As Obama Signs $787 Billion Stimulus, the Question Is, Will it Work?

[SUPER JAM]

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/stimulus/2009/02/17/as-obama-signs-787-billion-stimulus-the-question-is-will-it-work.html
[/URL]

"I can't tell you for sure that everything in this plan will work exactly as we hope," he told the nation, "but I can tell you with complete confidence that a failure to act will only deepen this crisis."



In case if anyone really wants to take a look on how the funds are being distributed, Obama and his staff have set up the website : [URL]http://www.recovery.gov/ (http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/stimulus/2009/02/17/as-obama-signs-787-billion-stimulus-the-question-is-will-it-work.html)

[Sundance Kid]

To answer you question "Will it work?"

We'll just have to wait and find out, at least he's focusing on the economy in a way.

[SUPER JAM]

Republicans didn't have much to do on stimulus package. They should sit down and shut the fuck up and let them work. They can't give any useful keys , but always make the nonsense objection. Instead of sitting and bitching about how the stimulus is gonna fail and still continue giving the idiot criticizes , WHY THEY DON'T OFFER SOME VALID AND APPRECIATED SUGGESTIONS. I strongly believe in Obama that he can do it! no matter how rough the track is. The world economic got hard fucked up gradually , so i hope this package will be effective.

[chaosblade77]

The main problem with a recession is the mindset that people get. "Oh crap, things are getting bad. I need to save money!"

Spending money is how you get out of a recession, because the more money is floating around, the more better off people are. If people are holding on to their money, that means businesses aren't making as much money, and that means they are going to make changes in order to remain profitable, which will very likely consist of layoffs.

That means they aren't going to have the money to spend like they did, meaning there's even less money floating around since fewer people are spending money, and it creates a cycle.

The goal of this "stimulus package" is to spend a bunch of money by putting people to work and creating jobs, meaning people will go back and spend the money they make and dump it back into the economy.


Of course, we don't live in a perfect world and things are bound to go wrong, money will surely be wasted, but the general idea behind the bill is right. Now the question becomes: How well executed is it? It's supposed to be transparent so we can see everything that's going on, but given these are politicians we are dealing with, it's hard to trust everything they say.

Edit: I think one of the first things that needs to happen is that American CEOs need to take some massive paycuts, considering they make something like 10x more than CEOs elsewhere in the world on average, compared to typical employees.

If even 50% of CEOs pay was divided between other workers in a company, people would have a lot more money to spend, which would be a huge benefit for the economy. The massive upper-class/middle class division we have now helps nothing and hurts everything.

[boomiko]

is it going to work? no not directly.
what it will do is give companies money and then force them to pay it back later. and when that later comes its just going to put those companies back into debt and we'll be back to were we started. also some companies wont be able to return the money back making them in debt to the government making the government more in debt to china and other countries we're borrowing money from. and this wont be the last bill they pass. i expect around 2-3 trillion dollars worth of government spending on this "stimulus" this year. but thats just a guess and i dont truly know the future.

but i do hope it works in the sense that people step out of their saving frenzy and reignite the dying companies and businesses, not with a government stimulus, but with people working and paying for stuff in cash.

[sobchack]

no one knows, but it sure beats doing nothing i guess

[SUPER JAM]

Honestly , i mean how much percent it's gonna be effective for their remedy. Toyota Prius.....fuck off (at least it's still better than chevy). The first and the last points have possibility for almost every people for sure. But 2nd and 3rd just require more hard works and the brilliantness of Obama to make 100% comes true.


What the Stimulus Bill Will Do For You


As President Obama signs the $787 billion stimulus package into law today, you might be wondering: What's in it for me? Well, it turns out there are a few programs that could end up changing your spending habits. Here are four ways the bill could affect you:

You might keep more of your money. Most people will receive a tax credit of $400 (or $800 for married couples). The credit begins phasing out for anyone earning over $75,000 ($150,000 for couples).


You might buy a home. Anyone in the market for their first home this year is eligible to receive an $8,000 tax credit. Exceptions: Anyone earning over $75,000 ($150,000 for married couples).


Or perhaps a car: If you've had your eye on a new Toyota Prius, now might be the time to act. The stimulus bill lets you count the sales tax as a tax deduction on auto purchases up to $49,500. (Again, the deal doesn't apply to high-earners. It phases out for anyone earning more than $125,000 or couples earning over $250,000.)


It will be cheaper to use public transportation. Workers can put up to $230 in pre-tax dollars towards the cost of commuting by train, bus, or carpool. (That amount pushes up the previous cap of $120.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------


i expect around 2-3 trillion dollars worth of government spending on this "stimulus" this year. but thats just a guess and i dont truly know the future.

2-3 trillion? Now they got pissed off because of the $700 billion bailout Obama inherited from President George W. Bush, half of which is already spent.

And also :
The Treasury Department plan has three main components: more cash for banks (with more strings attached), financing for as much as $1 trillion in consumer and business loans, and government backing for investors willing to buy up toxic assets.

They must focus more on tax cutting , not the spending. And i think 2-3 trillion is too much for the spending plan , it causes the damn deficit budget. Yep , they're gonna push more money supply to the banks , and it's the time for speculators to sell up unvaluable assets. The policy makers should reform all of regulations about the mortgages , energy markets , employment ,etc; I mean like Obama said that it's not only the ordinary crisis , but it's fucking worst damage.

what it will do is give companies money and then force them to pay it back later. and when that later comes its just going to put those companies back into debt and we'll be back to were we started.

That's also the reason why they should reform the regulation on investment system. But as we come so far , they should concern about the security of tax payers in the first place.

[boomiko]

2-3 trillion? Now they got pissed off because of the $700 billion bailout Obama inherited from President George W. Bush, half of which is already spent.

And also :
The Treasury Department plan has three main components: more cash for banks (with more strings attached), financing for as much as $1 trillion in consumer and business loans, and government backing for investors willing to buy up toxic assets.

They must focus more on tax cutting , not the spending. And i think 2-3 trillion is too much for the spending plan , it causes the damn deficit budget. Yep , they're gonna push more money supply to the banks , and it's the time for speculators to sell up unvaluable assets. The policy makers should reform all of regulations about the mortgages , energy markets , employment ,etc; I mean like Obama said that it's not only the ordinary crisis , but it's fucking worst damage.
.
true that the bill was created in bush's term but who pushed the creation of the bill? was it obama and the democratic party? i think they had a pretty big part in this.

2-3 trillion is a lot of money and it may be a little exagerated for his 1st term but i would still hold strong on it being 1.5-2.5 trillion. when obama and his buddies see that this 1st pakage didn't do much theyre going to say "i guess we didn't put enough money into this, how about another 800billion just for the record, eh nancy(pelozi if you dont get it)?"

with tax cutting. explain this to me: the government spends more money=lower taxes...:blink: now im scratchin my head at this one and well its just plain wrong. what is actually going to happen is: government spends more money=higher taxes

now what obama will do is tax big companies and rich people. now tell me this: which supplies more jobs to american workers, big companies with low taxes or big comanies with taxes so high that they have to use one hand to keep their head on their shoulders(this is a metaphor were "hands" are providable jobs and the "head" is falling of becuase of guillotine like taxes.) the truth is that americans depend on big companies for their jobs from everything from shipping to distribution and when those companies cant afford to pay taxes with their previous budget they will cut workers.

what if specualators dont want to sell their "unvaluable assets"? it is a free market you know

and i find it interesting that you think obama is some sort of a cross between einstein and merlin but in a world of politics. he is the commander in chief of our army and probably hasn't done so much as played a war based video game in his entire life. but his solid 2 years in the senate definately qualifies him for being the smartest president.:rolleyes: but if that doesn't convince you why dont u look at his work at harvord... oh wait you can't!!! wow i forgot, silly me.:D. well we'll just have to put this out on a limb

im not saying that mcain was a better choice. maybe in a time of war but not for the economy. obama is very good at speeches and such so i just have to listen to what he says and weigh the possible outcomes and consequences. what america really needs is a strong military leader, who knows how the economy runs, can act independently of his party( that means no "partisan" or "bi-partisan", and can unify americans in their homes.
(btw: this is my longest ever post!:dance:)

[SUPER JAM]

true that the bill was created in bush's term but who pushed the creation of the bill? was it obama and the democratic party? i think they had a pretty big part in this.

Geithner's plan , and he was blamed by many investors that:
"As such, Geithner's plan was effectively a makeover - and aggressive expansion - of the $700 billion bailout Obama inherited from President George W. Bush, half of which is already spent." Because the plan just lacks of the details and it makes true valuation tough. And at least they come to the right track about the spending , they have to spend more to stimulate economy , not for the blowing shit in Iraq.



with tax cutting. explain this to me: the government spends more money=lower taxes...:blink: now im scratchin my head at this one and well its just plain wrong. what is actually going to happen is: government spends more money=higher taxes


It's gonna be the lower tax. But as in the case of the spending , it has to come through the process of domestic production power (more US own products , so it can improve the balance of payment). Obama said the tax reduction policy will be accomplished on April 1. The employees will be paid back from the tax reduction and the family will be paid back by cheque every month for $65 per month. This system will help americans 95% , and it's the most speed-up system which never happened before on tax reduction history in US.

now what obama will do is tax big companies and rich people. now tell me this: which supplies more jobs to american workers, big companies with low taxes or big comanies with taxes so high that they have to use one hand to keep their head on their shoulders(this is a metaphor were "hands" are providable jobs and the "head" is falling of becuase of guillotine like taxes.) the truth is that americans depend on big companies for their jobs from everything from shipping to distribution and when those companies cant afford to pay taxes with their previous budget they will cut workers.

They focus on the big structure first to stimulate the economic system's efficiency and to repair the banks. It just deals with the investment security. But as you said , the tax cutting does not apply to the very very rich people. But they not gonna tax more on big companies , they also spend to cure those companies. At least they gonna do something for monetary policy section for sure too. The percent of employees is not the main target , i think. It's just the detail. And of course , if the big figure is successful so they can push people back into jobs. I think it's just the concept of expansionary fiscal policy.


what if specualators dont want to sell their "unvaluable assets"? it is a free market you know

Yeah.........it ups to their choices. But now government is willing to buy up the toxic assets.



and i find it interesting that you think obama is some sort of a cross between einstein and merlin but in a world of politics. he is the commander in chief of our army and probably hasn't done so much as played a war based video game in his entire life. but his solid 2 years in the senate definately qualifies him for being the smartest president.


No , he's not magic. And also there're still some people who don't accept him much because of silly reasons. But of course it's their personal matters and it can't take the damn at all. Btw the coward president and the brave president....who do you prefer? at least no one is perfect by the nature , and he's very confident and brave enough to say "I screwed up". People need the confident leader who's worth trusting enough to secure them from this damn crisis. And Obama is man enough to admit when he screws up. Not the coward who screwed up countless times but not man enough to admit it.


:rolleyes: but if that doesn't convince you why dont u look at his work at harvord... oh wait you can't!!! wow i forgot, silly me.:D. well we'll just have to put this out on a limb

I think harvard is not the vital matter. It's not important at all to follow the fixed theory , the practical way is different and more tough.



im not saying that mcain was a better choice. maybe in a time of war but not for the economy.


just forget about him....the only thing he can do best is sitting and bitching about how stimulus is gonna fail and continue giving the idiot criticizes which are not the valid suggestions at all.



obama is very good at speeches and such so i just have to listen to what he says and weigh the possible outcomes and consequences. what america really needs is a strong military leader, who knows how the economy runs, can act independently of his party( that means no "partisan" or "bi-partisan", and can unify americans in their homes.
(btw: this is my longest ever post!:dance:


But Geithner is the badass , he's tax cheater and he fakes about the theorical plan. I think should remove him from this position.
And i need MScE people or BA Econ to explain and tell the cool opinion about this topic! ToT And very thank you for your collaboration , boomiko , you have the smart idea!




I think they have to spend more on production of goods and services , especially automakers. Because it's just damn deficit balance of payment. And chevy sucks.

[boomiko]

No , he's not magic. And also there're still some people who don't accept him much because of silly reasons. But of course it's their personal matters and it can't take the damn at all. Btw the coward president and the brave president....who do you prefer? at least no one is perfect by the nature , and he's very confident and brave enough to say "I screwed up". People need the confident leader who's worth trusting enough to secure them from this damn crisis. And Obama is man enough to admit when he screws up. Not the coward who screwed up countless times but not man enough to admit it.
.
You really are hopeless. by "coward president" i assume you mean bush and thats the opposite of what he is. he may be stupid, but hes got balls. he goes and fights the war in the middle east. 1. he goes out their to protect the civillians their cuz of his morals, despite the press and just about every democrat hating him and calling him stupid. 2. its in the terrorist "hotspot" making him a hit for terrorist assasination.

and with being able to own up to mistakes, i believe obama has stated that he believes the surge in the middle east was a failure, even though it was very succesful, and still says it was a failure to this day. it was a mistake he made and is so hopped up on being right and perfect, that he cant admit that he was wrong(watch the oreilly factor obama interview.)

[Nagase]

You really are hopeless. by "coward president" i assume you mean bush and thats the opposite of what he is. he may be stupid, but hes got balls. he goes and fights the war in the middle east. 1. he goes out their to protect the civillians their cuz of his morals, despite the press and just about every democrat hating him and calling him stupid. 2. its in the terrorist "hotspot" making him a hit for terrorist assasination.

No, the men FIGHTING in the war have balls while he laughs his ass off.

Bush is an utter asshole who tells more lies to the people of his own country than any other president ever will. He deserves the death sentence for the shit he's pulled.

Anyway, the entire war is pointless. Especially gtfo of Iraq imo, we have no need to be there.

[Azure Presul]

No, the men FIGHTING in the war have balls while he laughs his ass off.

Bush is an utter asshole who tells more lies to the people of his own country than any other president ever will. He deserves the death sentence for the shit he's pulled.

Anyway, the entire war is pointless. Especially gtfo of Iraq imo, we have no need to be there.
Couldn't agree more.

[boomiko]

No, the men FIGHTING in the war have balls while he laughs his ass off.

so true, GO ARMY!

[Misschoco]

You really are hopeless. by "coward president" i assume you mean bush and thats the opposite of what he is. he may be stupid, but hes got balls. he goes and fights the war in the middle east. 1. he goes out their to protect the civillians their cuz of his morals, despite the press and just about every democrat hating him and calling him stupid. 2. its in the terrorist "hotspot" making him a hit for terrorist assasination.


And how exactly did he fight the war in the middle east directly? He wasnt on front lines and if he was Proofz please.He has balls but only in a physical sense.I dont think anyone could surpass how manipulative he was and his lack of articulacy compared to obama im not even going to discuss.

About the bill-Im not gona analyse everything and speculate of whether it'll be successful or not its just something we have to wait and see the outcome of.

[NEALBLEWMEONCE]

Seriously, there's so much glibness/bad info/confusion in this thread it would probably take 3+ hours just to straighten out half of what's been said!

You guys think government spending is the answer, huh?


http://www.cagle.com/working/090123/beeler.gif



When have government stimulus packages ever worked? Seriously, show me a clear-cut example!

Maybe we should look at the $900,000,000,000 worth of stimulus packages Japan tried in the nineties?

Result: Massive corruption, waste, and all they had to show for it was a mountain of debt and some public works projects that look suspiciously like bridges to nowhere!


I am diametrically opposed to this stuff on principle. As most people probably would be if they understood the long-term ramifications.


That being said, I can see the need for republican opposition to either get behind the plan or get the hell out of the way so they can ram it through as fast as possible.


History/economics teaches us that if you're going to go the stimulus route you're best chance, theoretically, would be to go hard, fast and deep!


About the bill-Im not gona analyse everything and speculate of whether it'll be successful or not its just something we have to wait and see the outcome of.

^ You're right, years down the road we'll be able to see the full effect (or ineffectivness) of this stuff, and we'll still have a fat debt staring us in the face with not much to show for it! It'll be too damn late!





P.S.:
No, the men FIGHTING in the war have balls while he laughs his ass off.

Bush is an utter asshole who tells more lies to the people of his own country than any other president ever will. He deserves the death sentence for the shit he's pulled.

Anyway, the entire war is pointless. Especially gtfo of Iraq imo, we have no need to be there.
^ This sounds semi-sarcastic/trollish. Are you serious? What the hell is this shit?

http://www.ericsiegmund.com/images/fireant/babs.jpg

[Nagase]

^ This sounds semi-sarcastic/trollish. Are you serious? What the hell is this shit?

http://www.ericsiegmund.com/images/fireant/babs.jpgStop waving your American flag dickshit. Watch something called loose change and then you'll understand. Wanker.

Oh and yes, before you say it, governments DO lie to their people, especially BUSH.

[Dream Machine]

When have government stimulus packages ever worked? Seriously, show me a clear-cut example!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_deal

It's never clear-cut because the economy is complex, so a simple solution is never gonna make everything all fine and dandy. But only very silly people would think that the New Deal did nothing.

[NEALBLEWMEONCE]

@ Nagase: What you posted (including your sig, BTW) was so offensively dumb I assumed you were joking. Sorry for giving you the benefit of doubt.

Somehow you got the idea that because I was shocked at the fucking immature, Zach de la Rocha-esque lunacy you posted (including your sig), I must be a big fan/supporter/apologist of George W. Bush, which I'm not.

I am, however, an American citizen who's very proud of his country. Don't like that? Tough noogies. Dickshit.

He deserves the death sentence for the shit he's pulled.
^ Sorry, the whole 'war crimes'->'death sentence' wet dream thing just ain't gonna happen.

But look on the bright side, I'm sure there are other guys like you who splooge at the very thought of the man being put to death/tortured.

You should form a support group and get the fuck over it. Wanker.

Oh and yes, before you say it, governments DO lie to their people, especially BUSH.
^ Governments LIE to their people? You don't say! And here I was going around thinking my government was an open book!

Any other words of wisdom you want to share, fuckface?

Watch something called loose change and then you'll understand.
^ No thanks.

I haven't seen this, but I have seen Terror Storm, been to the whackjob conspiracy websites and done the fact-checking for myself (something you should seriously consider).

Personally, I could think of a million better things to do with my time than listening to some tweaked out filmmaker's fever dream of government conspiracies.

Anyway, the entire war is pointless. Especially gtfo of Iraq imo, we have no need to be there.
^ I was going to argue with you about this, but judging from the other deeply ignorant/idiotic stuff you wrote, I seriously doubt it would do any good.




[/URL]
It's never clear-cut because the economy is complex
^ By 'clear-cut' I don't mean simple. I mean clearly demonstrable. As in give me one example in recorded history where a government has been able to effectively control its economic cycles by mass spending during slumps.

But only very silly people would think that the New Deal did nothing.
^ It did something alright, there's no disputing that. Some of it was actually good. Most of it was [URL="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123353276749137485.html"]not so good (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_deal).

Whether it pulled us out of the Depression (or blunted recovery) is something an untold number of economists have debated/written about and there's still no clear resolution.

It's an interesting comparison/connection though.

You'd think market confidence would be soaring, considering the massive government 'rescue' about to take place. I wonder what the reason could be?

[Nagase]

@ Nagase: What you posted (including your sig, BTW) was so offensively dumb I assumed you were joking. Sorry for giving you the benefit of doubt.

Somehow you got the idea that because I was shocked at the fucking immature, Zach de la Rocha-esque lunacy you posted (including your sig), I must be a big fan/supporter/apologist of George W. Bush, which I'm not.

I am, however, an American citizen who's very proud of his country. Don't like that? Tough noogies. Dickshit.


^ Sorry, the whole 'war crimes'->'death sentence' wet dream thing just ain't gonna happen.

But look on the bright side, I'm sure there are other guys like you who splooge at the very thought of the man being put to death/tortured.

You should form a support group and get the fuck over it. Wanker.


^ Governments LIE to their people? You don't say! And here I was going around thinking my government was an open book!

Any other words of wisdom you want to share, fuckface?


^ No thanks.

I haven't seen this, but I have seen Terror Storm, been to the whackjob conspiracy websites and done the fact-checking for myself (something you should seriously consider).

Personally, I could think of a million better things to do with my time than listening to some tweaked out filmmaker's fever dream of government conspiracies.


^ I was going to argue with you about this, but judging from the other deeply ignorant/idiotic stuff you wrote, I seriously doubt it would do any good.





^ By 'clear-cut' I don't mean simple. I mean clearly demonstrable. As in give me one example in recorded history where a government has been able to effectively control its economic cycles by mass spending during slumps.


^ It did something alright, there's no disputing that. Some of it was actually good. Most of it was not so good (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123353276749137485.html).

Whether it pulled us out of the Depression (or blunted recovery) is something an untold number of economists have debated/written about and there's still no clear resolution.

It's an interesting comparison/connection though.

You'd think market confidence would be soaring, considering the massive government 'rescue' about to take place. I wonder what the reason could be?
I sense you're getting angry? :rolleyes:

Go be a blind patriotic drone now, go on. Gooood booooy! ;D

http://www.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/4113549/2/istockphoto_4113549-blind-patriot-series.jpg (I love how the internet has a picture for every situation.)


I haven't seen this, but I have seen Terror Storm, been to the whackjob conspiracy websites and done the fact-checking for myself (something you should seriously consider). I haven't seen thisdone the fact-checking for myselfI haven't seen thisdone the fact-checking for myselfI haven't seen thisdone the fact-checking for myself

[Zezlar]

Yes we can!

[NEALBLEWMEONCE]

I haven't seen thisdone the fact-checking for myselfI haven't seen thisdone the fact-checking for myselfI haven't seen thisdone the fact-checking for myself



^ I don't need to taste bullshit to know what it looks and smells like.



http://punditkitchen.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/political-pictures-george-bush-can-has-700-billion-more.jpg

^ You're right, the Bush administration did spend a crap-load of money. And it was damaging when they did it.

Guess what? What we're facing now is the largest expansion of government spending in U.S. history, and we're calling it a 'stimulus' package.

What we're doing is not stimulus. It's stealing money from the productive to give it to the less productive (and using it to buy political favors).

BTW, I do understand the need to for government to take some action to slow down the credit collapse fallout, instead of simply letting things implode and burn completely to the ground.

But I am not interested in a stimulus bill that mortgages our (and our progeny's) future to avoid short-term discomfort.

All you have to do is look at history to see what happens when government starts initiating centralized planning, spending, fixing prices and regulating on behalf of the private sector during recessions. It's not good.

(Not to mention the fact that it was government policy that got us in this situation!)

Interesting analogy: "Would you trust the arsonist that just lit your house on fire to put the fire out?"

[Nagase]

^ I don't need to taste bullshit to know what it looks and smells like.

And that's exactly why people like you will never even question something, even if it seems odd.

How can you call something bullshit if you haven't even looked into it. Tbh, I thought it was going to be bullshit when I watched the first edition of Loose Change but the moment it finished I was convinced that there was ALOT more then what was said.

You might think I'm paranoid but atleast I've researched enough for my paranoia to be substantiated. You're calling the bullshit card without even looking at the other side of the arguement.

I suggest you watch it, THEN call me whatever you want, but atleast do yourself,me and the other people reading this the courtesy of actually knowing what you're talking about.

What you're doing is going by blind patriotism which is NOT a good thing. Being patriotic is good, but being blind and not asking questions is bad.

I'm not asking you to turn all tin foil hat on me, I'm simply saying watch it before making judgements.

[NEALBLEWMEONCE]

You might think I'm paranoid but atleast I've researched enough for my paranoia to be substantiated.
^ You've done research, huh?

What 'research' have you found to overcome the fundamental concepts of physics, engineering, chemistry, metallurgy, and basic common sense?


How can you call something bullshit if you haven't even looked into it. Tbh, I thought it was going to be bullshit when I watched the first edition of Loose Change but the moment it finished I was convinced that there was ALOT more then what was said.
^ Last night I watched your movie (staying up till 2:30am to do it, no less).

I'm sorry, but I need more than a 'puff of smoke' and the 'original' research (read: batshit insane research devoid of actual science or any sound reasoning) of 3 ganja-smoking college dropouts to convince me of the claims being made.


You're calling the bullshit card without even looking at the other side of the arguement.
^ I've read the 911 Commission Report (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf).

I've been to the FUBAR '911 Underground' sites and read the ratshit insane, LSD-fueled tripe (http://www.infowars.com/).

I have looked at the other side of the argument!


but atleast do yourself,me and the other people reading this the courtesy of actually knowing what you're talking about.
^ The discourtesy (to you and the people reading) would be to go along with this shit as if nothing's wrong with it, leading people to believe it has actual merit.


THEN call me whatever you want,
^ Please recognize the distinction between me attacking the position you're taking on 9/11 conspiracies (and the movie you're citing as grounds), and attacking you as a person (e.g. "durrr, wat a truthf4g!!11 lulz").


What you're doing is going by blind patriotism which is NOT a good thing. Being patriotic is good, but being blind and not asking questions is bad.
^ You're absolutely right, asking questions is an essential part of being a patriot. Conversely, I would even argue that it's unpatriotic to be, like you said, blind to the actions of our government.

But there's a thin line between being a watchful patriot and a 'truther' inventing political fiction as justification for their own hatred of authority and certain political leaders.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TBH, prior to your last post I strongly suspected you were trolling, which is why I've been responding kind of brusquely.

Since you seriously seem to believe this stuff, post what your reasons are for believing 9/11 was an inside job/conspiracy and I'll counter-post.

Fact-based only, no conjecture. No flaming/insults/ad hominem attacks, and no glib/joke answers.

Whaddya say?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P.S.: I realize this is massive troll-bait. If it happens, it happens. Answer anyway!

[Neal]

America is a well shit country. :wtf:

[Nagase]

^ You've done research, huh?

What 'research' have you found to overcome the fundamental concepts of physics, engineering, chemistry, metallurgy, and basic common sense?



^ Last night I watched your movie (staying up till 2:30am to do it, no less).

I'm sorry, but I need more than a 'puff of smoke' and the 'original' research (read: batshit insane research devoid of actual science or any sound reasoning) of 3 ganja-smoking college dropouts to convince me of the claims being made.



^ I've read the 911 Commission Report (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf).

I've been to the FUBAR '911 Underground' sites and read the ratshit insane, LSD-fueled tripe (http://www.infowars.com/).

I have looked at the other side of the argument!



^ The discourtesy (to you and the people reading) would be to go along with this shit as if nothing's wrong with it, leading people to believe it has actual merit.



^ Please recognize the distinction between me attacking the position you're taking on 9/11 conspiracies (and the movie you're citing as grounds), and attacking you as a person (e.g. "durrr, wat a truthf4g!!11 lulz").



^ You're absolutely right, asking questions is an essential part of being a patriot. Conversely, I would even argue that it's unpatriotic to be, like you said, blind to the actions of our government.

But there's a thin line between being a watchful patriot and a 'truther' inventing political fiction as justification for their own hatred of authority and certain political leaders.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TBH, prior to your last post I strongly suspected you were trolling, which is why I've been responding kind of brusquely.

Since you seriously seem to believe this stuff, post what your reasons are for believing 9/11 was an inside job/conspiracy and I'll counter-post.

Fact-based only, no conjecture. No flaming/insults/ad hominem attacks, and no glib/joke answers.

Whaddya say?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

P.S.: I realize this is massive troll-bait. If it happens, it happens. Answer anyway!

You've done research, huh?

What 'research' have you found to overcome the fundamental concepts of physics, engineering, chemistry, metallurgy, and basic common sense?



^ Last night I watched your movie (staying up till 2:30am to do it, no less).

I'm sorry, but I need more than a 'puff of smoke' and the 'original' research (read: batshit insane research devoid of actual science or any sound reasoning) of 3 ganja-smoking college dropouts to convince me of the claims being made.

Plenty of proffesionals have said the planes didn't bring down those towers and more people than college drop outs believe it wasn't was the bullshit commision report said.

Try the bomb disposal guys, firemen, demolition experts whoi said it was exactly like a controled demolition. You could also try Jesse Ventura for one. Yes, the governor. Might be whacky but he's still a govenor not a college drop out. Oh and Charlie Sheen if you're looking for big screen names.

Well, for common sense, tell me how a woman was stood beside the window when according to the commision report, the floor was metal meltingly hot from jet fuel?

Mettallurgy, well, I'm no proffesional but plain fire doesn't get hot enough to melt steel. And considering not a single steel building has fallen due to fire EVER until three fell in one day alone, 911.

Physics, well, that building fell at almost freefall speed meaning it had pretty much no resistance as it fell.

Anyway.

You seem to be sooo 100% sure that it isn't a conspiracy. I'm not saying it 100% IS, I'm saying there's alot of evidence saying it might very well be and even you, being so faithful in your government, should be more open minded.

All people want are certain quesitons answered. Quesiton, which the American Government seem to enjoy ignoring. I mean you can check youtube for videos on the matter which SHOW the officials denying it.

Simple questions like:

1) Where the hell did the flight 93's wreckage go after it crashed in Philly? There was a nothing but tiny scrap and a crater with wing marks. That doesn't seem odd to you?

2) How was a passport from the suicide pilot found laying at the bottom of the towers? If jet fuel can melt steel, it can melt passport right?

3) How was MOTLEN metal found buried in the rubble? Fire wouldn't smelt steeldown to molten, especially to last for the amount of weeks it did. Even the jet fuel was completly burned up during the initial explosion.

4) How come the pentagon plane ALSO had no noticeable wreckage? Also, if an airliner had flown over those cars on the road, they would have been blown off their wheels.

5) How did building 7 fall to a few tiny little flames?

6) How did a trainee pilot who was said to be awful at flying by his instructors, manage to make what the ATC said was only something a highly skilled pilot could do, probably military.

7) Why was not a single fighter jet sent to intercept the flight? If a plane goes off course and doesn't respond, fighter jets are called in to investiage and if needed attack.

8) No flight data was ever released. If it was the full story, then surely they have nothing to hide.

9) Hijackers names were not on the original flight plan.

10) Bush said he saw the attack live on the TV yet he also said he was in a classroom with some children.

That's just a few of them. Experts have gone over some of the scientific quesitons and are still unable to make sense of them. Anyway, yeah almost all of these are in the video. When a demo expert turns and says he's sure thats a controlled demolition, I think I'll take his word rather than a politician.

[NEALBLEWMEONCE]

Try the bomb disposal guys, firemen, demolition experts whoi said it was exactly like a controled demolition.

Watch this video carefully: World Trade Center Not a Demolition


About the first responders thinking it was a controlled demolition:

Over 12,000 pages of uncensored oral histories rendered in the voices of 503 firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians, were made public by the New York Times.

You can find them here: Oral Histories (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html).

Taken in context with actual events and testimonies of the other first responders, you'd have to do some pretty heavy spinning to make them match a 'controlled demolition' claim. It just doesn't work.

Personally, I also think it says a great deal that from the 250,000+ people (Engineers, Insurers, ATCs, FBI Agents/Evidence Response Teams . . . etc.) who were actually involved in investigating what took place on 9/11, damn few (if any) have come forward with any claims of conspiracy.


Well, for common sense, tell me how a woman was stood beside the window when according to the commision report, the floor was metal meltingly hot from jet fuel?

4) How come the pentagon plane ALSO had no noticeable wreckage? Also, if an airliner had flown over those cars on the road, they would have been blown off their wheels.
^ I'm not exactly sure what your claim is here, but if you're implying 'controlled demolition':

There over 100 documented witnesses who directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

Almost a dozen witnesses were within 100-200 feet of the impact.

26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.

39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.

2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size.

7 said it was a Boeing 757.

8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.

2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.

4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.

10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).

16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.

42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats.

3 mentioned engine parts.

2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.

15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel.

3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris.

Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.

3 took photographs of the aftermath.

Many mentioned false alarm warnings of other incoming planes after the crash. One said "3-4 warnings."

0 saw a military aircraft or a missile strike the Pentagon.

0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away.

All of these accounts have been sourced and verified.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specific evidence of collateral damage:

Witness Account (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClVHovq4iTk)

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/generator_fence11.jpg/generator_fence11-full.jpg

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/022.jpg/022-full.jpg

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/017.jpg/017-full.jpg

Collapse Rescue Operations At The Pentagon: A Case Study on Urban Search and Rescue (PDF) (http://www.ukfssart.org.uk/files/pentagon%20report.PDF)

Arlington VA Disaster Response (PDF) (http://www.mscmc.org/Docs/Slides/030723/Paugher.pdf)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9) Hijackers names were not on the original flight plan.
^ Yes they were. (http://911myths.com/html/the_passengers.html)


8) No flight data was ever released. If it was the full story, then surely they have nothing to hide.
^ Wrong.

Flight 77 (http://www.ntsb.gov/info/AAL77_fdr.pdf)

Flight 93 (http://www.ntsb.gov/info/UAL93FDR.pdf)

Flight 11 (http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight_%20Path_%20Study_AA11.pdf)

Flight 175 (http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight_%20Path%20_Study_UA175.pdf)


Mettallurgy, well, I'm no proffesional but plain fire doesn't get hot enough to melt steel. And considering not a single steel building has fallen due to fire EVER until three fell in one day alone, 911.

3) How was MOTLEN metal found buried in the rubble? Fire wouldn't smelt steeldown to molten, especially to last for the amount of weeks it did. Even the jet fuel was completly burned up during the initial explosion.

5) How did building 7 fall to a few tiny little flames?
^ This stuff has been exhaustively explained from a wide variety of technical/professional/scientific standpoints for a while now.

Here are a few links:

"What did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York" (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/Bazant_WTC_Collapse_What_Did__Did_No.pdf) Bazant, Le, Greening & Benson. Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, Vol 134 (2008)

Ryan Mackey's extensive examination of 18 major 9/11 conspiracy claims. (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/Mackey_drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf)

In response to the WTC tragedy, the National Institute of Standards and Technology conducted a 3-year building and fire safety investigation to study the factors contributing to the probable cause (or causes) of post-impact collapse of the WTC Towers (WTC 1 and 2) and WTC 7. The results: here (http://wtc.nist.gov/).


Physics, well, that building fell at almost freefall speed meaning it had pretty much no resistance as it fell.
^ You should watch this:

WTC 7 Freefall debunked


You seem to be sooo 100% sure that it isn't a conspiracy. I'm not saying it 100% IS, I'm saying there's alot of evidence saying it might very well be and even you, being so faithful in your government, should be more open minded.
^ I think I'm a very open minded person! But 'open minded' is not the word I would use to describe this stuff.

1) Where the hell did the flight 93's wreckage go after it crashed in Philly? There was a nothing but tiny scrap and a crater with wing marks. That doesn't seem odd to you?
^ Flight 93 explanation:

1) The four hijackers purchased tickets under their own names and boarded the plane. One was randomly selected for and passed additional security screening. Ziad Jarrah was a licensed pilot and had recent training on professional large jet flight simulators. United flight 93 was scheduled to depart at 8:00 am, but left 42 minutes late due to airport traffic. Aboard were 33 passengers, 7 crew members, and 4 hijackers.

2) Several passengers and crew called from the plane, spoke with loved ones, described the hijackers' attack, and related their plan to try to retake the plane so that it would not be used as a suicide weapon against a populated area. All but two of these calls were made using the planes' Airfones.

3) The cockpit voice recorder recorded the hijackers' attack and apparent murder of the pilots and a flight attendant. Air traffic controllers heard a radio transmission by a man with an Arabic accent, warning of a bomb on board. Passengers reported that one of the hijackers had what appeared to be a bomb strapped to him.

4) After learning about the other attacks, passengers and cabin crew attempted to retake the cockpit but were apparently unable to gain entry. The sound of their attempts was recorded on the CVR. The CVR also recorded the hijackers' decision to end the flight, followed by repeated shouts of "Allahu Akbar!" ("God is greatest.") until the plane crashed. Families of victims heard the CVR recording.

5) Flight 93 was tracked by radar until it went down.

6) Many people in Pennsylvania saw the Boeing 757, traveling at low altitude and high speed, roll to the right and plummet upside-down, nose first, towards the ground. Many people witnessed the subsequent enormous explosion and fireball. Val McClatchey photographed the mushroom cloud.

7) Hundreds of first responders (mostly volunteer firefighters) and crime scene investigators were quickly on the scene. They saw human remains, aircraft wreckage, personal effects, jet fuel, etc.
The cockpit voice recorder and flight data recorder were recovered and had usable data, all of which is consistent with the other evidence.

8) The remains of every victim was positively identified. Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller personally collected many remains and made 12 identifications through fingerprints and dental records. Personal effects of most passengers and crew were recovered and returned to their families.

9) Hijacker identification documents and personal effects were recovered, along with the remains of four people identified as the hijackers through the process of elimination.

10) Nearly all of the aircraft was recovered by professional investigators and by civilians. The debris was returned to United Airlines after being examined for evidence of explosives use.

(Source (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/flight93page1))
Same-day accounts of Flight 93 witnesses

Witness interviews/testimonies (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_12940.html)

http://pages.google.com/edit/WTC7Lies/UA93phonecallscopy.jpg/UA93phonecallscopy-full.jpg

http://pages.google.com/edit/WTC7Lies/Flight93altitudeprofilesm.jpg/Flight93altitudeprofilesm-full.jpg
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7) Why was not a single fighter jet sent to intercept the flight? If a plane goes off course and doesn't respond, fighter jets are called in to investiage and if needed attack.
^ Explained Here. (http://www.911myths.com/html/67_intercepts.html)

2) How was a passport from the suicide pilot found laying at the bottom of the towers? If jet fuel can melt steel, it can melt passport right?
^ I have to admit, this is pretty fucking weird (if it's true). Then again, it's not the only delicate item to make it out of there improbably:

http://www.historycommons.org/events-images/237_new_baltimore_debris_2050081722-12682.jpg

^ Paper debris found in New Baltimore, ~six miles from the crash of flight 93.


Additional links:

Loose Change debunked point-by-point (http://emptv.com/research/loose-change)

Comprehensive 911 Mythbusting (http://www.911myths.com/)

Popular Mechanics: 911 Myths Debunked (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html)

Focus on WTC myths (http://www.debunking911.com/)

Well-researched event documentation (http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Main_Page)

Clear evidence linking the accused hijackers to the attacks (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution.html)

[boomiko]

1) Where the hell did the flight 93's wreckage go after it crashed in Philly? There was a nothing but tiny scrap and a crater with wing marks. That doesn't seem odd to you?

2) How was a passport from the suicide pilot found laying at the bottom of the towers? If jet fuel can melt steel, it can melt passport right?

3) How was MOTLEN metal found buried in the rubble? Fire wouldn't smelt steeldown to molten, especially to last for the amount of weeks it did. Even the jet fuel was completly burned up during the initial explosion.

4) How come the pentagon plane ALSO had no noticeable wreckage? Also, if an airliner had flown over those cars on the road, they would have been blown off their wheels.

5) How did building 7 fall to a few tiny little flames?

6) How did a trainee pilot who was said to be awful at flying by his instructors, manage to make what the ATC said was only something a highly skilled pilot could do, probably military.

7) Why was not a single fighter jet sent to intercept the flight? If a plane goes off course and doesn't respond, fighter jets are called in to investiage and if needed attack.

8) No flight data was ever released. If it was the full story, then surely they have nothing to hide.

9) Hijackers names were not on the original flight plan.

10) Bush said he saw the attack live on the TV yet he also said he was in a classroom with some children..
@ nagase. dude ur a conspiracy freak of nature. and i was also in a class room full of children when i watched the plane crash LIVE. so its not impossible.

@ koronzen ur probly some genious somewhere cuz thats a crapload of research, in fact so much so that it could be all crap and i(who would never really bother to click on a single link considering that it looks like a research paper.) would beleive you in an instant.

[Nagase]

Watch this video carefully: World Trade Center Not a Demolition (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926)


About the first responders thinking it was a controlled demolition:

Over 12,000 pages of uncensored oral histories rendered in the voices of 503 firefighters, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians, were made public by the New York Times.

You can find them here: Oral Histories (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html).

Taken in context with actual events and testimonies of the other first responders, you'd have to do some pretty heavy spinning to make them match a 'controlled demolition' claim. It just doesn't work.

Personally, I also think it says a great deal that from the 250,000+ people (Engineers, Insurers, ATCs, FBI Agents/Evidence Response Teams . . . etc.) who were actually involved in investigating what took place on 9/11, damn few (if any) have come forward with any claims of conspiracy.

^ I'm not exactly sure what your claim is here, but if you're implying 'controlled demolition':

There over 100 documented witnesses who directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

Almost a dozen witnesses were within 100-200 feet of the impact.

26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.

39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.

2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size.

7 said it was a Boeing 757.

8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.

2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.

4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.

10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).

16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.

42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats.

3 mentioned engine parts.

2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.

15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel.

3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris.

Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.

3 took photographs of the aftermath.

Many mentioned false alarm warnings of other incoming planes after the crash. One said "3-4 warnings."

0 saw a military aircraft or a missile strike the Pentagon.

0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away.

All of these accounts have been sourced and verified.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specific evidence of collateral damage:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

^ Yes they were. (http://911myths.com/html/the_passengers.html)



^ Wrong.

Flight 77 (http://www.ntsb.gov/info/AAL77_fdr.pdf)

Flight 93 (http://www.ntsb.gov/info/UAL93FDR.pdf)

Flight 11 (http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight_%20Path_%20Study_AA11.pdf)

Flight 175 (http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight_%20Path%20_Study_UA175.pdf)

^ This stuff has been exhaustively explained from a wide variety of technical/professional/scientific standpoints for a while now.

Here are a few links:

"What did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York" (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/Bazant_WTC_Collapse_What_Did__Did_No.pdf) Bazant, Le, Greening & Benson. Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE, Vol 134 (2008)

Ryan Mackey's extensive examination of 18 major 9/11 conspiracy claims. (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/Mackey_drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf)

In response to the WTC tragedy, the National Institute of Standards and Technology conducted a 3-year building and fire safety investigation to study the factors contributing to the probable cause (or causes) of post-impact collapse of the WTC Towers (WTC 1 and 2) and WTC 7. The results: here (http://wtc.nist.gov/).



^ You should watch this:

WTC 7 Freefall debunked (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKgtmnf63Nw)



^ I think I'm a very open minded person! But 'open minded' is not the word I would use to describe this stuff.


^ Flight 93 explanation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

^ Explained Here. (http://www.911myths.com/html/67_intercepts.html)


^ I have to admit, this is pretty fucking weird (if it's true). Then again, it's not the only delicate item to make it out of there improbably:

http://www.historycommons.org/events-images/237_new_baltimore_debris_2050081722-12682.jpg

^ Paper debris found in New Baltimore, ~six miles from the crash of flight 93.


Additional links:

Loose Change debunked point-by-point (http://emptv.com/research/loose-change)

Comprehensive 911 Mythbusting (http://www.911myths.com/)

Popular Mechanics: 911 Myths Debunked (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html)

Focus on WTC myths (http://www.debunking911.com/)

Well-researched event documentation (http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Main_Page)

Clear evidence linking the accused hijackers to the attacks (http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution.html)



Watch this video carefully: World Trade Center Not a Demolition (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2873871255585611926)He made some good points, but I still don't think it's enough to debunk the entire theory. If they didn't want to make it an obvious demolition, do you really thiink they'd go ahead and chuck on pounds of standard demo explosive? For instance.

The part of the video at at 6:20, the glasgow CD's. They show the EXACT same plumes as the ones in WTC.

As for the attemped thermite debunking, there is a new type of thermite, I can't remember it's name, but it is more than capable of slicing vertical columns.

When he says the use of thermite AND explosives would be pointless, he's wrong. Pure explosive demo's do make noise yes, but if some was done by thermite and the rest done by explosive, it would be alot quieter.

By saying it isn't a controlled demolition just because it doesn't look like a standard everyday demolition is plain stupidity.

All this video does is compare skeptical experts to conspiracy experts. They just say the opposite to each other.

Oh and when he went on about death rays, I'm not part of that theory thanks. I'll believe a conspiracy to a certain point but even for me that's a bit far.

Also I myself do not believe the whole dust cloud theories and I agree that it was just becauae of the collapse.

Personally, I also think it says a great deal that from the 250,000+ people (Engineers, Insurers, ATCs, FBI Agents/Evidence Response Teams . . . etc.) who were actually involved in investigating what took place on 9/11, damn few (if any) have come forward with any claims of conspiracy. Adding an FBI agent into a conspiracy theory is like putting a cat on a farm and asking who killed the chickens. Most people would look at that and see terrorists. Even if something seems odd, they wouldn't go "Oh, it's our leader who did that." Most would just ignore there suspiscion and blame the bad guys.

There over 100 documented witnesses who directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

Almost a dozen witnesses were within 100-200 feet of the impact.

26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.

39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.

2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size.

7 said it was a Boeing 757.

8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.

2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.

4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.

10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).

16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.

42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats.

3 mentioned engine parts.

2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.

15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel.

3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris.

Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.

3 took photographs of the aftermath.

Many mentioned false alarm warnings of other incoming planes after the crash. One said "3-4 warnings."

0 saw a military aircraft or a missile strike the Pentagon.

0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away.

All of these accounts have been sourced and verified.Then I would really like to ask those 100 people what happened to the wreckage of the plane.

And I'm sorry but if it was low enough to knock over lamposts then surely:

YouTube - Jet engine blows car off runway

I know this is a common video to see but it's a pretty good idea of how powerful the engines are on those things.

Flight 77 (http://www.ntsb.gov/info/AAL77_fdr.pdf)

Flight 93 (http://www.ntsb.gov/info/UAL93FDR.pdf)

Flight 11 (http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight_%20Path_%20Study_AA11.pdf)

Flight 175 (http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Flight_%20Path%20_Study_UA175.pdf)
"Phone call to NTSB regarding American 77 Flight Data Recorder - 10/26/06
YouTube - Phone call to NTSB regarding AA77 Flight Data Recorder

Flight path conflicts - week old
YouTube - American 77 Flight Path

Final maneuver- Aug 06
YouTube - American 77 Final Maneuver
"

Source: http://www.ballot.com/hotwire/2835-american-77-flight-data-recorder-released.html

Quickly googled it, first search. I'll find more eveidence against the other flight paths if you really want them. Top link is interesting.

I agree that SOME parts of the theory are very over the top, don't think I'm some whack who beats off to every single theory such as the death ray theory. I'm someone who questions something, and gains suspiscious when officials refuse to answer them.

You misunderstand my position on this. Tell me if I'm wrong but I think you think I WANT the American government to be guilty. You're wrong. The very idea that the administration of a super power is corrupt scares te crap out of me.
i'm not asking for Bush to be hung atleast without evidence, nor are alot of the conspirators.

Things like:


YouTube - Lee Hamilton vs. 9/11 Truthers 3:10 is what scares people, including myself.

YouTube - Lee Hamilton questions Norman Mineta - 911 commission (Contradicitons and possible evidence of a standby order)

YouTube - Bob Dacy questions 911 chief, Thomas Kean, on WTC7

YouTube - 911 questions at Markey Forum (Fellow whackjobs speaking out)

All we want is a reinvestigation with pure experts of both sides of the arguement, not just FEMA members etc.

It should be a public decision for a reinvestigation. That's what is supposed to be great about having free countries. If the public want a reinvestigation, it should be up to the public, not a bunch of politicians.

If there is nothing to hide, why can't we have another investigation? What would be the harm?

Instead, "you're all insane" end of story.

We're going to go round and round in circles here. You find evidence to debunk me, I find evidence to debunk you and it repeats. The most solid evidence we have is that we're ignored, called crazy and not allowed into having a reinvestigaiton. Neither of us are expert, atleast not enough to know for sure. What I can tell is when someonbody is acting suspicious and how the lack of answers is disturbing to say the least.

YouTube - Jesse Ventura: EXPLAINS WHY SEPTEMBER 11 LIES DON'T ADD UP!

Jesse Ventura.

Just so you know, I don't think I can take another hour and a half to go through this again. We're not gonna get anywhere.

[Rokuro]

(without reading any posts)

No, it will not work.
I love to laugh at my country:D

[namyrb]

Well it depends on what aspect you're talking about when you say "work." There is a shit load of stuff in the package. A lot of it doesn't even have anything to do with getting the US out of this recession. Since the amount was so large to begin with (I believe it started at somewhere around $600 billion), many politicians decided that it would be a good opportunity to attach money to fund certain projects that have not had much attention during the Bush Jr years. There were other weird things like swimming pools and hybrid vehicles for governments employees, but all of the money used for these things (including the programs) added up to somewhere between 2-3% of the annual budget. Many republicans (and some democrats) bashed about these things until that 2-3% number was released. So in that respect that projects like medical research and the like are getting a bit more funding, it will be a success.

There's also the part about rebuilding our entire energy infrastructure (with the help of the private sector of course). I've read about some of the things they have planned, and it's obvious how huge it is. The whole infrastructure needs to be rebuilt, which will guarantee new jobs (or green jobs I guess). We loose hundreds of billions of dollars every year due to all of the inefficiencies of the system. The system will take a heck of a long time to complete, as well as things like maintenance so you can guarantee long term jobs. So in that aspect of the package I believe it will be a success.

Also, I'm not sure if I have my facts straight, but I heard someone talk about bridge reconstruction which would certainly create many more jobs, but as I said, not so sure.

The other thing that I wanted to mention was the fact that the stimulus package in only a fraction (a rather large fraction) of the entire plan. There are still separate funding, projects, proposals, and new laws to be passed that are also part of the whole picture. So in determining whether it was a true success could be difficult in that it would be hard to pinpoint which actions had or didn't have the most affect. Plus we are dealing with money and human beings which in tandem, are the hardest things to predict (the stock market for example).

One last thing to point out is that highly educated, professional, and qualified economists try to figure out the answer to these questions every day. Thinking that you have the answer to such a broad, simple yet complicated question is crazy. But it's good that you at least have an opinion and are thinking about it. There are many people out there who did not know the name of our last president, nor do they care. It's a sad thing, but I'm glad that, or at least it seems, that you guys aren't any of those people... except for symbol93...

[007vader]

I suddenly feel like I've had cow excrement shoved in my face. This thread should be called. "I voted for Obama and now I'm trying to justify myself"

So, no I don't think the stimulus will work.

[Rokuro]

I would just like to say that GM's tanked since my last post despite all of our most expensive half-assed efforts

[Zeromous99]

America is a well shit country. :wtf:
Hey neal do you live in america bc if you do then fine ill take your opinion but if you dont live in a country just shut the fuck up about it thats what i do , you dont here me say britian is a shitty and evil country and the queen wants to rule the world and enslave us all.


No bc that would be ignorant and i do not live there so if you do not live in the USA you are an ignorant person and go fack yourself. If you do then whatever at least you have a basis for your opinion. I love these people that comment on a place they have never been its fucking annoying .

[Nagase]

Hey neal do you live in america bc if you do then fine ill take your opinion but if you dont live in a country just shut the fuck up about it thats what i do , you dont here me say britian is a shitty and evil country and the queen wants to rule the world and enslave us all.


No bc that would be ignorant and i do not live there so if you do not live in the USA you are an ignorant person and go fack yourself. If you do then whatever at least you have a basis for your opinion. I love these people that comment on a place they have never been its fucking annoying .

Dumb cunt, you don't you need to have been to a country to know what a country is like. Britain is a bit shitty at times, but the Queen doesn't have much power here. She's just a bitch on a throne with too much money. The government makes things happen around here. The monarchy is nothing but a representation of Britain, not the ruling power unlike back in the medieval days.

Calling Britain evil when you're in a country that loves waging war makes me laugh :aldo:

[Ren XIII]

America is a well shit country. :wtf:


Yup :cookie:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_9qHzlJ2hzJ8/Rknbj4oN1iI/AAAAAAAAAu0/F-qDtWW_s_M/s400/us.bmp