PDA

View Full Version : New World Order


Light
11-11-2007, 11:46 PM
Brave New world is upon us:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PpMdTmVMpo

Watch the whole movie here:

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

This movie is in 3 parts.

Part I Correlations on Christianity

Part 2 New insights into 911.

Part 3 Economy,Banking and the New World Order.

Will rock your world.

46zilzal
11-12-2007, 01:38 AM
Amazing all the correlations in religious dogma that are really pagan rituals adapted to the growing season.

PaceAdvantage
11-12-2007, 01:50 AM
Amazing that folks keep talking about this New World Order. Is it here yet? I've been reading about it for close to 20 years now....

Yet, all I see around me are sovereign nations.....oh well.....

Is there anything in this movie about the American Concentration Camps that are supposedly set up and ready to go across the nation? I've been reading about those for at least 10 years now as well....

How about the evil Fed....I'm sure they are in the movie....probably some stuff about Rockefellers, Bilderberg Group...etc...etc....all the stuff that's been floating around the Internet since its invention.

And yet, nothing has really changed, now has it? Or maybe I've been duped by the PsyOps that are in "full-effect" all around me....:eek:

chickenhead
11-12-2007, 01:58 AM
I'm gonna keep my eye on you Light

ddog
11-12-2007, 02:52 AM
I'm gonna keep my eye on you Light


just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after ya!
:sleeping:

Light
11-12-2007, 12:35 PM
This video makes alot of interesting points. The point with the twin towers is: was the U.S. government behind it or was it Osama. In Part III,it points out how this would not be the first time the U.S. has sacrificed its own people and or lied to get drawn into war. Lusitania(ww1),Pearl Harbor,(ww2) ,Gulf of Tonkin(Vietnam). You dont get carte blanche to attack Iraq,and Afghanistan without a major incident.

The video points out that the WTC's steel has a higher(2x) melting point than jet fuel burns. Even if the columns were weakened by heat,their collapse should have left a large steel frame or a siognficant part of it. Furthermore they found molten metal in the debris and metal sawed at a 45 degree angle such as is done in demolitions.How do you get such smooth and accurate cuts in a blown up building? The only thing that usually melts construction grade metal is the heat from explosives used in demolitions. All 3 buildings imploded on themselves,just like a demolition would. Building #7 is shown to implode from the center column first and form a dimple there right before it falls. How convenient. Molten steel was also found in its debris and there was no Jet fuel there. Regular fires cannot weaken its girders. Impossible.

The Pentagon plane is said to have vaporized,yet human remains were not. Makes sense to who?Morons? All Video tapes of the scene that day have still not been realeased by the FBI. Why not? The whole area was covered with sand before an investigation. A literal coverup.

Bush and Cheney testified to the 911 commision on their terms.They were not under oath and no recordings or transcripts were allowed. If they have nothing to hide,why was that the case?

This is the new Pearl Harbor. This is the dawn of an age designed to break the constitution.

Tom
11-12-2007, 12:39 PM
Wow!
Do you subscribe to Conspiracy Monthly of what?
I think your first paragraph is 100% untrue.
That makes the others moot.

ArlJim78
11-12-2007, 12:54 PM
Amazing that folks keep talking about this New World Order. Is it here yet? I've been reading about it for close to 20 years now....

Yet, all I see around me are sovereign nations.....oh well.....

Is there anything in this movie about the American Concentration Camps that are supposedly set up and ready to go across the nation? I've been reading about those for at least 10 years now as well....

How about the evil Fed....I'm sure they are in the movie....probably some stuff about Rockefellers, Bilderberg Group...etc...etc....all the stuff that's been floating around the Internet since its invention.

And yet, nothing has really changed, now has it? Or maybe I've been duped by the PsyOps that are in "full-effect" all around me....:eek:
its funny but true. these groups don't need to see anything factual before propagating these myth's. if it sounds like a great conspiracy then run with it and spread the news far and wide as if its true. the problem is that there are certain people who are predisposed to believe all of it.

maybe its just me but I get a real laugh at these myths about the Bilderbergers, concentration camps, secret societies, black helicopters, etc.

all around us are examples of how goverments or other world bodies cannot control anything effectively, and barely manage to function. yet at the same time is this other "secret" group that supposedly runs like a Swiss watch, duping everyone and on the verge of taking over the world.:lol:

harnesslover
11-12-2007, 12:54 PM
The only thing that usually melts construction grade metal is the heat from explosives used in demolitions. All 3 buildings imploded on themselves,just like a demolition would. Building #7 is shown to implode from the center column first and form a dimple there right before it falls. How convenient. Molten steel was also found in its debris and there was no Jet fuel there. Regular fires cannot weaken its girders. Impossible.
.

Really? Wasn't this thought process proved wrong not too long ago?

http://technology.newscientist.com/article/dn11752

"The crashed truck was carrying about 32,500 litres of gasoline and the heat generated by the fire exceeded 1510°C"

From what I have read, construction grade steel can start to melt at 1325C..

harnesslover
11-12-2007, 12:56 PM
This video makes alot of interesting points. The point with the twin towers is: was the U.S. government behind it or was it Osama. In Part III,it points out how this would not be the first time the U.S. has sacrificed its own people and or lied to get drawn into war. Lusitania(ww1),Pearl Harbor,(ww2) ,Gulf of Tonkin(Vietnam). You dont get carte blanche to attack Iraq,and Afghanistan without a major incident.

The video points out that the WTC's steel has a higher(2x) melting point than jet fuel burns. Even if the columns were weakened by heat,their collapse should have left a large steel frame or a siognficant part of it. Furthermore they found molten metal in the debris and metal sawed at a 45 degree angle such as is done in demolitions.How do you get such smooth and accurate cuts in a blown up building? The only thing that usually melts construction grade metal is the heat from explosives used in demolitions. All 3 buildings imploded on themselves,just like a demolition would. Building #7 is shown to implode from the center column first and form a dimple there right before it falls. How convenient. Molten steel was also found in its debris and there was no Jet fuel there. Regular fires cannot weaken its girders. Impossible.

The Pentagon plane is said to have vaporized,yet human remains were not. Makes sense to who?Morons? All Video tapes of the scene that day have still not been realeased by the FBI. Why not? The whole area was covered with sand before an investigation. A literal coverup.

Bush and Cheney testified to the 911 commision on their terms.They were not under oath and no recordings or transcripts were allowed. If they have nothing to hide,why was that the case?

This is the new Pearl Harbor. This is the dawn of an age designed to break the constitution.

And I am curious, were the Muslim terrorists hired by the US Gov to pull of this suicide mission?

ArlJim78
11-12-2007, 01:02 PM
This video makes alot of interesting points. The point with the twin towers is: was the U.S. government behind it or was it Osama. In Part III,it points out how this would not be the first time the U.S. has sacrificed its own people and or lied to get drawn into war. Lusitania(ww1),Pearl Harbor,(ww2) ,Gulf of Tonkin(Vietnam). You dont get carte blanche to attack Iraq,and Afghanistan without a major incident.

The video points out that the WTC's steel has a higher(2x) melting point than jet fuel burns. Even if the columns were weakened by heat,their collapse should have left a large steel frame or a siognficant part of it. Furthermore they found molten metal in the debris and metal sawed at a 45 degree angle such as is done in demolitions.How do you get such smooth and accurate cuts in a blown up building? The only thing that usually melts construction grade metal is the heat from explosives used in demolitions. All 3 buildings imploded on themselves,just like a demolition would. Building #7 is shown to implode from the center column first and form a dimple there right before it falls. How convenient. Molten steel was also found in its debris and there was no Jet fuel there. Regular fires cannot weaken its girders. Impossible.

The Pentagon plane is said to have vaporized,yet human remains were not. Makes sense to who?Morons? All Video tapes of the scene that day have still not been realeased by the FBI. Why not? The whole area was covered with sand before an investigation. A literal coverup.

Bush and Cheney testified to the 911 commision on their terms.They were not under oath and no recordings or transcripts were allowed. If they have nothing to hide,why was that the case?

This is the new Pearl Harbor. This is the dawn of an age designed to break the constitution.
the WTC demolition conspiracy has been completely refuted. If you look for it you will find rational explanations from demolition experts for why its a nutty idea. Even some of the original folks that supported it have backed away. A building like the WTC, in order to be rigged for demolition would have had to have been gutted and it would have taken months to set up the charges, etc.

Tom
11-12-2007, 02:31 PM
Funny how they got everyone focusing on these fringe conspiracies while the REAL NWO is creeping in. Global economy is the vehicle it is using. Illegal immigration is part of the strategy. The North American Union is the prototype. Nafta and CAFTA are the enablers.

Light
11-12-2007, 04:32 PM
Really? Wasn't this thought process proved wrong not too long ago?

http://technology.newscientist.com/article/dn11752

"The crashed truck was carrying about 32,500 litres of gasoline and the heat generated by the fire exceeded 1510°C"

From what I have read, construction grade steel can start to melt at 1325C..

You're missing the finer points. The melting I'm reffering to is on the steel that was found in the rubble. It does not melt from the temperatures generated from Jet fuel. Melting from explosives, yes.

Also take a look at the freeway that fell:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/seunghoyang/497287215/

Does that look like pulverazation and melting? That's a collapse from its footing.The structure is allmost whole.The WTC started pulverizing before it touched anything. How do you do that in this physical universe.That freeway picture is the way I would have expected parts of the WTC to look. I said in my previous post that there should have been a big chunk of metal frame left as the concrete tore away from it,not the whole think nicely and neatly pulverized as in a demo. Do you honestly think the heat from 80 stories up can be as intense on the lower floors? Thats not the way it works if you if you know anything about heat conduction. Therefore the unimpeeded free fall of the struture and immediate pulverization before touching ground, does not make sense unless aided by explosives.

Light
11-12-2007, 04:36 PM
the WTC demolition conspiracy has been completely refuted.

That's what they'd like you to believe. There are countless unanswered questions. You're just not aware of them. Go back to sleep.

delayjf
11-12-2007, 04:48 PM
That's a collapse from its footing.The structure is allmost whole.The WTC started pulverizing before it touched anything.
It's whole because because the distance it fell was relatively small compared to the WTC and it did not have tons of debris falling on top of it.

When building are demolished, do they fall from the explosion weakening its foundation causing it to collapse or because intense heat from the explosion melts the metal support? I believe its the former.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/extreme_machines/1787846.html?page=2

ArlJim78
11-12-2007, 05:45 PM
That's what they'd like you to believe. There are countless unanswered questions. You're just not aware of them. Go back to sleep.
all of the questions can be refuted logically, or are most likely irrelevant. there is not single shred of compelling evidence. a conspiracy like you are purporting is a much tougher thing to carry out than what actually happened.

you have been duped.

skate
11-12-2007, 05:58 PM
all around us are examples of how goverments or other world bodies cannot control anything effectively, and barely manage to function. yet at the same time is this other "secret" group that supposedly runs like a Swiss watch, duping everyone and on the verge of taking over the world.:lol:


good one, AJ

GaryG
11-12-2007, 06:00 PM
Time to trot out the Illuminati, Skull & Bones and Frreemasons again I guess....:sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping:

skate
11-12-2007, 06:04 PM
[QUOTE=Light]You're missing the finer points. QUOTE]


Light, keep it up, you're getting as funny as Tom.:lol:

gallahadion
11-12-2007, 07:37 PM
Time to trot out the Illuminati, Skull & Bones and Frreemasons again I guess....:sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping:

Just remember.....

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.

-Bauldelaire , February 7th, 1864

chickenhead
11-12-2007, 08:28 PM
I thought that was kaiser soze

Light
11-12-2007, 08:52 PM
you have been duped.

The EPA at the request of the Whitehouse told everyone the air was safe to breathe shortly after 911. Do you need to actually contact a lung disease and die to understand the mechanics of 911?

Tom
11-12-2007, 10:52 PM
That makes no sense.

Light
11-12-2007, 10:55 PM
O.K.

PaceAdvantage
11-13-2007, 12:59 AM
The video points out that the WTC's steel has a higher(2x) melting point than jet fuel burns. Even if the columns were weakened by heat,their collapse should have left a large steel frame or a siognficant part of it. Furthermore they found molten metal in the debris and metal sawed at a 45 degree angle such as is done in demolitions.How do you get such smooth and accurate cuts in a blown up building?

Did the people who made the video have hands on access to any of the WTC debris that is offered as "evidence" of a US Gov't Conspiracy?

Also, don't you find it odd that in NONE of the videos I have seen (and heard) of the WTC collapse (including the video from the French guy who was filming inside tower 1 while tower 2 fell), there are NO pre-collapse "charges" going off? If it was a controlled demolition, where were the pre-collapse explosions? Watch any video of any controlled demolition and you hear these huge explosions going off as the charges that are attached to critical support structures are ignited.

There were no such sounds heard on any of the videos just prior to the WTC collapses. You would have definitely heard these charges in some of those videos (especially the video being shot inside tower 1), and they just were never there....

Tom
11-13-2007, 07:31 AM
Anyone who has any sense at all, which may explain a lot of this crap, KNOWS that you just don't hide a few explosives inside a building and then bring it down. Building far smaller......FAR smaller that the towers take weeks/months of planning and prepping for a controlled demolition, and not a one of them

EVER looks like a habitable building when they are done.
There is 100% chance that this could never have happeded on 9-11. MAke that 110%.

Light
11-13-2007, 11:31 AM
......there are NO pre-collapse "charges" going off? If it was a controlled demolition, where were the pre-collapse explosions? .

Sounds like you didnt watch the video,which is what I suspect of all those denouncing this as debunked conspiracy theory. This is the updated conspiracy version,beyond "loose change". If you did see this movie explain to me how Rockefeller could predict the ramifications of 911 1 year in advance? Sorry,but you guys get an F in reviewing this. It is not me who has to debunk the questions raised in this movie,it is you Bush die-hards.

harnesslover
11-13-2007, 11:43 AM
Sounds like you didnt watch the video,which is what I suspect of all those denouncing this as debunked conspiracy theory. This is the updated conspiracy version,beyond "loose change". If you did see this movie explain to me how Rockefeller could predict the ramifications of 911 1 year in advance? Sorry,but you guys get an F in reviewing this. It is not me who has to debunk the questions raised in this movie,it is you Bush die-hards.

Light, flat out question for you. Simple yes or no. Do you believe that our government was behind the attacks of the World Trade Center buildings? Were they the masterminds of the attack? No theories needed, just simple yes or no.

skate
11-13-2007, 06:00 PM
Sounds like you didnt watch the video,which is what I suspect of all those denouncing this as debunked conspiracy theory. This is the updated conspiracy version,beyond "loose change". If you did see this movie explain to me how Rockefeller could predict the ramifications of 911 1 year in advance? Sorry,but you guys get an F in reviewing this. It is not me who has to debunk the questions raised in this movie,it is you Bush die-hards.

Hold up, we have a Mentality here that explains everything. pure liberal.

Lights out, says "sounds like you didnt watch" he "Suspected".

now he leaves everything up to us when it comes to explaining "how Rockefeller predicted" 9/11 in advance.

skate ask, since Light is the person calling on Rockerfellers prediction, why doesn't he explain the 'so called prediction'.

if we do not know about anyones prediction, how do we explain the prediction.

and the PREDICTION is? no more Light.

ddog
11-13-2007, 10:23 PM
Time to trot out the Illuminati, Skull & Bones and Frreemasons again I guess....:sleeping: :sleeping: :sleeping:

us Freemasons had Nothing to do with it at all!

ddog
11-13-2007, 10:25 PM
I thought that was kaiser soze


I heard that the interrogation from that film was actually code to let the "others" know the date/time and targets of all the attacks the world over.

Really!

ddog
11-13-2007, 10:33 PM
You're missing the finer points. The melting I'm reffering to is on the steel that was found in the rubble. It does not melt from the temperatures generated from Jet fuel. Melting from explosives, yes.

Also take a look at the freeway that fell:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/seunghoyang/497287215/

Does that look like pulverazation and melting? That's a collapse from its footing.The structure is allmost whole.The WTC started pulverizing before it touched anything. How do you do that in this physical universe.That freeway picture is the way I would have expected parts of the WTC to look. I said in my previous post that there should have been a big chunk of metal frame left as the concrete tore away from it,not the whole think nicely and neatly pulverized as in a demo. Do you honestly think the heat from 80 stories up can be as intense on the lower floors? Thats not the way it works if you if you know anything about heat conduction. Therefore the unimpeeded free fall of the struture and immediate pulverization before touching ground, does not make sense unless aided by explosives.

all i can say is that you and whomever made the film do not understand the forces that are supported by the structure and how dependent they are on one another.
Everything that happened was totally expected as to after the buildings were hit.
The guys that designed it were warning it could come down before they fell.
Those buildings were a "perfect storm" design-wise and if you wanted to put up a structure to be attacked, those were it.

Light
11-13-2007, 11:09 PM
Light, flat out question for you. Simple yes or no. Do you believe that our government was behind the attacks of the World Trade Center buildings? Were they the masterminds of the attack? No theories needed, just simple yes or no.

Yes. I have allready said this.

Light
11-13-2007, 11:15 PM
Lights out, says "sounds like you didnt watch" he "Suspected".

now he leaves everything up to us when it comes to explaining "how Rockefeller predicted" 9/11 in advance.

skate ask, since Light is the person calling on Rockerfellers prediction, why doesn't he explain the 'so called prediction'.

if we do not know about anyones prediction, how do we explain the prediction.

and the PREDICTION is? no more Light.

Obviously YOU did not watch the video or you would have seen the part about Rockefeller's knowledge of going into Iraq and Afghanistan through the use of planned disaster by the U.S. government.

Light
11-13-2007, 11:20 PM
all i can say is that you and whomever made the film do not understand the forces that are supported by the structure and how dependent they are on one another.
Everything that happened was totally expected as to after the buildings were hit.


I was discussing evidence of sabotage to bring the building down i.E. a prepared demolition of the WTC's,rather than the construction of the building.

kenwoodallpromos
11-13-2007, 11:26 PM
The UN building needs blowing up according to inspection reports! If they want a New World Order they better get their New World Order headquaters in order- I suggest they use the Green Zone in Iraq for the new New World Order (UN) headquarters.

chickenhead
11-13-2007, 11:38 PM
where was the FAT MAN on 9/11, is that in the documentary? I want him accounted for first, then we can talk about others.

PaceAdvantage
11-14-2007, 12:49 AM
Sounds like you didnt watch the video,which is what I suspect of all those denouncing this as debunked conspiracy theory. This is the updated conspiracy version,beyond "loose change". If you did see this movie explain to me how Rockefeller could predict the ramifications of 911 1 year in advance? Sorry,but you guys get an F in reviewing this. It is not me who has to debunk the questions raised in this movie,it is you Bush die-hards.I asked a simple question. Did you answer it? Where are the sounds of the demolition charges going off before the collapse? They don't exist, as far as I can tell. If you have seen a video which contains the pre-collapse charges going off, I'd like to know about it...

Or maybe they used a Tesla Earthquake Machine to bring the buildings down? You see, I can mix it up with the best of the conspiracy theorists....

Light
11-14-2007, 12:54 AM
Here's another example of the U.S. government staging an attack so it can blame others and take miltary action.

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

Operation Northwoods, or Northwoods, was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of simulated or real terrorism and violence on US soil or against US interests, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government of Fidel Castro. As part of the U.S. government's Operation Mongoose anti-Castro initiative, the plan, which was not implemented, called for various false flag actions, including simulated or real state-sponsored acts of terrorism (such as hijacked planes) on U.S. and Cuban soil. The plan was proposed by senior U.S. Department of Defense leaders, including the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Lyman Louis Lemnitzer.



[I]he proposals included:


* Starting rumors about Cuba by using clandestine radios.
* Staging mock attacks, sabotages and riots at Guantanamo Bay and blaming them on Cuban forces.
* Blowing up a U.S. ship in Guantánamo Bay and blaming it on Cuba—reminiscent of the destruction of the USS Maine at Havana in 1898, which helped to precipitate the Spanish-American War. (The document's first suggestion regarding the sinking of a U.S. ship is to blow up a ship at sea and hence would result in U.S. Navy members being killed, with a secondary suggestion of possibly using an unmanned ship and fake funerals instead.)
* "Harassment of civil air, attacks on surface shipping and destruction of US military drone aircraft by MIG type [sic] planes would be useful as complementary actions."
* Destroying an unmanned drone masquerading as a commercial aircraft supposedly full of "college students off on a holiday". This proposal was the one supported by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
* Staging a "terror campaign", including the "real or simulated" sinking of Cuban refugees
* Burning crops by dropping incendiary devices in Haiti, the Dominican Republic or elsewhere.




Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.[13]

Light
11-14-2007, 01:01 AM
I asked a simple question. Did you answer it? Where are the sounds of the demolition charges going off before the collapse? They don't exist, as far as I can tell. If you have seen a video which contains the pre-collapse charges going off, I'd like to know about it...


In the movie,(the 2nd link I posted),there are several eye witnesses testifying to an explosion in the basement of the WTC moments before the plane hit the tower.One eyewitness says he saw people injured from the blast in the basement. As far as a recording of the actual sound of it,no.

PaceAdvantage
11-14-2007, 01:04 AM
In the movie,(the 2nd link I posted),there are several eye witnesses testifying to an explosion in the basement of the WTC moments before the plane hit the tower.One eyewitness says he saw people injured from the blast in the basement. As far as a recording of the actual sound of it,no.And how is this proof of a gov't conspiracy? The first attack of the WTC used bombs in the basement. What makes you think they wouldn't throw that into the mix as well on 9/11?

This doesn't answer the "controlled demolition" charges that are thrown about. A controlled demolition needs METICULOUSLY PLACED CHARGES that go off in an ORCHESTRATED and highly STRUCTURED manner...meaning....they have to go off IMMEDIATELY before the collapse begins. Not an hour or more before....

The possible "bomb in the basement" does not address the "controlled demolition" thesis.

Light
11-14-2007, 01:14 AM
I allready addressed that issue.Previously stated that jet fuel cannot melt construction grade alloy. It can weaken it. Demolition expolsives are high enough in temp to melt construction grade alloy. The molten metal is one evidence found in the rubble.

Another was of girders cut in a 45 degree angle in order to facilitate the fall of the building. These were found.

Loose change and this movie point to flashes of light(blasts) occuring at various points on the building as it was coming down.

And as I just said,an explosion in the basement shortly before the first plane hit.

Light
11-14-2007, 01:28 AM
This was my point about the Oakland overpass that fell down from the fire. The supports fell but did not melt.Melting requires a higher temp that you get from demolition explosives.

JustRalph
11-14-2007, 05:58 AM
I can't believe this is still being discussed............ :sleeping:

Steve 'StatMan'
11-14-2007, 08:09 AM
I can't believe this is still being discussed............ :sleeping:

It's Light, remember.

Tom
11-14-2007, 10:09 AM
Keep him going - they probably will not shoot "24" this season due the writer's strike. This the next best thing! :lol:

BTW, truth in advertising laws have forced them to re-title the video "Loose Change" as "Loose Screws!" :eek:

Light
11-14-2007, 11:31 AM
I can't believe this is still being discussed............ :sleeping:

And I cant believe people are still dying for the 911 lie.

delayjf
11-14-2007, 03:33 PM
Melting requires a higher temp that you get from demolition explosives
Even if it does, I posted a link that showed you that buildings collapse during demo due to the weakening of the structure - not the melting of metal.

Demolishing steel columns is a bit more difficult, as the dense material is much stronger. For buildings with a steel support structure, blasters typically use the specialized explosive material cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine, called RDX for short. RDX-based explosive compounds expand at a very high rate of speed, up to 27,000 feet per second (8,230 meters per second). Instead of disintegrating the entire column, the concentrated, high-velocity pressure slices right through the steel, splitting it in half. Additionally, blasters may ignite dynamite on one side of the column to push it over in a particular direction.

skate
11-14-2007, 06:07 PM
Obviously YOU did not watch the video or you would have seen the part about Rockefeller's knowledge of going into Iraq and Afghanistan through the use of planned disaster by the U.S. government.


that's exactly what im saying. and that is what you said previous. that being, you said " sounds like we did not Watch". so why dont you explain.

instead you ask others to explain what you already said "OTHERS" did not watch.

from the small amount of information of which you say "Rock... was aware of PLANS for Iraq". you expect anyone to conclude that because of any previous plan, that means the plans were for a definite attack.


thereby concluding, any plans, past or future, about any country (Russia, China,Brazil etc.) MEANS that we are going to attack said countrys. :rolleyes:


and then, i suspect you want us to know that UncleGeorge didn't plan enough for the WAR with Iraq.

so, i can conclude from speculation, that you've discovered a way to make the Numerator along with the Denominator , to always be the exact same number.

riskman
11-14-2007, 06:42 PM
Many conservatives, especially religious conservatives, are expecting the rise of a "New World Order" or some sort of one-world government. Pessimistic secular conservatives and libertarians see it as the inevitable result of growing government influence around the world. Some pessimistic religious conservatives and libertarians believe such an event is ordained to occur based on Bible prophecy. Accepting the fact that there are global elites who probably do want to see something resembling a "global government" of sorts, are we truly in danger of seeing one any time soon? Most likely the answer is no.

The first problem with the fatalist line of thought is that it gives way too much credit and power to the government and incompetent bureaucrats. I remember an episode episode of South Park that alluded to this very point. It joked that the government itself was actually in charge of all the 9/11 conspiracy publications out there so that people would think that the authorities truly were all powerful. But as most people know, the government can't even administer many of their own pork-barrel spending projects correctly, and yet we are to believe that they masterminded the terrorist attacks.
Yeah, right.

BlueShoe
11-14-2007, 07:23 PM
Tom got it right in his post of two days ago,we just have to figure out who is behind all this.My choice is a semi-secret organization that I have viewed with suspicion and hostility for decades;the Council On Foreign Relations.This group has dominated US govenment and foreign policy for over half a century.Conspiricy theorists say that its roots may go back as far as the Knights Templar of the middle ages.

ddog
11-14-2007, 11:28 PM
Tom got it right in his post of two days ago,we just have to figure out who is behind all this.My choice is a semi-secret organization that I have viewed with suspicion and hostility for decades;the Council On Foreign Relations.This group has dominated US govenment and foreign policy for over half a century.Conspiricy theorists say that its roots may go back as far as the Knights Templar of the middle ages.

it's clear who was behind it, it was God's wrath on the US for our sinfull ways , I thought everyone knew that.
Although why he had to use those planes and all is beyond, couldn't he have just turned them to pillars of salt or a burning bush of a tower instead?

Kind of like an eternal flame type deal for mourning of the US and it's evil ways.

ddog
11-14-2007, 11:32 PM
Even if it does, I posted a link that showed you that buildings collapse during demo due to the weakening of the structure - not the melting of metal.

Demolishing steel columns is a bit more difficult, as the dense material is much stronger. For buildings with a steel support structure, blasters typically use the specialized explosive material cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine, called RDX for short. RDX-based explosive compounds expand at a very high rate of speed, up to 27,000 feet per second (8,230 meters per second). Instead of disintegrating the entire column, the concentrated, high-velocity pressure slices right through the steel, splitting it in half. Additionally, blasters may ignite dynamite on one side of the column to push it over in a particular direction.

I assume , but do not know for sure, that the FORCE OF A plane of that size would do some damage to parts of the structure and then the fire would not need to melt but just weaken and then a little tip and that's all she wrote.

PaceAdvantage
11-15-2007, 12:40 AM
You didn't address my issue at all. My issue is, that in NO video I have EVER seen or heard of 9/11 (news, documentary, LIVE COVERAGE), there was NO EVIDENCE of demolition charges going off in the moments before the collapse, which would have been NECESSARY to produce a controlled demolition, like you theorize.

If you don't know what I'm talking about, just listen to this example:

ZlGmnKvOhlg


I allready addressed that issue.Previously stated that jet fuel cannot melt construction grade alloy. It can weaken it. Demolition expolsives are high enough in temp to melt construction grade alloy. The molten metal is one evidence found in the rubble.

Another was of girders cut in a 45 degree angle in order to facilitate the fall of the building. These were found.

Loose change and this movie point to flashes of light(blasts) occuring at various points on the building as it was coming down.

And as I just said,an explosion in the basement shortly before the first plane hit.

Light
11-15-2007, 01:34 AM
Here's one where you can see and hear the demolition explosives.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc2_cutter.html


Go down to about the middle of the page and click on the video that says"note the Pops".You may have to watch it a couple times cause its short but there is about 3 seconds where you get a good look at it. If that isnt a demolition from explosives,I dont know what is.

PaceAdvantage
11-15-2007, 01:39 AM
Here's one where you can see and hear the demolition explosives.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc2_cutter.html


Go down to about the middle of the page and click on the video that says"note the Pops".You may have to watch it a couple times cause its short but there is about 3 seconds where you get a good look at it. If that isnt a demolition from explosives,I dont know what is.Are you serious? There were no demolition explosives in that video. Do you know how LOUD those things are? Did you watch the video I put up....did you hear how loud those explosive charges are that bring down buildings?

There were no such BOOMS in the video you link to....where your video was shot (street level right next to the WTC), you would have definitely heard these BOOMS echoing off the neighboring buildings....it would have been painfully obvious that a controlled demolition was taking place....but there are no such explosions taking place IMMEDIATELY BEFORE the building starts to come down....

What you are hearing in your video are the floors "pancaking" down upon themselves as they ACTUALLY COLLAPSE....not before. It's so obvious, that I can't believe an intelligent human being watching the video can argue otherwise.

chickenhead
11-15-2007, 01:52 AM
let's just assume there was a controlled demolition. Why? You don't think two 747's being flown into the WTC (and a missile into the Pentagon, right?) would have provided whatever impetus "the puppetmasters" were looking for?

You run a huge risk of being discovered (i.e. how in the f you wire a building with explosives and building maint, employees not notice it) for zero reward. What would have been the excuse if some janitor actually found both towers laced with cutting edge explosives on 9/9? That's not exactly something that could be explained away....no arch criminal in his right mind would come up with a plan like that.

And it obviously wouldn;t have been done for max casualties, as the buildings waited for most to exit.

Forget about trying to decipher youtube clips, the whole idea is stupid to begin with. It has huge risk for no reward.

Is there some even more wingnut explanation as to why the buildings needed to come down?

Light
11-15-2007, 02:03 AM
First of all buildings dont make poping sounds like firecrackers when they fall. Second you may notice that the building is not really falling yet,just exploding from its sides, and those pops you see and hear are preceeding the collapse of the building.

I have watched many a Vegas hotel get destroyed. Yes some are brought down in several great boom sounds. But I have seen others brought down in a plethora of smaller sounds like in this video. Listen and you can hear the explosions.

If a demolition team wanted to take down the WTC,I can tell you they are not going to use the big boom method on such a tall structure. Thats usually done for taking out a building at its base. In a skyscraper,you'd rather have the pancake affect,requiring different explosives.

Light
11-15-2007, 02:15 AM
Is there some even more wingnut explanation as to why the buildings needed to come down?

Yes. The neocons had discussed the need for a Pearl Harbor type of disaster back in the 90's that would rally the public and congress for any war the president chose.

As much as I say Bush is an ass,he knows exactly what he is doing. He has no intention of leaving after buying his ticket to Iraq with a staged 911.

PaceAdvantage
11-15-2007, 02:52 AM
If a demolition team wanted to take down the WTC,I can tell you they are not going to use the big boom method on such a tall structure. Thats usually done for taking out a building at its base. In a skyscraper,you'd rather have the pancake affect,requiring different explosives.Oh really? Do you have any videos of a controlled demolition of a SKYSCRAPER so that we can compare? After all, you speak from experience (or so it reads that way), so I assume you have a link to a video of a controlled demolition of a skyscraper that we can compare to WTC?

Here's one I just found.....again....note the massive explosions MANY SECONDS before the building falls into a heap....(the camera shook with the first massive BOOM)....note how long it takes the building to start falling AFTER the explosions are seen and heard:

7Ng5qwtR59A

More

RkiwNxfB4GM

Tom
11-15-2007, 07:40 AM
First of all buildings dont make poping sounds like firecrackers when they fall. Second you may notice that the building is not really falling yet,just exploding from its sides, and those pops you see and hear are preceeding the collapse of the building.

I have watched many a Vegas hotel get destroyed. Yes some are brought down in several great boom sounds. But I have seen others brought down in a plethora of smaller sounds like in this video. Listen and you can hear the explosions.

If a demolition team wanted to take down the WTC,I can tell you they are not going to use the big boom method on such a tall structure. Thats usually done for taking out a building at its base. In a skyscraper,you'd rather have the pancake affect,requiring different explosives.

Pretty ignorant conclusions. WINDOWS pop as the volume of the interior decreases, the pressure forces them outward. I can't believe you actually believe this OBVIOUS false crap! I got a bridge you might enjoy - PM me!:lol:

chickenhead
11-15-2007, 11:46 AM
Yes. The neocons had discussed the need for a Pearl Harbor type of disaster back in the 90's that would rally the public and congress for any war the president chose.

That doesn't address my question, and you know it.

BlueShoe
11-15-2007, 07:18 PM
Thought that the notion of 9/11 being an inside job belonged to the Moveon.org looney Left wackos and Rosie O'Donnell.We right wing rednecks may believe to a large extent that long standing groups exist that do not have the best interests of US citizens in mind,but we believe that 9/11 was as stated;a terrorist act.Many of us also believe that the rise of Islamo facists was unexpected by these conspiritorial groups,and that they have no control or influence over them.

toetoe
11-15-2007, 07:35 PM
I have a quibble, Light. May I remind you that the buildings were indeed manned, womaned and childed ? Would "they" devolve in 40 short years from targeting unmanned buildings to targeting manned buildings ?

Oh, and what the HELL is a plethora ? I've searched in various and sundry tomes for its definition, and I would not put noisome prevarication past you. Without explication, I should perforce presume that palaver to be a fabrication (not exactly foreign material in this thread).

Have you considered criminally shoddy construction as a factor ? That was my first thought upon hearing the news, as I have seen firsthand some surprisingly slipshod highrise construction.

Light
11-15-2007, 08:54 PM
I Would "they" devolve in 40 short years from targeting unmanned buildings to targeting manned buildings ?


Allow me to introduce the head of the security company for the WTC's up to 911: Marvin P Bush,the presidents cousin. Is that just another coincidence?

Light
11-15-2007, 09:05 PM
PA

Thanks for those videos,but if the WTC came down that way(from its base),it would be quite obvious it was a demolition since it was hit from above. Now I ask you. Why do we even need to pay demolition teams. 3 buildings fell that day all imploding on themselves without resistance in a freefall,what luck! I thought that unless this was done professionally, buildings would fall at an angle destroying other buildings.This would be more in line with a terrorists desire...if they were the masterminds rather than the puppets.

Light
11-15-2007, 09:20 PM
That doesn't address my question, and you know it.

This is your question


Is there some even more wingnut explanation as to why the buildings needed to come down?

My answer still stands. Whats wrong with it. You think its all a coincidence that neocons wanted a "pearl harbor" excuse to invade Iraq and got it. You think if they didnt bring down the buildings,congress would have approved going to war based on something much less spectacular. This is costing trillions of dollars. You bet you need a cataclysm to justify its cost.So far,I hear it will cost Americans $20k each.Better start making some money at the track

Light
11-15-2007, 09:26 PM
Correction on Marvin. He is Bush's brother.

Light
11-15-2007, 09:38 PM
Pretty ignorant conclusions. WINDOWS pop as the volume of the interior decreases, the pressure forces them outward. I can't believe you actually believe this OBVIOUS false crap! I got a bridge you might enjoy - PM me!:lol:


Here's a similar video but with pause and explanation. You'll see why I'm not ready to buy your bridge.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_8RxGYPEoI0

ArlJim78
11-15-2007, 09:51 PM
why on earth was it necessary to demolish the buildings? was not the attack of ramming planes into the WTC and Pentagon enough to go to war? of course it was. even if you buy into this idea of a conspiracy (which is total hogwash), why would they they go to the extreme trouble of rigging the buildings to implode? it added nothing really.

what would have been different about our response to the attack if instead of imploding the towers simply remained erect and continued to burn up?

Steve 'StatMan'
11-15-2007, 10:02 PM
They also made a duplicate key so they could steal the frozen strawberries. Don't take that word that the mess boys just ate them. :rolleyes:

So mad at Bush and pinning him with lies, they make up even bigger ones to try to pin on him. Course, Light truly believes this, so to him it isn't a lie. Bush truly believed they had MWD in Iraq, but since he's Bush, that obviously has to be a lie, right?

Tom
11-15-2007, 11:34 PM
Here's a similar video but with pause and explanation. You'll see why I'm not ready to buy your bridge.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_8RxGYPEoI0

If believe that video, I want MORE for the bridge!
Man, are you gullible!:lol::lol::lol:

PaceAdvantage
11-16-2007, 12:28 AM
Here's a similar video but with pause and explanation. You'll see why I'm not ready to buy your bridge.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=_8RxGYPEoI0

Regarding this video....how can you have a "detonation zone" without any detonations?

JustRalph
11-16-2007, 02:36 AM
They also made a duplicate key so they could steal the frozen strawberries. Don't take that word that the mess boys just ate them. :rolleyes:

Steve, you are the Fred MacMurray to Light's Bogie..........take him down Steve!

Tom you can be Van Johnson and Light has a new nickname..........anybody care to guess..........? :lol:

I will start looking for marbles...............

ArlJim78
11-16-2007, 07:56 AM
another thought on the explosives that were supposedly used, beside the fact that it wasn't necessary to justify the war, why did they wait something like 45 minutes or more to detonate? weren't they afraid of having the detonations caught on video? they had to know that every camera in NY would be trained on the buildings after they had been hit. did they really think that nobody would notice the explosive charges going off?

and why the perfect code of silence from the hundreds of people that had to be involved in this sinister plot? no one is talking and no one saw anything?

what we're asked to believe is that the people who planned and carried out the crime of the century, with perfect precision, no leaks, no slips, no evidence, with careful planning and anticipation of how events would unfold going forward with perfect clarity, yet when they got to the war itself, the goal of the whole enterprise, they ran into all kinds of trouble, delays, unintended outcomes, etc. if you listen to the people that make these wacky claims, these "neocons" are at the same time traitorous brilliant masterminds and incompetent boobs.

chickenhead
11-16-2007, 10:30 AM
You think if they didnt bring down the buildings,congress would have approved going to war based on something much less spectacular.

of course. watching people jumping from the hundredth floor (fleeing the raging fire inside) was one of the most heart-breaking things this country has ever seen. Who the f cares about what happens to the building? Hundreds of people on planes and in the towers, DEAD, was tragedy o' plenty.

chickenhead
11-16-2007, 11:02 AM
of course another gaping HOLE in the whole conspiracy argument, is that the entire plan would have rested on boxcutters. Talk about the weak link in the chain. If this was an "inside job" they merely would have placed a complicit person on the baggage machine that day, or had it down for maintenance, and some more threatening tools would have been brought on. Evidence that his did not happen? The plane cratered in the field.

Of course of course...that's what they WANT you to think. I know you think you're being rational, but you're not.

Light
11-16-2007, 10:55 PM
why on earth was it necessary to demolish the buildings?

Who the f cares about what happens to the building?

Make up your minds. Bottom line is this government has sacrificed its own citizens in the past and will not hesitate to do so in the future.Buildings are not exempt from sacrifice. Please read some history books.

JustRalph
11-17-2007, 12:41 AM
Make up your minds. Bottom line is this government has sacrificed its own citizens in the past and will not hesitate to do so in the future.Buildings are not exempt from sacrifice. Please read some history books.

Just a little question.........from those history books you have read........point out where the United States Government has "sacrificed its own citizens" ?

Light
11-17-2007, 10:12 PM
Just a little question.........from those history books you have read........point out where the United States Government has "sacrificed its own citizens" ?

War. America's children pay the price for greedy leaders.Caviar,champagne,and fund raising dinners while 50,000 died in Vietnam.Explain to me what their deaths accomplished?

The U.S. policy on civilian casualties in war has always been that they are inevitable and acceptable. But you always thought that meant casualties on their side. You certainly dont think that a country that dropped the bomb on civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki has the scruples to exclude their own citizens.

Besides war,our government has used their own citizens as guinea pigs without their knowledge and consent for various "secret" experiments. I'm not going to get into specifics but if this doesn't sound familiar to you and you think I'm some bozo(and I know you do),you'll be interested to know that according to a poll by the New York Times and CBS News:

"Only 16 per cent of respondents say the government headed by U.S. president George W. Bush is telling the truth on what it knew prior to the terrorist attacks."

JustRalph
11-17-2007, 10:30 PM
War. America's children pay the price for greedy leaders.Caviar,champagne,and fund raising dinners while 50,000 died in Vietnam.Explain to me what their deaths accomplished?

The U.S. policy on civilian casualties in war has always been that they are inevitable and acceptable. But you always thought that meant casualties on their side. You certainly dont think that a country that dropped the bomb on civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki has the scruples to exclude their own citizens.

Besides war,our government has used their own citizens as guinea pigs without their knowledge and consent for various "secret" experiments. I'm not going to get into specifics but if this doesn't sound familiar to you and you think I'm some bozo(and I know you do),you'll be interested to know that according to a poll by the New York Times and CBS News:

"Only 16 per cent of respondents say the government headed by U.S. president George W. Bush is telling the truth on what it knew prior to the terrorist attacks."

I figured you would come back with the war argument. Btw, your right.

Tom
11-17-2007, 11:51 PM
Light is pissed because we will not lay down and let the muslems roll over us.

chickenhead
11-18-2007, 01:43 AM
Make up your minds. Bottom line is this government has sacrificed its own citizens in the past and will not hesitate to do so in the future.Buildings are not exempt from sacrifice. Please read some history books.

Bottom Line? You say that as if you've already answered the question, hah!

Bottom line, every time I talk to you about anything, I'm reminded that you're not worth talking to. :sleeping:

delayjf
11-19-2007, 06:11 PM
Explain to me what their deaths accomplished?
Nothing, thanks to you, they won the battles, you lost the war. But seriously, what do you care? When they came home you and your irk spit on them and called them "Baby Killers". Given the liberal lefts postion on abortion, don't you think that the pot calling the kettle black?? Now you want to convince me that you really care about US casualties - I read the comments towards US Soldiers posted on one of those "I hate Bush" blogs.

The U.S. policy on civilian casualties in war has always been that they are inevitable and acceptable
It's not policy ... its fact. Civilian casualties will always be inevitable.

"Only 16 per cent of respondents say the government headed by U.S. president George W. Bush is telling the truth on what it knew prior to the terrorist attacks."
Irrelevant, 16% may believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny... doesn't make it fact. Which poll was this??

Light
11-19-2007, 09:47 PM
But seriously, what do you care? When they came home you and your irk spit on them and called them "Baby Killers".


Why do I care that 50,000 troops lost their lives in Vietnam for nothing? What kind of human vegetable are you if you dont care about that.

46zilzal
11-19-2007, 09:54 PM
It is strange how people who were there get 'warped' memories in saying that EVERYONE who was against the war in Vietnam, attacked returning soldiers with the label "Baby killers." Hell, all of them were our friends and neighbors DUPED into insanity. The stupid war was the enemy not the poor slobs who were forced to go.

Light
11-19-2007, 10:18 PM
I'll tell you who disrespects the troops more than anyone.The U.S. government who sent them off to die for nothing in the first place.That caused them to lose life and limbs,lose jobs,lose marriages,families and health.The same government that has created 25% homeless vets as a show of their appreciation.

Tom
11-19-2007, 10:22 PM
This is an all volunteer military, dude. No one forced anyone to do anything. In spite of the lies and bullcrap you spout off here. This is your immature way of denegrating them.

Light
11-19-2007, 10:24 PM
Follow the thread. We're talking Vietnam.

Tom
11-19-2007, 10:50 PM
Read your own posts. You brought up current events.
The same government that has created 25% homeless vets as a show of their appreciation.

Besides, the thread topic is NEW WORLD ORDER. You are about 40 years behind the times.

Light
11-19-2007, 11:07 PM
Sometimes you need to reference the past to make sense of the present. I suppose thats something new to you :rolleyes:

delayjf
11-20-2007, 12:09 PM
What kind of human vegetable are you if you dont care about that.
I never said I didn't care about 50,000 American casualties, I said that YOU and the rest of those left wing, I hate Bush, I hate the military, I'm hope they all get killed in Iraq, nut jobs, whose posts I read on that limp wristed left wing blog that was posted earlier - didn't care.

Now, if you in fact defended our troops on one of those blogs, please post the link so I can read it for myself. I would be happy to issue and apology.

toetoe
11-20-2007, 01:19 PM
Tom,

Be careful. One might infer that if/when a draft is instituted, you will concede Light's point.

We all agree war is awful. It has to be a desperate last resort in defense of our interests. Is that the case right now ? Therein lies the rub, and I don't know, but I THINK it's not true.

Tom
11-20-2007, 02:37 PM
I would not support any war for any reason if there were a draft. No one has the right to force one to go to war. It is volunteer 100% or nothing. If we cannot get enough people to defend our country by choice, it probably is not worth defending anymore.

Light
11-20-2007, 10:42 PM
... I said that YOU and the rest of those left wing, I hate Bush, I hate the military, I'm hope they all get killed in Iraq, nut jobs, whose posts I read on that limp wristed left wing blog that was posted earlier - didn't care.


You have a warped idea of what the anti war movement stands for.

Tom
11-20-2007, 10:50 PM
Surrender.

Technically, they don't stand for anything.
They lay down. They roll over, they play dead.
They make Osama proud.

PaceAdvantage
11-21-2007, 12:42 AM
....not the poor slobs who were forced to go.Don't you love how the left supports the troops?

delayjf
11-21-2007, 03:06 PM
Now, if you in fact defended our troops on one of those blogs, please post the link so I can read it for myself. I would be happy to issue and apology.
Well ........ I'm waiting.
You have a warped idea of what the anti war movement stands for.
I don't think so, the only time you even mention military Vets are when you feel you can take advantage of their casualty status to make a political point.
OR you point to some egregious act committed by Vets to make your political point.

46zilzal
11-21-2007, 03:09 PM
Lots of soldiers are against it and have been from the start.
http://www.vaiw.org/vet/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=3362

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/
http://www.ivaw.org/
http://www.westpointgradsagainstthewar.org/index.htm
http://www.gsfp.org/
http://www.sagaw.org/
http://www.veteransforamerica.org/

delayjf
11-21-2007, 04:13 PM
and lots are for it - its still an all volunteer force. Recruiting has hardly dropped to zero.

46zilzal
11-21-2007, 04:16 PM
and lots are for it - its still an all volunteer force. Recruiting has hardly dropped to zero.
If there is a real need, not a trumped up one, for these soldiers, folks are going to be in deep crap.

Tom
11-22-2007, 12:28 AM
Lots of soldiers are against it and have been from the start.


And, since it is still an all volunteer army, lots MORE are not.

toetoe
11-22-2007, 12:10 PM
Let's not bring the troops-as-loyalty-test element into this. When I am asked that very lazy, "end of discussion" question --- "Do you support our troops ?" --- I feel a temptation to respond, "Only the waterboarders and/or torturers."

Tom
11-30-2007, 02:50 PM
From various sources.....

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,314203,00.html

http://www.politico.com/blogs/thecrypt/1107/Murthas_comments_on_surge_may_be_a_big_problem_for _House_Democrats.html

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/11/29/hell-freezes-over-i-think-the-surge-is-working-says-murtha/

ljb
11-30-2007, 02:52 PM
As soon as I saw the breaking news from Rochester, NH. I got on here to make sure Tom was online. Whewww !!!! had me worried there for a minute.

PaceAdvantage
12-01-2007, 11:02 AM
Hell freezes over: “I think the surge is working,” says MurthaExcellent....now we have something to counter the tired old "Mission Accomplished" retorts.

ljb
12-01-2007, 11:17 AM
[/color]Excellent....now we have something to counter the tired old "Mission Accomplished" retorts.
Typical neocon quote. Taking out of context. Go figure.

JustRalph
12-01-2007, 02:46 PM
I heard Pelosi and Reid passed out when they saw Murtha on TV ...... :lol: