LOL, its always fun arguing with you guys. When you can't beat the message its always fun watching a few of you try to beat the messenger.

It doesn't bother me much cause its like you guys are showing up to a gunfight with sporks.

I'm also not suprised to see fint mentioning rense as a source of valid data after all his claims to have worked on secret government aircraft and his time spent in underground facilities waiting to push 'the button'. Hell, I wouldn't be suprised if he is a regular contributor to the sites he has mentioned. :rolleyes:

As far as all the bush supporters go you guys could save yourself a lot of time by just cutting the following text since its always the same thing from you guys.

What does all this rehashing of past events mean, when last I saw, 55% of Americans still support Bush's efforts with Iraq.

David, I don't doubt that, but only because our young men and women are over there getting shot at and blown up. It's impossible to remove that from the equation, of course, but if you could have done a "should we invade" poll w/ truthful info before we went in, the approval/yes factor would have been ~1 in 10.

You have to remember that something like 58% of Americans polled believed that there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11 even after the White House had to publicly admit that no such link existed. This says a lot about Bush supporters. :rolleyes:

"When you can't beat the message its always fun watching a few of you try to beat the messenger."

Seriously, when the "messenger" is simpley trolling, it's difficult to keep the thread from degenerating.

Nostatic is about the only leftist with anything worthwile to say. . . .. .so I'll respond to that.

True, Todd; though we are all to blame for our arrogance, wrt (with regard to) terrorist attacks.

I remember the 93 WTC attack.. .I was just finishing my Mech Egr degree; so, I had a good understanding of what the bombing was attempting to accomplish. AND, I was very surprised that it didn't work.
I had a lot of pride in being part of a technical society that believes in designing-in "factors of safety" . ..and thus made a building bomb-proof. Also, seeing that the terrorist couldn't quite 'get it right'. (read: arrogance)

The thing is/was; we, in America pre-9/11, were ALL (~95+%) rather comfortable with our safety and the idea that this enemy was disorganized and unable to pull-off anything really big, against the US.

So here we are NOW. . .and what do we have. . .a bunch of leftists trying to palm off all responsibility to one guy, running for president, against their-guy-Kerry.

The point: we were ALL a bunch of first graders, playing-around dangerously until somebodys got hurt.

The difference is; some of us are not 'looking around sheepishly, claiming that someone else (Bush) did it.

Thank you Island. A brief moment of sanity.

Where I think you are mistaken island is that we are not saying bush is the only one to blame. He had a lot of help in lousing up our nation which in no way lets any of them off the hook.

What gives bush some extra grief is that he is technically the head of his organization (though in reality we know others are more actively running his show) and his organization is doing its best to cover its ass.

The facts certainly show that the man needs a sign on his desk that says 'the buck stops anywhere but here'.

At this point I could care less who replaces him as long as it offers even the smallest of chances that things will be done better than they are now.

Defend him all you want but I think its pretty clear that this guy is one of the worse presidents this nation has ever seen and his cabinet and appointees share the blame.

I know it must be difficult when everyone laughs at your silly posts, but only an ass would accuse someone of lying without any information to indicate so. I guess since you also do the same about our president, I am in good company. Although I do not consider anything about my military service "special." I certainly resent someone without the nads to serve themselves continually calling it a lie. Although it is against my better judgement, just for you, I have scanned in part of my records that covers about a 10 year period (SSAN covered of course). Note the duty title Missile Combat Crew Commander..and use your imagination.
DELETED PIX

So what about your statements that you worked on secret government aircraft?

Since my dad and both of my grandfathers served in the military I know the military is not really big about changing people's specialties in the middle of their careers.

I also know that when I asked about your aircraft maintenance specialty you dropped the subject so thats the reason I assume you are full of $hit, FYI. Perhaps its just time to claim you bolted a couple missles onto some aircraft but that would not quite match up to your previous claims of being an aircraft expert.

THis is where you and I differ. Bush may very well be "one of the worse presidents this nation has ever seen." But, does that really matter when the alternative is Kerry?

FWIW: Bush and Gore in 2000; I saw them as being equally poor choices, and I voted 3rd party. (Bush really struck me as Daddy's little (can't think on his own) spoiled boy -- Gore-bot "created the internet" & "Lock-Box" . . .neither good)

However! At this point, binladen et al, wants nothing more than a "regime change"(as you like to put it)

So, unless you think Kerry is so increadibly smart and full of energy that he can take-out the terrorist, while trying to put together a new cabinet, come up to speed on top-secret op's, find the White House kitchen, and where to locate his Heinz-57 Sauce in the fridge, etc. . .You will be playing right (or is it left) into the hands of binladen, and those waiting for opportunities to KILL us.

Well, I would normally say thats where we differ but if not for extreme circumstances I would also be voting for a 3rd party candidate in this election as I have in every presidential election since 88.

well, there's always a first time...

here is where we disagree. These 9/11 hearings have been pretty much everyone claiming it wasn't their fault. The only exception was Clarke, but there is a question of how much of that was grandstanding and pandering.

Here's what I guess I wanted to see Rice do/say: "mistakes were made, we have addressed our shortcomings, and we're moving forward." I didn't hear that...only quivering lips and "there was no plan given to us" and "there was only historical information in the memo".

These "hearings" seem a lot like the playground at lunch, only with partisanship folded in for good measure.

Ah, I see, you want this admin, representing the USofA, to admit to the world that we (including the Bush team, all the way back to Bush 41) were arrogant complacent fu'k-ups. (?)

Hmmm.. . .I remember a time when a certain dem pres. was backed into an "admit it, or else" cornner. (where were you then?)

The big difference then, was our national security wasn't so obviously on-the-line. . . .the embarasment of a, ahem, well rounded intern's blue dress, pales in comparision of giving binladen browny points infront of the world.

Nothing could be more obvious than the fact that failures where made EVERYWHERE!

What is so damn sad is that the dem's are using this, of all things, to "get Bush" . . .. there are sooo many more legitimate and constructive critisms that could be leveled at Bush.

Once again you show what an ass you are! I don't know if I ever claimed to be an expert on aircraft, but I spent 14 years working on them..and then later did a good deal analysis and engineering work with them. Maybe you have more experience (although I would not question it)....Why don't you post a bit and amaze me.

If you think you will trick me into posting classified documents..it wont work because, unlike some of in the Clinton administration...It is not on my home computer, nor do I have any.

First, look at the duty title "Deputy Chief, Delivery Systems Division," That division does the nuclear compatibility certification (engineering) for all US nuclear delivery systems..both aircraft and missiles. Then look at the titles "Weapon Systems Analyst" and "Chief, Analysis Division". Those jobs do the scientific studies that are used to buy all new large dollar weapon system. Aircraft, missiles, bombs, satellites, etc. If you only knew how little you know.

How about you ask your Daddy or Granddaddy about what a "9 level" in an aircraft maintenance career field means..It is the highest skill level that an AF maintainer can achieve. See attached document. While you are at it, maybe you can show him some of the posts you are putting on here. I'm sure he would be proud.
DELETED PIX

Nostatic, I agree with island, at least your concerns are reasonable, although I don't completely agree.
Even in hindsight, I cannot imagine doing more...In fact, I had seen much of this info myself (as had most folks in Govt..including the folks on the 911 commission) and never dreamed 911 would occur..and not only was flying that day, but was at the Pentagon. This is testimony regarding what was done...
Despite the fact that the vast majority of the threat information we received was focused overseas, I was concerned about possible threats inside the United States.

And on July 5th, Chief of Staff Andy Card and I met with Dick Clarke, and I asked Dick to make sure that domestic agencies were aware of the heightened threat period and were taking appropriate steps to respond, even though we did not have specific threats to the homeland.

Later that same day, Clarke convened a special meeting of his CSG, as well as representatives from the FAA, the INS, Customs and the Coast Guard. At that meeting, these agencies were asked to take additional measures to increase security and surveillance.

Throughout the period of heightened threat information, we worked hard on multiple fronts to detect, protect against and disrupt any terrorist plans or operations that might lead to an attack.

For instance, the Department of Defense issued at least five urgent warnings to U.S. military forces that al-Qaida might be planning a near-term attack and placed our military forces in certain regions on heightened alert.

The State Department issued at least four urgent security advisers and public worldwide cautions on terrorist threats, enhanced security measures at certain embassies, and warned the Taliban that they would be held responsible for any al-Qaida attack on U.S. interests.

The FBI issued at least three nationwide warnings to federal, state and law enforcement agencies and specifically stated that, although the vast majority of the information indicated overseas targets, attacks against the homeland could not be ruled out.

The FBI tasked all 56 of its U.S. field offices to increase surveillance of known suspects of terrorists and to reach out to known informants who might have information on terrorist activities.

The FAA issued at least five civil aviation security information circulars to all U.S. airlines and airport security personnel, including specific warnings about the possibility of hijacking.

The CIA worked around the clock to disrupt threats worldwide. Agency officials launched a wide-ranging disruption effort against al-Qaida in more than 20 countries.

And during this period, the vice president, Director Tenet and members of my staff called senior foreign officials, requesting that they increase their intelligence assistance and report to us any relevant threat information.

This is a brief sample of our intense activity in the high threat period of the summer of 2001. Yet, as your hearings have shown, there was no silver bullet that could have prevented the 9-11 attacks.

Fint, IMHO there is a big difference between working with aircraft and working on aircraft.

Perhaps we are getting down to a matter of symantics but when we were discussing the mechanical and electrical problems of the B1 bomber you specifically stated that you worked on planes.

I usually reserve such a phrase for people who engineer, manufacture or repair aircraft. I don't concider a weapons systems analyst quite falling into quite falling into the 'working on aircraft' category.

While I usually prefer to keep my discussion on the topics at hand if you keep prefering to making personal jabs at me that have no basis in reality I am always happy to return the favor but instead point out the inconsistancies in the statements I have seen you make on this board.

So what should we be doing on this thread, talking about 9/11 or you calling me crazy and me calling you full of $hit?

Go back and read the post Dumbass! I was an aircraft maintenance technician for 14 years and attained the highest possible certification level and showed you the paperwork. Can't you read? And yes, you are full of ****! Oh yes, and you brought it up...not me, just like you questioned Singpilots service. Get a grip loser.

Here you go...I suppose they give this award to people who are not maintainers?????If you really knew half as much as you claim, you wouldn't have to questions other folk's past history...you would question the facts they post. I guess you don't choose that route, because like here....you are always wrong. You thought you would get away with lying because I could not defend myself here..just like the other folks you lie about.. You thought I would not post personal info on here..and I did hesitate....well you were wrong again. You are a sad excuse.
DELETED PIX

Oh, and "maintainer" means you work on them. Sheesh!

Can I read? Hell, both of your posted documents are practically unreadable.

If you want to prove something learn to crop your images and make the text on them readable, or at least focus in on the parts that are pertinant to the conversation.

I have done my best to read both of the above documents and I can't see anything that indicates 15 years of aircraft maintenance service.

And on the subject of singpilot the only thing that I questioned him about was that he no idea that people could use planes as weapons, which suprised me since I believe he is a pilot.

They look plenty clear to anyone who knows what they are looking at. Of course, we already know you don't. And, of course, I shouldn't have to prove anything.