Was 9/11 George Bush's fault?

[redneck]

Re: Was 9/11 George Bush's fault?

typo, I ment fine.

 

[Justice]

Re: Was 9/11 George Bush's fault?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Something-To-Say @ Sep 16 2006, 08:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Yeah, because you know we can trust wikipedia.Turns out BBW doesn't stand for Basketball World at all. It's the second meaning we use it for.</div>You're seriously the biggest idiot on this forum. I don't think you have an ounce of grey matter within your skull. Please get a vasectomy ASAP.

 

[ReppinTheD]

Re: Was 9/11 George Bush's fault?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Justice @ Sep 16 2006, 05:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>That would have been a pretty good post if being in a recession had anything to do with having a deficit. We've always had a deficit, and it's always been increasing. A recession is when the GDP falls for two or more quarters in a row. The GDP has not been falling. So we are not in a recession. Durr.Edit: For more on why Reppin is wrong, here is a wikipedia article.</div>Yes, it actually does - a deficit usually means a weak economy, that's why we usually have a deficit when our economy isn't good...Clinton (surplus of money) = Very strong economy, Bush (a HUGE deficit) = a very horrible economy. ...and its not just a coincidence

 

[pjcolpitts?]

Re: Was 9/11 George Bush's fault?

Anyone who knows anything about the boom in the econonmy in the 890's knows that it wasnt Clinton to put the credit on, it was Ronald Reagan. All the stuff that was set in motion during his administration was the biggest reason why there was a boom in the economy during the 90's, not Bill Clinton.

 

[ReppinTheD]

Re: Was 9/11 George Bush's fault?

I never said Clinton caused the boom, I just said it happened during his presidency.

 

[Justice]

Re: Was 9/11 George Bush's fault?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ReppinTheD @ Sep 17 2006, 07:36 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Yes, it actually does - a deficit usually means a weak economy, that's why we usually have a deficit when our economy isn't good...Clinton (surplus of money) = Very strong economy, Bush (a HUGE deficit) = a very horrible economy. ...and its not just a coincidence</div>So you admit you have no idea what you're talking about since you changed terms from "recession" to "horrible economy." Have you ever taken a macroeconomics course?And we have had a deficit since long before either of us were born. I don't even understand how your post has anything to do with what I said... did you even read what I said?A recession is defined by economists as two or more consecutive quarters where GDP declines. If you can find a reputable source (hint: you won't be able to) that says otherwise, then you can keep posting like you have any clue what you're talking about.Edit: This has nothing to do with the topic or anything really, but it would be nice if people would be right if they keep saying the same thing over and over.

 

[ReppinTheD]

Re: Was 9/11 George Bush's fault?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Justice @ Sep 17 2006, 10:40 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>So you admit you have no idea what you're talking about since you changed terms from "recession" to "horrible economy." Have you ever taken a macroeconomics course?And we have had a deficit since long before either of us were born. I don't even understand how your post has anything to do with what I said... did you even read what I said?A recession is defined by economists as two or more consecutive quarters where GDP declines. If you can find a reputable source (hint: you won't be able to) that says otherwise, then you can keep posting like you have any clue what you're talking about.</div>No. I did not admit that...just because I interchanged a word does not mean I do not know what I am talking about. You are however, right about me not taking a macroeconomics course, but that doesn't make me any less knowledgeable than you. You are also right about the technical definition for a recession being the decline of GDP for two consecutive quarters; and with that definition the United States was in a recession untill 2003. After that we are in what is called a Growth Recession - a Growth recession gives you a false sense of the economy improving; although the GDP is increasing very slowly; we are not improving economically because jobs are contracting, and are less available; that's why I feel like we are still in a recession... thats of course thanks to the great state of Michigan (#2 in Unemployment). We might disagree on whether we are in a recession or not simply because we live in two different areas, and we are living two different economic lives...I see that Michigan is doing terrible, and you see from your prespective that you are doing fine, or even improving. Also, there are other ways to tell if a recession is happening; it could be lack of employment, inflation in prices, or lack of sales...all these things are happening (at least in Michigan)...so thats why I still think we are in recession - although we are getting out of it, I think.

 

[Justice]

Re: Was 9/11 George Bush's fault?

The reason I brought it up was not just to be technical; it's also to point out that this "recession" you're talking about is regarding one single industry in this country. Saying the Ford motor company is cutting jobs doesn't mean we are in a recession. And to say that this recession (the one that ended 3 years ago) was the worst since the Great Depression is absurd. I mean, at worst the unemployment was up to what, five or six percent (I'm taking a shot in the dark this time)? That's nowhere near the worst since the Great Depression, and it's considerably better than most other countries.The reason I brought up the economics course was because I took it when the recession ended. It's pretty easy to remember when your teacher says, "Hey, we're not in a recession anymore."

 

[ReppinTheD]

Re: Was 9/11 George Bush's fault?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Justice @ Sep 17 2006, 11:23 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The reason I brought it up was not just to be technical; it's also to point out that this "recession" you're talking about is regarding one single industry in this country. Saying the Ford motor company is cutting jobs doesn't mean we are in a recession. And to say that this recession (the one that ended 3 years ago) was the worst since the Great Depression is absurd. I mean, at worst the unemployment was up to what, five or six percent (I'm taking a shot in the dark this time)? That's nowhere near the worst since the Great Depression, and it's considerably better than most other countries.The reason I brought up the economics course was because I took it when the recession ended. It's pretty easy to remember when your teacher says, "Hey, we're not in a recession anymore."</div>Aright I am getting bored and tired of debating this issue, so I'm just going to end it with this, and say good debate; I don't know who won, but we both expressed what we believed and supported it with evidence. Again, the Ford Motor company was just one example; there are plenty more. Also, I wasnt saying that the recession we were in was worse than that of the Depression, I'm just saying it's the worst since the depression (that means the depression was far worse) - although I will say that I am not 100% sure that there has been a worse recession than the recent one; the one we had ending in 2003 has to rank as one of the worst recessions in the United States' history. Also, I still believe we are in the "Growth Recession" - giving us a false sense of economic sucess just because our GDP is slightly growing doesn't match up with the Ecomonic status that is in the states. Again - it may seem a lot worse to me because I do live in the 2nd worst economic state in the country; so I might just have a twisted perception because of where I live...so don't totally think I'm stupid or something, its just what I'm seeing, hearing, and reading. Again, that's my last word on that topic.Good Debate.

 

[Justice]

Re: Was 9/11 George Bush's fault?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ReppinTheD @ Sep 17 2006, 10:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Aright I am getting bored and tired of debating this issue, so I'm just going to end it with this, and say good debate; I don't know who won, but we both expressed what we believed and supported it with evidence.</div>Uh huh...<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ReppinTheD @ Sep 17 2006, 10:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Again, the Ford Motor company was just one example; there are plenty more.</div>Yeah...<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ReppinTheD @ Sep 17 2006, 10:35 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Also, I wasnt saying that the recession we were in was worse than that of the Depression, I'm just saying it's the worst since the depression (that means the depression was far worse) - although I will say that I am not 100% sure that there has been a worse recession than the recent one; the one we had ending in 2003 has to rank as one of the worst recessions in the United States' history. Also, I still believe we are in the "Growth Recession" - giving us a false sense of economic sucess just because our GDP is slightly growing doesn't match up with the Ecomonic status that is in the states. Again - it may seem a lot worse to me because I do live in the 2nd worst economic state in the country; so I might just have a twisted perception because of where I live...so don't totally think I'm stupid or something, its just what I'm seeing, hearing, and reading. Again, that's my last word on that topic.</div>I realize what you were saying about it being the worst since the Great Depression. I wasn't comparing it just to the Great Depression. I was comparing it to other US recessions and economies around the world (for context). The main problem is that you are getting terms mixed up, which causes a pretty convoluted argument. The deficit and unemployment rates have little to do with there being a recession. They can be caused by a recession, but they do not cause a recession. One of the reasons Americans have been losing jobs is because of outsourcing. Does outsourcing cause recessions? The simple answer is no, because that doesn't make any sense. Making up a term like "Growth Recession," an oxymoron in and of itself, is pointless. You could instead say that people are losing their jobs in specific industries, because foreign markets are doing a better job. Saying we are in a recession is pointless and convoluted. And yeah, I think it's fair to end the discussion, lest my head explode.

 

[BALLAHOLLIC]

Re: Was 9/11 George Bush's fault?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Something-To-Say @ Sep 17 2006, 01:31 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>The hijackers were model citizens? How would you know that?Also, I don't think people are going to take you seriously unless you get a name change. Because honestly, all I think about when I think about what you look like is that guy from south park going "DEY TOOK OUR JERBS!!!!!!!"</div>

I needed an excuse to use that picture haha.

 

[ReppinTheD]

Re: Was 9/11 George Bush's fault?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Justice @ Sep 17 2006, 03:29 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Uh huh...Yeah...I realize what you were saying about it being the worst since the Great Depression. I wasn't comparing it just to the Great Depression. I was comparing it to other US recessions and economies around the world (for context). The main problem is that you are getting terms mixed up, which causes a pretty convoluted argument. The deficit and unemployment rates have little to do with there being a recession. They can be caused by a recession, but they do not cause a recession. One of the reasons Americans have been losing jobs is because of outsourcing. Does outsourcing cause recessions? The simple answer is no, because that doesn't make any sense. Making up a term like "Growth Recession," an oxymoron in and of itself, is pointless. You could instead say that people are losing their jobs in specific industries, because foreign markets are doing a better job. Saying we are in a recession is pointless and convoluted. And yeah, I think it's fair to end the discussion, lest my head explode.</div>Look it up, Growth Recession; lol I didn't just make that word up. but yeah withe...I see what I said wrong.

 

[BrewCityBuck]

Re: Was 9/11 George Bush's fault?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BALLAHOLLIC @ Sep 18 2006, 01:46 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>

I needed an excuse to use that picture haha.</div> Thats cold dude.

 

[Something-To-Say]

Re: Was 9/11 George Bush's fault?

I have that pic too.

I've been waiting to use it as well.

 

[Becar]

Re: Was 9/11 George Bush's fault?

I am extrememly late to this argument. But I forced myself to sit down and watch all of "Loose Change" with a somewhat open mind.I sat down and watched it and had to immediately grab a piece of paper and a pen. I am not an expert about 9/11, but EVEN I was able to rip apart the movie into SHREDS. By the time I got done editing all the B.S. out of the movie, all that was left was the words "Loose Change" at the begining and "The End". Anyone who believes ANY PART of this movie is a complete moron and I will kindly ask you to either leave the country or set yourself on fire. Please.

 

[ReppinTheD]

Re: Was 9/11 George Bush's fault?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Becar @ Sep 24 2006, 09:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I am extrememly late to this argument. But I forced myself to sit down and watch all of "Loose Change" with a somewhat open mind.I sat down and watched it and had to immediately grab a piece of paper and a pen. I am not an expert about 9/11, but EVEN I was able to rip apart the movie into SHREDS. By the time I got done editing all the B.S. out of the movie, all that was left was the words "Loose Change" at the begining and "The End". Anyone who believes ANY PART of this movie is a complete moron and I will kindly ask you to either leave the country or kill yourself. Please.</div>Well...I'm not leaving the country, nor will I kill myself - but since you are so keen on this movie that you just had to get a pen and paper - lets hear how you ripped this documentary into "SHREDS"...You can easily say something - it's meaningless until you give us proof...So - let's here how you ripped this documentary into Shreds; you did say you had a pen and paper...so you must have some evidence...I'm waiting for a response.

 

[Becar]

Re: Was 9/11 George Bush's fault?

Alright. First we will start with the Pentagon. The movie claims that a missile, not a plane crashed into the Pentagon. This is all fine and dandy till you add the fact that there had to have been hundreds, if not THOUSANDS of witnesses. How come this ***hole is the only guy I have heard this from? There were at least 50 people on the news, that I saw at the time, who said that a plane crashed into the Pentagon. This retard finds ONE guy to say that it was a missile and im supposed to take it as proof positive? Then he said that if there was a plane, it would have bounced off the ground before it hit the pentagon and that this could not have happened because there were no marks on the front lawn. NOBODY EVER SAID IT BOUNCED! Where did he get that from? This argument is just a flat out lie and needs no further explaination.Now we move to the towers. This guy jumps all over the place durring this accusation. He goes from one thing to another, really never defining what his idea really was. So I will start with him saying that the planes were not commercial airliners, but instead they were cargo planes. Now, I dont remember the exact flight numbers that crashed into the buildings, but if one of them was flight 45 from LA, and I was ON flight 45 from LA, wouldnt I be calling all the news stations saying "uuuuhhhhh, flight 45 just landed about an hour ago and im perfectly ok". So this theory is now destroyed. And Im not even going to go into him suggesting that the people on those planes were executed, this argument is impossible because it would have taken at least 100 people who were in on it to pull it off. What are the chances that 100 people keep their mouths shut? Zero to none. Next he says that there seemed to have been a missile on the plane that crashed into the WTC. UMMMMMMMMM, can we say idiot? If I am sitting waiting for my plane and it comes in with a F$CKING MISSILE on it, do you think Im getting on that plane? Call me crazy, but I really have something against getting aboard a commercial airliner with a missile attatched to it. But then he throws me a curve ball by telling me that the missiles were disguised so that the people boarding could not recognize them as missiles. Let me get this straight, a guy who is right next to this plane boarding it can not see that its a missile, but a guy on the ground, 600 ft away from it can recognize it? Get the F*CK outta here. Now we get into his statement that the buildings fell to the ground because of fire. NOBODY ever said that the buildings collaped because of a fire. Now steel melts at 3000 degrees and jet engine fuel burns at 2000 degrees. Im not an expert or anything but im pretty sure the steel had to be at least weakened by the fire. If I hit a baseball with a 2/3 swing, the ball isnt going to go out of the park, but its going to get into the outfield. He keeps making the statement that "all these buildings burned for hours but never fell to the ground", WELL, dumba** convieniently left out the fact that none of those buildings ALSO suffered SEVERE structural damage. The towers were meant to sustain a plane crash, but only a plane approx half the size of the planes that crashed into the towers.Now the extra bombs inside the building. First of all, Im not sold at all that they even existed. Footage from all news stations never showed any of the extra explosions that were shown in his video. However, assuming that they did exist, if I am a terrorist, and I want to bring those buildings down, wouldnt I have other bombs inside the building to ensure the buildings would collapse? And wouldnt I have done my research to know where to put them so that they would cause some structural damage to help bring it down? These guys arent sloppy, they did some studying before they pulled it off.Im sure this gave you enough to debate for now as I am tired of typing and even really thinking about it anymore. Bottom line is this guy made a film (NOT A DOCUMENTARY as you mistakenly called it) in order to create fame for himself and make money. He basically USED this tragedy to gain fame and fortune for himself. In my mind, he is no better than the terrorists themselves and I hope he dies a horrible death and burns in hell.

 

[BrewCityBuck]

Re: Was 9/11 George Bush's fault?

Woooo woooo....nice post Becar. :winkglasses:

 

[Something-To-Say]

Re: Was 9/11 George Bush's fault?

Becar @ becoming one of my fav posters

 

[Becar]

Re: Was 9/11 George Bush's fault?

thanks to both of you. But I am anxious to see a reply.

 

[ReppinTheD]

Re: Was 9/11 George Bush's fault?

Yeah, I agree with a lot of what you said...a bunch of it IS contradictory...but I do agree with him when he was talking about the Pentagon...not that the plane had to bounce of the ground just the evidence left after the "plane" crash doesn't measure up to what it should look like..the graphics he provided were pretty convincing...what happened to the wings...they didnt just disenegrate...why were the walls sorrounding still standing - the hole was way too smal...nothing left over from the crash...its kinda hard to beleive there wasnt anything at all...I mean, you're gonna say it burned away..but theres no way it burned EVERYthing....

 

[redneck]

Re: Was 9/11 George Bush's fault?

people forget to mention that the wall hit by the plane had been recently reinforced with kevlar I believe. also, going 500MPH a plane hitting a building would be a lot like throwing an egg at a brick wall.

 

[ReppinTheD]

Re: Was 9/11 George Bush's fault?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (redneck @ Sep 26 2006, 09:53 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>people forget to mention that the wall hit by the plane had been recently reinforced with kevlar I believe. also, going 500MPH a plane hitting a building would be a lot like throwing an egg at a brick wall.</div>so you're saying the wings just disenegrated - so did the 4 engines? How about all of the luggage...there was absolutely NO evidence that a plane, a boeing 757 crashed into the pentagon...nothing.

 

[Justice]

Re: Was 9/11 George Bush's fault?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ReppinTheD @ Sep 26 2006, 09:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>there was absolutely NO evidence that a plane, a boeing 757 crashed into the pentagon...nothing.</div>Uh, yeah there was.

 

[redneck]

Re: Was 9/11 George Bush's fault?

Wings are made from ligher materials, and when they hit they most likely would have been pushed back into the fireball of the plane. the fireball most likely would have also distoried the luggage, and if it wasn't distroied than, it would have been by the ensuing fire after the crash.People keep trying to compare the 9/11 plane crashes to other plane crashes and you can't. before 9/11 there were no plane crashes where a plane hit a major structure. most plane crashes occure in feilds or mountains, so there is wreckage to find. but when you crash a plane into a building stuff is going to burn a lot more.

 

[Becar]

Re: Was 9/11 George Bush's fault?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ReppinTheD @ Sep 26 2006, 10:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>so you're saying the wings just disenegrated - so did the 4 engines? How about all of the luggage...there was absolutely NO evidence that a plane, a boeing 757 crashed into the pentagon...nothing.</div>No evidence when you exclude the hundreds of people who saw it happen.

 

[Michael Bryant]

Re: Was 9/11 George Bush's fault?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ReppinTheD @ Sep 26 2006, 09:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>so you're saying the wings just disenegrated - so did the 4 engines? How about all of the luggage...there was absolutely NO evidence that a plane, a boeing 757 crashed into the pentagon...nothing.</div>The wings on an airplane might as well be made of paper. They are specifically designed to bend, wobble and fluctuate in order to prevent from breaking off during flight. In fact, all wings on commercial jetliners are tested to safely bend close to 70 degrees. On top of that they are mostly filled with fuel. Redneck is right, a plane flying into a re-enforced concrete wall would basically disintegrate. At 500+ MPH, it would leave nothing more than a hole in the ground.Also, a 757 has two engines.

 

[Justice]

Re: Was 9/11 George Bush's fault?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Becar @ Sep 27 2006, 01:27 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>No evidence when you exclude the hundreds of people who saw it happen.</div>And the wheels and other crap that was all over the ground.

 

[Michael Bryant]

Re: Was 9/11 George Bush's fault?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (redneck @ Sep 26 2006, 11:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Wings are made from ligher materials, and when they hit they most likely would have been pushed back into the fireball of the plane. the fireball most likely would have also distoried the luggage, and if it wasn't distroied than, it would have been by the ensuing fire after the crash.People keep trying to compare the 9/11 plane crashes to other plane crashes and you can't. before 9/11 there were no plane crashes where a plane hit a major structure. most plane crashes occure in feilds or mountains, so there is wreckage to find. but when you crash a plane into a building stuff is going to burn a lot more.</div>Don't forget that in 99% of all plane crashes the pilots are actually trying to prevent the crash from happening hence, they often crash at lower speeds allowing for more debris to be left. A lot of Plane crashes happen at less that 350 mph, and a lot of crashes happen out of crash-landing attempts. There is test footage of jet propelled planes on tracks crashing into re-enforced concrete walls. Nothing is left behind. A plane isn't a locomotive, it's designed to be light, therefore if it's flown into a strong enough surface (like the pentagon) at, around or more than 500mph it will basically disintegrate.

 

[ReppinTheD]

Re: Was 9/11 George Bush's fault?

lol whatever man...I think all that is bs....there was a tiny little hole in the building and thats it...the fricken walls were still up around the hole....I honestly dont believe every single piece of airplane just vanished into dust.