Edgar Hoover, Adolf A. Berle, Henry Morgenthau, and Harold Ickes kept the President fully advised of all internal and external transgressions. With great skill, he never let the executives concerned know that he was on to them. By using the corporate leaders for his own war purposes as dollar-a-year men, keeping an eye on them and allowing them to indulge, under license or not, in their international tradings, he at once made winning the war a certainty and kept the public from knowing what it should not know.
Why did even the loyal figures of the American government allow these transactions to continue after Pearl Harbor? A logical deduction I would be that not to have done so would have involved public disclosure: the procedure of legally disconnecting these alliances under the antitrust laws would have resulted in a public scandal that would have drastically affected public morale, caused widespread strikes, and perhaps provoked mutinies in the armed services. Moreover, as some corporate executives were never tired of reminding the government, their trial and imprisonment would have made it impossible for the corporate boards to help the American war effort. Therefore, the government was powerless to intervene. After 1945, the Cold War, which the executives had done so much to provoke, made it even more necessary that the truth of The Fraternity agreements should not be revealed.
***
A Bank for All Reasons
p1
On a bright May morning in 1944, while young Americans were dying on the Italian beachheads, Thomas Harrington McKittrick, American president of the Nazi-controlled Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, arrived at his office to preside over a fourth annual meeting in time of war. This polished American gentleman sat down with his German, Japanese, Italian, British, and American executive staff to discuss such important matters as the $378 million in gold that had been sent to the Bank by the Nazi government after Pearl Harbor for use by its leaders after the war. Gold that had been looted from the national banks of Austria, Holland, Belgium, and Czechoslovakia, or melted down from the Reichsbank holdings of the teeth fillings, spectacle frames, cigarette cases and lighters, and wedding rings of the murdered Jews.
The Bank for International Settlements was a joint creation in 1930 of the world's central banks, including the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Its existence was inspired by Hjalmar Horace Greeley Schacht, Nazi Minister of Economics and president of the Reichsbank, part of whose early upbringing was in Brooklyn, and who had powerful Wall Street connections. He was seconded by the all-important banker Emil Puhl, who continued under the regime of Schacht's successor, Dr. Walther Funk.
Sensing Adolf Hitler's lust for war and conquest, Schacht, even before Hitler rose to power in the Reichstag, pushed for an institution that would retain channels of communication and collusion between the world's financial leaders even in the event of an international conflict. It was written into the Bank's charter, concurred in by the respective governments, that the BIS should be immune from seizure, closure, or censure, whether or not its owners were at war. These owners included the Morgan-affiliated First National Bank of New York (among whose directors were Harold S. Vanderbilt and Wendell Willkie), the Bank of England, the Reichsbank, the Bank of Italy, the Bank of France, and other central banks. Established under the Morgan banker Owen D. Young's so-called Young Plan, the BIS's ostensible purpose was to provide the Allies with reparations to be paid by Germany for World War I. The Bank soon turned out to be the instrument of an opposite function. It was to be a money funnel for American and British funds to flow into Hitler's coffers and to help Hitler build up his war machine.
ooooooooh poor piglam.Cant handle it.
Youre a loser and you know it.Try finger painting.My make you feel better when u lose debates
The places that people are heading to are rural and ' alternative' places.
The conspiracy to take over the world by capitalist goverments/banks/ secret societies has been the war humanity has always fought and went into its final stage with the Civil war conspiracy and the introduction of Institutions.School, Prisons, Asylums , orphanges .All fucking hell holes
People are fighting the Satanic Regimes by withdrawing economic support and heading for places like Amsterdam, Canada, East Coast of OZ etc.Most people want to live in Europe.
The US looks like a shocking place to be.
But we all wanted to go there in the 70s and 80 s
You sound like a spastic
If you havent lost a debate its because you havent entered one
Felix, the mixed metaphor is as follows:
1) The phrase "a shot across the bow" is a commonly-used phrase meaning a warning, a display of contained power that demonstrates that for the moment true damage will not be inflicted, but could be at a moment's notice.
2) The phrase "parting shot" is similar to a final defection in an iterated game theory scenario. Typically it's a quip or dig at an opponent in the debate when exiting that debate, not giving the opponent the opportunity to reply.
Just thought I'd help with your ongoing education. (Pats Felix on head.)
Out of interest, why do you think people are envious of the wealth and freedom of America (this envy translating into destructive anger) yet (strangely) seem to have no such feelings towards similarly rich and free nations such as Germany, Canada, Sweden, the UK, Australia etc? (In truth, the present-day incarnation of the USA is a police state by comparison to these places. For example, there is no need to carry identification anywhere in the UK, and the media of all these countries is far less restricted than that of the USA.) So why aren't all these angry hordes plotting to destroy them, despising their riches, freedoms and opportunities?
Oh, I didn't bother to log in, but I did type in the last entry, in case the context hadn't made it obvious.
Oh, and if the best you can do to respond to a post is to begin searching for mixed metaphors as a lever to use against an opponent, you've very little to offer in any kind of discourse.
"In truth, the present-day incarnation of the USA is a police state by comparison to these places. For example, there is no need to carry identification anywhere in the UK..." You are completely & utterly wrong in this regard. I'm familiar with a good variety of state and federal law in the U.S., and there is no mandated requirement that anyone carry around I.D. papers of any sort to be given to authorities, save in certain immigration contexts. No citizen without criminal record is required to do such. If one intends to operate a motor vehicle, yes, one must carry a license, but that's considered to be a legal privilege versus a constitutional right. There are Social Security cards--used for employment verification and for obtaining benefits--but there's no mandated requirement to carry such around, either. If someone is arrested under suspicion of criminal activity, if they are convicted later, their sentence is not enhanced for failure to carry any I.D. papers, although they may receive additional penalties for deliberately falsifying their identity when questioned. However, as a practical matter, this seldom happens in court. Attempts at enacting a "national I.D. card" have not proceeded very far in Congress and have been denounced by civil libertarians on both the left and right of the political spectrum.
So, are you trying to tell me that, in Britain, no one need carry a driver's license or immigration paperwork? Ah, I see you've pulled more information from that dark & mysterious grotto...your ass.
"So, are you trying to tell me that, in Britain, no one need carry a driver's license"?
I know the answer to this one. It's "yes". You are required to present your driver's license at a police station within two or three days or something if required (e.g. if stopped by the police when driving) but not to carry it with you.
man this is fun... keep up the bitchin. haha
'rather only to imply that I was making a final shot across the bow for this round.'
Hmmm, then this is a rather odd use of the phrase. A shot across the bow is a warning shot, and typically something employed to discourage opponents from a full-blown confrontation, implying that serious consequences could result. It'd be slightly odd to fire several of them (even metaphorically), and indeed by talking of firing the last one of the round, this suggests you plan to fire more in the next. This reminds me of Apu's warning to Homer Simpson that, "I have asked you nicely not to mangle my merchandise. You leave me no choice but to ask you nicely again."
Hey Felix, here's a question for you re: the UN. Do you think that if America has the power to do what it wants, it should nevertheless respect the decisions of the united nations? If not, why not?
Return all the immigrants to the USA to their own countries? How many people would that leave? Maybe half a million native Americans? (Anybody?)
Stop worrying about the Europeans. They don't have a great reputation either with them starting the majority of the wars in the past 500 years. America should worry about its domestic image at home and spend more time helping the school system and helping the single mothers of the world who work two jobs in the other end of the city and still have the bulk of the pay taken in taxes.
Let's take one Country whose poeple seem to only remember the good they do: Great Britain.
The Boar War: Over diamonds in South Africa killed thousands.
The Opium War: Over drugs in china killed thousands.
The India and Pakistan problem: Left India after WW2 and didn't leave with giving any help to prevent and massacre between Indains and Pakistanis.
Slavery in the U.S.: Who wa the mother country that fisrt brought slaves to the U.S. Britain. Americans stopped the raping of Africa in 1812 with the 3/5 compromise.
The condition of Africa: The colonazation of Africa was taken in part by many countries including you guessed it Britain. Most of the problems today is from the out right destruction of there culture and there society by European invaders.
Now I know America has made our mistakes, Vietnam, Iraq, Vinalla Ice but we don't even compare to the dewtruction that England has brought to the world.
okay mother fucker. england fucked up big time but it learnt from it's wrong doing. so say what you will, at least we learnt. dumb ass
Ummm, Doen, most of the incidents to which you are referring happened over a hundred years ago. None of the people involved are still alive. We are talking about the decisions being made by people today. I don't give a rat's ass about whether or not your great grandfather was a total idiot. The question is, how do *you* measure up? Do you support the current attitudes and actions of your nation, and how do they compare to those of other nations?
The fact is you can only abuse power if you have it. The UK used to have the most power. If it had the same power today, would it act in a manner similar to that of the present-day States? Arguably not, because (like the rest of Europe) painful experience has changed the way it interacts with the rest of the world.
And please don't make me laugh by suggesting the British were responsible for the ills of slavery. The "Americans" were (at the time) people of mainly British ancestry who had different ideas about how things should be run. So while attitudes to slavery changed in Britain (i.e. she became an abolitionist nation), the people of the USA perpetuated slavery. Common ancestors, different attitudes. And for all the snickering you hear about Europeans appeasing Hitler pre-WWII (a strategy, incidentally, supported by the Roosevelt administration) the creation of the Jim Crow laws appeasing the slave-holding states after the civil war stands as one of the most infamous acts of unprincipled appeasement in modern history. Stop trying to carve up your nation's history such that all bad things were carried out by horrid Brits and all good things carried our by upright, moral Americans. It's naive and it does you no credit.
Hello Islam_hater,
You are a very dull little fellow. Off you go now.
Sure, Britain was a bastard.
But then it never claimed to be the centre of world morality and freedom at the same time as usurping invaded nations' resources. This avoidance of hypocrisy is the essential difference between the US nowadays and Britain 100+ years ago.
Is anyone surprised that islam_hater doesn't know what "learnt" means? *grin*
Well, thanks for the misogyny, but I'm not female and I'm not Canadian, so I'm afraid you'll have to come up with a whole new set of insults, my little teenage bore.
No, "learnt" is perfectly acceptable. If it's in the Oxford English Dictionary, it's correct.
I like the way you always capitalize the word 'queer'. Presumably it's out of reverence and respect? I applaud your enlightened attitude. It's great that you're strengthening ties to the homosexual community.
Also, if you wish to contract the words 'you are' into a single word, do so by using 'you're', not 'your'. Doing otherwise runs the risk of making you appear illiterate rather than merely tedious.
Actually, he sued for unfair dismissal and they reemployed him.
I think I just entered a small, completely self-involved where sanity and reason are unwelcome visitors. Believe me, history was written by the victors but not to the extent you loons believe. I`m off to where the world is based on facts not on moronic insults.
No, stay. It's great here. Happiness and joy abounds.
Hey, I used to live in Edinburgh once. Near Sandy Bell's pub, if memory serves.
Oh, actually, I guess they abound, collectively.
islam_hater_theGreat.
your so so sad. come back on your 13 birthday, maybe then your be able to controll that shit you call a mind. god bless you. you sad sad little man. but i forgive you for being a prick, you have dumb prick DNA.
American's can only look for countries that were once in the postion that we are now, the dominant country in the world. When we look at the time the England were on top of the world you can planly see an abuse of power and many mistakes. As for my beliefs, I believe that the system could use an overhaul. Poeple have to take basic math and science courses in college but no American History course, poeple don't know the basic freedoms or were do the come from: Bill of Rights, case law, administrative law or legislative law. America is in new area of her existance on a proactive aproach to possible threats instead of reactionary. do i believe Saddam should of been taken out of power yes. I also believe that when the dead line comes we need to leave Iraq and let the poeple make there mistakes but it will be there own. I also think were in damned if we do damned if we don't type of deal.
As for Slavery the slave owning poeple were mostly British descent so what does that say about the British. When the were farther removed from there mother country we fought a little war called the American Civil War and the 13th Amendment was passed that out lawed slavery.
Does any one know when this good damn rain will end in the North East?
Yes, but the AMERICANS of British descent took far longer to outlaw slavery than the BRITONS of British descent. Therefore you have not addressed my point, which is that of these two strands descended from the British, the American strand stuck to its slave-owning ways the longer. It is therefore ludicrous to try to compare Britain to the USA unfavourably when it comes to the issue of slavery. You can't just cherry-pick the nice, happy examples of US-centric events. Or if you do, the Brits would be equally justified in, say, claiming every Nobel prize won by Americans of British descent as being effectively won by Britain, which (I hope you'll agree) is fairly ludicrous.
If average Americans can't break the tribal grip of Israel, then the two will likely perish together.
What if you shoot them in the feet?
I doubt that satan hides inside the heads of Jews. He'd be better off on a comfy couch in front of a nice log fire.
sick fuckers...
I do not find any of Americans disgraces, i'll list a few. Spanish-American war was ridicoulous and mostly stirred up by the yellow pages of the time. The Jim Crow laws (mostly in the south) having to have John Merideth have to escort the first Black to the Mississippi university regisrtatioon's office. I do not wish to say who has a higher moral high ground when it comes to slavery i'm stating that the craze was brought to America by Britain. It's not ludacris it's fact.
If you have listen you would of noticed that I haven't debated the justifacation of any of Americans faults but simply questions whether or not America has made more or greater mistakes than the ones that came before.
islam_hater_theGreat
grow up little boy...
Good idea, ed93e. By the way, I hope you agree that preferring democracy to tyranny is something that is only relevant within the borders of the USA, not outside. All Americans were created equal, and a minority should never be able to impose their will on a dissenting majority. But outside of the States - ah, fuck 'em. One of our lives is worth a hundred of theirs. We should be able to do exactly what we please, and screw their opinions. The envious, stupid, ugly bastards.
you bunch of freaks. you lot are letting your country down big time... no wounder people hate america with pricks like you defending it. read what you have written, you sound like thick cave men. help yourselfs please.
islam_hater_theGreat
dude i can fight for myself, i don't need a big mouth twat like you on my side... but thanks... twat.
is that all you've got... ass dribble. what kind of come back is that? did mommy tell you how to spell matje. sex change??? letting your life creep back into your ballot answers again. silly girl.
Not to piss any one off but i would gladly see a hundred forigners die before one American dies. This sin't hatered for any poeple and many poelpe believe this but I would think that this view is the same in many countries. It's more important to me to have Americans safe more so than a person of another Nationality.
Yes, in Canada and the UK it's common practice to want 100 non-Americans to die before one American dies. Three cheers for the ubermenschen of the USA!
By the way doen, I think to write that you'd GLADLY see 100 foreigners die before one American while hoping not to piss anyone off is perhaps a slightly naive yearning.
Hateful chap:
1. I live in Canada. I don't own it.
2. The reason Canada exists is because your nation was unable to defeat the British in the War of 1812.
Bye.
Kaitan it's just soem thing alot of poeple would agree upon. I'm sure that there's alot of french that would rather see 100 Americans killed before one frenchmen and there's probably a canadain that would rather see 100 Amreicans rather than one of is country men die. It's not to piss anyone off but it's just the way it is.
"I'm sure that there's alot of french that would rather see 100 Americans killed before one frenchmen and there's probably a canadain that would rather see 100 Amreicans rather than one of is country men die."
I'm sure you're right. And I would have nothing but contempt for them.
Get inspired from smart countries like India, China, New Zealand, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, ya U.S. assholes
_Saka_Bow_
Are you aying Katain that you would rather see one canadain killed rather than 100 Americans?
** karma **
Points taken slayer however if one is going to understand the world better you need to hear from the far left as much as the far right to make a good descion.
oh please grow up. 100 killed this that, you bunch of kids. hihihihihi.
Doen, obviously I am saying this. Unless we get on to the business of personal friends and relatives, I'd save 100 American strangers over 1 Canadian stranger every time.
Slayer (nice name, I assume you're 12 or 13), if you think CNN has been a left-wing channel at any point since around 1996, you obviously have little idea of the concept. (You could make a case that it's left wing compared to Fox, but this is because Fox is a neo-con comedy channel that refers to itself as being fair and balanced as a tongue-in-cheek joke).
And you really should stop trying to type while wearing mittens.
Stop interfering in other countries affairs. This means bring our military and our aid back home. No help during natural disasters or uprisings. Next time Europe bombs itself into the stone age (we won't be involved next time), NO MARSHALL PLAN!
Dirty little Canadians always bring up the war of 1812 like it was their victory. We admit it, the brits kicked our ass but Canada couldn't even defeat Mexico if they went to war (then again neither could the French).
don't pass the book, were on about what the usa should do.
There are so many things we would need to do ... but the first has to be to dump GW Bush. We can make no progress in repairing damaged ties as long as this extremist is in office.
People respect STRENGTH. Right now the US looks WEAK. That is why everyone spits on us - we have all the power in the world, and refuse to use even a tiny fraction of it in self-defense. Instead we let our civilians and soldiers get butchered in the name of "political correctness". I'm fucking PISSED OFF about this!
In 1998, on the American ABC network, Osama Bin Laden gave his views very clearly on why he opposed America. Here are some excerpts:-
'I say to them that they (the Americans) have put themselves at the mercy of a disloyal government, and this is most evident in Clinton's administration. We believe that it represents Israel inside America. Take the sensitive ministries such as the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defence and the CIA, you will find that the Jews have the upper hand in them. They make use of America to further their plans for the world... For over half a century, Muslims in Palestine have been slaughtered and assaulted (by the Israelis) and robbed of their honour and of their property. Their houses have been blasted, their crops destroyed.'
to improve image:
GET RID OF BUSH!!!!!!! seriously, who actually likes him?
Impeach Bush, then hand him over to The Hague to be tried for War Crimes.
herzog: Other countries hate us out of "envy" just as much as terrorists hate us because "they hate our freedom." Stop blindly swallowing the swill we're fed from the Bush administration and start thinking for yourself.
herzog doesn't swallow the swill. He tries to get us to swallow it. Isn't that clear by now?
NEO: Re: "Coalition of the Willing" ... BWAH HA HA HA HA!!! Oh, I'm sorry ... were you serious?
Then again, we did have CAMEROON on our side! Yup ... everyone we could bribe or threaten was definitely there.
Get real. No one is fooled by the "Coalition." Everyone who can see knows it was window dressing and the US made up the vast majority of the Coalition, with Britain making up almost all of the remainder.
It is common for countries to use blatant lies as propganda, but please ... don't fall for it yourself!
History has shown all too clearly the deceived American people WILL support the destruction of faraway countries on phony pretexts of defending so-called freedom.
The attacks of 9/11 COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED without the willful failure of the American defense system. In Washington, Air Force pilots demanded to fly but were ordered to stand down. Yet instead of prosecuting the president and military leaders for this unprecedented dereliction of duty, military leaders were promoted and the president was praised for presiding over a defense system that suspiciously failed the most crucial test in its history. None of the deaths would have happened without the deliberate unplugging of America's air defenses.
Planes that lose contact with control towers are usually intercepted by fighter jets inside of ten minutes, as the incident with the golfer's plane a few months earlier so clearly demonstrated. Yet on 9/11, the jetliners that struck New York were allowed to proceed unmolested for more than a half-hour, and the plane that supposedly crashed in Washington was not intercepted for more than an hour and forty minutes after it was widely known that four planes had been hijacked.
* The twin towers could not have collapsed as a result of burning jet fuel. Most of that fuel was consumed on impact. In the south tower, most of the fuel was spilled outside the building. Heat caused by burning jet fuel does not reach temperatures needed to melt steel. What does stand out as particularly suspicious and still unexplained is that fires raged out of control beneath THREE of the collapsed towers for ONE HUNDRED DAYS, clearly indicating the presence of some kind of substance utilized in the demolition of the structures.
The Twin Towers did not fall because of plane impacts or fires. Most likely explosives were placed on structural supports in the towers (as was done in Oklahoma City), and these controlled implosions snuffed out the lives of three thousand people.
* FBI Director Robert Mueller insisted officials had no idea this kind of attack could happen when in fact the FBI had been investigating the possibility of EXACTLY this kind of attack for almost TEN YEARS. Numerous previous attempts at using planes as weapons, intimate knowledge of terror plans called Project Bojinka, and knowledge of suspicious characters attending flight schools who were being monitored by the FBI make his utterance a clear lie on its face.
In the weeks before 9/11, the U.S. received warnings from all over the world that an event just like this was about to happen, but FBI investigations into suspected terrorists were suppressed and those warnings were deliberately disregarded.
* The names of the alleged hijackers, all ostensibly Muslims, were released to the public only hours after the attacks, despite Mueller saying we had no knowledge this would happen. This is an impossible twist of logic. If he didn't know of a plan to strike buildings with planes, how would he know the names of the hijackers? Various artifacts were discovered in strategic places to try to confirm the government's story, but these have all been dismissed as suspicious planting of evidence. Since that time several names on that list have turned up alive and well, living in Arab countries. Yet no attempt has ever been made to update the list. And why were none of these names on the airlines' passenger lists?
* Much like the invasion of Iraq, the anthrax attacks were designed to deflect attention from unanswered 9/11 questions in the patriotic pandemonium that followed the tragedy. In addition to making large amounts of money for the president's father and his friends from the hasty sale of inefficient drugs to a panicked populace, the investigation into these killings was abruptly halted when the trail of evidence led straight to the government's door, and has not been reopened. The anthrax attacks also amped up the climate of fear and deflected attention from the passage of the government's repressive Patriot Act.
* The Patriot Act was presented in the days after the tragedy supposedly as a response to it, yet it was clear that this heinous act, drafted to nullify provisions for freedom in the U.S. Constitution, was put together long before 9/11. In addition, testimony by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) revealed that most members of Congress were compelled to vote for the bill without even reading it. This was a vote to eliminate the Constitutional Bill of Rights, which has defined American freedom for 200 years, and it was accomplished when legislators voted for the bill without even reading it.
* The invasion of Afghanistan was presented as an attempt to pursue the alleged perpetrators of 9/11, yet it had been discussed for years prior to the tragedy and actually planned in the months before the attacks on New York and Washington. Statements by Zbigniew Brzezinski and the Republican-written Project for a New American Century have stressed that America needed a formidable enemy to accomplish its aggressive geopolitical aims. The supposed enemy we attacked in Afghanistan was a diverse group of men from all over the world who were initially recruited, encouraged and supported by the American CIA.
* The hole in the Pentagon was not made by a jumbo jet. Damage to the building was simply not consistent with the size of the hole nor the absence of debris. At the supposed point of impact, a whole bank of windows remained unbroken and there were no marks on the lawn. No airplane debris (except what was planted on the lawn) nor remains of passengers were ever found.
* The president has admitted that he continued to read a story to schoolchildren in a Florida school for 30 minutes after being informed that two planes had struck New York and that the nation was under attack. He has never explained this puzzling behavior, nor how he saw the first plane hit. It was never televised, only recorded by a French crew filming firemen in New York. In that film, the plane in question does not appear to be a passenger airliner.
* The plane in Pennsylvania was shot down and broke apart in midair. No other explanation can account for the wreckage, which was spread over a six-mile area, or the eyewitness accounts that describe debris falling from the sky.
* Cellphone calls cannot be made from airliners in flight that are not close to the ground. As research by Professor A. K. Dewdney has shown, the emotional conversations between hijacked passengers and others would not have been possible under conditions that existed at that moment. These calls were cynical fabrications, exploiting the distraught emotions of those who lost loved ones.
* Radio communications from firefighters on the upper floors of the Trade Center towers clearly indicate that fires were under control and the structure was in no danger of collapsing.
Who benefited from the suspiciously high numbers of put options purchased prior to September 11 for shares in companies whose stock prices subsequently plummeted, on the supposition that whoever was behind the hijacking was also behind most of the purchases of these put options? And what was the role of the new executive director of the CIA, Buzzy Krongard, who handled these transactions?
* Why was the debris from the collapsed Twin Towers removed from the site with no forensic examination? Why was almost all of it sold to scrap merchants and shipped abroad where it would not be available for scientific examination?
* Why does the government refuse to release any transcripts of communications or any records at all relating to signals of any form transmitted by those jets?
* Why did so many people, from San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown to many employees of companies in the World Trade Center who failed to come to work that day, know in advance that something bad was going to happen on Sept. 11, 2001?
* Why do all the major U.S. media continue to act as if none of these questions is legitimate or relevant?
Why don't the
alleged hijackers appear on the airport security videos? Why aren't
there credit card records of their ticket purchases?
Why did FBI director Robert Mueller say very publicly to the
Commonwealth Club of San Francisco that nothing on paper connected Arab
terrorists to 9/11? I mean, two and half years have passed. And the feds
produced 19 names within 72 hours of the disaster. Notice a mathematical inconsistency here? All that has happened since is mere vigilante
hysteria, hypothetical scenarios trumpeted ad nauseum by America's
notoriously brainwashed Zionist press.
Seven or eight of the names on that original list have been found living
comfortably in other countries. Why hasn't the FBI made any attempt to
correct the errors made on that original list? See for yourself.
http://members. fortunecity. com/911/ september- eleven/ hijackers-alive .htm
and http://www. welfarestate .com/911/
And why, after much hullabaloo about Colin Powell using phony
information in his remarks to the United Nations about the reasons for
war, hasn't the U.S. government produced a single conclusive piece of
evidence to back up its claim that 9/11 was the work Osama bin Laden and
other Islamic terrorists? Not a single piece!
The first 11 ballots answer the question, except the one "all countries are spoiled brats
To put Kill Pres Bush is a crime,Your ballot should be deleted,it is treason.
Why does'nt LCD delete this ballot and scummy language??
** karma **
"You can please some of the people all of the time , and all of the people some of the time , but you can't please all of the people all of the time"
Bob Maley - 1945 - 1981 R.I.P
Shame you weren't in one of those towers, oblivion_nemesis.
Herzog, what exactly do you have that I don't have? What do you have that I apparently envy?
True, the base of world power is no longer tied to regional boundaries. Those who have the money and power rule wherever they are. Jews have a ton of money and can thus manipulate US and world governments to support Israel and commit wars of agression against arab peoples.
The world doesn't deserve America. We should bring all our troops home and let the world go to HELL. After Russia takes Europe and Canada, China takes Asia and Middle Eastern chaos shuts off the flow of oil and plunges the world into a new Dark Ages, THEN everyone will realize how good it was under PAX AMERICANA. So fuck you all.
What PAX???
I think you mean "bellus Americana".
In future, just leave out the "politically" part of your name.
PCIncorrect: I agree completely: The world *doesn't* deserve America ... not the America of the past four years, anyway. Hell, we Americans deserve better! No one deserves that.
God willing, they won't have to put up with as much jingoist American hubris after the November elections.
PS: Have you been forgetting your lithium again?
Even with all our flaws we are the greatest nation on Earth. That being said, we have a lot of problems in this country that need to be fixed before we should even consider intervening in foreign affairs. The truth is that most other nations don't deserve American aid or military intervention. The children must grow up and care for themselves.
"Greatest nation" ... by some criteria, no doubt.
Me ... I feel very uncomfortable with our seeming obsession with strutting around with this boast. Truly great nations don't *have* to boast about how great they are; the rest of the world will. Otherwise, it's just nationalistic pride.
The plane in Pennsylvania was shot down and broke apart in midair. No other explanation can account for the wreckage, which was spread over a six-mile area, or the eyewitness accounts that describe debris falling from the sky.
It's possible that there was a struggle for the plan. During this struggle the plane controls are hit and the plane beginsto spin. This isn't a fighter jet or anyting that was built to take such a force and it breaks up, a simplier solution to the quetion to the debris field.
* Why did so many people, from San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown to many employees of companies in the World Trade Center who failed to come to work that day, know in advance that something bad was going to happen on Sept. 11, 2001?
It's hersay, coincidence and can't hold up in any court.
* Why was the debris from the collapsed Twin Towers removed from the site with no forensic examination? Why was almost all of it sold to scrap merchants and shipped abroad where it would not be available for scientific examination?
It was examined. There was actually a show on T.L.C. that examined the debris for breaking point, heat and other elements. And ofcourse most of hte debris will be sold off without scientific reaserch, when you have two buildings that were over 100 stories you can't look thru the majority of the rubbel.
* Radio communications from firefighters on the upper floors of the Trade Center towers clearly indicate that fires were under control and the structure was in no danger of collapsing.
Who benefited from the suspiciously high numbers of put options purchased prior to September 11 for shares in companies whose stock prices subsequently plummeted, on the supposition that whoever was behind the hijacking was also behind most of the purchases of these put options? And what was the role of the new executive director of the CIA, Buzzy Krongard, who handled these transactions?
It wasn't the fire that was causing the collapse. It was the extremely hot fuel, it warped the beams that the added weight caused just one floor to collapse, after one fell it just contined because of the momontium.
* The Patriot Act was presented in the days after the tragedy supposedly as a response to it, yet it was clear that this heinous act, drafted to nullify provisions for freedom in the U.S. Constitution, was put together long before 9/11. In addition, testimony by Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) revealed that most members of Congress were compelled to vote for the bill without even reading it. This was a vote to eliminate the Constitutional Bill of Rights, which has defined American freedom for 200 years, and it was accomplished when legislators voted for the bill without even reading it.
This is less of a conspiracie theory as a political issue. No one after 9/11 wanted to look soft on security. They voted for it only to help there own political agenda. Yes the Patriot act does stretch the powers of the Government and there is conflicts with many Americnaments and many Case Laws like Miranda and Arizona, Gideon V. Wainwright, Katz V. U.S. Mapp V.ohio and many other ones. However they did give a re-new date for the bill, and it wasn't all bad. It gave money to the victims families of 9/11. And the victims aren't part of any conspricy.
Flight 93
Speculation continues.There has been a report of Colonel Don De Grand- pre coming forward saying his team were successful in downing it and saying there were no highjackers. Dont know if thats been fully confirmed yet
Investigations of the crash sites described an obliteration of the plane, that its structural collapse wasnt consistent with simply coming apart, eyewitness accounts of the explosion, the speed the plane was going plus other occasions of planes going out of control with out falling apart.Pilots have stated
that it can be overstressed but arent sure what it would take to do that.Witnesses did not describe a situation where that would be occurring.
www flight93crash dot com is a good site
Structural collapse
there is no evidence of the bowing outward of the outer box columns in any of the videos of photographs
No buckling can be seen in any of the video and photographic evidence. Only the instantaneous onset of a telescoping collapse, accompanied by explosions.
In actual tests of hydrocarbon-fueld fires in car parks with exposed steel structures, conducted by Corus Construction, the highest recorded temperature of any of the steel in any of the many tests was 360º C. And it is highly unlikely that any large steel pieces experienced temperatures above 300º C.
In order for the collapse to start just one or two floors falling would have to overcome the 1,300 ton capacity of the floor below. Since most of the 45,000 above the crash zone was probably in the core and outer walls, a single floor probably weighed less than 1,000 tons
Any imbalance in the damage to the structure would result in lateral loads due to the fulcrum of damaged structure not being directly beneath the center of gravity of the overhanging mass.the damage in the two towers was very different. There is no evidence the jet collision with tower 2 significantly damaged its core structures, since the strike was oblique, much of the jet's fuselage and fuel having exited the adjacent face of the outer wall. Such a collapse would have looked nothing like what we saw. The floors falling on each-other would have resulted in their falling inside the outer wall and around the inner core. The outer wall and core would not have failed until after the collapsed piled up at ground level INSIDE the outer walls. Instead we saw the outer wall shredded by explosive events before the floors fell.
WTC 7 was not hit by a plane but molten steel was found under the rubble .Although the energy source for these incredibly hot areas has yet to be explained, New York seismometers recorded huge bursts of energy, which caused unexplained seismic "spikes" at the beginning of each collapse.
These spikes suggest that massive underground explosions may have literally knocked the towers off their foundations, causing them to collapse.
Many of the most respected engineers in the country openly complained not only about the recycling, but also about the Federal government's suffocating control of their investigation.
Interviews with a handful of members of the team, which includes some of the nation's most respected engineers, also uncovered complaints that they had at various times been shackled with bureaucratic restrictions that prevented them from interviewing witnesses, examining the disaster site and requesting crucial information like recorded distress calls to the police and fire departments..."
On December 25, 2001, the New York Times ran a story about the frustrations of some of the engineers who were called in to study the cause of the collapse:
They made their concerns known publicly. Bill Manning, editor of the 125 year old Fire Engineering magazine, noticed a strange difference between the WTC investigation and other major fire investigations in New York Citys past. Manning wrote:
Did they throw away the locked doors from the Triangle Shirtwaist fire? Did they throw away the gas can used at the happy land social club fire?...That's what they're doing at the World Trade Center. The destruction and removal of evidence must stop immediately."
One investigator told the New York Times:
This is almost the dream team of engineers in the country working on this, and our hands are tied," said one team member who asked not to be identified. Members have been threatened with dismissal for speaking to the press. "FEMA is controlling everything," the team member said. Dr. Frederick W. Mowrer from the Fire Engineering department at the University of Maryland told the New York Times:
"I find the speed with which important evidence has been removed and recycled to be appalling.'
Officials in the mayor's office declined to reply to written and oral requests for comment over a three- day period about who decided to recycle the steel and the concern that the decision might be handicapping the investigation
This site has much more info
uscrisis. lege.net/911/
About flight 93. In the cold war there was a manuevered for heavy bobmers to use that would allow them to build up enough speed to drop the bobm and give them enough time to get out of blast range, the manuever was banned however when it came aware and after some crash the the structure of the plane couldn't take forces and some planes broke up having debris be rained down over a large area. Same thing appears with this flight and the explosion could of been a engine the had been thrown out of alignment from the forces and a spark was caused and the fuel tank exploded, there are simpleir answers to the questions and i'll answer them, but now it's time for dinner.
The answers are very simple.The official story of Osama doing it has been proven as a hoax and was never s |
