Are you suspicious yet?

[scooby]

Good assessment of where science comes into all this ...

Statement of Lt. Col. Shelton F. Lankford, US Marine Corps (ret)
Retired U.S. Marine Corps Fighter Pilot
February 20, 2007

... Are you afraid that you will learn the truth and you can't handle it? I think I know some people in that category. Are you afraid you will draw the attention of thugs who could do the things that were done that day? Do you believe your fellow man is just not capable of that degree of evil? I would not have believed that my country would ever become a torture state and have the Congress arguing with the executive about it. I thought that Habaes Corpus was fundamental to our civil rights, and now I find that it is not. I thought my country stood for honorable dealings with other nations, then watch a jingoistic cheerleading orgy on TV, composed like Oscar night, with the centerpiece a campaign of "Shock and Awe" as our armed forces invade a practically defenseless nation, without provocation, while considerable doubt of the validity of the reasons for that invasion exists. Our fearless leader clings to lies until they are untenable and then disowns them as though he never spoke them. We, who can pillory a president of one party for lying about sex cannot call to account a repeated and habitual liar of another who sends more than 3100 of our soldiers to their deaths - for what?

Some point at the fact that the “Scientific Community” is largely silent. There apparently is no "scientific community". We have lots of scientists who work in government-funded research institutes and who work for universities funded by government money - mostly defense related. Do a little research project and see how well whistle-blowers have prospered since the Boy King ascended the throne. Look at how Professor Stephen Jones' career went after he challenged openly the collapse of the WTC buildings in peer-reviewed articles. Listen to his lecture on Google video, then read the accounts of how Brigham Young University ran for cover by putting him on leave and kowtowing to those who questioned his qualifications. Look up Sibel Edmonds, check into John M. Cole. Then, look at how Coleen Rowley has made out after putting it all on the line for her country. Look up Mike Ruppert, a gutsy cop who never blinked as he exposed CIA crime has fled the country after having the type of tactics that might make Tony Soprano ashamed used against him and his "From the Wilderness website. Then look at the fortunes of David Frasca and Spike Bowman two FBI supervisors who stonewalled the intelligence that might have exposed the 9/11 plotters, who were then promoted and rewarded. Compare and contrast the fortunes of those who come out with factual information unfavorable to the administration with those who play ball and make the right noises on the Sunday morning shows.

Do a little research. Google is a wonderful tool....

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/Statement%20Lankford.html

[kookbreaker]

Some point at the fact that the “Scientific Community” is largely silent. There apparently is no "scientific community". We have lots of scientists who work in government-funded research institutes and who work for universities funded by government money - mostly defense related.


Even if this were true, how does it explaint the agreement of engineers and scientists in other countries? Including those not exactly friendly with the US?


Do a little research project and see how well whistle-blowers have prospered since the Boy King ascended the throne. Look at how Professor Stephen Jones' career went after he challenged openly the collapse of the WTC buildings in peer-reviewed articles.


This is what happens when your idiotic fantasies start to embarass your religious educational institution.



Listen to his lecture on Google video,


ooh! The one where he says the second law of thermodynamics means 'Things topple over"?


then read the accounts of how Brigham Young University ran for cover by putting him on leave and kowtowing to those who questioned his qualifications.


Or maybe he was an embarassment since he demonstrated that he was an idiot with no engineer skills and very poor phsyics skills.


Do a little research. Google is a wonderful tool....


Apparently, google is your _only_ tool. This is why you are considered to be a moron.

[scooby]

LOL

[jsiv]

I don't get it. Why should I care what some random retired pilot believes?

[A W Smith]

So where are all the Scientists, Civil or structural engineers, Architects, from those countries least friendly to the United States? North Korea? "0". Lebanon? "0"Syria? "0" Jordan? "0" Iran? "0" China? "0" Venezuela? "0" Panama? "0" Pakistan? "0" Argentina? "0" Chile? "0" Turkey? "0"

do all the above countries and their scientists, Civil or structural engineers, Architects, have financial interests in the US. That their conflicting opinions would jeopardize their well being had they disputed the peer reviewed official findings?

[CptColumbo]

If Steven Jones had bothered to have his findings peer-reviewed (by people in the relevant fields) he probably would still have a job. The worst that would probably have happened is embarassment, and he would then go back and try again. However, he didn't, he had it reviewed by theologians and philosophy professors.

[A W Smith]

If Steven Jones had bothered to have his findings peer-reviewed (by people in the relevant fields) he probably would still have a job. However, he didn't, he had it reviewed by theologians and philosophy professors.

which makes it a RELIGION.. NOT a science.

[NickUK]

Can you show me the part in there that proves 911insidejob please - I must have missed it in my old age.

[scooby]

If Steven Jones had bothered to have his findings peer-reviewed (by people in the relevant fields) he probably would still have a job. The worst that would probably have happened is embarassment, and he would then go back and try again. However, he didn't, he had it reviewed by theologians and philosophy professors.

That's strange, I thought Scholars for 911 Truth had about 300 members endorsing Steve Jones work, and from all disciplines.

[kookbreaker]

LOL

That's it? That's your riposte? That's your attempt to counter criticism?

Tell-us, head-hole, what exactly is so laughable about my arguements that makes you laugh so loud?

Come on, show you have a brain cell that hasn't tasted the 1/8" bit yet. you can do it, little kook, c'mon!

[CptColumbo]

That's strange, I thought Scholars for 911 Truth had about 300 members endorsing Steve Jones work, and from all disciplines.

It's not strange at all that you thought that.

[kookbreaker]

<deleted>

[stateofgrace]

That's strange, I thought Scholars for 911 Truth had about 300 members endorsing Steve Jones work, and from all disciplines.
A whole 300? Wow I am so impressed (not)

Tell you what is even stranger the 137,000 members from the ASCE don't seem to embrace it. Strange that eh?

Of course they are just not saying eh ?


ASCE
Full name: American Society of Civil Engineers
Website: http://www.asce.org (http://www.asce.org/)
Established: 1852
Description: Has over 137,000 members worldwide and is America’s oldest national engineering society


http://www.istructe.org/Library/abbreviations.asp?bhcp=1

[Cl1mh4224rd]

We have lots of scientists who work in government-funded research institutes and who work for universities funded by government money - mostly defense related. Do a little research project and see how well whistle-blowers have prospered since the Boy King ascended the throne. Look at how Professor Stephen Jones' career went after he challenged openly the collapse of the WTC buildings in peer-reviewed articles.
Speaking of research, this guy probably should have done some. BYU (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigham_Young_University) is a private institution owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It receives no government money.

[A W Smith]

Speaking of research, this guy probably should have done some. BYU (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigham_Young_University) is a private institution owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of laughter-day Saints. It receives no government money.

makes more sense now

[Gravy]

There apparently is no "scientific community".

This looks like a job for...


Ace "Bakey" Baker!!!

Hunt the scientific community, Ace! Go!


Damn, the quality of 9/11 denier has really declined around here. If such a thing is possible.

[pvt1863]

That's strange, I thought Scholars for 911 Truth had about 300 members endorsing Steve Jones work, and from all disciplines.

First of all, I don't believe that number. Many of the disciplines listed are not relevant. Of the minority that give their credentials, few of them are actually applicable.

Even if we ignore that, what have they done? How many of these "scholars" have published papers that suggest 9/11 was an inside job in peer-reviewed scientific or engineering technical journals? As a hint, I'll remind you that zero is the lowest non-negative integer.

And don't be proud of the number 300. There are more than that many engineers in the building I work at. If we assume that your organization only has Americans, that means less than onesch out of every 1,000,000 Americans is a "scholar for truth." That is hardly something to brag about.

I'm not sure if I should be humored or offended by the categorical claim inherient in the truth movement that engineers are all self-serving people who operate with complete disregard for ethics. I'll go with humored. I might be offended if the people in the movement demonstrated any ability for rational argument, but they haven't. I don't see any point in getting worked over insults coming from a group that has no credibility to begin with.

[Carnivore]

Am I suspicious? Yes. I'd be suspicious of anyone named Shelton F Lankford. It's not quite Deltoid P Hamsterlicker but it's getting there. :)

Just my little prejuidice.

[Gravy]

That's strange, I thought Scholars for 911 Truth had about 300 members endorsing Steve Jones work, and from all disciplines.That's weird: I don't recall seeing a single peer-reviewed paper from a single member of that group that attempts to refute the official version.

Care to direct us to those peer-reviewed scientific papers, scoob?

:dl:

[Gravy]

First of all, I don't believe that number. Many of the disciplines listed are not relevant. Of the minority that give their credentials, few of them are actually applicable.

Even if we ignore that, what have they done? How many of these "scholars" have published papers that suggest 9/11 was an inside job in peer-reviewed scientific or engineering technical journals?
(snip)

From the National Review (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mjc2MjZmOTI2YzM0M2ZjOTUwZWU4YWRiMjRlOTVjZGM=):

Some members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth are or were legitimate academics of good standing at reputable institutions. Yet, of the 76 Fetzer identifies as having academic affiliations,” there are many with questionable credentials. A partial list includes a “visiting professor of English” at Kyungpook National University in Daegu, South Korea; an assistant professor of English literature at Dogus University in Istanbul; someone whose qualifications are listed only as “Radiology, Medical hypnosis”; another whose qualifications are “French language and culture”; someone who teaches at Tunxis Community College in Farmington, Conn.; another listed as “architect, communicator”; one professor of “English and theater” at the University of Guelph (that’s in Ontario); and one listed as “author, researcher 9/11, JFK, more.” These are some of the “leading academics” promoting the view that the government did 9/11. One author with an article posted on the Scholars for 9/11 Truth website goes by the name “Scooby Doo.”

Of the 76 full members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth, only four are listed as having backgrounds in physics, three in engineering; the other 69 “scholars” are mostly in the humanities and social sciences. Not quite what you’d expect when you hear that a group of “leading academics” supports the theory that the government was behind the attack.

[scooby]

That's weird: I don't recall seeing a single peer-reviewed paper from a single member of that group that attempts to refute the official version.

Care to direct us to those peer-reviewed scientific papers, scoob?

You found any that explain how the buildings collapsed yet?
It's only been 6 years.

:dl:
(http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif)

[A W Smith]

Am I suspicious? Yes. I'd be suspicious of anyone named Shelton F Lankford. It's not quite Deltoid P Hamsterlicker but it's getting there. :)

Just my little prejuidice.

Shelton F Lankford sounds like a name you would give a cowboy themed male porn star

[fuelair]

Good assessment of where science comes into all this ...

Statement of Lt. Col. Shelton F. Lankford, US Marine Corps (ret)
Retired U.S. Marine Corps Fighter Pilot
February 20, 2007

... Are you afraid that you will learn the truth and you can't handle it? I think I know some people in that category. Are you afraid you will draw the attention of thugs who could do the things that were done that day? Do you believe your fellow man is just not capable of that degree of evil? I would not have believed that my country would ever become a torture state and have the Congress arguing with the executive about it. I thought that Habaes Corpus was fundamental to our civil rights, and now I find that it is not. I thought my country stood for honorable dealings with other nations, then watch a jingoistic cheerleading orgy on TV, composed like Oscar night, with the centerpiece a campaign of "Shock and Awe" as our armed forces invade a practically defenseless nation, without provocation, while considerable doubt of the validity of the reasons for that invasion exists. Our fearless leader clings to lies until they are untenable and then disowns them as though he never spoke them. We, who can pillory a president of one party for lying about sex cannot call to account a repeated and habitual liar of another who sends more than 3100 of our soldiers to their deaths - for what?

Some point at the fact that the “Scientific Community” is largely silent. There apparently is no "scientific community". We have lots of scientists who work in government-funded research institutes and who work for universities funded by government money - mostly defense related. Do a little research project and see how well whistle-blowers have prospered since the Boy King ascended the throne. Look at how Professor Stephen Jones' career went after he challenged openly the collapse of the WTC buildings in peer-reviewed articles. Listen to his lecture on Google video, then read the accounts of how Brigham Young University ran for cover by putting him on leave and kowtowing to those who questioned his qualifications. Look up Sibel Edmonds, check into John M. Cole. Then, look at how Coleen Rowley has made out after putting it all on the line for her country. Look up Mike Ruppert, a gutsy cop who never blinked as he exposed CIA crime has fled the country after having the type of tactics that might make Tony Soprano ashamed used against him and his "From the Wilderness website. Then look at the fortunes of David Frasca and Spike Bowman two FBI supervisors who stonewalled the intelligence that might have exposed the 9/11 plotters, who were then promoted and rewarded. Compare and contrast the fortunes of those who come out with factual information unfavorable to the administration with those who play ball and make the right noises on the Sunday morning shows.

Do a little research. Google is a wonderful tool....

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/Statement%20Lankford.html
My first (only at this point) question is do you personally believe the contents of the second paragraph - I do not want any chance of your trying a rebuttal of : "oh, he said that, not me!". I should note that I have no disagreement with the first paragraph.

[ConspiRaider]

Hmm.

Lieutenant Colonel, no less, is this Lankford character. Flew planes too, that sounds like fun. And he's - retired?

So, Shelty joins up with the U.S. Marines and has us hard-working, taxpaying Americans financially support his training and the cost of his entire life - and that of his immediate family's - while he's buzzing the general's daughter's house in his Harrier jump jet and then drinking brew afterwards at the Officers Club.

Then - as if that isn't bad enough - now we taxpaying, hard-working Americans get to give him even MORE money for the rest of his life for his nice, generous military pension. Where he can regale his buddies with stories about jump-jetting dames and quaffing suds all night.

And THIS guy - Shelty - is now going to express his abject hatred for the representative government of the United States - represented by taxpaying, hard-working Americans - by spreading LIES about what they did on 9/11?

I think we should withhold Shelty's pension until this matter is investigated further. The Shelty Pension Omission Report. I'm gonna write my congresswoman, I yam.

[gumboot]

Scooby found an Ex-military Troofer. Wow. We already had one, in Louder Than Words. A fighter pilot too. No disrespect to ex-fighter pilots here, but there's a reason their nickname over here is "knuckleheads".

How many people in the US Armed forces? Couple of million? And you can find two troofers? Let me know when you have 100,000. Until then... meaningless.

After all, if anyone knows about a conspiracy it'd be the military, right? I mean they're either in on it, in which case this former Marine's letter isn't worth spit, or they're not in on it, which means a good 1,999,998 servicemen and servicewomen don't buy your BS. And I think our current and ex servicepeople here will agree with me; if there's one thing they're good at it's sniffing BS.

-Gumboot

[scooby]

A whole 300? Wow I am so impressed (not)

Tell you what is even stranger the 137,000 members from the ASCE don't seem to embrace it. Strange that eh?

Do you have a statement in support of the offical story signed by 137,000 members of the ASCE?

Thats impressive, lets see it.

A fine sentiment ...

http://www.fileden.com/files/2006/9/11/214131/March172007023.jpg

[uk_dave]

.. Are you afraid that you will learn the truth and you can't handle it? I think I know some people in that category.

Me too, they call themselves 'truthers'

Are you afraid you will draw the attention of thugs who could do the things that were done that day? Do you believe your fellow man is just not capable of that degree of evil?

I would be, except that there's this 'truth' movement thing, and no one bumped any of those kids off yet. Not even slapped them around a bit. Or kicked their cat.

I would not have believed that my country would ever become a torture state and have the Congress arguing with the executive about it. I thought that Habaes Corpus was fundamental to our civil rights, and now I find that it is not.I thought my country stood for honorable dealings with other nations, then watch a jingoistic cheerleading orgy on TV, composed like Oscar night, with the centerpiece a campaign of "Shock and Awe" as our armed forces invade a practically defenseless nation, without provocation, while considerable doubt of the validity of the reasons for that invasion exists.

hmmmmm, you never lived through the 50's then, so I wont bother mentioning macarthy. Probably no point mentioning the spanish-american war either.

You obviously retired early.

Our fearless leader clings to lies until they are untenable and then disowns them as though he never spoke them. We, who can pillory a president of one party for lying about sex cannot call to account a repeated and habitual liar of another who sends more than 3100 of our soldiers to their deaths - for what?

Who says you cannot call to account those in power? The polls spoke pretty loudly in the mid-terms (though no 'truther' candidates managed to win) and the secretary of defence resigned.

The guy who had oral sex with an intern in the oval office served out his second term. Then he wrote a book about it.

Some point at the fact that the “Scientific Community” is largely silent. There apparently is no "scientific community".

You're obviously not a scientist.

The scientific community has disagreed with the Bush admin policy (or lack thereof) towards global warming ever since he got into power.

Bush thinks that 'Intelligent Design' is interesting. The scientific community does not.

People who become structural engineers and architects do not spend the rest of their lives in academia. They go out and earn a living. They don't give a toss about pressure to withold their concerns (if such concerns existed) about the events on 9/11, because their professional integrity will not allow them to. Buildings might fall down if they did, and they know full well that the government aint gonna come running to their defence if that happens.

No, the scientific community does exist and despite your paranoid delusions, they're not in on any conspiracy of silence.

They just don't see any flaws in the official account.

Do a little research project and see how well whistle-blowers have prospered since the Boy King ascended the throne. Look at how Professor Stephen Jones' career went after he challenged openly the collapse of the WTC buildings in peer-reviewed articles. Listen to his lecture on Google video, then read the accounts of how Brigham Young University ran for cover by putting him on leave and kowtowing to those who questioned his qualifications. Look up Sibel Edmonds, check into John M. Cole. Then, look at how Coleen Rowley has made out after putting it all on the line for her country. Look up Mike Ruppert, a gutsy cop who never blinked as he exposed CIA crime has fled the country after having the type of tactics that might make Tony Soprano ashamed used against him and his "From the Wilderness website. Then look at the fortunes of David Frasca and Spike Bowman two FBI supervisors who stonewalled the intelligence that might have exposed the 9/11 plotters, who were then promoted and rewarded. Compare and contrast the fortunes of those who come out with factual information unfavorable to the administration with those who play ball and make the right noises on the Sunday morning shows.


Stephen Jones, whose other famous research project was to discover links between jesus and the ancient mayans of america. wooooooooooo!

Professor Jones, who went public with the research he conducted while at BYU (and with the aid of others at BYU) but did not present his findings to the normally accepted peer review publications. Why not?

What about Judy Wood? No mention for her?

Look up Sibel Edmonds and you find a woman frightened that the national security of her country was being put at risk because the department she worked for was deliberately dragging it's feet over the translation of documents in order to maximise their budget allocation. These documents, she felt, might leave the US vulnerable to another attack by radical islamic terrorists.

hmmmmmmmmm

Suspicious? I most certainly am about Lt. Col. Shelton F. Lankford.

[T.A.M.]

Good assessment of where science comes into all this ...

Statement of Lt. Col. Shelton F. Lankford, US Marine Corps (ret)
Retired U.S. Marine Corps Fighter Pilot
February 20, 2007

... Are you afraid that you will learn the truth and you can't handle it? I think I know some people in that category. Are you afraid you will draw the attention of thugs who could do the things that were done that day? Do you believe your fellow man is just not capable of that degree of evil? I would not have believed that my country would ever become a torture state and have the Congress arguing with the executive about it. I thought that Habaes Corpus was fundamental to our civil rights, and now I find that it is not. I thought my country stood for honorable dealings with other nations, then watch a jingoistic cheerleading orgy on TV, composed like Oscar night, with the centerpiece a campaign of "Shock and Awe" as our armed forces invade a practically defenseless nation, without provocation, while considerable doubt of the validity of the reasons for that invasion exists. Our fearless leader clings to lies until they are untenable and then disowns them as though he never spoke them. We, who can pillory a president of one party for lying about sex cannot call to account a repeated and habitual liar of another who sends more than 3100 of our soldiers to their deaths - for what?

Some point at the fact that the “Scientific Community” is largely silent. There apparently is no "scientific community". We have lots of scientists who work in government-funded research institutes and who work for universities funded by government money - mostly defense related. Do a little research project and see how well whistle-blowers have prospered since the Boy King ascended the throne. Look at how Professor Stephen Jones' career went after he challenged openly the collapse of the WTC buildings in peer-reviewed articles. Listen to his lecture on Google video, then read the accounts of how Brigham Young University ran for cover by putting him on leave and kowtowing to those who questioned his qualifications. Look up Sibel Edmonds, check into John M. Cole. Then, look at how Coleen Rowley has made out after putting it all on the line for her country. Look up Mike Ruppert, a gutsy cop who never blinked as he exposed CIA crime has fled the country after having the type of tactics that might make Tony Soprano ashamed used against him and his "From the Wilderness website. Then look at the fortunes of David Frasca and Spike Bowman two FBI supervisors who stonewalled the intelligence that might have exposed the 9/11 plotters, who were then promoted and rewarded. Compare and contrast the fortunes of those who come out with factual information unfavorable to the administration with those who play ball and make the right noises on the Sunday morning shows.

Do a little research. Google is a wonderful tool....

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/Statement%20Lankford.html

He is one Fetzer short of mentioning all the truther gurus in one paragraph. That says it all.

That's strange, I thought Scholars for 911 Truth had about 300 members endorsing Steve Jones work, and from all disciplines.

Actually, Stephen Jones has left that group, and founded his own little schoolyard with water boy Kevin Ryan. As for endorsing, the scholars are led by Fetzer, now a no-planer, who is backing Judy Woods, so you can't have it both ways...was it no planes and Star Wars Energy Beams, or Thermite and Demolition...oh wait, let me guess, it was a combination of both along with some mini nukes, and MAGZ Missiles...right?

You found any that explain how the buildings collapsed yet?
It's only been 6 years.

:dl:
(http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif)

A better question is have any been asked to explain the collapse and tried and failed? Answer is Zero. I am sure if one could find one of these people who would grant your crap enough legitimacy to put the work into "explaining" the collapses scientifically, they would.

TAM:)

[kookbreaker]

Do you have a statement in support of the offical story signed by 137,000 members of the ASCE?


Here's a better suggestion: Instead of playing stupid, why don't you find a dozen or so ASCE members who disagree dramaticly with the ASCE papers on the collpase.


Thats impressive, lets see it.


Dude, do get off on beating up straw?


A fine sentiment ...


Oh look, the ghouls can make a sign.

[T.A.M.]

Do you have a statement in support of the offical story signed by 137,000 members of the ASCE?

Thats impressive, lets see it.

A fine sentiment ...

http://www.fileden.com/files/2006/9/11/214131/March172007023.jpg

Here is a link to ASCE's position (as a reflection of the findings of their team). SInce I have heard no great outcry on this from their members, a good assumption, one I am sure you will not agree with, is that the members, by and in large, have no issues with the findings.

http://www.asce.org/pressroom/news/display_press.cfm?uid=1057

TAM:)

[CptColumbo]

Do you have a statement in support of the offical story signed by 137,000 members of the ASCE?

Thats impressive, lets see it.

A fine sentiment ...

http://www.fileden.com/files/2006/9/11/214131/March172007023.jpg

Wow, three people, in what looks like the lamest St. Patrick's Day parade ever.

[beachnut]

Good assessment of where science comes into all this ...

Statement of Lt. Col. Shelton F. Lankford, US Marine Corps (ret)
Retired U.S. Marine Corps Fighter Pilot
February 20, 2007

Do a little research. Google is a wonderful tool....

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/Statement%20Lankford.html

You have found another nut to add to the list of dolts for 9/11 truth. Wow. Lets count him as an engineer and now you have 0.0067 percent of all engineers and scientist in the US in the truth movement.

That leaves 99.99 percent of all engineers who have not lost their minds or tell lies like you and your 0.0067 percent dolts who do.

Wow, you can use google? Wow.

You only need to find a few million more engineers and scientist to get to 50 percent. Good luck with google finding more dots for your movement so lacking any real expert yet! Good luck again

[beachnut]

Do you have a statement in support of the offical story signed by 137,000 members of the ASCE?

Thats impressive, lets see it.

A fine sentiment ...

http://www.fileden.com/files/2006/9/11/214131/March172007023.jpg
Hey scooby your not suppose to hot link but then you are challenged at reading and I assume you did not read your agreement here. Are you challenged on all subjects. Who are these idiots in the street? Where was it? Why do you have problems telling us simple stuff? Hi pdoh

[ConspiRaider]

Wow, three people, in what looks like the lamest St. Patrick's Day parade ever.
Apparently that's right out here in Tinsel Town, looks like Hollywood Boulevard and Argyle. Note the palm trees.

Now if they were making a movie about the kooks protesting - more people. Central Casting would happily supply thousands of background actors as 9/11 kooks.

[stateofgrace]

Do you have a statement in support of the offical story signed by 137,000 members of the ASCE?

Thats impressive, lets see it.

A fine sentiment ...

http://www.fileden.com/files/2006/9/11/214131/March172007023.jpg

Do you have a statement saying they don’t?

Or better still you have a statement for any institute of professional engineers from anywhere on the planet saying they endorse Jones work?

Yes Scooby a mighty impressive photograph, I can hardly see the signs for the massive crowd of supporters.:rolleyes:

[A W Smith]

hey look. the guy in the middle tried to hyperlink his text :D if you run up to him and his sign and touch it . it takes you to another parade in another city.

[beachnut]

You found any that explain how the buildings collapsed yet?
It's only been 6 years.

Yes there are many peer reviewed papers explaining the collapse. You have missed them and even if you have found one you are incapable of understanding it, and you did not catch it.

Use google and you will find some. Some cost money, there were done by engineering firms who will sell the information to you. Some are at schools and you must sign up. They are out there, at hundreds of schools where new engineers and scientist do real work while you waste your day making up or worse yet, following idiots who make up lies about 9/11. Good work great expert follower scooby! Ruh Roh

[ConspiRaider]

hey look. the guy in the middle tried to hyperlink his text :D if you run up to him and his sign and touch it . it takes you to another parade in another city.
Yeah I shoulda gone out there and pressed his sign. On the other hand he's an old duffer and it might have knocked him over and then they got me for involuntary battery and aggravated duffer dusting.

I was um ... er ... noticing the girl's britches and was wondering if maybe they are a bit tight? Not that I'm complaining but we must think of the children...

[beachnut]

Good assessment of where science comes into all this ...

Statement of Lt. Col. Shelton F. Lankford, US Marine Corps (ret)
Retired U.S. Marine Corps Fighter Pilot
February 20, 2007

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/Statement%20Lankford.html

Ruh Roh! scooby, like pdoh, has found a nest of nuts and dolts with only talk to back up their claims. scooby, like pdoh, may now present each of these idiots rant.

The nuts are coming out!

Morgan Reynolds, PhD - he is a no planer - no planes - he said they were all holograms! He sounds like your type of expert scooby - ruh roh no planes (you have to me mentally ill to include MR in your list of experts, did scooby find a metally ill web site?)

I reviewed the web site again, and most of the nuts presented say little about anything 9/11. Good job finding no facts again. How are you so perfect at not finding facts.

scooby, this is an old web site, and these guys are all proven wrong long time ago. Try something new. Anything new?

[Gravy]

You found any that explain how the buildings collapsed yet?
It's only been 6 years.

And you haven't been able to find such explanations in that time? Tsk, tsk, scooby. In addition to the NIST and FEMA engineering studies, which do not posit explosives as necessary for collapse, the independent engineering studies commissioned by the insurance companies and Silverstein Properties also do not posit explosives as necessary for collapse.

How's your math? Do you understand this paper (http://www.debunking911.com/ProgressiveCollapseWTC-6-23-2006.pdf) by structural engineer Zdenek Bazant?

See how easy that was?

Your turn. Point me to the structural engineering studies commissioned by the "truth" movement.

I mean, you've got 84% of the American public behind you. You must have some structural engineering experts doing some investigating, right?

Where can I find their work, scooby?

[Gravy]

That's an impressive picture, scooby! That's three times more than one person! I guess the other 83.999999% of America couldn't make it out that day, huh?

[Cl1mh4224rd]

How many people in the US Armed forces? Couple of million?
About 1.4 million (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_United_States#Personnel).

[WildCat]

That's an impressive picture, scooby! That's three times more than one person! I guess the other 83.999999% of America couldn't make it out that day, huh?
Would you go out in that horrible weather? Oh, wait... :rolleyes:

[twinstead]

This whole thing about so embarrassingly few experts in relevant fields, on the whole damn planet Earth, coming out against the NIST and other reports about 911 has just got to be eating the truthers up inside.

It must be frustrating to fight the uphill battle against so many brainwashed fools.

I feel your pain, oh champions of truth. :boggled:

[T.A.M.]

This whole thing about so embarrassingly few experts in relevant fields, on the whole damn planet Earth, coming out against the NIST and other reports about 911 has just got to be eating the truthers up inside.

It must be frustrating to fight the uphill battle against so many brainwashed fools.

I feel your pain, oh champions of truth. :boggled:

I am sure it annoys them, but the problem is, the more I go along, the more I think we actually encourage many of them. Part of adolesence, which many of the truthers are, in mind at least, and many biologically as well, is rebellion against authority.

I think the more we tell them "listen you are wrong, this is the right answer." The more they get their backs up to fight "the man" which we have become. We are their figurative father figures wrt the 9/11 dispute. The more we push them, the more they will rebel...IMO.

TAM:)

[Brainache]

So let me see if I can understand what is going on here...

Scooby presents a little diatribe by a retired LT Col. which alleges that over 100 000 scientists are keeping their mouths shut about a mass murder because they don't want to lose their jobs.

Various JREFers point out just how ridiculous that is and Scooby ignores them. Scooby then posts a picture of three lonely Truthers holding a banner.

Has Scooby postsed this to show all the lurking fence-sitters just how lame the Truth Movement is? Because I can't believe Scooby actually thinks he is furthering the Truth Movement with such lame nonsense.

Good work agent Scooby, keep it up! With a few more withering posts like these even the most rabid Truthers will start to wake up to just how stupid their beliefs are.

[Gravy]

The Truth is Undenibaable!

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879045deddbf7db96.jpg

[kookbreaker]

So let me see if I can understand what is going on here...

Scooby presents a little diatribe by a retired LT Col. which alleges that over 100 000 scientists are keeping their mouths shut about a mass murder because they don't want to lose their jobs.

Various JREFers point out just how ridiculous that is and Scooby ignores them. Scooby then posts a picture of three lonely Truthers holding a banner.

Has Scooby postsed this to show all the lurking fence-sitters just how lame the Truth Movement is? Because I can't believe Scooby actually thinks he is furthering the Truth Movement with such lame nonsense.

Good work agent Scooby, keep it up! With a few more withering posts like these even the most rabid Truthers will start to wake up to just how stupid their beliefs are.

Like I said. Trepaning. Its the only explanation for the stupid.

[Mince]

Do a little research. Google is a wonderful tool....


I repost this for posterity.

[A W Smith]

The Truth is Undenibaable!


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879045deddbf7db96.jpg


I see evidence of spell check in that graffiti

[Gravy]

I repost this for posterity.

[Shane mode] Google is a tool, scooby, no better or no worse than any other tool, an axe, a shovel or anything. Google is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that."

[fuelair]

Oh dear, someone must have stepped in Scooby doo!!! Yeccchhhhh!!!

[gumboot]

About 1.4 million (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_of_the_United_States#Personnel).


That's on active force though... if you include Reserves it's 2.6 million.

-Gumboot

[CHF]

That's strange, I thought Scholars for 911 Truth had about 300 members endorsing Steve Jones work, and from all disciplines.

Peer reviewed by his own journal?

Only a complete fraud would ever think of passing that off as "peer-review."

[tacodaemon]

Apparently that's right out here in Tinsel Town, looks like Hollywood Boulevard and Argyle. Note the palm trees.

Now if they were making a movie about the kooks protesting - more people. Central Casting would happily supply thousands of background actors as 9/11 kooks.


Yeah, you got the right intersection, from the looks of the Live Local aerial (http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=pph7sj545m1k&style=o&lvl=2&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=6892014). You can see the billboard (not with the Savers Wanted ad though) on the right side of Hollywood Blvd, and that building with the blue stripe around the top on the left. Apparently this (http://addictedtowar.blogsource.com/post.mhtml?post_id=435334) (the "March with Veterans for Peace") is what was going on there yesterday, a regular peace rally that the truthers were hijacking. But hey, MC Hammer was there!

[ConspiRaider]

Yeah, you got the right intersection, from the looks of the Live Local aerial (http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=pph7sj545m1k&style=o&lvl=2&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=6892014). You can see the billboard (not with the Savers Wanted ad though) on the right side of Hollywood Blvd, and that building with the blue stripe around the top on the left. Apparently this (http://addictedtowar.blogsource.com/post.mhtml?post_id=435334) (the "March with Veterans for Peace") is what was going on there yesterday, a regular peace rally that the truthers were hijacking. But hey, MC Hammer was there!
That's good work, Taco.

I was just going by being a local boy. The street signs at the right side are barely visible / readable, but I recognized Argyle. And you can kind of see that the forward-looking street sign is Hollywood if you're in an assumptive mood. Also, it's not really readable, but in the center of the street is a construction sawhorse that seems to have the letters LADOT on it. Again, assumptive. But that would be Los Angeles Department Of Transportation. I wasn't 100% sure, but all the clues led to the Hollywood / Argyle intersection...

Ya gotta kinda feel sorry for the kook/twoofers when they have to hijack other rallies just to get a bit of attention on the internets.

[Orphia Nay]

That's strange, I thought Scholars for 911 Truth had about 300 members endorsing Steve Jones work, and from all disciplines.


Wrong again.

As TAM correctly said, the 'Scholars' split with Jones last year. Jones' craziness wasn't crazy enough for them, while their craziness wasn't the right kind of craziness for Jones.

[pomeroo]

Before I read Stolen Valor, by B.G Burkett and Fake Warriors, by Henry Mark Holzer, I would have been inclined to dismiss the retired Lt. Colonel as one crank among millions of vets. Now, I want to see hard evidence that he isn't a just another fraud. Again and again, the "vets" spinning lurid tales about atrocities that no news service can corroborate turn out to be phonies.

[The Demon's Head]

Wrong again.

As TAM correctly said, the 'Scholars' split with Jones last year. Jones' craziness wasn't crazy enough for them, while their craziness wasn't the right kind of crazy for Jones.

Well, thats just crazy.

[Orphia Nay]

Good assessment of where science comes into all this ...

Statement of Lt. Col. Shelton F. Lankford, US Marine Corps (ret)
Retired U.S. Marine Corps Fighter Pilot
February 20, 2007

... Are you afraid that you will learn the truth and you can't handle it?

Translation: "I double-dare you to agree with me, you wimps."

Are you afraid you will draw the attention of thugs who could do the things that were done that day?

Translation: "You will feel like a Real ManTM and also weally special if you agree with me and make me feel even moreso."

Do you believe your fellow man is just not capable of that degree of evil?

Translation: "Do you want to feel like Neo, an outsider who sees reality (in a fictional film) and who is special and out to save the world?"


This sums up the rest:

Can you show me the part in there that proves 911insidejob please - I must have missed it in my old age.

[tacodaemon]

Ya gotta kinda feel sorry for the kook/twoofers when they have to hijack other rallies just to get a bit of attention on the internets.


Well, if the twoofers got too out of hand, MC Hammer could have challenged them to a dancing battle to bring them in line. Remember, such challenges are legally compelling under California law, kind of like being delivered a subpoena by a process server; that's why being defeated in such a contest (http://youtube.com/watch?v=lVswFzaYcCM) is called being "served".

[Mince]

[Shane mode] Google is a tool, scooby, no better or no worse than any other tool, an axe, a shovel or anything. Google is as good or as bad as the man using it. Remember that."


Right. And the reason I reposted this is because I wanted people to see the gravity of the quotation. The truthers think YouTube and Google are the only tool. Hey, the hammer works really well at driving these nails into this woodwork, I bet it also works well at driving these screws...

[Without Rights]

Hmm.

Lieutenant Colonel, no less, is this Lankford character. Flew planes too, that sounds like fun. And he's - retired?

So, Shelty joins up with the U.S. Marines and has us hard-working, taxpaying Americans financially support his training and the cost of his entire life - and that of his immediate family's - while he's buzzing the general's daughter's house in his Harrier jump jet and then drinking brew afterwards at the Officers Club.

Then - as if that isn't bad enough - now we taxpaying, hard-working Americans get to give him even MORE money for the rest of his life for his nice, generous military pension. Where he can regale his buddies with stories about jump-jetting dames and quaffing suds all night.

And THIS guy - Shelty - is now going to express his abject hatred for the representative government of the United States - represented by taxpaying, hard-working Americans - by spreading LIES about what they did on 9/11?

I think we should withhold Shelty's pension until this matter is investigated further. The Shelty Pension Omission Report. I'm gonna write my congresswoman, I yam.

You act like it is a good time defending our country. I guess you feel this way about all our soldiers. They are all just beer swigging womenizers to you, huh? After serving our country you want to take his pension away because he has an opinion that you don't share? Great work fascist.

This is the worst crap I have ever read. You are trying to say he is against tax-paying Americans, what a moron.

[gumboot]

You act like it is a good time defending our country. I guess you feel this way about all our soldiers. They are all just beer swigging womenizers to you, huh? After serving our country you want to take his pension away because he has an opinion that you don't share? Great work fascist.



You've never met a fighter pilot have you?

-Gumboot

[Without Rights]

You've never met a fighter pilot have you?

-Gumboot

Yeah, how about my father. And I was in the military for 8 years so I know a few.

[Mince]

You found any that explain how the buildings collapsed yet?
It's only been 6 years.

:dl:
(http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/doglaugh.gif)

Have you?

It's been the same 6 years for you.

Didn't thinks so.

[fuelair]

I casually note Scooby D'oh has not responded to my question about whether or not he agrees completely with the second paragraph of the letter he posted for us to look at.

Don't feel sorry for me though - I didn't really expect him to. He's too busy spreading Scooby Doo (oooooooooooohhhhhh!!!) in his threads.

[Without Rights]

You've never met a fighter pilot have you?

-Gumboot

If you defend what he says then you have no respect for soldiers either? Is that what you want, to string up everyone who disagrees? Take away freedom fighters pension after they risked their lives because he wrote two paragraphs you disagree with. Maybe in 1939 Germany.

[Mince]

LOL


Ahhh, the loser's lament. LOL. It's an internet staple, don't you know. Everyone's using it. It instantly nullifies any argument made. How could you argue against the mighty LOL? It's the throng's best, perhaps only, tool of debate.

[JimBenArm]

You act like it is a good time defending our country. I guess you feel this way about all our soldiers. They are all just beer swigging womenizers to you, huh? After serving our country you want to take his pension away because he has an opinion that you don't share? Great work fascist.

This is the worst crap I have ever read. You are trying to say he is against tax-paying Americans, what a moron.
Hey, you really need to get a clue before you get all indignant here. ConspiRaider was in the military. He writes a lot of tongue-in-cheek stuff, of which this is an example.
As far as being beer-swigging womanizers, you say that like it's a bad thing!

[gumboot]

If you defend what he says then you have no respect for soldiers either? Is that what you want, to string up everyone who disagrees? Take away freedom fighters pension after they risked their lives because he wrote two paragraphs you disagree with. Maybe in 1939 Germany.


...

You don't know what satire is, do you?

Personally, I couldn't care less what you do with your ex-military personnel. They weren't risking their lives to protect me or mine.

I do wish we treated our military personnel better though. Giving them the resources they need while they're serving would be a good start.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

Yeah, how about my father. And I was in the military for 8 years so I know a few.


In that case you'd be well aware of the friendly rivalry between services and trades, and would recognise the previous posts as such.

Having said that, most knuckleheads I've ever met really were cocky speed-freaks (that's why the girls like them so much!) and it's a rare day that you find a serviceman who doesn't like his alcohol.

-Gumboot

[Without Rights]

...

You don't know what satire is, do you?

Personally, I couldn't care less what you do with your ex-military personnel. They weren't risking their lives to protect me or mine.

I do wish we treated our military personnel better though. Giving them the resources they need while they're serving would be a good start.

-Gumboot

Satire to some, insults to others.

[JimBenArm]

Satire to some, insults to others.
Gee, I was in the military. I read it as satire. The only one who seems to take it any other way is you.

[Without Rights]

In that case you'd be well aware of the friendly rivalry between services and trades, and would recognise the previous posts as such.

Having said that, most knuckleheads I've ever met really were cocky speed-freaks (that's why the girls like them so much!) and it's a rare day that you find a serviceman who doesn't like his alcohol.

-Gumboot

Maybe so, I know I drank alot when I was in. That doesn't make my service any less honorable.

I cannot recognize the previous post as friendly rivalry. I wouldn't want any military member who served most of thier life to have thier pension taken. It's not a joke and it is not rivalry. The rivalry is played out by outdoing eachother, showing you are in a better, well-trained unit. Not calling eachother drunks and wishing them into financial ruin.

[Without Rights]

Gee, I was in the military. I read it as satire. The only one who seems to take it any other way is you.

Maybe your right, lets see.

So, Shelty joins up with the U.S. Marines and has us hard-working, taxpaying Americans financially support his training and the cost of his entire life - and that of his immediate family's - while he's buzzing the general's daughter's house in his Harrier jump jet and then drinking brew afterwards at the Officers Club.

Oh yeah, thats funny. We paid for this guys entire life. HaHaHa

Then - as if that isn't bad enough - now we taxpaying, hard-working Americans get to give him even MORE money for the rest of his life for his nice, generous military pension. Where he can regale his buddies with stories about jump-jetting dames and quaffing suds all night.

Now we are still paying him so he can relax in his old age and recall war stories. That's rich, HaHaHa.

And THIS guy - Shelty - is now going to express his abject hatred for the representative government of the United States - represented by taxpaying, hard-working Americans - by spreading LIES about what they did on 9/11?
Yep, that has satire written all over it.

I think we should withhold Shelty's pension until this matter is investigated further. The Shelty Pension Omission Report. I'm gonna write my congresswoman, I yam.
Threats are so hilarious. I see now.

Hey, I'm gonna write the place where you work and get you fired. HaHaHa, but it would all just be in good fun.

[gumboot]

Maybe so, I know I drank alot when I was in. That doesn't make my service any less honorable.

I'm not sure why you'd think it would. Maybe if you got drunk a lot and beat your wife (or in the case of one of our servicemen, got stabbed by his wife!). I'm not sure I know where I claimed this Marine was dishonourable, let alone for having enjoyed alcohol (nor even accused him of having had a drink or two).

I think he's misinformed, and he's letting his political views cloud his judgement, but I don't see how that in any way relates to his service. Were he still in uniform, I suppose it might. (This is, of course, all assuming the letter is for real, which frankly given the volume of fradulent items in the US media these days (on both sides of the fence) is a possibility).

I would imagine the honour or lack thereof of one's service would depend entirely on the manner in which one executed said service.





I cannot recognize the previous post as friendly rivalry. I wouldn't want any military member who served most of thier life to have thier pension taken. It's not a joke and it is not rivalry. The rivalry is played out by outdoing eachother, showing you are in a better, well-trained unit. Not calling eachother drunks and wishing them into finacial ruin.

Were you really in the military? I don't want to sound offensive, but you seem a bit thin-skinned. How would you react if members of your own unit gave you a nickname that meant "babykiller" because you accidentally shot a civilian? Would you recognise that as, to use the Greek word, philia?

-Gumboot

[JimBenArm]

Maybe your right, lets see.



Oh yeah, thats funny. We paid for this guys entire life. HaHaHa



Now we are still paying him so he can relax in his old age and recall war stories. That's rich, HaHaHa.


Yep, that has satire written all over it.


Threats are so hilarious. I see now.

Hey, I'm gonna write the place where you work and get you fired. HaHaHa, but it would all just be in good fun.
So do you over-react to everything? This was in poor taste, but that's as far as it goes. You are just being a drama queen, but hey, it got you some attention, didn't it?

[gumboot]

Maybe your right, lets see.

Oh yeah, thats funny. We paid for this guys entire life. HaHaHa

Now we are still paying him so he can relax in his old age and recall war stories. That's rich, HaHaHa.

Yep, that has satire written all over it.

Threats are so hilarious. I see now.

Hey, I'm gonna write the place where you work and get you fired. HaHaHa, but it would all just be in good fun.


You're not very bright, are you Rights?

There were PLENTY of clues. Pay attention to the bolding...

Hmm.

Lieutenant Colonel, no less, is this Lankford character. Flew planes too, that sounds like fun. And he's - retired?

So, Shelty joins up with the U.S. Marines and has us hard-working, taxpaying Americans financially support his training and the cost of his entire life - and that of his immediate family's - while he's buzzing the general's daughter's house in his Harrier jump jet and then drinking brew afterwards at the Officers Club.

Then - as if that isn't bad enough - now we taxpaying, hard-working Americans get to give him even MORE money for the rest of his life for his nice, generous military pension. Where he can regale his buddies with stories about jump-jetting dames and quaffing suds all night.

And THIS guy - Shelty - is now going to express his abject hatred for the representative government of the United States - represented by taxpaying, hard-working Americans - by spreading LIES about what they did on 9/11?

I think we should withhold Shelty's pension until this matter is investigated further. The Shelty Pension Omission Report. I'm gonna write my congresswoman, I yam.


Read that again and tell me it's not a joke.

"Omission Report"? C'mon.

-Gumboot

[Mince]

Maybe your right, lets see.



Oh yeah, thats funny. We paid for this guys entire life. HaHaHa.


You guys really don't know how your tax dollars are spent, do you?

Allow me to ask a basic question. When you served, how much did you spend on rations, housing, dental care, medical care and pharmaceuticals? This is expensive stuff and must be paid for by somebody. Who do you think paid for this stuff?

[gumboot]

You guys really don't know how your tax dollars are spent, do you?

Allow me to ask a basic question. When you served, how much did you spend on rations, housing, dental care, medical care and pharmaceuticals? This is expensive stuff and must be paid for by somebody. Who do you think paid for this stuff?


Do officers in the US Armed Forces get houses that are fully furnished? I heard they did...

-Gumboot

[Without Rights]

So do you over-react to everything? This was in poor taste, but that's as far as it goes. You are just being a drama queen, but hey, it got you some attention, didn't it?

You were in the military? You didn't learn anything while you were there? I am just a drama queen trying to get attention, that is a good twist. Do you work at FOX?

It was worse than bad taste, and I will fist fight anyone who said such things to my face. You call it over reacting, I call it defending a brother who can't defend himself.

[Without Rights]

You're not very bright, are you Rights?

There were PLENTY of clues. Pay attention to the bolding...




Read that again and tell me it's not a joke.

"Omission Report"? C'mon.

-Gumboot

An insult followed by a joke is still an insult.

[Without Rights]

You guys really don't know how your tax dollars are spent, do you?

Allow me to ask a basic question. When you served, how much did you spend on rations, housing, dental care, medical care and pharmaceuticals? This is expensive stuff and must be paid for by somebody. Who do you think paid for this stuff?

I know who paid for it. But did we pay for it so we can come back and use it against the people who served. What is your point. Should military men/women have to pay for their own health and food? Or since taxes did pay for it they should shut up and not have an opinion?

[uk_dave]

I know who paid for it. But did we pay for it so we can come back and use it against the people who served. What is your point. Should military men/women have to pay for their own health and food? Or since taxes did pay for it they should shut up and not have an opinion?

Why aren't you defending the military personel who this retired marine is denigrating by accusing them of being too scared to speak out?

How come he gets to be the only retired military officer who has the sense to see a 9/11 conspiracy and the courage to go public with his beliefs?

Or is he alone in this?

Either his former comrades in arms are hiding from the truth (or in on the conspiracy) or this man is seriously delusional. Which is it to be?

[stateofgrace]

I know who paid for it. But did we pay for it so we can come back and use it against the people who served. What is your point. Should military men/women have to pay for their own health and food? Or since taxes did pay for it they should shut up and not have an opinion?

Why do you say this? I am also ex military, I do not agree with the Iraq war, is my opinion a contradiction?

Why do you try to paint ex military personnel as though they are incapable of thinking for themselves? Why do you feel that we cannot laugh at ourselves and poke fun at other military personnel?

I see nothing but a humorous post by CR; I took no offensive by it. The only person taking the moral high ground is you, trying to make a big deal out of it.

Maybe you should lighten up.

[Without Rights]

Why aren't you defending the military personel who this retired marine is denigrating by accusing them of being too scared to speak out?

How come he gets to be the only retired military officer who has the sense to see a 9/11 conspiracy and the courage to go public with his beliefs?

Or is he alone in this?

Either his former comrades in arms are hiding from the truth (or in on the conspiracy) or this man is seriously delusional. Which is it to be?

I think it is pretty well known that soldiers cannot come out against the government until they are retired. Just like all the generals who came out against Rumsfield. If they said Rummy was incompetent while they were still active they would be in a world of hurt. Does that mean the generals were scared to come out, no. It means they were smart enough to wait until they were no longer active. Should we take their pension away too?

[uk_dave]

I think it is pretty well known that soldiers cannot come out against the government until they are retired. Just like all the generals who came out against Rumsfield. If they said Rummy was incompetent while they were still active they would be in a world of hurt. Does that mean the generals were scared to come out, no. It means they were smart enough to wait until they were no longer active. Should we take their pension away too?

How come he gets to be the only retired military officer who has the sense to see a 9/11 conspiracy and the courage to go public with his beliefs?

Where are all the others?

Why isn't there an army of brave souls willing to speak out about this conspiracy?

Are they all cowards?

[stateofgrace]

I think it is pretty well known that soldiers cannot come out against the government until they are retired. Just like all the generals who came out against Rumsfield. If they said Rummy was incompetent while they were still active they would be in a world of hurt. Does that mean the generals were scared to come out, no. It means they were smart enough to wait until they were no longer active. Should we take their pension away too?

Are you seriously claiming that high ranking officials in the US Armed forces know their Government carried out mass murder of 3000 of their own citizens and are keeping quiet about it because they are afraid they may get into trouble ?

[Without Rights]

Why do you say this? I am also ex military, I do not agree with the Iraq war, is my opinion a contradiction?
No, I disagree with the war also. As well as many of my Army friends.
Why do you try to paint ex military personnel as though they are incapable of thinking for themselves? Why do you feel that we cannot laugh at ourselves and poke fun at other military personnel?
Suggesting we take away the earned benefits of a soldier based on his opinion is not poking fun. Saying this guy is has no right to state his opinion is not poking fun. I have no problem with poking fun at people, but anyone who thinks the LT Col should have his pension taken away is pretty close to being a communist. If it was satire it was very poor taste.

I see nothing but a humorous post by CR; I took no offensive by it. The only person taking the moral high ground is you, trying to make a big deal out of it.
You took no offense because you probably agree.

Maybe you should lighten up.
Ok, let's burn him at the stake. HaHaHa. So funny.

[JimBenArm]

Are you seriously claiming that high ranking officials in the US Armed forces know their Government carried out mass murder of 3000 of their own citizens and are keeping quiet about it because they are afraid they may get into trouble ?
Yes, because all of us military types are more concerned with our retirements than anything like honor or duty to our country. We're all just weasels, don'tcha know!
Sheesh, and he gets indignant over someone else slandering an ex-serviceman!

[twinstead]

Are you seriously claiming that high ranking officials in the US Armed forces know their Government carried out mass murder of 3000 of their own citizens and are keeping quiet about it because they are afraid they may get into trouble ?

Like most CTs not only is he claiming that, he has to claim that in order for his conspiracy to even have a chance of making sense.

In CT world, everybody who hasn't come forward to confirm the 'truth' is either in on it, cowering in fear of the government, or idiots.

With that low opinion of humanity coupled with a cynical world view I almost can see why they become CTs in the first place.

[Without Rights]

Are you seriously claiming that high ranking officials in the US Armed forces know their Government carried out mass murder of 3000 of their own citizens and are keeping quiet about it because they are afraid they may get into trouble ?
I don't know what they think. I know you can't say anything against the military when you are in it. Unless you like losing rank and being charged with an article 15.

[gumboot]

Are you seriously claiming that high ranking officials in the US Armed forces know their Government carried out mass murder of 3000 of their own citizens and are keeping quiet about it because they are afraid they may get into trouble ?



Se this is where your whole Republic thing falls apart.

Our military officers do not serve the Government of New Zealand. They serve our Queen. She issues their commissions, and she commands their loyalty, just as she commands the loyalty of the police officers who bear her royal warrant.

If officers of our armed forces or police had evidence that our government had committed an act like this, they would notify our head of state. Parliament would be dissolved, the guilty arrested and charged. Not only would they do this, it would be their duty to do so. Our officers are sworn to protect Her Majesty from all enemies.

Personally I think your head of state is far too involved in the day to day running of your country. Far too involved in the politics and power struggles of the government. You should try an absentee landlord some time... it has its advantages... ;)

-Gumboot

[stateofgrace]

You took no offense because you probably agree.


I took no offence because there is nothing to take offence at. The only person taking the moral high ground is you. The same person that in his next post claimed active members of the Armed forces are keeping quiet about mass murder.

Now that is offensive, as an ex military person, would you not agree?

[uk_dave]

Our military officers do not serve the Government of New Zealand. They serve our Queen. She issues their commissions, and she commands their loyalty, just as she commands the loyalty of the police officers who bear her royal warrant.



You mean the shapeshifting reptoid dynastic NWO family who are distant relations of George Bush? :eek:

[stateofgrace]

I don't know what they think. I know you can't say anything against the military when you are in it. Unless you like losing rank and being charged with an article 15.

It has been fives and half years since 911, lots of people have left the services since. Equally so anybody and I mean anybody who knew of such a plot would speak out, regardless of being in the military or not. The military are not populated by mindless drones. You being ex military would know this.

Would you have kept quiet?

[Without Rights]

Like most CTs not only is he claiming that, he has to claim that in order for his conspiracy to even have a chance of making sense.

In CT world, everybody who hasn't come forward to confirm the 'truth' is either in on it, cowering in fear of the government, or idiots.

With that low opinion of humanity coupled with a cynical world view I almost can see why they become CTs in the first place.

It took you guys a while to twist into a conspiracy thing. But I knew it was coming. I like how you put words in my mouth. I never said anyone who doesn't come out is in on it. I said if they do come out and say it they are just practicing their rights and should retain their pension. But I guess that is a cynical view. Lets just kill everyone in the truth movement. There, now I have a level head.

[WildCat]

I said if they do come out and say it they are just practicing their rights and should retain their pension.
Too bad you don't recognize satire when you hear it. The whole thing about the pension was because that's what many of you guys say is the reason so many people must be keeping quiet - because they'd lose their pensions. As if it's that easy to yank someone's pension, and keep the reasons a secret from the media. Face it, you're so far into the delusion that you can't see how ridiculous your beliefs are.

[twinstead]

I would have to agree that in my experience (Army) unlike some who like to characterize military members as mindless automatons, most of the soldiers I knew, even lower enlisted members, were articulate 'regular guys' who felt free to have their own political opinions.

Most of us were simply amused at the bureaucracy and military mindset and felt in no way forced to toe any party line. We all felt a strong loyalty to our country, but more as an abstract concept than supporting any administration or political party.

The idea that the people I knew would hold their tongues to cover up mass murder by their government is truly over-the-top stupid.

[gumboot]

You mean the shapeshifting reptoid dynastic NWO family who are distant relations of George Bush? :eek:


No that would Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.

I'm talking about Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God, Queen of New Zealand and Her Other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.

I assure you, despite similar appearances and DNA, they're quite separate people... ;)

-Gumboot

[Without Rights]

I took no offence because there is nothing to take offence at. The only person taking the moral high ground is you. The same person that in his next post claimed active members of the Armed forces of keeping quiet about mass murder.

Now that is offensive, as an ex military person, would you not agree?

I never claimed that. It would be offensive if I did, but I didn't. I simply stated a fact. There are people in the military who think 911 was an inside job. If they said it then they would be charged. This does not mean they are keeping quiet about mass murder. It means they are keeping their opinion to their self, and wisely so. I have heard many, many soldiers talk about 911 being an inside job. But do you think they can go to their commander and say that without response. You think since they don't make their opinion public that they are covering up a mass murder? I don't and I never implied it, that was the anti-CT strawman. Twisting and turning you r way into demonizing me.

I don't think people should be fired and harrassed and get their pension and benefits taken away because their opinion.

I am taking the morally high ground. Guess that means you are taking the low road.

[Without Rights]

I would have to agree that in my experience (Army) unlike some who like to characterize military members as mindless automatons, most of the soldiers I knew, even lower enlisted members, were articulate 'regular guys' who felt free to have their own political opinions.

Most of us were simply amused at the bureaucracy and military mindset and felt in no way forced to toe any party line. We all felt a strong loyalty to our country, but more as an abstract concept than supporting any administration or political party.

The idea that the people I knew would hold their tongues to cover up mass murder by their government is truly over-the-top stupid.

Only if they know for a fact that was mass murder done by the government. That is a spin put on my argument. There are military men/women who do think it was an inside job, that doesn't mean they know it was an inside job. If they stated their opinion officially they would get burned. If the LT Col said this before retirement he would be just a LT before it was over. If he never said anything, he would just be keeping his opinion to himself, not covering up mass murder. Many, many, many military personel hate GWB, but do you think they come out and say it. Why don't they?

[gumboot]

here are people in the military who think 911 was an inside job. If they said it then they would be charged. This does not mean they are keeping quiet about mass murder. It means they are keeping their opinion to their self, and wisely so. I have heard many, many soldiers talk about 911 being an inside job. But do you think they can go to their commander and say that without response.

I don't actually believe you, but let's assume for a moment you're telling the truth...

If they honestly believe 9/11 was carried out by the US Government, and they do nothing, they are complete and utter cowards. They are a disgrace to the uniform they wear, and they are an insult to everyone who has ever died wearing it.

They have sworn an oath to protect and serve their nation, and yet when their nation most needs them, they hide, like cowards. Pathetic. And out of fear of what? Being charged? Shame on them.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

Only if they know for a fact that was mass murder done by the government. That is a spin put on my argument. There are military men/women who do think it was an inside job, that doesn't mean they know it was an inside job. If they stated their opinion officially they would get burned. If the LT Col said this before retirement he would be just a LT before it was over. If he never said anything, he would just be keeping his opinion to himself, not covering up mass murder. Many, many, many military personel hate GWB, but do you think they come out and say it. Why don't they?



In the last election many cite the military vote as a major reason Bush won. From what I've seen the US military is generally pretty evenly split, like the rest of the country. If servicepeople really hate him so much, why do they vote for him.

-Gumboot

[Without Rights]

Too bad you don't recognize satire when you hear it. The whole thing about the pension was because that's what many of you guys say is the reason so many people must be keeping quiet - because they'd lose their pensions. As if it's that easy to yank someone's pension, and keep the reasons a secret from the media. Face it, you're so far into the delusion that you can't see how ridiculous your beliefs are.

So what are my beliefs?

And you are putting words in my mouth? I never said anything that you are claiming I said.

[Without Rights]

In the last election many cite the military vote as a major reason Bush won. From what I've seen the US military is generally pretty evenly split, like the rest of the country. If servicepeople really hate him so much, why do they vote for him.

-Gumboot

Well alot has happened since the election. Like a 40% drop in approval ratings. And I know that alot hate him from first hand experience. Just like I am sure alot of people in here dislike Bush. Maybe even some who voted for him.

[stateofgrace]

I never claimed that. It would be offensive if I did, but I didn't. I simply stated a fact. There are people in the military who think 911 was an inside job. If they said it then they would be charged. This does not mean they are keeping quiet about mass murder. It means they are keeping their opinion to their self, and wisely so. I have heard many, many soldiers talk about 911 being an inside job. But do you think they can go to their commander and say that without response. You think since they don't make their opinion public that they are covering up a mass murder? I don't and I never implied it, that was the anti-CT strawman. Twisting and turning you r way into demonizing me.

Oh I see so they are afraid to speak out? they know that 911 was an inside job but are not really covering up mass murder but are actually just keeping quiet because it is the wise thing to do ?

Yes I see, you demonise yourself my friend, you take the moral high ground over a humorous post and then proceed to accuses not only high ranking US Forces personel of keeping quiet but soldiers from all ranks of doing so.

It's just job security that keeps them from spilling the beans is it?

I don't think people should be fired and harrassed and get their pension and benefits taken away because their opinion.

I am taking the morally high ground. Guess that means you are taking the low road.


I am happy to be on a different road from you pal, I have not accused the military of covering up mass murder and then tried to sleaze my way out of it.

[WildCat]

So what are my beliefs?
You're a troofer, and therefore not good at critical thinking. You apparently believe that a pension can be pulled at any time for any reason.

And you are putting words in my mouth? I never said anything that you are claiming I said.
I'm just "connecting the dots", as you troofers say I should.

[Without Rights]

Where are all the others?

Why isn't there an army of brave souls willing to speak out about this conspiracy?

Are they all cowards?
Twist, turn, spin.

[uk_dave]

Twist, turn, spin.

And when you've stopped doing that, perhaps you'll provide an answer?

[stateofgrace]

Only if they know for a fact that was mass murder done by the government. That is a spin put on my argument. There are military men/women who do think it was an inside job, that doesn't mean they know it was an inside job. If they stated their opinion officially they would get burned. If the LT Col said this before retirement he would be just a LT before it was over. If he never said anything, he would just be keeping his opinion to himself, not covering up mass murder. Many, many, many military personel hate GWB, but do you think they come out and say it. Why don't they?

Yet they keep their opinions to themselves to save their pensions right?

They hate him so much that their rank and pension is far more important that uncovering the mass murder of 3000 people right?

[RAMS]

Good assessment of where science comes into all this ...

Statement of Lt. Col. Shelton F. Lankford, US Marine Corps (ret)
Retired U.S. Marine Corps Fighter Pilot
February 20, 2007

... Are you afraid that you will learn the truth and you can't handle it? I think I know some people in that category. Are you afraid you will draw the attention of thugs who could do the things that were done that day? Do you believe your fellow man is just not capable of that degree of evil? I would not have believed that my country would ever become a torture state and have the Congress arguing with the executive about it. I thought that Habaes Corpus was fundamental to our civil rights, and now I find that it is not. I thought my country stood for honorable dealings with other nations, then watch a jingoistic cheerleading orgy on TV, composed like Oscar night, with the centerpiece a campaign of "Shock and Awe" as our armed forces invade a practically defenseless nation, without provocation, while considerable doubt of the validity of the reasons for that invasion exists. Our fearless leader clings to lies until they are untenable and then disowns them as though he never spoke them. We, who can pillory a president of one party for lying about sex cannot call to account a repeated and habitual liar of another who sends more than 3100 of our soldiers to their deaths - for what?

Some point at the fact that the “Scientific Community” is largely silent. There apparently is no "scientific community". We have lots of scientists who work in government-funded research institutes and who work for universities funded by government money - mostly defense related. Do a little research project and see how well whistle-blowers have prospered since the Boy King ascended the throne. Look at how Professor Stephen Jones' career went after he challenged openly the collapse of the WTC buildings in peer-reviewed articles. Listen to his lecture on Google video, then read the accounts of how Brigham Young University ran for cover by putting him on leave and kowtowing to those who questioned his qualifications. Look up Sibel Edmonds, check into John M. Cole. Then, look at how Coleen Rowley has made out after putting it all on the line for her country. Look up Mike Ruppert, a gutsy cop who never blinked as he exposed CIA crime has fled the country after having the type of tactics that might make Tony Soprano ashamed used against him and his "From the Wilderness website. Then look at the fortunes of David Frasca and Spike Bowman two FBI supervisors who stonewalled the intelligence that might have exposed the 9/11 plotters, who were then promoted and rewarded. Compare and contrast the fortunes of those who come out with factual information unfavorable to the administration with those who play ball and make the right noises on the Sunday morning shows.

Do a little research. Google is a wonderful tool....

http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/Statement%20Lankford.html

At his thread topic:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=77137

Please address:

You have avoided my invite to respond 9 times now, to respond to the fact that the 'I' beams, angled cut, as pictured throughout this thread as linked, were part of demolition 3 weeks after 911 day, at WTC-2. There were no explosives whatsoever used or found. You are in error.

I find this odd, no dfferent than the Art Bell-UFO bunch and that part of 'Strange' who categorically stated with 'proof' that mission STS-80 was rife with UFOs swirling around the orbiter (Space Shuttle in lay terms) while on orbit. And I use the conspiratories favorite fact source, none other than our beloved YouTube for a source:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJyuQVIFdKo

There were no UFOs around the orbiter in STS-80 or any other mission. For STS-80 it is packing foil from the TDRS array in the pallet trunnion section of the orbiter's cargo bay, hold down pallet section 4. Nothing more or less. Fact.

I demand if you are to state as you do and have on this topic, you give equal time to the correction that you are categorically in error, and that is not subject to debate.

Again, I have provided contact information, phone numbers, email source, etc, at FDNY and First Responders for you and any other members of 'Strange' who wish to incorrectly espouse these 'I' Beams were blown with pentex, amithol, primacord, sodium pechlorate, thermite, thermex, etc, or any other explosive in some predetermined fashion with malice. That includes Mr. Steven Jones "Professor Boy", Dylan Avery at LC, you, or any other 'professional' within this 'conspiracy' realm..........

Repeating your odd question again, yes, I am taking to you. Categorically.

Respond now.

Robert A.M. Stephens, LLC ®
NASA Fine Art Documentation Program
Vision Motion Dynamic-FX-FX
http://www.behold-the-rage.com

Have Jeep, Have Heart, Will Travel

[Without Rights]

You're a troofer, and therefore not good at critical thinking. You apparently believe that a pension can be pulled at any time for any reason.

Ok, I need sometime to figure out how you came to that conclusion.

A: I am a truther why? Because I defended this Lt Col's pension? I don't recall expressing that I share his view on 911. But you need me to share that opinion so you have an argument.
B: Saying that I think it is a fascist comment with no humor to say someone should lose their pension because their opinion, somehow makes it apparent that I think it is easy to pull a pension. Ok, whatever.


I'm just "connecting the dots", as you troofers say I should.

You call it connecting the dots I call it spinning my words so you can build a strawman and knock it down.

Let me say one more time for all the spinsters. Anyone who thinks pensions should be taken from ex-military people because of their opinion is a fascist. If it is a joke then it is in poor taste.

[mortimer]

Ok, let's burn him at the stake.

How disgustingly offensive. Burning him at the stake? This isn't the middle ages any more. What did he ever do to you?

[Without Rights]

And when you've stopped doing that, perhaps you'll provide an answer?
You are manufacturing an opinion and pushing it on me like it is my opinion. I don't have to respond to rubbish arguments based on things that I never said.

[WildCat]

Ok, I need sometime to figure out how you came to that conclusion.

A: I am a truther why?
Are you ashamed of being a troofer?


Because I defended this Lt Col's pension? I don't recall expressing that I share his view on 911. But you need me to share that opinion so you have an argument.
B: Saying that I think it is a fascist comment with no humor to say someone should lose their pension because their opinion, somehow makes it apparent that I think it is easy to pull a pension. Ok, whatever.
No one suggested that, you built the strawman because you're not sharp enough to recognize satire when you see it. Now that this is caught you're pulling the old "well I'm offended at the joke" nonsense. Suck it up truthy.

[Without Rights]

Yet they keep their opinions to themselves to save their pensions right?
No, they keep it to themselves to avoid losing rank and being charged with an article 15. You can't come out agaist the Commander & Chief when you are in the military.

They hate him so much that their rank and pension is far more important that uncovering the mass murder of 3000 people right?
Are we still talking about soldiers who dislike Bush or are you still trying to argue your strawman?

[beachnut]

No, they keep it to themselves to avoid losing rank and being charged with an article 15. You can't come out agaist the Commander & Chief when you are in the military.


Are we still talking about soldiers who dislike Bush or are you still trying to argue your strawman?
Does this mean you agree the Lt Col is a nut case with no facts just like the rest of the liars in the 9/11 truth movement?

The houses are not furnished usually for most officers. You may have a house to use or a tax free allowance. The amount varies for rank.

It seems like many not too smart people this Lt Col has decided his honor is not as important as making up lies about 9/11. If he had a fact he would tell us what he has and not BS around his lies. What a toad.

[LashL]

For crying out loud, WithoutRights, you're acting like a whiny five year old.
Man up already.

[uk_dave]

You are manufacturing an opinion and pushing it on me like it is my opinion. I don't have to respond to rubbish arguments based on things that I never said.

Your selective indignation leads you to defend a statement by a former marine simply on the basis that he is a military man, regardless of the fact that his statement denigrates others by accusing them of being cowards.

And since you are of the opinion that there are people in the US military who think (but apparently don't know....nice spin, that one*) that 911 was a govt conspiracy, they too are cowards according to this former marine because they would rather stay silent than risk demotion or loss of benefits.

So, once again, why is this former marine worthy of your defence when he is denigrating others?

What if a former marine wrote an article accusing african americans of being less good soldiers than their white counterparts? Would you defend his right to use his position as a former marine to make such a claim? Would you defend him from criticism?

*Somehow, thinking that 911 was a government conspiracy is OK for a serving military person to keep quiet about (and continue to serve the government they think might have been responsible for 3000 deaths), so long as they don't know that the govt was responsible?

And you accuse me of spin?? :D

[Without Rights]

Are you ashamed of being a troofer?
No I am proud to have my own ideology, I don't need there's or yours. But you need me to have their ideology so you can argue against them and pretend you are arguing against me.



No one suggested that, you built the strawman because you're not sharp enough to recognize satire when you see it. Now that this is caught you're pulling the old "well I'm offended at the joke" nonsense. Suck it up truthy.

So I got caught building a strawman and resorted to focusing on the "joke". Would you mind pointing out where I got caught building a strawman. And also what was my original argument that I abandoned to focus on the "joke"?

Oh, you can't?

Is it nonsense to be offended by a joke? You are probably saying that because you are a joke, and don't want anyone to be offended by your nonsense.

[stateofgrace]

Are we still talking about soldiers who dislike Bush or are you still trying to argue your strawman?

Really ?

When asked this

Are you seriously claiming that high ranking officials in the US Armed forces know their Government carried out mass murder of 3000 of their own citizens and are keeping quiet about it because they are afraid they may get into trouble ?

You said

I don't know what they think. I know you can't say anything against the military when you are in it.

Then this

I never claimed that. It would be offensive if I did, but I didn't. I simply stated a fact. There are people in the military who think 911 was an inside job. If they said it then they would be charged. This does not mean they are keeping quiet about mass murder. It means they are keeping their opinion to their self, and wisely so. I have heard many, many soldiers talk about 911 being an inside job.



And then this.

Only if they know for a fact that was mass murder done by the government. That is a spin put on my argument. There are military men/women who do think it was an inside job, that doesn't mean they know it was an inside job. If they stated their opinion officially they would get burned. If the LT Col said this before retirement he would be just a LT before it was over. If he never said anything, he would just be keeping his opinion to himself, not covering up mass murder. Many, many, many military personel hate GWB, but do you think they come out and say it. Why don't they?

You have no idea what you are talking about. You on one hand try to pretend that you are all for the military and than on the other hand openly accuse them of covering up mass murder.

As ex military, I find your accusations offensive and equally so I find your spinning, twisting and pathetic attempts to sleaze out of it sad.

Make up your mind what your accusations are and who you are accusing. Also try to decide exactly who it is you are trying to defend. You appear to have no idea at this moment in time.

You got it right the first time round.You don't know what they think and you certainly don't represent them.

[Without Rights]

Your selective indignation leads you to defend a statement by a former marine simply on the basis that he is a military man, regardless of the fact that his statement denigrates others by accusing them of being cowards.
He didn't call anyone a coward.

And since you are of the opinion that there are people in the US military who think (but apparently don't know....nice spin, that one*) that 911 was a govt conspiracy, they too are cowards according to this former marine because they would rather stay silent than risk demotion or loss of benefits.
Not an opinion, a fact. Many soldiers talk about it amongst themselves. They are not cowards, they know their place. You can't accuse your superiours of a crime unless you have proof. But you can have an opinion. You are the one making them into cowards, I say it is smart to keep that opinion to yourself. This Lt Col is just stating his opinion. What is wrong with that?

So, once again, why is this former marine worthy of your defence when he is denigrating others?
I will defend him to the degree that he should be able to have an opinion without people suggesting that his pension be taken.

What if a former marine wrote an article accusing african americans of being less good soldiers than their white counterparts? Would you defend his right to use his position as a former marine to make such a claim? Would you defend him from criticism?
No, that is racist and completely different that his statement.

*Somehow, thinking that 911 was a government conspiracy is OK for a serving military person to keep quiet about (and continue to serve the government they think might have been responsible for 3000 deaths), so long as they don't know that the govt was responsible?
When they don't have a choice in the matter it is ok. Nobody is gonna put their own head on a chopping block by stating their opinion when it will definitely cause a harsh reaction from their superiours. Just like the generals who spoke out against Rumsfield. He was their boss when they where active so they couldn't say what they wanted to say. Do you think they are cowards now for waiting until they were inactive.

And you accuse me of spin?? :D
Yep, you spun my comments about this guy retaining his pension into I think soldiers are cowards for not coming out and saying their opinion.

[Without Rights]

Really ?

When asked this



You said



Then this



And then this.



You have no idea what you are talking about. You on one hand try to pretend that you are all for the military and than on the other hand openly accuse them of covering up mass murder.

As ex military, I find your accusations offensive and equally so I find your spinning, twisting and pathetic attempts to sleaze out of it sad.

Make up your mind what your accusations are and who you are accusing. Also try to decide exactly who it is you are trying to defend. You appear to have no idea at this moment in time.

You got it right the first time round.You don't know what they think and you certainly don't represent them.


You are the spin doctor.
Ok let's break it down.
Originally Posted by stateofgrace http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2438819#post2438819)
Are you seriously claiming that high ranking officials in the US Armed forces know their Government carried out mass murder of 3000 of their own citizens and are keeping quiet about it because they are afraid they may get into trouble ?

Notice the words high ranking officials. Yes it is true, I do not know what high ranking officials think because I was a Staff Sgt, I do know however that alot of enlisted people do believe in the conspiracy because I lived with them, I ate with them, I trained with them. High ranking officials don't generally talk to enlisted people like they're buddies so all I am really guilty of is putting my comments in the proper context, which you seem to have trouble deciphering.

[stateofgrace]

You are the spin doctor.
Ok let's break it down.

Notice the words high ranking officials. Yes it is true, I do not know what high ranking officials think because I was a Staff Sgt, I do know however that alot of enlisted people do believe in the conspiracy because I lived with them, I ate with them, I trained with them. High ranking officials don't generally talk to enlisted people like they're buddies so all I am really guilty of is putting my comments in the proper context, which you seem to have trouble deciphering.

So you now admit that you have absolutely no proof that any high ranking official within the US forces thinks that 911 was an inside job?

For your information Staff Sgt, I have been out of the forces working alongside ex forces personnel for the last twelve years offshore. I have not met one, a single one that thinks 911 was an inside job. Equally so neither does a single friend from the forces I keep in touch with.

See Staff Sgt spinning a few stories over a beer and BBQ is somewhat different from your first claim. That being that many people in forces think 911 was an inside job and they don't say because they may get busted.

[T.A.M.]

While he may have asked for it, and I do not agree with all he says, by any stretch, I see this as beating up on one guy here, and I know all of us dislike this when it is a Debunker getting hit at a truther site as such.

I think all parties might as well let this die.

TAM:)

[chipmunk stew]

I will defend him to the degree that he should be able to have an opinion without people suggesting that his pension be taken.

Yep, you spun my comments about this guy retaining his pension into I think soldiers are cowards for not coming out and saying their opinion.

***NEWS FLASH!!!***

No one actually wants to take the guy's pension away. In case you missed that part.

[Jennie C.]

Se[e] this is where your whole Republic thing falls apart.

Our military officers do not serve the Government of New Zealand. They serve our Queen. She issues their commissions, and she commands their loyalty, just as she commands the loyalty of the police officers who bear her royal warrant.

If officers of our armed forces or police had evidence that our government had committed an act like this, they would notify our head of state. Parliament would be dissolved, the guilty arrested and charged. Not only would they do this, it would be their duty to do so. Our officers are sworn to protect Her Majesty from all enemies.

Personally I think your head of state is far too involved in the day to day running of your country. Far too involved in the politics and power struggles of the government. You should try an absentee landlord some time... it has its advantages... ;)

-Gumboot

Possibly a good idea, but then there's that pesky Constitution :) .

For what it's worth however, our (US) military's oath is not to the President or the government or the people. They swear to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

It may seem like a nitpick but as someone (can't remember whom, not famous, just profound, I thought) once said: Without the Constitution, there is no America.

[Without Rights]

***NEWS FLASH!!!***

No one actually wants to take the guy's pension away. In case you missed that part.

Ok, so why are people still arguing with me. All I said was it is not a funny joke and it is more of a bias, fascist statement than it is comical. Then people turned that into something else and I am supposed to argue against their strawman creation. What is the arguement then? I say it was bad taste and it offended me, joke or not. You can either take that for face value and move on or you can incorporate a whole story around my statement then argue against your own story, like what is being done here.

[uk_dave]

Then I for one will apologise to Without Rights for pouncing on his defence of the former marine.

It's a bit quiet around here these days and a good argument is hard to find.

I shall have to fall back on torturing kittens instead.
:D

[Darth Rotor]

Hmm.

Lieutenant Colonel, no less, is this Lankford character. Flew planes too, that sounds like fun. And he's - retired?

So, Shelty joins up with the U.S. Marines and has us hard-working, taxpaying Americans financially support his training and the cost of his entire life - and that of his immediate family's - while he's buzzing the general's daughter's house in his Harrier jump jet and then drinking brew afterwards at the Officers Club.

Then - as if that isn't bad enough - now we taxpaying, hard-working Americans get to give him even MORE money for the rest of his life for his nice, generous military pension. Where he can regale his buddies with stories about jump-jetting dames and quaffing suds all night.

And THIS guy - Shelty - is now going to express his abject hatred for the representative government of the United States - represented by taxpaying, hard-working Americans - by spreading LIES about what they did on 9/11?

I think we should withhold Shelty's pension until this matter is investigated further. The Shelty Pension Omission Report. I'm gonna write my congresswoman, I yam.
Technically, what you refer to as a pension is "Deferred compensation," that is authorized by laws in the US code, not a pension. Details, Raider, details.

That said, it is possible for one to void one's entitlement to said deferred compensation, which briefing I got at the old pre-retirement brief, but nothing the LTC has written in that post (did not go to his website) crosses the threshold.

Write away, your congressman needs to hear from you. The problem is, no actionable intelligence.

I may do a little digging to see if I can find out anything about LTC Lankford from among the network of salty old pilots I know. It may take a few days.

DR

[Without Rights]

So you now admit that you have absolutely no proof that any high ranking official within the US forces thinks that 911 was an inside job?
Never said I did, I know people who worked beside me that thought it though. I have never had a personal conversation with a high ranking officer, besides just B.S.ing, but I can say that the Lt Col probably isn't alone in his beliefs.

For your information Staff Sgt, I have been out of the forces working alongside ex forces personnel for the last twelve years offshore. I have not met one, a single one that thinks 911 was an inside job. Equally so neither does a single friend from the forces I keep in touch with.
Well, I know many. I also know many that think it's stupid, but this doesn't change the fact that some do.

See Staff Sgt spinning a few stories over a beer and BBQ is somewhat different from your first claim. That being that many people in forces think 911 was an inside job and they don't say because they may get busted.
Some people I know are real fired up about 911, but that don't mean they go to their superiours and tell them what they think. That would be stupid, they would not listen and it can only hurt your advancement. If you were in the military you would have to know this. You just don't go throwing accusations at your commanders (and especially not the Commander and Chief and his cabinet), no matter what you believe. Unless you have hard evidence then your beliefs are meaningless.

[Without Rights]

Then I for one will apologise to Without Rights for pouncing on his defence of the former marine.

It's a bit quiet around here these days and a good argument is hard to find.

I shall have to fall back on torturing kittens instead.
:D
Thank you.

[Darth Rotor]

Do officers in the US Armed Forces get houses that are fully furnished? I heard they did...

-Gumboot

Nope.

DR

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

Getting things back on track, has there been any confirmation that this person is who he claims to be? Also, he makes little in the way of verifiable claims, will he be doing so?

[Darth Rotor]

Then I for one will apologise to Without Rights for pouncing on his defence of the former marine.

:D
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/senior_military_intel_law_enforcement_gov_official s_question_911_report.htm

This website has pictures of people like Daniel Ellsberg and General Clarke, as well as Scott Ritter. It also hase a picture of a man in his fifties or sixties, next to LTC Lankford's stats. He's a guy with 300 combat missions.

Daniel Ellsberg was a Marine officer once upon a time, and he was quite forward in his criticism of the Nixon administration, as well as in voicing his opinions against the Iraq war (Veterans for Peace or some such). I have seen a number of his criticisms of the road to war, and listened with interest to him live on a couple of shows on C Span before the Iraq war.

LTC Lankford: real guy. I am guessing a fighter pilot (A-4's or F-4's) who flew his missions in Viet Nam, or maybe he is younger than that, and flew combat mission in Desert Storm and Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Nothing back from the old salt network so far, it will take a few days.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

You've never met a fighter pilot have you?

-Gumboot
Some of my best friends are fighter pilots. Of course, they can't hover, so there must be something wrong with them . . . unless they fly Harriers.

DR

[mortimer]

I will defend him to the degree that he should be able to have an opinion without people suggesting that his pension be taken.

But not to the degree of you suggesting that he be burned at the stake? You do realize that most folk would consider being burned at the stake as much worse than having one's pension taken, right?

[stateofgrace]

no matter what you believe. Unless you have hard evidence then your beliefs are meaningless.

Exactly.

Without Rights,it is irrelevant how many people in the military you have met who believe 911 was an inside job, because as you have admitted they are do not access to anything other than what I do. That being the media, history books and the internet.

Unless you can put forward real tangible evidence to support their claims they are no more relevant than any other truthers. You have simply come across a cross section of people who happen to be in the military who think like you do. But because they are military does not add any weight to their beliefs unless they have access to information that is not publicly available.

Equally so, if they hold their beliefs so strongly, they should leave the military and voice their opinions.

On that I will bow out of this thread and allow it to get back on track.

[ConspiRaider]

Without Rights:

You're a twoofer, and twoofers have NO sense of humor. None. They take themselves too seriously to ever be able to recognize concepts such as sarcasm (which forms the basis, twoofer, of many of my posts to those who accuse Americans of offing themselves for a TeeVee spectacle).

I question that you were in the service at all. Service guys and girls, and especially enlisted folks, tend to have rhino skins. For obvious reasons. Military life for enlisteds is quite difficult and gritty humor is a coping mechanism. Works pretty well. But it ain't perfect. Witness you, for example.

I did most of my time on a carrier (that's "bird farm" to you, twoofer) and know a bit about fighter pilots. They are rather cool chaps, down to earth generally, clear-thinking and a bit cocky. What guy would NOT want to speed around in a fighter jet? These guys are lucky enough to get to do that. Mostly? Slamming around the sky in a fighter jet is the most fun you can have sitting down.

So, we got a guy here, Shelty, who has relied upon the American people for the lion's share of his life's expenses. Right? We American taxpayers directly fund Shelty's life, and that of his immediate family. Hundreds of thousands of dollars worth. And since this guy was in the service for that long, then he must know a few things about Americans in general. Such as, how astoundingly loyal we are, deep down, to the country.

And yet this lying twoofer has NO PROBLEM dishing out lying accusations to those same Americans who are funding his very life. Because twoofer - an "inside job" on 9/11 would have involved thousands and thousands of so-called "ordinary" Americans. Not just a few evil politicians.

So this easy-street retired flyboy seems to be directly biting the hand that is feeding him, eh twoofer? Sure as living hell seems like it to me.

You really are an idiot, have I told you that? You took my statement that we should organize to stop his pension, seriously? Don't you know anything about satire or sarcasm? "Staff Sergeant"?

[uruk]

I couldn't help making fun of the picture. It was ripe for it.
any one care to make thier own?

[scooby]

Notice the words high ranking officials. Yes it is true, I do not know what high ranking officials think because I was a Staff Sgt, I do know however that alot of enlisted people do believe in the conspiracy because I lived with them, I ate with them, I trained with them. High ranking officials don't generally talk to enlisted people like they're buddies so all I am really guilty of is putting my comments in the proper context, which you seem to have trouble deciphering ...

... Some people I know are real fired up about 911, but that don't mean they go to their superiours and tell them what they think. That would be stupid, they would not listen and it can only hurt your advancement. If you were in the military you would have to know this. You just don't go throwing accusations at your commanders (and especially not the Commander and Chief and his cabinet), no matter what you believe. Unless you have hard evidence then your beliefs are meaningless.

Hi WR,
I'd be interested in some of your observations as a serviceman, a couple of issues have been raised over the last few years surrounding the Patriot Act and other measures taken that seem to be moving the US towards a de-facto police state or even one of martial law, in particular I came across these two recent shows, where this Warner Defense Authorization Act is discussed, which according to this Morales character, puts the final pieces in place to declare just such a thing ...

Jan 10, 2007
Bush Moves Toward Martial Law
Interview with writer and researcher, Frank Morales. We discuss the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007, signed by the President on October 17, 2006, which allows the President to declare a "public emergency" and station troops anywhere in America, without state or local consent, in order to "suppress public disorder". Also discussed are the actions of FEMA in reponse to Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, and the deliberate dispersal of much of the population.

Dec 27, 2006
Global War and the Militarized Police State
Interview with writer and researcher, Frank Morales. Frank Morales has written "U.S. Military Civil Disturbance Planning: The War at Home", "The Pentagon Wages War on America", "Operations Other Than War", "and other important articles on the coming police state in America. This program was originally broadcast March 12, 2003, and is being re-broadcast today to review where we have been, as an introduction to our upcoming series with Frank Morales, "Bush Moves Toward Martial Law".

http://www.gunsandbutter.net/archives.php?page=2

I don't really want to get into the arguments about whether this is true or not, as I'm sure plenty on here would challenge it even if it was tattoed on Jesus' arse - "...Debunked!!!"

But I'm curious as to what the response to such a thing might be across the rank and file? Not intending to get too extreme here, but the topic merits it, what about for instance the order to fire on US civilians? I can see the possibility for isolated situations where something like this could happen, in the heat of the moment, at a particularly nasty demonstration e.g a Kent State type affair, but I can't see them pulling something like this off on a grand scale.

I think it really would be going too far for many soldiers, and would be the beginning of the end for any administration that ordered it as routine policy, if a crisis did occur, particularly as awareness of the 911 issue is probably at a similar level within the forces as in the civilian population.

I'd be interested in your opinion of this, I know duty and honour and such is held high in the forces, but I don't think they could pull something like this off without touching off, well to be blunt - a revolution.

I also agree with recent opinion that I heard, that they can't control Baghdad, so what chance would they have against 200 million armed americans.

Is this kind of thing ever discussed?

[ConspiRaider]

But I'm curious as to what the response to such a thing might be across the rank and file? Not intending to get too extreme here, but the topic merits it, what about for instance the order to fire on US civilians? I can see the possibility for isolated situations where something like this could happen, in the heat of the moment, at a particularly nasty demonstration e.g a Kent State type affair, but I can't see them pulling something like this off on a grand scale.

I think it really would be going too far for many soldiers, and would be the beginning of the end for any administration that ordered it as routine policy, if a crisis did occur, particularly as awareness of the 911 issue is probably at a similar level within the forces as in the civilian population.

I'd be interested in your opinion of this, I know duty and honour and such is held high in the forces, but I don't think they could pull something like this off without touching off, well to be blunt - a revolution.

I also agree with recent opinion that I heard, that they can't control Baghdad, so what chance would they have against 200 million armed americans.

Is this kind of thing ever discussed?
You don't live in America do you, scooby. Hmm.

Well in that case: As an ex-serviceman in the U.S. military, my respected opinion is that Yank troops would love to tee off on the American public in the streets. All U.S. military tactics are cleverly camoflaged as defending against pesky foreigners when instead - we Yank troops were being drilled in facing down Soccer Moms With Sig-Sauers. Barbecue Dads With Napalm Grills. Bobby Socks Sue(Uzi) Q. College Boy Chris And His Anti-Personnel Claymores.

We dreamed about the hallowed command: Martial Law Has Been Declared!!! They never served dessert at the chow hall. Dessert was imagining the bliss of going postal in American Suburbia.

[Augustine]

Hi WR,
I'd be interested in some of your observations as a serviceman, a couple of issues have been raised over the last few years surrounding the Patriot Act and other measures taken that seem to be moving the US towards a de-facto police state or even one of martial law, in particular I came across these two recent shows, where this Warner Defense Authorization Act is discussed, which according to this Morales character, puts the final pieces in place to declare just such a thing ...

<scoobisms>

Is this kind of thing ever discussed?

:dl:
Oh, more scoob comedy!! Tell you what, scoob, as a serviceman, currently serving, I can tell you that the "laughing dog" is precisely the reaction you will get from the overwhelming majority of soldiers if you were to raise these ridiculously alarmist hand-wringing "issues".

As with all things, I would suggest you actually read the act, and instead of trying to project some diabolically fiendish motive for revising a section of the US Code that has existed in one form or another for 200 years, think about whether there may be a simpler explanation...

(...and Morales is so far distanced from reality it's disturbing. "Operations other than war" is not some coded phrase for imminent martial law; the truth and reality are far more mundane...)

[Gravy]

Scooby, here's the new, revised ("John Warner") Title 10, Sec. 333 of the U.S. Code

Sec. 333. Major public emergencies; interference with State and Federal law

`(a) Use of Armed Forces in Major Public Emergencies- (1) The President may employ the armed forces, including the National Guard in Federal service, to--

`(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the United States, the President determines that--

`(i) domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order; and

`(ii) such violence results in a condition described in paragraph (2); or

`(B) suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such insurrection, violation, combination, or conspiracy results in a condition described in paragraph (2).

`(2) A condition described in this paragraph is a condition that--

`(A) so hinders the execution of the laws of a State or possession, as applicable, and of the United States within that State or possession, that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted authorities of that State or possession are unable, fail, or refuse to protect that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or

`(B) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

`(3) In any situation covered by paragraph (1)(B), the State shall be considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the Constitution.

`(b) Notice to Congress- The President shall notify Congress of the determination to exercise the authority in subsection (a)(1)(A) as soon as practicable after the determination and every 14 days thereafter during the duration of the exercise of that authority.'.


And here's the old:



TITLE 10--ARMED FORCES

Subtitle A--General Military Law

PART I--ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS

CHAPTER 15--INSURRECTION

Sec. 333. Interference with State and Federal law

The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or
by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary
to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful
combination, or conspiracy, if it--
(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of
the United States within the State, that any part or class of its
people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection
named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted
authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect
that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection; or
(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United
States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.

In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be considered to
have denied the equal protection of the laws secured by the
Constitution.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 15.)

Historical and Revision Notes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revised section Source (U.S. Code) Source (Statutes at Large)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
333................................... 50:203. R.S. 5299.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The words ``armed forces'' are substituted for the words ``land or
naval forces of the United States''. The word ``shall'' is substituted
for the words ``it shall be lawful for * * * and it shall be his duty''.


Derivation

Act Apr. 20, 1871, ch. 22, Sec. 3, 17 Stat. 14.

Please explain your objections to the changes.

After you do that, can you address this hypothetical question:

Let's say that elements in the U.S. government (and in future administrations) and in the military, have the goal of establishing nationwide martial law.

Then what?

I'm not going to critique your answer. I'm just genuinely curious as to what your thought process is.

[Gravy]

Soccer Moms With Sig-Sauers.
That's actually the working title of Quentin Tarantino's new flick.

[Horatius]

I don't really want to get into the arguments about whether this is true or not, as I'm sure plenty on here would challenge it even if it was tattoed on Jesus' arse - "...Debunked!!!"




Well, yeah. You haven't even established if Jesus' arse ever actually existed, let alone that it could be read as being infallable!

[hellaeon]

ManUp as lash said.

Without rights for what its worth - this guy is a kook, he can be your 'brother' in the service. Sucked in. Your problem not mine. Sue me.

[Augustine]

I think it is pretty well known that soldiers cannot come out against the government until they are retired. Just like all the generals who came out against Rumsfield. If they said Rummy was incompetent while they were still active they would be in a world of hurt. Does that mean the generals were scared to come out, no. It means they were smart enough to wait until they were no longer active. Should we take their pension away too?

Retired officers who receive pensions are subject to the UCMJ under Articles 2 (a)(4) and (5). The only charge could be "Contempt toward Public Officials", however; such a charge would be unprecedented and only occur in extraordinary circumstances. Also, policy disagreements are one thing; UCMJ only restricts "contemptuous words".

As far as soldiers go, personal opinion on 9/11 or personal politics is irrelevant and no soldier will be punished for expressing an opinion - as long as it is civil. However, if it demonstrates disrespect for a public official, or contempt, that's when UCMJ comes into play. In my experience, this probably explains why you generally don't find fire-breathing political fanatics in the military - or at least the ones who are don't last.

My issue with the LTCol is he is appealing to his rank and status as a former Marine fighter pilot in this organization to lend credibility to it - when that status says nothing for his ability to know anything more than any other citizen. I would have more respect for the LTCol if he had only written that article without his rank and service, especially as it's irrelevant.

[Mince]

Do officers in the US Armed Forces get houses that are fully furnished? I heard they did...

-Gumboot


They can, offered by the governement. Heck, even enlisted get that. Or they can choose to buy their own house, furnish it, and have the government compensate them, at least partially, depending on the cost of the house.

[Mince]

I know who paid for it. But did we pay for it so we can come back and use it against the people who served. What is your point. Should military men/women have to pay for their own health and food? Or since taxes did pay for it they should shut up and not have an opinion?


How did you get that out of my post?

You said, essentially, that "we" are not paying for this guy's life;


Oh yeah, thats funny. We paid for this guys entire life. HaHaHa.


I said, yes, we are paying for this guy's life amongst many more. I made no commentary on the implications of that.

But to answer your ridiculous questions anyway:

But did we pay for it so we can come back and use it against the people who served.

Of course not.


Should military men/women have to pay for their own health and food?

No.


Or since taxes did pay for it they should shut up and not have an opinion?

Of course not.


Service members are not our puppets because we essentially pay for them to exist. That is such a ridiculous notion. They provide us a much bigger benefit than we provide them. They owe us nothing.


I served 11 years in the U.S. Navy, for the record.

[gumboot]

Possibly a good idea, but then there's that pesky Constitution :) .

For what it's worth however, our (US) military's oath is not to the President or the government or the people. They swear to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.

It may seem like a nitpick but as someone (can't remember whom, not famous, just profound, I thought) once said: Without the Constitution, there is no America.


I know, which is why I would argue any uniformed individual who felt the Government had carried out 9/11 would be obligated by his oath to act on that belief.

It's not so much the idea of your military serving your head of state that is your flaw, it's more that your commander-in-chief is too invested in the party politics of government, which means corruption from the power.

The problem being, in the event of a corrupt government, you have no "higher authority" that can command the military legally and rescue you from your corrupt government, because the "higher authority" would be PART of said corrupt government.

-Gumboot

[ConspiRaider]

I know, which is why I would argue any uniformed individual who felt the Government had carried out 9/11 would be obligated by his oath to act on that belief.

It's not so much the idea of your military serving your head of state that is your flaw, it's more that your commander-in-chief is too invested in the party politics of government, which means corruption from the power.

The problem being, in the event of a corrupt government, you have no "higher authority" that can command the military legally and rescue you from your corrupt government, because the "higher authority" would be PART of said corrupt government.

-Gumboot
(bolding mine)

Ah, but you do have a "higher authority", right? The - excuse me - QUEEN?

When exactly is the British Commonwealth or whatever going to grow up and join the modern times and finally put this nonsense into the museums for good, where it has belonged for ages? Monarchy? Royalty? Blue Blood? Kings? Queens? Princes? Princesses? Dukes? Duchesses? And - pardon me - LORDS??? That the "common folk" have to KNEEL before? What kind of ridiculous classism is that?

Dump your royalty - and THEN you can start taking pot shots at our American system of government. It ain't perfect - but we sure as HELL don't have people with crowns on their heads prancing around.

[gumboot]

(bolding mine)

Ah, but you do have a "higher authority", right? The - excuse me - QUEEN?


Yes, we do.



When exactly is the British Commonwealth or whatever going to grow up and join the modern times and finally put this nonsense into the museums for good, where it has belonged for ages? Monarchy? Royalty? Blue Blood? Kings? Queens? Princes? Princesses? Dukes? Duchesses? And - pardon me - LORDS??? That the "common folk" have to KNEEL before? What kind of ridiculous classism is that?


You don't have to kneel before royalty, and we don't have any lords here in New Zealand.

-Gumboot

ETA. By the way, when I say "higher authority" I'm talking legally. In the USA legally authority over the armed forces ends with the head of the Government - The President. In New Zealand (and other commonwealths) legal authority over the armed forces extends to the Monarch, who is not part of the Government. Thus a "higher authority".

[ConspiRaider]

Yes, we do.


You don't have to kneel before royalty, and we don't have any lords here in New Zealand.

-Gumboot
But Gumboot -

Don't you think the British Commonwealth should set a date - let's say, December 31st, 2010 - and just simply call an end to the completely outdated mode of government known as monarchy? Isn't it high time something like this should happen?

The Queen becomes the former Queen. There is no succession to the Throne. It's the end of another rather embarrassing chapter in human progression. Where we finally stand on our hind legs and unanimously agree that people aren't "better" simply because of the family into which they were born. Or that members of a "royal" family are not bred to lead.

Bees have queens. Ants have queens. Termites have queens. Let's not align ourselves with the insects a moment longer, shall we?

[gumboot]

But Gumboot -

Don't you think the British Commonwealth should set a date - let's say, December 31st, 2010 - and just simply call an end to the completely outdated mode of government known as monarchy? Isn't it high time something like this should happen?


No, I don't. I totally and utterly disagree. Also, it's up to each individual state to do whatever they want. I think Australia will become a republic before long.

I don't want New Zealand to be a republic. I think voting for the head of state is a stupid idea. I think letting the head of state be involved in the murky world of government politics is a stupid idea. I want a head of state who is above that, who is objective, interested only in the good of the country, not their career.




The Queen becomes the former Queen. There is no accession to the Throne. It's the end of another rather embarrassing chapter in human progression.


This "rather embarrassing chapter in human history" has had more influence on the course of human history than any other civilisation or society ever.

Take the "What have the Romans ever done for us?" scene from "Life of Brian" and multiply it a hundred times, and you've got England.



Where we finally stand on our hind legs and unanimously agree that people aren't "better" simply because of the family into which they were born. Or that members of a "royal" family are bred to lead.


I don't believe either of those things. So I guess we can already stand on our hind feet. :)




Bees have queens. Ants have queens. Termites have queens. Let's not align ourselves with the insects a moment longer, shall we?


You do realise that humans named them monarchs because at the time that was what all our leaders were, right? Had we all been Republics back then, they'd be called the "President Ant".

-Gumboot

[Belz...]

... Are you afraid that you will learn the truth and you can't handle it?

Nope. I know a number of religious nuts who are, however.

Are you afraid you will draw the attention of thugs who could do the things that were done that day?

Nope.

Do you believe your fellow man is just not capable of that degree of evil?

Not without leaving traces.

I would not have believed that my country would ever become a torture state and have the Congress arguing with the executive about it.

Then you were naive.

Some point at the fact that the “Scientific Community” is largely silent. There apparently is no "scientific community". We have lots of scientists who work in government-funded research institutes and who work for universities funded by government money - mostly defense related.

Ooh, evil, evil men.

Do a little research. Google is a wonderful tool....

A tool's only as good as the user.

That's strange, I thought Scholars for 911 Truth had about 300 members endorsing Steve Jones work, and from all disciplines.

Sure, disciplines such as musician, welder, painter. Well, you get the idea.

[Belz...]

Do you have a statement in support of the offical story signed by 137,000 members of the ASCE?

Thats impressive, lets see it.

A fine sentiment ...

Oh no! HE HAS PICTURES!!

[Without Rights]

But not to the degree of you suggesting that he be burned at the stake? You do realize that most folk would consider being burned at the stake as much worse than having one's pension taken, right?

That was sarcasm.

[Without Rights]

How did you get that out of my post?

You said, essentially, that "we" are not paying for this guy's life;



I said, yes, we are paying for this guy's life amongst many more. I made no commentary on the implications of that.

But to answer your ridiculous questions anyway:



Of course not.




No.




Of course not.


Service members are not our puppets because we essentially pay for them to exist. That is such a ridiculous notion. They provide us a much bigger benefit than we provide them. They owe us nothing.


I served 11 years in the U.S. Navy, for the record.

Then what was the point of saying that this guy is recieving tax payers money? It sounded like you were trying to use that against him to me. What was the point of saying that his food and housing and medical are paid for? It sounded like you were saying he is living high off the hog on tax payer money while simulataneously speaking bad about our government. If that's not what you meant then I will apologize to you, but do you understand why I would think that?

[mortimer]

That was sarcasm.

I don't think that's funny.

And because I don't think that's funny, I will continue to badger you as if you really meant it. Fair enough?

[Belz...]

So... what's the point of this thread, now ?

Seems to me like it's so far off rails, it's no longer a train.

[Horatius]

... and THEN you can start taking pot shots at our American system of government. It ain't perfect - but we sure as HELL don't have people with crowns on their heads prancing around.



Ahem. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/chrisafer/165235867/in/set-72157594162925856/)

[Without Rights]

I don't think that's funny.

And because I don't think that's funny, I will continue to badger you as if you really meant it. Fair enough?

That's great. My sarcasm was meant to show the ridiculousness of his statement so I wasn't trying to be funny. It wasn't a joke. But say what you want, it really won't bother me.

[Jennie C.]

I know, which is why I would argue any uniformed individual who felt the Government had carried out 9/11 would be obligated by his oath to act on that belief.

It's not so much the idea of your military serving your head of state that is your flaw, it's more that your commander-in-chief is too invested in the party politics of government, which means corruption from the power.

The problem being, in the event of a corrupt government, you have no "higher authority" that can command the military legally and rescue you from your corrupt government, because the "higher authority" would be PART of said corrupt government.

-Gumboot

I agree that a uniformed officer (or enlisted) who had evidence of a terrorist act's being perpetuated by the gov't is obligated by his oath to the Constitution to do whatever he can to bring it to light and get to the bottom of the whole stinkin' thing.

Our friend WR, thinks he shouldn't for fear of being punished.:eek:

The President is, however, the only logical choice to be CinC. Can't make it Congress, and fight wars by committee (look at the hash they're making of the current funding bill). Obviously the Court makes no sense. I guess we should've kept a King for that purpose, but that was obviously out of the question in 1789, the People (as in We the) wouldn't have stood for it.

Obviously I'm prejudiced in thinking our system of govt is superior, or as the man said, just better than anything else that's come along.

As for protection from a corrupt govt, that's what the Second Amendment is all about, of course. May be moot some day, but I hope not.

[Horatius]

The President is, however, the only logical choice to be CinC. Can't make it Congress, and fight wars by committee (look at the hash they're making of the current funding bill). Obviously the Court makes no sense. I guess we should've kept a King for that purpose, but that was obviously out of the question in 1789, the People (as in We the) wouldn't have stood for it.





The problem is having the Head of State and the Head of Govenrment embodied in the same office/person. It places the Head of State in too much control of the day-to-day dealings of the government, and impairs his ability to act as Head of State, when such acts might go against the interests of the government.

The big problem with the Constitutional Monarchy that places ike NZ and Canada have is we're gradually drifting to the same place, as the traditional role of the Head of State (The Queen) is reduced, and more of the functions of the HoS are embodied in our Head of Government, the Prime Minister. In fact, that's one of the biggest complaints about our new PM, he acts too much like the POTUS.

There's value in having someone in authority who's only real power is to put a stop to whatever it is that the government is doing. How you choose that person is a good question, though.

[gumboot]

I agree that a uniformed officer (or enlisted) who had evidence of a terrorist act's being perpetuated by the gov't is obligated by his oath to the Constitution to do whatever he can to bring it to light and get to the bottom of the whole stinkin' thing.



Interestingly enough...

In the book I'm currently reading - the autobiography of a 1st Lieutenant in 1st Recon Marines during the Iraq Invasion - there was a moment where the company were given insane orders to attack an Iraqi airfield that was suspected to have tanks and anti-air guns. Their platoon had five humvees - only one of which had doors or armour - and the same was true of the rest of the company. As it turned out the airfield was empty. But afterwards the troops were furious, and one particular soldier starts going off about the commanding officers.

The Lieutenant reveals in his book his big dilemma at this point. He can't agree with them. He doesn't have the freedom that a Corporal has, to disrespect the commanders. He's an officer, and if he starts bad-mouthing command it's bad for discipline. Real bad. But at the same time, he can't completely ignore the BS of their orders, or he'll lose the trust of his troops.

In the end he compromises, agreeing that the situation was "f***ed up" but pointing out that they don't get to choose their missions, etc.

Throughout the book, numerous times, the Lieutenant points out to his CO's when they have stupidly endangered his troops. when the Battallion staff officers start photographing dead Iraqis he calls them "motherf***ers".

This notion that the slightest questioning of anything in the military is slapped down is a myth. It might have been true 50 years ago. It's not true now. Officers (and even soldiers) might be taught to obey, but they're also taught to think.

-Gumboot

[Jennie C.]

The problem is having the Head of State and the Head of Govenrment embodied in the same office/person. It places the Head of State in too much control of the day-to-day dealings of the government, and impairs his ability to act as Head of State, when such acts might go against the interests of the government.

The big problem with the Constitutional Monarchy that places ike NZ and Canada have is we're gradually drifting to the same place, as the traditional role of the Head of State (The Queen) is reduced, and more of the functions of the HoS are embodied in our Head of Government, the Prime Minister. In fact, that's one of the biggest complaints about our new PM, he acts too much like the POTUS.

There's value in having someone in authority who's only real power is to put a stop to whatever it is that the government is doing. How you choose that person is a good question, though.

Yeah, it's a good hypothetical argument, but when you get down to practicalities, it's more difficult.

As I've said, I'm partial to our system (surprise!! i don't mind an elected-by-the-folks CinC!!), but to vest that in an inherited thing?

Okay, there's no perfect solution to who runs the military (tho Jack Bauer might be a good choice, better yet, Jack Ryan). But the fact remains that somebody has to. And whomever it is, is not going to be the perfect choice.

What's a better system than what we have?

[Jennie C.]

Interestingly enough...

In the book I'm currently reading - the autobiography of a 1st Lieutenant in 1st Recon Marines during the Iraq Invasion - there was a moment where the company were given insane orders to attack an Iraqi airfield that was suspected to have tanks and anti-air guns. Their platoon had five humvees - only one of which had doors or armour - and the same was true of the rest of the company. As it turned out the airfield was empty. But afterwards the troops were furious, and one particular soldier starts going off about the commanding officers.

The Lieutenant reveals in his book his big dilemma at this point. He can't agree with them. He doesn't have the freedom that a Corporal has, to disrespect the commanders. He's an officer, and if he starts bad-mouthing command it's bad for discipline. Real bad. But at the same time, he can't completely ignore the BS of their orders, or he'll lose the trust of his troops.

In the end he compromises, agreeing that the situation was "f***ed up" but pointing out that they don't get to choose their missions, etc.

Throughout the book, numerous times, the Lieutenant points out to his CO's when they have stupidly endangered his troops. when the Battallion staff officers start photographing dead Iraqis he calls them "motherf***ers".

This notion that the slightest questioning of anything in the military is slapped down is a myth. It might have been true 50 years ago. It's not true now. Officers (and even soldiers) might be taught to obey, but they're also taught to think.

-Gumboot


What is that book? I love books.

But, with due respect to your analogy, you're talking about a tactical decision in the heat of battle. This is not something the CinC would (or should) have a say in. If it's a bad decision then that will show up, and young men will die, which is horrendous. But tactical decisions cannot be made based on what specific number of men will die, or not-as the opposite decision would be made.

In other word, respectfully, I don't think this example applies.

[PhantomWolf]

It ain't perfect - but we sure as HELL don't have people with crowns on their heads prancing around.

Yes you do, they just go by different names, Britney and Paris and Angelina and....

[gumboot]

What is that book? I love books.

But, with due respect to your analogy, you're talking about a tactical decision in the heat of battle. This is not something the CinC would (or should) have a say in. If it's a bad decision then that will show up, and young men will die, which is horrendous. But tactical decisions cannot be made based on what specific number of men will die, or not-as the opposite decision would be made.

In other word, respectfully, I don't think this example applies.


:confused:

I was demonstrating this as an example that ORs and Officers in the military can question their commanders without being slapped down for it. I'm not sure why you would bring the CinC into it? :confused:

The book is One Bullet Away by Nathaniel Fick.

What's really great about it is his platoon also had an embedded journalist with them - Evan Wright, who also wrote a book - Kill Generation. It's actually quite interesting reading their story from the two different angles (Fick barely mentions the reporter, and there's a clear separation between him and his troops - he often doesn't even refer to them by name and we don't really get a sense of their personalities, in contrast Wright becomes quite close to the soldiers, and Fick is a distant removed figure.)

I read Kill Generation first and found One Bullet Away as a result. Fick also covers his training and his deployment to Afghanistan (he was berthed in Australia with a Marine Expeditionary Force on 9/11).

Most officers who write books about their experiences tend to do so at the end of long successful careers, whereas Fick left the Marines after Iraq, so has only ever been a combat officer, making his book especially valuable.

-Gumboot

[The Demon's Head]

I'll tell you what I'm suspicious of. I'm suspicious of the fantasy movement and thier intentions.

[Horatius]

What's a better system than what we have?



Hey, I'm Canadian! We're in charge of spotting the American's flaws, not fixing them! :)






Although I could suggest the "Do everything Horatius tells you" system....

[Without Rights]

I agree that a uniformed officer (or enlisted) who had evidence of a terrorist act's being perpetuated by the gov't is obligated by his oath to the Constitution to do whatever he can to bring it to light and get to the bottom of the whole stinkin' thing.

Our friend WR, thinks he shouldn't for fear of being punished.:eek:

The President is, however, the only logical choice to be CinC. Can't make it Congress, and fight wars by committee (look at the hash they're making of the current funding bill). Obviously the Court makes no sense. I guess we should've kept a King for that purpose, but that was obviously out of the question in 1789, the People (as in We the) wouldn't have stood for it.

Obviously I'm prejudiced in thinking our system of govt is superior, or as the man said, just better than anything else that's come along.

As for protection from a corrupt govt, that's what the Second Amendment is all about, of course. May be moot some day, but I hope not.

You are misinterpreting my statements. I didn't say that if a Officer has credible evidence then he shouldn't speak. I said if he suspects, as this Lt Col does, that the government is involved he shouldn't speak. We are talking about opinions. This Lt Col has the right as all military people have, to have an opinion. Evidence and opinions are very much distinguishable. An officer with evidence has a duty to come forward and present it to his surperiours. If he just has an opinion, he cannot and should not voice his opinion because it is a crime under the UCMJ to bring unfounded charges against your superiours and is punishable by either an article 15 or court martial. The evidence the Lt Col is talking about doesn't point to a specific person and therefore is speculation. You don't bring down the big boys with speculation.

[ConspiRaider]

Yes you do, they just go by different names, Britney and Paris and Angelina and....
Difference being:

1. We really don't take them that seriously.

2. When we tire of them and their high-falutin royaltyness - we kick 'em to the curb. Buh-bye.

But you can't do that. You're stuck with your queen forever, like luggage. Or like a wastepaper basket. Ever try throwing a wastepaper basket away? You can't. Your neighbors keep bringing it back, saying: "Hey, you must have left your wastepaper basket on the tree lawn, here ya go!" (old George Carlin joke).

[Jennie C.]

:confused:

I was demonstrating this as an example that ORs and Officers in the military can question their commanders without being slapped down for it. I'm not sure why you would bring the CinC into it? :confused:

-Gumboot

Sorry, we'd gotten off on the discussion about our differing forms of government and I thought your book discussion was part of that. That'll teach me to post after 9pm.

(i get up at 5)

[ConspiRaider]

The President is, however, the only logical choice to be CinC. Can't make it Congress, and fight wars by committee (look at the hash they're making of the current funding bill). Obviously the Court makes no sense. I guess we should've kept a King for that purpose, but that was obviously out of the question in 1789, the People (as in We the) wouldn't have stood for it.

Obviously I'm prejudiced in thinking our system of govt is superior, or as the man said, just better than anything else that's come along.
(bolding mine)

Yes. It is superior, albeit not perfect, and requires constant and vigilant tweaking. Which we Yanks get rudely reminded of, when we lay down on the job.

Some of us Americans recognize that this "Head Of State" (Queen, King, Emperor, Shah, Czar, etc.) concept is really nothing more than a yearning for a god-person. A superman, superwoman. But that doesn't work. Because that Head Of State is just as bound by the frailties of being human as everyone else. Possibly - more so. If that weren't true - "The Madness Of King George" would be an unknown phrase.

We've got an imperfect government but - WOW! I wouldn't trade it for anything in the world. We hire 'em - we fire 'em. I love that.