facepalm.jpg

Ah, yet another “Clinton cut national defense so 9/11′s his fault” argument…

Have you ever read Colin Powell’s autobiography? Very strong cuts in defense spending were underway back in the Bush administration; Clinton simply followed the trend he set into motion. It’s not Bush’s fault either; any administration, Democrat or Republican, would have done the same.

Why? Because the Cold War was OVER, and unlike at the end of World War Two, there was no obvious great enemy to be fought. In a country like America, that means cuts in military spending. The fault for that lies not with Democrats or Republicans, it lies in the American people – historically, unless there’s an obvious Great Evil Bogeyman to go out and kill, we the people don’t give two shits about the outside world and won’t even hear about spending money on it.

(By the way, one of the biggest criticisms from the right against Clinton back in the 1990s was that he was too interested in foreign affairs and not vital American affairs like The Homosexual Threat or The War On Christmas. Funny how quickly they changed their tune from “Clinton’s doing too much” to “Clinton didn’t do enough” after 9/11).

And before you assume i’m another crazy republican, i voted Ron Paul.

Thank you for keeping the comedy tradition alive by supplying a punchline.

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/crs-stats-show-troop-deaths-at-peacetime-rate

As for the debt, in-case you haven’t noticed, Obama has more than Quadrupled said debt.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/02/26/quick-observations-on-president-obama%E2%80%99s-budget/

The Mortgage thing was bound to happen eventually.

So was the gas prices thing.
You can hardly blame these things on one man. Well you can, you just look like an idiot to anyone on the outside.
And before you assume i’m another crazy republican, i voted Ron Paul.

Your theory posits a cabal you can do nothing about. You’re a perpetual victim.

There’s an eccentric, ironic charm to having someone who believes that 19 guys, led by a guy in a cave, defeated America’s multi-trillion dollar defense system with pilots who couldn’t fly and brought three steel-framed buildings (including one that no aircraft touched) down into their own footprint (and leaving a magic passport as evidence on top of the powdered rubble)….accusing ME of paranoia!

Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!!

A pleasure. You’re trying to draw a parallel between the two incidents? Because there was concrete and steel involved? This is a terriffic example of “apples and oranges”. In the first place, an overpass is not built like the Trade Centers were. As is typical, this concrete overpass was built on a base of relatively small beams which are secured by nothing more than bolts (you might not want to dwell on this if you drive on these kinds of structures regularly). The Trade Centers, however, were built with a core of gigantic steel reinforced columns at their centers and a surrounding steel framework of huge steel beams that were *welded* together.

Here’s a link to the overpass collapse: http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070429/oakland_freeway_070429/20070429?hub=World

In the article, you’ll read the following: “Witnesses reported flames rising up to 200 feet into the air. Heat exceeded 2,750 degrees and caused the steel beams holding up the interchange from eastbound I-80 to eastbound Interstate 580 above to buckle and bolts holding the structure together to melt, leading to the collapse, California Department of Transportation director Will Kempton said.”

In the government’s study of the Trade Towers (NIST report), you’ll read the following”
NIST: “In no instance did NIST report that steel in the
WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of
steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit).
Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel)
fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius
(2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum
upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius
(1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers (for example,
see NCSTAR 1, figure 6-36)” [3].

Additionally, remember that the Trade Tower events saw approximately 80% of the fuel oxidized in the first few seconds, *outside* of the buildings. This left very little fuel for internal fires (which lasted only minutes) and much cooler temperatures than the overpass incident, which was catastrophic because of the failure of small bolts, not massive beams.

This thread may be gone by morning but….there’s your answer.

A final characteristic of the paranoid style is related to the quality of its pedantry. One of the impressive things about paranoid literature is the contrast between its fantasied conclusions and the almost touching concern with factuality it invariably shows. It produces heroic strivings for evidence to prove that the unbelievable is the only thing that can be believed. Of course, there are highbrow, lowbrow, and middlebrow paranoids, as there are likely to be in any political tendency. But respectable paranoid literature not only starts from certain moral commitments that can indeed be justified but also carefully and all but obsessively accumulates :evidence.” The difference between this “evidence” and that commonly employed by others is that it seems less a means of entering into normal political controversy than a means of warding off the profane intrusion of the secular political world. The paranoid seems to have little expectation of actually convincing a hostile world, but he can accumulate evidence in order to protect his cherished convictions from it.

Whatever.

Of course not. You’re the kook.

(shakes head, stunned) English isn’t your first language, is it?

Go…to…your…site (if you can stand it)..and…pick…the…strongest…example.

(must be some Babelfish translation problem).

Uh-huh, so the “post at the top of the thread” was written by you, using a “pen name”?

Didn’t think so.

So……….my accounting was right, right?

Sure: http://www.debunking911.com/

Holy shit, you sound just like one of those “post-pod” cats in “The Invasion of the Body Snatchers”. Ok dude, I’m ready to convert to your strange religion, just give me *one* proof of where I’ve been wrong. (Come on Bubbles, you can do it!).

Ooh, not at all.

No doubt. So, by my accounting we’ve got another attempt by you to pass off your argument to someone else (in a post at the top of the thread which actually, isn’t) follwed by another “I got nuthin’!”.

You keeping score Simba? You waiting for a meltdown? The rest of this is gonna be mighty dissappointing for ya, I fear. Wanna play, or are you another one who hasn’t got a clue about any of this?