Buzz:

When you get some time point out where I said it had to melt.

if it isn’t important that it doesn’t have to melt, quit yammering about what is needed for it to melt. .

Link to one other high rise that fell down while burning, just one.

What do I get, a cookie?

Shit, do your own homework. There’s at least one example of that… think it happened in Egypt.

is there a point to the exercise? It’s obvious why WTC-1 and -2 fell down. Anybody with a brain can figure that out without any trouble. (Hint a 400,000 lb plane traveling at 450 mph carrying 10,000 gallons of high-performance jet fuel may have been a “contributing” cause, lol).

I have not said that one is more reliable than the other. I am only asking why you discount one completely, while assuming that the other is infallible.

Plausible deniability only gets you so far. After that you start looking pretty wishy-washy.

Everyone seems to lose sight of the fact that 9/11 was eight years in the planning. Long before Bush was President, long before he even thought about running.

The “happened on Bush’s watch” crowd never cared one whit what happened on Clinton’s watch, it was all about the BDS!

Buzz:

You mean a 75 foot hole and a 12 foot hole. And yet it didn’t even knock out the windows above the impact area.

WTF are you talking about?

You seriously need to go back and do your homework.

I’d suggest starting here.

You’re just plain loopy.

H:

Clinton was bombing and killing terrorists while Cons focused and obsessed about his penis.

Clinton was bombing empty tents while you were focusing on his penis.

Cons were a bit more concerned with his perjury under oath, obstruction of justice, witness tampering and subjoining perjury.

Too bad you liberals are so fucking amoral that doesn’t bother you.

I recall cutting through steel with an acetylene torch many times.

Fires that use oxygen as a fuelant are limited in how hot they can get based on how much oxygen is present in the atmosphere. You can increase the amount of heat produced either by using pure oxygen as a source (your torch analogy) or by concentrating the gases in furnace so the process is given longer to come to completion.

Neither of these are applicable to the WTCs, which of course collapsed due to failure of the steel structures as a result of being compromised by heat, rather than from some sci-fi melting of the steel frame.

Steel farms. I’m tellin’ ya.

Nothing can melt steell — Only a liberal knows for sure.

You got to keep the weed out of that crop, otherwise it won’t grow straight!

Nobody knows the actual whereabouts of these steel farms because they have guns and many men, and guard their secrets jealously.

Arkansas

check out messages no 2 & 5 they show steel farming

For the record I was mocking Rosie O’s stupid comment.

As far as the WTC it wasn’t that the steel became liquid but rather softened and lost its ability to support the weight.

On August 20, 1998, 66 cruise missiles launched by United States Navy ships in the Arabian Sea struck bin Laden’s training camps near Khost in Afghanistan, narrowly missing him by a few hours.[100]

Because Clinton was too busy to give the order to execute in a timely manner. You don’t know that story?

In 1999 the CIA, together with Pakistani military intelligence, had prepared a team of approximately 60 Pakistani commandos to infiltrate Afghanistan to capture or kill bin Laden, but the plan was aborted by the 1999 Pakistani coup d’état; [100]

Like an etchosketch. It never happened. Why boast about plans that got deep sixed?

in 2000, foreign operatives working on behalf of the CIA had fired a rocket-propelled grenade at a convoy of vehicles in which bin Laden was traveling through the mountains of Afghanistan, hitting one of the vehicles but not the one bin Laden was in.[99]

Nothing says “powerful American tiger” like a rocket launcher attack purportedly carried out by US surrogates, now does it? LOL.

Watching liberals spin can be a beautiful thing. Unfortunately more urgent business calls.. my cats toes need delinting again. Now if I can figure out where I put that dental floss….

Racist, sexist, tin-foil hat troofer…

r108,

Indeed. And Obama is now returning us to the lawfare model which worked so well for Clinton… /sarc

Ah, more right-wing spin and hypberbole to cover for their anger that Clinton actually went after and killed many AQ terrorists, while BUSH DID NOTHING.

There is no independent confirmation that anybody was even injured during the attacks, just one Pakistani journalist and given the number of contradictions in his story, he’s not exactly a truthworthy source. US government sources say the camps were empty at the time of strike, possibly the result of a tip-off from somebody within the Pakistani government.

If you accept the Pakistani journalists story (I doubt it has any validity period), then the people who were killed weren’t even al Qaeda or even terrorists at all, but anti-insurgents who were fighting against the Pakistani occupation of Kashmir.

Too bad Hannitized is so busy bitching and crying about everything he never has anytime to do his own reading.

Here’s one account.

I don’t vouch for its accuracy, it’s just a place to start, but at least it’s a well researched and thoroughly cited work.

Some images from my own set:

Debris on lawn of Pentagon:

Plane before impact (size and elevation can be estimated from location of shadow under plane… do the conspiracists ever note this? Didn’t think so.)

Image showing damage to building and missing windows:

Part of an engine that was recovered from the interior:

Seriously, the left likes to talk about how the right engages in magical thinking… but what we have here is just how seriously deranged and separated from reality they themselves are.

Here’s one example of a building collapse, a 5-story steel frame construction in Seoul, South Korea on June 29, 1995.

Here’s an example of structural failure, McCormack Place Fire:

There are dozens of example of warehoues fires where the building suffered catastrophic failure.

What again is it that magically makes the WTCs special that the same physics that causes collapses in other structures somehow makes them immune?

Last I checked high-rise buildings are at greater risk not less than building with fewer floors.

Gonna buy myself some popcorn and head home. I’ll be chuckling at Lioncourt, Buzz, Rosie and the rest of the liberal crowd while watching this.

This is nothing more than an example of, if you make the event selective enough, you won’t find many examples of it. Steel buildings collapse. They collapse due to fire, wind, earthquake, poor construction and every other known cause for building collapse,

The only thing that was special about WTC-1 and -2 besides their known design and construction flaws were the 400,000 pound planes flying into them at 450 miles per hour carrying 10,000 gallons of high performance jet fuel.

And that’s about it, other than their size and the numbers of people killed by appeasing terrorists.

Buzz:

e? High-rise buildings are built to a different standard than a warehouse, or some piece of shit in korea. Give me a break.

Give you a break? LOL.

Buzz, this is just proof of how worthless this argument is. No matter how many counter examples people can come up with, there’s always a reason why the WTCs are somehow “special”.

McCormack Place was designed to withstand fire and was not a warehouse btw.

But really, what distinguishes truthers from birthers is it is theoretically possible that Obama wasn’t born in the US (I think under the circumstances highly unlikely), but the idea that 9/11 was a massive government conspiracy is totally preposterous.

The statement was made that fire does not melt steel, I agreed and added that an arc furnace is needed to melt steel. I made no statement abut the amount of heat that was needed to effect the static load rigidity of metal.

But I am always happy to school you matters that a house bound geek could not possiably know.

BTW, not only will a hot enough fire melt steel, but long before the steel actually melts, it will be structurally weakened by fire, which is why the Twin Towers collapsed: the steel framework had been sufficiently weakened by the burning jet fuel to be unable to support the weight of the upper floors. It’s a simple concept for educated people, little buzzy.

BINGO. just think of blacksmiths working to hone a weapon. they dont melt the metal, they heat it to make it ‘workable’.

So this science you believe, but the same computers that say that there is climate change, that will effect how we live, grow food, where we can live, that science is false. Is that what you are saying, that you are cherry picking what you want to believe and what you do not want to believe? Yea, that’s what I thought

Um, Buzz, please tell me this is sarcasm….are you seriously unaware that while steel is made every day by a process called fire (say in a “Basic Oxygen Furnace” or “Open Hearth Furnace”), climatologists have yet to produce models that have actual predictive ability?

Or would you be telling us that because Newtonian mechanics was well established in 1900, we are also bound to believe theories of luminiferous aether, phlogiston, and caloric? That the atom is truly indivisible, and……?

Please. If people can’t clue in to the fact that people melt steel with fire every day in places like Gary and Pittsburgh, a National Geographic special isn’t going to help them–they’ll be with Dino and his friends watching the latest from Daily Kot and Huffington Post or something instead.

STOP! MY TINFOIL HAT IS MELTING!!!!

NOTHING CAN MELT STEEL!!! NOTHING!!!

Ignorant little buzzy: Again, steel was being worked long before electricity was available. Remember the bellows furnace? You are so ignorant!
Arc furnaces are much more efficient, but are not the only way to do things, as you falsely claimed.
Schooled again!

The SAB Sarcasmometer seems to be on the fritz this week…

…month.

…year.

And now you claim that they had bellows to heat the steel in the WTC, I was not aware that the hijackers were that thorough.

No, idiot! I was smacking your lie that it takes an arc furnace to melt steel with the truth that steel has been melted since before the invention of the arc furnace.
Are you really that dumb?

Exactly Whistler. Material science 101.

Buzz is doing us a great service by showing us exactly how willful ignorance can be. He apparently makes his living fixing arc furnaces, and despite walking right by other kinds of steelmaking furnaces every day (the basic oxygen furnace and open hearth furnace come to mind) and living in steel country, he claims to be unaware that steel can be melted without electricity.

As they say in Germany, “Dumm bleibt dumm, da helfen keine Pillen.” (dumb is dumb, no pill will help)

The leftard wawa fest here today is quite entertaining. I especially love how buzzy in this thread, and dinothefakehomo in 2 others, are publicly displaying their complete ignorance on multiple subjects at once. They must be out of the substance abuse item of choice, it being the end of the month and no money on their ACCESS cards, they are melting down.

Melting, melting, MMEELLLTTTIINNNGGGGG!!!!! Just like steel in a fire.

Oh, buzzy? Whilst you are at it, ‘splain to us again how all the dirty Jooos got advance warning about the attack from W’s super secret hotline. That will make you credible.

I remember a post on another blog that explains it all. If fire only burns at one temp (say jet fuel). Go put a hamburger on a grill, grill one at medium fuel for 10 minutes. Then take another one and put the burners on high for the same amount of time. Compare and hopefully they realize that the more fuel the hotter the fire, if not they are just stupid.

“if not they are just stupid.” Be nice, now, buzzy is oh, so much more than “just” stupid.

Actually, goon, there was a conspiracy concerning the 9/11 attack. It involved members of several Muslim terrorist organizations, many of which are part of Al Queda, and others that are not.

Exactly Whistler. Material science 101.

No it isn’t. That’s grade school! Show the concept on a glass tube and a flame and explain steel has similar glass-like properties. A fun afternoon with the kids, maybe a chance to start a fire in the kitchen.

Holy crap, I was expecting a few good mockings of troofers and move on. I’m stunned. Bush is gone, you can open your eyes now!
That picture of the steel in the field was funny stuff though. Made up for the pain of wandering through some of the pain inducing posts.

I recall cutting through steel with an acetylene torch many times.

Buzz:

So this science you believe, but the same computers that say that there is climate change, that will effect how we live, grow food, where we can live, that science is false

I don’t disagree with the science Buzz.

I disagree that alarmist nuts like Al Gore understand what the science actually says.

With regards to Gore, so do most scientists.

The linked article was spun in a highly favorable way towards Gore to avoid calling him an outright liar (which he is).

If you want to invoke science, you’d better understand what it says. Otherwise, this is a bit like asking OJ to put on a glove without knowing whether it will fitl

The fact remains, you can pour all the jet fuel, paper, paint, glue, wood, anything you can get your hands on and you will not melt a 24 inch beam of steal, in your life span. Will you get it hot enough to bend? Who knows, but softening steel, and melting steel is different on a factor of probably six.

Like I said, you will not melt steel without a arc furnace.

I’m certain that Elvis, JFK, and Sasquatch are the real conspirators responsible for bringing down the twin towers.

Right Buzz?

You don’t have to melt the steel, just heat it enough to lose its strength.

When you get some time point out where I said it had to melt.

And any output from a computer we should believe because its science.

Yet this special, that is to air tonight, is based on a computer model, and you have no doubt what so ever that it is irrefutable fact. Or am I wrong here somehow.

Citizen, that picture makes me woozy….ugh!

My 4 year old understands that you can melt things, by the way.

The debris that was hauled out of the site would indicate that the steel collapsed onto itself because it was weakened. Considering the massive weight of that structure it’s not hard to imagine that even steel I beams would be snapped like twigs as the buildings chain reaction crushed itself.

If any steel had melted they would of recovered molted steel that had cooled into new shapes unlike twisted and broken I beams.

This was a tragic event and we must never forget that Islamo fascism brought this horror to our soil.

buzz,

Computer models are only as good as the programmer writing it. It is much easier to model some thing then others. For instance, models of how and why a building collapses vs. how and why long term climate changes. Idiot.

Having seen several different metal frame buildings burn and collapse over the years, no, I don’t see any reason to doubt what the model shows.

Link to one other high rise that fell down while burning, just one.

Link to one other high rise that fell down while burning, just one.

Link to another high rise that was hit by a plane and was burning for hours under jet fuel.

The uniqueness of the situation really sets it apart.

Link to one other high rise that fell down while burning, just one.

Buzz, name another high rise building that had 13,000 gallons of kerosene put into a few floors of its structure to burn, and also had a 50 ton + airplane shattering portions of its external frame, and had little internal frame between the external frame and the elevators to buttress it….

Can you imagine that maybe, just maybe, there is a REASON that you don’t see this kind of thing very often? Maybe ordinary, sane people don’t fly jets into buildings? Maybe building designers put enough fire suppression in tall buildings that ordinary fires don’t get out of hand enough to cause this kind of problem? Maybe because most big buildings aren’t built with the kind of framing that the WTC used?

Link to another high rise that was hit by a plane and was burning for hours under jet fuel.

I’m not the one that said that it had happened before, again kitty, link to your high-rises that fell down while on fire.

Or is it nappy time again.

Having seen several different metal frame buildings burn and collapse over the years, no, I don’t see any reason to doubt what the model shows.

While your looking for your evidence there kitty, you may also want to explain why, after no other building falling down while burning, not only did the twin towers fall. But also building 5 AND building 7, they both came tumbling down after a few hours of “burning”.

But this does not seem odd to any of you? That the only buildings to fall during burning are in the same complex, all multistory, and all fell to the ground, or at least partially to the ground as in #5.

I’m not saying, I’m just saying, it seems at least odd.

I am only asking why you discount one completely, while assuming that the other is infallible.

You put words in my mouth… and you don’t understand probability (even at the high school level)

BTW, I explained why one model was distinctly more reliable than the other

You have to have a license?

I get it . The Bush administration got a couple of 757`s each from American and United. (buy them, steal them?) Then they flew them into the buildings, killing everybody on the planes. Then they somehow planted explosives inside to bring the buildings down. Then “they” somehow had one of the planes crash into the Penn. country side, to what, make it look real? And another into the Pentagon. All this would have taken literally thousands of people behind the scenes to pull off (and keep quiet). Yet in all those years the same geniuses couldn`t find a way to put WMD`s in Iraq. Which wouldn`t have killed any innocents. I see. Now i see the light.

Wow.

buzzardbreath the racist, sexist, troofer!

And pussycat, his apologist.

Never would have seen that coming… /sarc.

And another into the Pentagon.

A jumbo jet never hit the pentagon.

It was a Boeing 757, idiot! You continue to humiliate yourself, ignorant little buzzy.

There was no plane wreckage at the pentagon. No luggage, no engines, no nothing, just a hole.

About the size of a cruise missile.

Or maybe there is another reason for bush to confiscate every last video showing the pentagon that day.

Citizen: Clinton had a very cozy relationship with some Indonesian Muslims(the Ryadhis), and didn’t want to go after AQ vigorously. Strangely enough, we have another President with an Indonesian Muslim past…

Little buzzy continues to ignore facts to dwell in his sick fantasy. Get help, little buzzy.

Obviously he didn’t confiscate the footage that was used on the NG special tonight that aired nation wide.

And did it show the plane? Hmmm?

Thats right, no plane.

If Clinton intentionally killed any AQ members, it was after the ’93 attack, so your distinction is bullshit. What Clinton didn’t do was to take out AQ after it attacked us, and was still small and weak. Again, his weakness enabled them to grow strong enough to attack us again, after Clinton had made it possible for the hijackers to enter the country and train for the mission. If, as you claim, Clinton intentionally killed any AQ, he certainly didn’t kill enough of them to stop them from launching the attack on 9/11, as they had been planning it since the ’93 attack. Spin all you want, little H; Clinton was responsible; he could have nipped AQ in the bud, and didn’t.

Did you see the plane wizzo?

Is it trooferism to admit facts that Clinton killed Al Qaeda members well before Bush, and Bush only acted after we were attacked?
Don’t think so old man. You are just covering up for Bush’s failure to protect us as a President.

Of course this is false. Clinton went out of his way to capture al Quida alive, not kill them. And Bush was following the same path of Clinton til 9/11.

More apologetics.

More on this:

http://www.sptimes.com/News/093001/Worldandnation/CIA_tried_to_have_bin.shtml

But until the devastating attacks on New York and Washington, the American-led efforts to hunt bin Laden lacked the sense of urgency that prevails today. American intelligence and law enforcement officials grew complacent about the threat of a domestic attack by al-Qaida, failed by their own admission to share information adequately or coordinate their efforts, and were caught by surprise on Sept. 11.

This idea that Clinton was a visionary who attacked before being attacked is a fantasy. He responded like a Johnny Come Lately to al Quida and was horribly ineffectual.

His only claim to being better than Bush is that he killed 20-30 AQ before Bush did…which considering he was president before Bush is like comparing Babe Ruth’s better record to the lackluster players before him.

And while we are still kicking buzzy’s teeth in, it is 40 degrees here, on Sep 1, ’09. How is that global warming working out for you, bitch?

“Bill Clinton was the only President who killed Al Qaeda operatives and attempted to get Bin Laden before 9/11.”

What a pile of lies and shit from sanni. But hey, what do you expect, from a whiny lying cunt.

Clinton and Gore promissed to make our international airports more secure to stop threats of terrorism. I guess the 911 terrorists didn’t get that impression.

Move zig,

I have a copy of that footage somewhere at work. It was shot by a test lab in California. It is part of a series of various test procedures to prove the safety claims of the nuclear power industry. The footage you saw was to test the integrity of the structure of the dome of a nuclear power plant. By design, these structures are meant to wistand a direct hit from a 747. That F-4 vaporized into dust. The largest piece to come out of the debris was a three foot chunck of the booster that most likely broke away at impact.

These domes are 6 foot thick, continual pour concrete with rebar, criscrossed, every 6 inches. Pretty tough stuff.

We went after AQ, the Republicans complained that it was a distraction from Lewinkski. That is what CONs cared about…..Clinton’s penis, just like they care about my penis and what it was doing all the time (lookin at you Move).

And when Bush was in power and became president. He IGNORED Bin Laden.

The right want you to believe their lie. We were nice about it before because we believed in being kind…..but fuck it.

These assholes attack Obama for anything, so now it’s game time, which means it’s time to hold Bush responsible for what he did AND DIDN’T DO!!

Bush ignored Bin Laden and sat on his do nothing ass and we were attacked.

Poofie represents the conservative mental disorder, PRE 911, that shows they were not serious about killing terrorists.

what does Clinton firing million dollar cruise missiles at camel’s tents and bombing aspirin factories have to do with 9/11 conspiracy theories?

You see how they dismiss the important task of destroying terrorist training camps and killing AQ members???

Take a good look at yourselves CONS. You don’t care about fighting terrorism…..you care about partisan politics.

All of those attacks the Republicans pretend now to care about, yet when Bush was in power……they did nothing.

Clinton bombed the crap out of them while Cons wanted to talk about his penis.

Citizen’s obvious distraction is the standard right-wing lie.

They pretend that attacks by AQ were important, but as soon as they had power they started planning attacks on Iraq, and ignored AQ, ignored warnings and refused Clintons plan to invade Afghanistan and attack the Taliban.

Instead, they chose to do nothing.

So now they are lying.

Bush was a do nothing President.

National Geo slammed the truthers last night. It made them look like the fools they are. Check out my piece on it this morning.

Kenny Lies:

On August 20, 1998, 66 cruise missiles launched by United States Navy ships in the Arabian Sea struck bin Laden’s training camps near Khost in Afghanistan, narrowly missing him by a few hours.[100] In 1999 the CIA, together with Pakistani military intelligence, had prepared a team of approximately 60 Pakistani commandos to infiltrate Afghanistan to capture or kill bin Laden, but the plan was aborted by the 1999 Pakistani coup d’état; [100] in 2000, foreign operatives working on behalf of the CIA had fired a rocket-propelled grenade at a convoy of vehicles in which bin Laden was traveling through the mountains of Afghanistan, hitting one of the vehicles but not the one bin Laden was in.[99]

In 2000, prior to the September 11 attacks, Paul Bremer characterized the Clinton administration as “correctly focused on bin Laden”, while Robert Oakley actually criticized their “obsession with Osama”.

But Kenny said it never happened to cover for do nothing Bush.

You lying scumbag, it is NOT FALSE that Clinton bombed Afghanistan terrorist training camps and killed many AQ members, you lying right wing douche.

Which I pointed out. It’s false that Clinton aggressively went after AQ while Bush supposedly did nothing. After being attacked repeatedly, Clinton followed the same plan with little deviation. Bush continued these plans.

The idea that Clinton was a fighter and Bush was a do nothing is a lie.

We went after AQ, the Republicans complained that it was a distraction from Lewinkski. That is what CONs cared about…..Clinton’s penis, just like they care about my penis and what it was doing all the time (lookin at you Move).

This too is a lie. This is in reference to Clinton firing rockets into IRAQ (which of course, had nothing to do with al Quida as Hanni endlessly tells us) on the day of his indictment. What was teh Republican response?

Glowing praise.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/react082198.htm

President Clinton won warm support for ordering anti-terrorist bombing attacks in Afghanistan and Sudan yesterday from many of the same lawmakers who have criticized him harshly as a leader critically weakened by poor judgment and reckless behavior in the Monica S. Lewinsky scandal.

A few senators, however, noted that the timing of the attack raised the question of whether Clinton had ordered it to deflect attention from his personal affairs. Others suggested the scandal may be preventing the president from paying attention to critical international problems.

But most lawmakers from both parties were quick to rally behind Clinton in a deluge of public statements and appearances yesterday, a marked contrast to the relatively sparse and chilly reception that greeted his Monday statement on the Lewinsky matter.

“I think the president did exactly the right thing,” House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said of the bombing attacks. “By doing this we’re sending the signal there are no sanctuaries for terrorists.”

Gingrich said he was told “very precise details” of the attack before it occurred, and praised Clinton’s aides for being “sensitive to making sure we were not blindsided in this.” Other congressional leaders, several of whom were on vacation or difficult to locate, said the White House had made an effort to notify them before the attacks.

Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) called the attacks “appropriate and just,” and House Majority Leader Richard K. Armey (R-Tex.) said “the American people stand united in the face of terrorism.”

Yes, even Lott, who called the timing suspect, said that the attacks were appropriate and just. The very Republican leading the impeachment praised Clinton’s Iraq bombing, if not the timing. Republicans rallied around the President.

Again, here is the double standard. Clinton did right in attacking Iraq (and he did), but Bush did wrong in attacking Iraq (he also did right). Clinton’s lackluster approach to getting bin Ladin is oh so cool (it was pretty well justified by the minor scale of his attacks at the time), yet Bush’s continuance of those policies was unacceptable “Do Nothingism” (though it was the same exact policies). Democrats lying about the President is oh so sheek (they’re scumbags), yet we pretend Republicans did the same thing (when they did the opposite).

And, again, pointing out that Clinton tried to get Bin Laden before Bush did is moronic. Clinton was president before Bush. Was Bush supposed to rush in in 1998 and scream “None of ya’ll know who I am, but I’m taking charge!” Hypocritic imbecile.

Kenny lies through both sides of his mouth now.

First he said:

Is it trooferism to admit facts that Clinton killed Al Qaeda members well before Bush, and Bush only acted after we were attacked?
Don’t think so old man. You are just covering up for Bush’s failure to protect us as a President.- Hannitized

Of course this is false. Clinton went out of his way to capture al Quida alive, not kill them. And Bush was following the same path of Clinton til 9/11.

More apologetics. – Kenny

Now he claims he said something different:

It’s false that Clinton aggressively went after AQ while Bush supposedly did nothing. After being attacked repeatedly, Clinton followed the same plan with little deviation. Bush continued these plans.

As I said, until we suffered the worst terrorists attack our soil, in US history…..BUSH DID NOTHING!!! NOTHING!!

The idea that Clinton was a fighter and Bush was a do nothing is a lie.

Yeah except for Clinton did a lot, planned even more and Paul Bremer could only call him obsessed with Bin Laden.

What did Bush do before 9/11???? Oh yeah, NOTHING!!

We went after AQ, the Republicans complained that it was a distraction from Lewinkski. That is what CONs cared about…..Clinton’s penis, just like they care about my penis and what it was doing all the time (lookin at you Move).

This too is a lie. This is in reference to Clinton firing rockets into IRAQ (which of course, had nothing to do with al Quida – Kenny

Quida? You care so little you can’t even spell the name correctly.

Worse, you give an article that supports my statement, you call a lie?????? What’s that about?

A few senators, however, noted that the timing of the attack raised the question of whether Clinton had ordered it to deflect attention from his personal affairs.

It sure was a more than a few, (and now note how Cons turn to what they once labeled media bias, praising Clinton when he should have been condemned) that complained about Clinton going after terrorists, to distract from the investigation on his penis.

What else can you lie about Kenny?

Clinton’s “attempts” to get bin Laden sound little more than the husband who “attempts” to fix the car and ends up watching the ball game drinking a beer.

A missle strike into an almost empty camp hours after bin Laden left. Refusing him on two occasions. A single RPG fired into the wrong car. None of these are serious attempts. They’re bungling at best.

One can forgive this by noting, at the time, that bin Laden wasn’t a serious threat. But to rewrite history after the fact to pretend that OBL was running in fear while Clinton was on his back constantly, then allowed to rest and plan when Bush didn’t want to chase anymore is ludicrous on it’s face.

Now we have a mess in Afghanistan because Bush didn’t want to kill terrorists, he had his mind set on killing innocent Iraqi’s.

Oh, Wow! H you’re really off the deep end here. Dude, go have a beer and watch something relaxing.

As I said, until we suffered the worst terrorists attack our soil, in US history…..BUSH DID NOTHING!!! NOTHING!!

Except follow Clinton’s game plan. Oops. Strike 2. – Kenny

Except for Bush refused Clintons’ actual Plan, which called for an invasion of Afghanistan…BEFORE 9/11.

Get your history straight, liar.

It’s false that Clinton aggressively went after AQ while Bush supposedly did nothing. After being attacked repeatedly, Clinton followed the same plan with little deviation. Bush continued these plans.

Is exactly what I originally said. Oops. Strike 1.

Now Kenny is in denial mode, diminishing the numerous efforts, the post presidential game plan to go after the Taliban and AQ in Afghanistan in order to dismiss BUSH’S REFUSAL to do anything.

Not only did Bush do nothing, BUT HE REFUSED TO DO ACCEPT CLINTON’S GAME PLAN.

Kenny is full of lies today folks.

But, is that really a surprise? When you spin for a living, it just comes natural.

Except for Bush refused Clintons’ actual Plan, which called for an invasion of Afghanistan…BEFORE 9/11.

Get your history straight, liar.

Uh, link that. That’s a pretty broad claim with nothing to back it up.

Indeed, Clinton insiders mocked this claim when he made it…in 2006.

http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/news/2006/09/26/2006-09-26_bill_s_bull___ex-advisers__c.html

Even Clinton admits that he refused to go thru with it. And insiders say it was never as far along as he claims.

You’re just digging yourself deeper.

Kenny is full of lies today folks.

But, is that really a surprise? When you spin for a living, it just comes natural.

I spin for a living? What the hell? WHERE IS MY PAYCHECK DAMN IT! WHY DID NO ONE INFORM ME I’M GETTING PAID FOR THIS!

Of course, I haven’t lied. Far from claiming that Clinton never killed terrorists, I acknowledged it, and derided it. Far from claiming that no Republicans questioned Clinton’s Iraq attack, I acknowledged it and pointed out that even Trent Lott (the biggest name to criticize the timing) praised the attack itself. Far from claiming Clinton did nothing, I pointed out that he did what was warranted by the attacks bin Laden had already committed, which was very little, and provided evidence that Bush simply continued this lackluster approach. Etc.

My consistency and truthfulness are unquestionable here. The facts are behind me. And I’m being criticized by a prom queen fourth runner up who’s biggest beef with me is that I used the spelling Al Quida, which given Hanni’s piss poor spelling, is like a retard correcting a valedictorian on…well, anything.

But when you spend your time going out of your way to misquote people and take their arguments out of context, well….

No one actually expects honesty out of you H.

Had Clinton done anything to take out AQ, and had he succeeded, 9/11 would not have happened, and going into Afghanistan and Iraq would not have been necessary to fight AQ.
Saddam needed to be deposed, however, and Clinton was in denial of his murderous reign.

On virtually any subject of consequence, Poi-boy’s prattle is irrelevant, and history is certainly no exception.

If Clinton’s “plans” were worthwhile, the US would not have suffered so many Islamist terror attacks during his presidency. In fact, bin-Laden himself stated in that interview with ABC’s John Miller, that Al Qaeda was emboldened to further attacks against the US by the American defeat and retreat in Somalia. The Clinton-Murtha “Cut and Run” strategy in Somalia (Blackhawk Down) led to the two US embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya, the Khobar Towers bombing, the USS Cole bombing, and, of course, 9-11.

“Most steel has other metals added to tune its properties, like strength, corrosion resistance, or ease of fabrication. Steel is just the element iron that has been processed to control the amount of carbon. Iron, out of the ground, melts at around 1510 degrees C (2750°F). Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F).”
http://education.jlab.org/qa/meltingpoint_01.html

It just wasn’t the jet fuel burning, but also the paper, the wooden furniture, the carpet, all the plastic from office equipment and walls. All of which probably burn much hotter than the jet fuel. The beams and supports didn’t have to melt, just had to be structurally compromised. After the top floor collapsed, kinetic energy took over.

Nothing has to “melt” for the floor to give way. The truss just has to weaken from the heat and sag for it to pull out of the supports on the support beams.

Link to one other high rise that fell down while burning, just one.
Buzz on August 31, 2009 at 01:44 pm

The second WTC tower.

You do not have to do something to be involved in it. If bush knew it was going to happen, and did nothing, it would take no personnel to pull it off. Just let it happen.

If this is what you believe, then you must also apply the same theory to the first bombing of the WTC. Clinton knew and did nothing to stop it.

R108: I agree, through Clinton’s negligence and weakness Al Qaeda was able to continue, uninterrupted with their planning. If those who believe that 9/11 was an inside job, then Clinton must be included as one of the conspirators.

Or maybe there is another reason for bush to confiscate every last video showing the pentagon that day.

Obviously he didn’t confiscate the footage that was used on the NG special tonight that aired nation wide.
I think you need some sleep Buzz.
Good night all.

And did it show the plane? Hmmm?

And did it show a missle? Hmmmmm?
If it was a missle, where did the plane wreckage come from?

We went after AQ

Was that before or after the 1993 WTC bombing. You know, the one on Clinton’s watch.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/9/10/181819.shtml
Listen to Clinton’s own words as he describes how he let Bin Laden go.

We went after AQ before 9/11

Considering that Clinton had the opportunity to actually have Bin Laden handed over to us, and declined, your statement is false.
The question remains, did Clinton go after Bin Laden before the first WTC attack in 1993? The answer is no.

No spin needed, Clinton let Bin Laden go.Had he not let Bin Laden go, maybe 9/11 wouldn’t have happened.
And don’t forget, 1993, the first WTC attack was on Clinton’s watch.

Clinton bombed the crap out of them while Cons wanted to talk about his penis.

Was that before or after the 1993 WTC attack?

Clinton let Bin Laden go. And in reality, it was Clinton who was obsessed with the needs and wants of his own dick.

Clinton’s penis, just like they care about my penis

Seems you’re the one with cock on your mind.
I’d like to stay and play, but I’m off to Sedona for the day. Play nice with the adults while you listen to the tape of Clinton telling us how he let Bin Laden go.