Was the Presidential Election Stolen?

Scorpy, you dear funny troll, your line about the rabbit panicking has been used before with similar pointlessness.  Word for word you have posted that obviously well thought out little bit of tripe, before.

Having ocasionally indulged in a bit of historical show and tell with the wacky foot gobbling antics of the old Scoop, this rabbit is feeling more and more tempted of an updated version, of:

Scorp, This Is Your Life, on ITT

As has before been pointed out to the Scorpy Worpy, this rabbit has not got no need to panic.  Since it is you who is by far closest to the beast which you defend, and here in Oz we are somewhat insulated from the first and worst fallout from what is happening in your part of the world, the rabbit couldn’t really care less.  EXCEPT..............................^^..........since Rabbit loathes the evil little bag of shit we have as a PM and his pack of bumbrothers in government, the more and worse your own particularly odious regime fucks up, and gets caught out in doing so, the better for the cause of one rabbit; this one in fact.  Since it is assumed that the fall of the evil Neocons in the United States of Avarice, will reflect badly on Johnny Howhard the personal scumbag groupie of Bush and Blair.

The awareness of the 911 fairy tale, and the actual facts which allow of no other interpretation than that the three WTC’s were brought down into their own footprints as controlled demolitions are designed to do, is growing and here is another two litle tidbits, fresh of the press for Natty the desperate shill and her new found mate Scorpy the Rabbit’s personal pet troll.  As said, Rabbit has been privelaged to present piece after piece supporting his appraisal over this time but although the excellent Liar Natty the Bat has been recieving all this news from Rabbit during this time, she has never, ahad the single opportunity to present any news which was supportive of a fairy tale which has as its basis the claims only, of a thoroughly discredited adminsitration.  Incredibly the evidence, such as Video or onsite materials etc has either been destroyed or witheld by said government during the five years since.  evdidence itself of guilt in any court in the world.  Every new bit of evidence or information which arises pulls down the official story which never flew anyway, and or adds new people of substance to the rising chorus of voices demanding an independant investigation and consideration of the enormous amount of FACTS which have never been explained by the official account.  Not one for the offical lie. Now what would that say to anybody who was even able to think?  Oh the Natsky, (Scorp and Nat connected) will try perhaps to simply deny it, say Rabit lies and act as if that means anything.  Like is anybody but them dumb enough not to see through such tactics?

Rabbit is pleased to announce a new voice on behalf of truth. Looks like you better get to work and start sliming the Colonel with your particular brand of odiousness Natty.  Scorpy I guess you’ll have to stick to just knocking the site, Prison Planet.  Unless you want to jump on the Natty bandwagon of just claiming bias, dishonesty and drug addiction for anyone who points out the obvious paucity of the offiical fairy tale.

It also pleases the rabbit to announce another little brick drops out of the fake wall of lies. Notice as usual, the new details only point in one direction, always away from the official fairy tale.

Scorpy you conveniently ignore the other two much more important links to concentrate on the less certain of the three, the photo. Apart from pointing out the shill tactic of avoidance the rabbit will oblige you all the same. The cut on the photo does not look like it is cut with an Oxy as much as it looks like a thermite and cuting charge job.  As far as your claims of having cut anything with explosives, forget it.  You have no knowledge of explosives or the theory involved even to be carrying this debate further.  Since no other real explosives experts have done so you will be the first. In fact all the demolitions experts who have commented on 911 have commented to the effect that it appeared in every respect to be an explosive demolition.  So Scorpy my puny minded opponent you are being a pioneer here.  Seems a bit far fetched laddy, even for a lying little denialist like you.  An Oxy cut you’d like to say?  Does the Scorp know the scale of those columns?  If they were cut with Oxy, the striations would be uniform and of a smaller scale than the few wavey sections visible in the photo.  More importantly as I’ve said, nobody trying to cut such a large section would make more work than necessary by cutting at an angle, like I said, poser, it aint a tree!

Scorpy it is dissapointing to Rabbit that you would sink to the level of trying to pass yourself of as knowledgeable in a field of which you have clearly NO IDEA.  Particularly irksome in that Rabbit has plenty of experience and knowledge in the same field.

The importaant point to note is that the photo is consistent with cutting and thermite.  On its own not much.  But the video of the explosions, as well as the pools of molten Iron, the witenesses to explosions, the CHEMISTRY analysis of some of the structural samples; all of this has ALSO pointed exclusively to ONE possible conclusion, EXPLOSIVES WERE USED.  Your stupid red hering about not explaining how such charges were placed is way too late.  As Natty knows since we’ve dealt with it before.  The bomb sniffing dogs were removed from the buildings a few weeks before 911.  Witnesses have come forward with reports of people who appeared to be acting suspiciously before the date, Nope litle Scorpy, there is more than enough evidence to lend credibility to our scenario.  In the midst of all your denial of an overwhelming avalanche of facts destroying the official fairy tale, you fail even to produce anything new, anything even old which is irrefutable, which actually strongly supports your conspiracy theory.  Nothing yet which discredits anything which disproves the official story even. 

How many times can you kill one PIG?

How amusing is it when someone like Natty says something like this? 

these guys are fascinating, really.  Why do they promote all this nonsense?  I can only guess that it’s some combination of hating Bush and/or the war in Iraq,

Natty that is so dumb! It just sounds so utterly foolish, so painfully stupid that Rabbit can imagine all the other sensible people must be chuckling like he himself is now doing.

Didn’t you know that it comes down to us hating Bush, hating the war in Iraq, and OBVIOUSLY, we are all communists?

This about says it. Knock the “source” again Scorpy, go on. 

Now then WTH, how does Sally’s answer appeal to your sense of what is or isn’t?  It is you dear boy who is always going on about the internet not representing reality.  How’s them apples of reality? 

What was the term Natalie used so out of context above?  Oh yes, Reality Bites Thanx Nat.
Is Sally’s word enough for you or would you like to tell us she too is just a figment of imagination, electronic trickery? 

What makes some people think that anyone EXCEPT vested interests like the government would ever waste time and effort trying to bullshit people on the web? Personally I had already guessed that Sally knew much more of Carol Fisher.  Again WTH, no magic or intuition, merely reading closely what is said and how.  The bottom line is either one is alert and awake up to the world around one, or else one is living in a daze.  Guess which one Rabbit thinks is your own state?

Winston Churchill

“If you will not fight for the right,” he once growled, “when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”

Whattheheck, it is with a heavy heart that your friend the rabbit mentions the following.  Particularly because you seem to have gained some small measure of something by questioning the 750 presidential signing statements. That you would fall victim to transparent attempts by the RW wackjob sites to spin yet another disturbing bit of news about their fuehrer, is of no surprise to me, but that Redhorse and Frog would drop the ball on such a simple thing to check is surprising.

I was not aware there was any doubt about what the facts were, we all have search engines have we not?

Wikipedia Definitions leave no doubt.

The Bushling has made 750 “signing statements” even as he has signed that many acts of Congress into law. That is meaning just what it says, he has signed his own provisions, in most cases placing himself and his word above every law passed in each of at least 750 acts of congress.  That is quite accurately described as a complete usurpation of power.  Something which is a direct assault on your much vaunted piece of constitutional toilet paper.

Since 2001, Bush has objected on constitutional grounds to more than 500 provisions in over 100 bills
, a number approaching the 575 signing statements by all previous presidents combined, according to the Constitution Project, a Washington group of conservative and liberal legal scholars that promotes constitutional safeguards.

An investigative report in the Boston Globe suggests that figure is even higher—750 signing statements.

“Bush has not issued a veto in his six years in office. By comparison, President Reagan vetoed 78 bills, Bush’s father vetoed 44 bills and President Clinton vetoed 37”, said Charles Ogletree, a professor at Harvard Law School.

Interesting!

These are some examples of his nasty little signing statements. Read and weep denialists.

Lapin Infatigable,

That wuz no ball-dropping, just a sign of faith in your goodself .

Since the rest of you didna turn up, WTH ‘n me finished the Haig, and agreed to disagree on some things, while reaching accord on many others.

Frog has since hopped away elsewhere, cross-checking sources on eleckshun electronics.

Rabbit just back from the two most wretchedly cold nights camping in his life.  Scout camp in the forest near here, young son forgot his sleeping bag so the father rabbit had to sacrifice his.  The frozenness of two nights was bad.  No sleep for the rabbit who just lay inside his canvas swag, with nothing but a jacket and long jeans to stay alive. 

Rabbit had a couple of Jack Daniels’ by the campfire before retiring the second night, but they didn’t help.  Haig Shmaig, I’d have settled for Straw Rum if it came with a warm sleeping bag or Doona.

Whatsky is a laddie for sure and the rabbit would be pleased to share a Haig or preferably a Chimay (Or six ) with him too.  Despite his cringing denialism, Whatsky is yet not totally a moron, and though his grasp of the overall picture is challenged, he doesn’t fail to notice that there is something wrong at least.

As for not sharing anything with the Vampire, or Tina tiny nut, Rabbit can only agree.  Scorpy might be allowed in company, but only if he stayed in his corner and kept his mutterings and abuse to a reasonable drone.

Every gathering has it’s lowest common factor and without Scorpy, WTH might be saddled with the role.

Rabbit , WTH , frog.......Yes...Redhorse failed to check...as stated , got information on signing statements from Pacifica radio 89.3 FM...publicly funded radio is a major sources of under reported news stories , WPFW.FM is very balanced in their reporting CRscorp ,Nata-lie, even Tina can call in and have air time too ventilate thoughts.....Truth be told , I have never heard of signing statements before....interesting concept...Junior signs statements like a signifying monkey in one of them instant gratification experiments...the monkey hits a button and gets a treat.....Cheney standing there saying...do it again BoBo....do it again....
p.s....the radio station has a local neo-con named Bo....who calls in regularly to give his unvarnished perspective on world affairs...each caller is permitted one minute...most of the time , the phone line is busy....no one is screened...they do ask you to stay on topic though...Fridays are pick a news story of the week..or month..or year for that matter....just keep it to one minute, please…

Hopper, you remind me of many freezing and wet nights under a groundsheet unmodified since WW1, shelter-half maybe for wth.
goons in the block mate remember wth is going inside with us. the enemy of many of my enemies.  and did you see the video . off to brushcut a little in the coolth of evening

Yo Redhorse...........and Frogling…

Having read in Rense several days, nay a week since of these heinous statements of the signing, the rabbit knew since no retractions or alterations has come to light since, the story was likely on the mark.

Trust our proven news sources, since they are self regulating, in a way which should belong to the media in general.  Jones and Rense conform to a standard of truthfullness in reporting which means if something theyr eport turns out to be wrong the retraction/corrction soon follows.  Search Engine Google or Altavista is good enough to soon sort out the truth from the crud. 

Thanks to someone else:

JABBERTALKY
With apologies to Lewis Carroll

`Twas brillig, and the slithy Roves
Did Snow and Cheney on the tube:
All flimsy were the Neo-cons,
And the George Wraths outgrave.

“Beware the Jabbertalk, my son!
The sounds that bite, the talk that point!
Beware the Malkin bird and shun
The frumious Coultersnatch!”

He took his Froomkin sword in hand:
Long time the Factor foe he sought—
So rested he by the Dumbdumb tree,
And stood awhile in thought.

And, as in Bushish thought he stood,
The Jabbertalk, with tongues of flame,
Came Rushing through the TV wood,
And Savaged as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The Froomkin blade went facty-fact!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

“And, has thou slain the Jabbertalk?
Come to my arms, my webish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!’
He chortled in his joy.

`Twas brillig, and the slithy Roves
Did Snow and Cheney on the tube:
All flimsy were the Neo-cons,
And the George Wraths outgrave.

Sally,

I’m late in responding to your post describing the Carol Fisher case, presumably meant as a rebuttal to my point, that being that the U.S. has nothing on Iran when it comes to government oppression.  (BTW, Redhorse, you made a good point about some of the sordid history of our own country, but does that preclude us from ever helping or encouraging other nations to avoid our mistakes?)

Even if the story told by Ms. Fisher is accurate, it certainly in no way equates to Iran’s government ordered brutal crushing of a women’s rights protest, and your use of her seems somewhat misplaced.  Any attempt at dissent from the real theocratical regime in Iran is met by a brutal crack-down.  No wasting time with anything like freedom of speech or freedom of assembly, for such concepts simply don’t exist in the mind or laws of fundamentalist Islam. 

Here we have massive demonstrations about anything and everything the governent does or does not do, but the police are rarely federal government officials, and they are in most cases simply trying to keep things under control and protect the general public safety.  Sure there may be an exception or two out there in the vast acres of America from time to time, but anyone in this country has overwhelming freedom to fearlessly protest whatever and however they want within the bounds of not harming others, and complying with basic regulations.

However, it would seem that Ms. Fisher had her day in court, and according to a jury she apparently violated these bounds.  There are many claims made about unfairness on the part of the prosecution, and that is certainly not beyond the realm of possibilities, but until one has the opportunity to examine the court transcripts, the motions, the rulings, how can one really judge whether Fisher is noble, or whether she is playing the old police brutaliltly card and is just plain lying.

I’ve looked for the transcripts, but I can’t find them, only that Ms. Fisher is using their supposed high cost in order to raise money.  I’ve got a feeling that there’s only a nominal fee for a copy, however it’s not clear to me whether they are even availble for disbursement yet.

This is certainly not any kind of legal proof of anything as it pertains to Fisher, but I think it’s instructive on another level to take a peak into the mindset and tactics of those associated with, and marching under the banner of “The World Can’t Wait”.  This is an organization that was founded largely by radical Maoist communists, and it would appear that their approach is often inconsistent with the demeanor Carol Fisher claims she displayed the day of her arrest.  Especially relevant is page 3, which documents the unpeaceful behavior of those participating in a protest march sponsored by the WCW and RCP, and the relative restraint of the police.  Also instructive is the speech by the RCP guy on page 2, and the comradeship displayed between he and Cindy Sheehan, who is surely a goddess to Ms. Fisher.  There’s also some keen 9/11"truth” merchandise to interest Rabbit on page 1.

This is not to say that Carol is necessarily a communist, not that there’s anything wrong with that, but surely she must at least endorse the ends and means of that ideology in a general sense.  It’s not like she’s some college student that doesn’t know better; she’s in her 50’s.

cont.......

2nd part......

I don’t think Bush, Cheney or anyone relishes the prospect of military action against Iran.  But wouldn’t it actually help the cause of peace if more of us would join in condemning this evil regime, as does much of their own population, speak with one loud voice and thereby perhaps help to negate the need for force?  Why must so many of us behave in such a way as to give hope to these oppressive, murderous, terrorism advancing clerics that indeed they are the noble ones, and that the capitalist, personal freedom loving g-string wearing west is the real problem in the world? 

Upon observing the attitude of folks like Carol Fisher and her tacit support for them, what keeps these 16th century barbarians from gaining strength of conviction, knowing that the American population is divided on doing anything that will substantially interfere with their plans to consolidate their fundamentalist Islamic and unfortunately also nuclear power?

“The bomb sniffing dogs were removed from the buildings a few weeks before 911”.

One of your fellow furry friends might take exception to that Rabbit, if only he still could.

As usual, the self-appointed al-Qaeda defense team takes a morsel of truth, waters it, grows it, and then molds it to their liking.

Here’s another far more sensible perspective on molten waterfalls and molten rivers in the basement.

The Revolutionary Communist Party --wiki-

The RCP has been active in a wide variety of social struggles, including but not limited to: the fight against police brutality and mass incarceration of African-Americans, women’s reproductive rights, defense of Mumia Abu-Jamal, opposition to the Bush “regime”, and government authoritarianism.

SALLY
Do you reckon Natty the Shill is all for the mass incarceration of African - Americans ? And police brutality.

I do.

The posters on her link weree very funny, so thanks, Nat. We need all the humour possible to face up to life in Bushworld.

Can’t remember if your friend was a member of WCW ?
Musta missed it .

You see here her usual tactics of deflection, changing the subject and accusing anybody / everybody of COMMUNISM, and being Terra-Friendly..

WHO started talking about the foul regime in Iran , well it was Natty, to PROVE how wonderful the US is. Deflection.

Then she says how we should all denounce “this Evil Regime”, and “why the “libs” here give hope to the murdering mothers”, and how Carol Fisher eats babies for breakfast.

The Iranians, especially and mostly the Horrible ones, are sitting there, just watching and laughing, as Bush creates one of the greatest FUBARs in History.

The Russians must be having a quiet chuckle as the Afghans start fighting the NATO Brits for the Fourth or Fifth Afghan War in 150yrs. And the Poodle Blair, who cares not a jot if a bright young capt from my old regt gets blown away.  .

How to lose friends and influence people, Bush USA world champions..

And so we see how we have been neatly steered away from the subject of bent elections, but I will be back.

Frog, as if you always stick right to the topic.

In fact, it was scorp who first mentioned Iran, then Rabbit responded:

“Iran is a saintly nation next to the evil SHRUB and his beastmen cronies.”

Which of course is ridiculous and so I then highlighted the oppression that the government of Iran exercises on its citizens, and compared it with the absence of such in the U.S. 

In fact this does all relate to election fraud in the U.S., because it’s very instructive to see a country that actually does brutally crush dissent, and does actually ban certain candidates from being able to run. 

You are full of criticisms, but you seem not to have many answers.  Please tell us what your course of action would have been, had you been in the POTUS’s shoes after 9/11.

Naty your shilling debunk site is too hollow for words.

They are not even debunking the right pictures.  The claims about thermite cutting sideways is a complete red herring and relying on dummies like you and Scorpy who need something to counter all the real analysis out there.

Thermite deflagrates at such a high temperature it softens the steel enough for the cutting charges to slice easily.  The effect is quite capable of going sideways, the metal in the reaction is in contact with the steel and conducts heat well. The explosives demolition of skyscrapers does happen, and basically your stupid little debunky site tries to relegate that to myth.  Hilarious.

Don’t waste your time, the Facts are not disputable and enough of them point to only one conclusion while rendering impossible your fairy tale along the way.

Frog I find the amount of information which is ignored by the Shill to be most amusing.  Still no word about most of it, as you say just deflection and never forgeting that the Shill started the 911 debate again to deflect from discussion of the Bushling fraud.

Of course outright lies are not beneath the Natty Shill Bat. She tells them sometimes in the hopes nobody will check or something I guess.

The Sirius dog site doesn’t actually reflect on the fact, as well it may be a complete load of bullshit, I’d say it is.  It resembles the other emotional memorial sites which dot the net, obviously there to re-enforce the lie.

Here is the Newsday excerpt:

Heightened Security Alert Had Just Been Lifted
By Curtis L. Taylor and Sean Gardiner
STAFF WRITERS

September 12, 2001

The World Trade Center was destroyed just days after a heightened security alert was lifted at the landmark 110-story towers, security personnel said yesterday.

Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday, bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed.

Individual viewpoints on the collapse:
The following individuals have expressed concern or doubts on the official story regarding the fate of the Twin Towers:

In a research report, entitled “Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?”, professor of physics at Brigham Young University, Steven E. Jones, writes “The ‘explosive demolition’ hypothesis better satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony and therefore is not ‘junk science.’ It ought to be seriously, scientifically investigated and debated.”

In a letter to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories, wrote “This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250 °C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure.” Underwriters Laboratories is the company that certified the steel components used in the construction of the World Trade Center towers.

Van Romero, Vice President for Research and Economic Development at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, a major authority on the effects of explosions on buildings, has said “My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse.” Romero has since retracted and revised his belief stating, “Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail.” ("Explosives Planted in Towers, New Mexico Tech Expert Says”, Albuquerque Journal, September, 2001)

A June 13, 2005 article in the Washington Times, reported that former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush’s first term, Morgan Reynolds, said the official story about the collapse of the WTC is “bogus” and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7. In the same paper, however, Reynolds also questioned the involvement of commercial jets, stating that “North Tower’s hole wasn’t big enough for a Boeing 767.”

Former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Reagan, Paul Craig Roberts, expressed his doubt about the official 9/11 story in the following statement: “I know many qualified engineers and scientists have said the WTC collapsed from explosives. In fact, if you look at the manner in which it fell, you have to give their conclusions credibility.”

In The New Pearl Harbor, Professor David Ray Griffin argues that the fact that WTC 2 collapsed first, when it appeared most of the jet fuel was ignited on impact outside the tower makes the collapse questionable. Additionally, he argues the impact of the second aircraft was not as precise as the first, suggesting less fuel would have burned in the central support area.

Before his death in Feburay, 1986, Minoru Yamasaki, architect and designer of the WTC, stated, “We designed the towers to take multiple 707 jet strikes.” The Boeing 707 was the predominant large commercial aircraft at the time of the building’s design. Jumbo Jets did not exist when Yamasaki developed the plans for the towers.

More on the Story-
One of the more commonly accepted ideas about September 11th is the notion that perhaps the United States Government knew of the impending attacks and failed to act on that knowledge. In the days and weeks after the event, the intelligence world was looked upon to explain what went wrong within their own community. The following reports are drawn upon to support these claims:

Shortly after the attacks, David Schippers, the chief prosecutor for the impeachment of Bill Clinton, declared, “Five weeks before the September 11 tragedy, I did my best to get a hold of Attorney General John Ashcroft with my concerns.” It is unclear exactly what warnings he is thought to have received from the FBI, but Mr. Shippers has said he received information warning of a terrorist attack planned for lower Manhattan using a nuclear device.

Author William Norman Grigg furthers the Shippers story in his article “Did We Know What Was Coming?” published in The New American. According to the article, three FBI agents interviewed confirmed, “the information provided to Schippers was widely known within the FBI before September 11.”

CBS News reported that Attorney General John Ashcroft stopped flying on commercial airlines in July of 2001 because of a “threat assessment” by the FBI. The Attorney General did fly at least two more times commercially after the assessment was given.

Two of the 9/11 hijackers from Flight 77 had lived with an FBI asset months prior to September11th. According to CBS News, “The CIA sent out an alert Aug. 23, 2001, naming the two as possible terrorists — but the FBI didn’t know the names of the two houseguests, who had moved out months earlier.” The Administration also could not agree to allow the FBI to serve a Committee subpoena and deposition notice on the informant. Instead, written interrogatories from the Joint Inquiry were, at the suggestion of the FBI, provided to the informant.

A high volume of put options were purchased in the days before 9/11 for both American and United Airlines. Put options were also purchased for Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, which occupied 22 stories in the World Trade Center. The Airline industry had been on unstable ground during 2001, and there were a number of put option spikes throughout the year. Although no evidence has yet been provided for anything sinister in these transactions, US intelligence agencies are known to monitor markets for signs of imminent, untoward events.

Rep Curt Weldon has asserted that over a year before the 9/11 attacks, a classified US intelligence unit known as “Able Danger” identified Mohammed Atta and three other future 9/11 hijackers as likely members of an Al Qaeda cell operating in the US. The team recommended that the information be shared with the FBI but the military’s Special Operations Command rejected the recommendation. (New York Times, Four in 9/11 Plot Are Called Tied to Qaeda in ‘00, 8/9/2005)

Evidence of explosives in twin towers. 

The World Trade Center was destroyed just days after a heightened security alert was lifted at the landmark 110-story towers, security personnel said yesterday [September 11]. Daria Coard, 37, a guard at Tower One, said the security detail had been working 12-hour shifts for the past two weeks because of numerous phone threats. But on Thursday [September 6], bomb-sniffing dogs were abruptly removed.

Poor old Shill Bat, she has never ever been able to win a single point, not a single issue has she been right about.  So Sad for the Bat.

Again for the learning impaired.

The Independent reports that in late August, “security [is] abruptly heightened at the World Trade Centre with the introduction of sniffer dogs and systematic checks on trucks bringing in deliveries. No explanation has been given for this measure.” [Independent, 9/17/2001]

Newsday claims that around the same time, security personnel at the WTC begin working extra-long shifts because of numerous phone threats. However, on September 6, bomb-sniffing dogs are abruptly removed. Security further drops right before 9/11. WTC guard Daria Coard says in an interview later on the day of 9/11: “Today was the first day there was not the extra security.” [Newsday, 9/12/2001]

Janitor William Rodriguez later claims that he saw hijacker Mohand Alshehri inside the WTC in June 2001. [New York Observer, 3/25/2002] .

So it seems the Dogs, who are not actually friends of rabbits, agree with me, Natalie.

Back on topic.

Computer programmer Clinton Curtis testified at the December 13th, 2004 Congressional hearing in Columbus, Ohio naming Republican Congressman Tom Feeney as the person who hired him to prepare vote-rigging software.

The question boys and girls is this: 

How many bits of evidence like disenfranchised democratic voters, massively irregular exit polls and whistle blowers like Curtis, does it take to make the case the elections were stolen?  How many times does evidence of fraud need to be found before it’s called proof?

Natalie -

Thank you for the excellent cites on 09/11.  Parts of the geocities site agree quite closely with the tms.org info I posted on 30 June concerning the floor joists giving away, resulting in instability of the columns when cross-bracing was lost, and consequently in the apparent pouring liquid.  This certainly is a more credible scenario than the vast left-wind conspiracy theories.

I am afraid that our good acquaintance Lagomorph is in permanent panic mode.  Every time he is presented with information he can’t answer, he gets more long-winded, more shrill, and more out of touch with himself.  He made four straight posts to my previous effort, with about 2000 total words.  Lagomorph included three new citations in his posts: the irrelevant opinion of a military officer, the irrelevant credibility of an eyewitness to the Pentagon crash (at least Lagomorph is not claiming that the Pentagon was hit by a missile, as some have said), and an irrelevant cartoon, of all things.

Lagomorph kept talking about “facts”, without presenting or citing a single new fact, just retreads of his old disproven stuff.  I find it curious that Lagomorph has abandoned all pretense of thinking, and relies utterly on dishonest and corrupt sites (Rense!) to do his thinking for him.  There is no accounting for taste.

You’re welcome scorp.  Those two sites (911myths and debunking9/11) are probably the best out there that I know of fighting this insidious paranoid mental infection.

Usually their introduction prompts such deep responses as:

“Naty your shilling debunk site is too hollow for words.”

or “your 9/11myths site is crap”.

The TMS.org document you linked to, the Popular Mechanics article and even the NIST final report have been “thoroughly debunked”, according to these experts in everything except the pertinent fields.  There’s not a single legitimate metallurgist, structural or even fire engineer among them.  Oh yeah, a doughy white Mormon physicist.  (Not that there’s anything wrong with that!)

They are kind of entertaining, actually, until one realizes just how much they are warping the realm of reality in so many unsuspecting minds, and in effect exonerating the true criminals of 9/11.

I wonder just how Rabbit would react to someone accusing him of murder, using the most far-fetched and tenuous evidence you can imagine.  I would think that his lawyer and a jury would demand some extremely solid proof for making such a serious accusation.  I would imagine that people testifying on technical aspects would be expected to be experts in the relevant fields --not some other.

I would assume he would be nothing short of livid that people would put up websites to document for the world all this baseless and ridiculous evidence against him.

Pair of idiots!

Scorpy the stupidity of this statement is patent.

This certainly is a more credible scenario than the vast left-wind conspiracy theories.

The explanation by controlled demolitions is supported by ALL of the above mentioned evidence and the controlled demolition is not only theoretically the only way three skyscrapers could fall into their own footprints, it is also Historically the only way it has ever occurred.  To say that a theory which is admitted even by it’s own authors as being highly improbable, is more credible than something which is theoretically possible, historically proven and witnessed by many people as well, is so ridiculous.  Absolutely farcical.

You cannot even produce a credible scenario whereby WTC 7 collapsed as it did.  Nobody can or has.  As usual what you pair like to get excited about is nothing moe than selected details.  It is what you ignore which tells us most about what you know you have no answers to.

If your faux scientific analyses are so convincing how come nobody is being convinced?  The hard core supporters are all there ever is or was.  The people are falling away from the official fairy tale faster and faster.

Do you dream of the government one day actually producing some of the large amount of evidence being witheld which will actually finally give some credence to the historically farcical fairy tale?

Do you imagine in your fantasies that people will actually finally start to believe the official conspiracy theory?

Since we have assembled a legion of evidence which supports the main contentions of the case that the government was involved and that the buildings were demolished with explosives, and since the government has admittedly nothing except unlikely theories about their proposed scenario, don’t you think it’s time it started assembling some sort of evidence if there was any? 

Your case has nothing but theoretical musings, which are not supported by the facts.

Our case is fully supported by virtually all the facts.  Even the small details which once might have supported the offical lie a bit, are as shown above gradually being discredited and dropped from whatever tiny arsenal of evidence you could have relied upon even to establish fairly minor details.

You characters crack me up with your stubborn and utterly unconvincing denial of reality.

I wonder just how Rabbit would react to someone accusing him of murder

If I was guilty of the murder I guess I’d have to resort to ad-hominem attacks, smoke and mirrors and lying to try and cover the fact, just like the Junta is doing.  If I was rich enough I might even employ shills like you to help cloud the waters, and keep on repeating the lies as if repetition alone will achieve something, it would be worth a try anyway if I had the money.  I would certainly be witholding and hiding or destroying all the evidence linking me with the crime.

If however I wasn’t guilty of Murder I think I would be determined to prove my innocence, don’t you Natty? . I don’t think I’d be keeping all the evidence of my innocence secret and hidden, do you Natty?

Now do you think nobody notices that all you ever do is attack the people whose opinions have been presented in detail and based upon provable facts?  Nobody has debunked Steven Jone’s work, not Griffin’s nor Reynolds, nor the many other credible and competant people who have spoken out.  All you ever do is make broad generalisations and atack them personally.  The tactic is disgusting, so dirty and obvious that it is very satisfying to see Scorpy actually crawling around down their in the filth with you Natalie.  If ever Rabbit wanted to see Scorpy making a beast of himself, it is done.

Very satisying.  Two shills with absoluetely no moral courage, no intellectual integrity and no chance of ever being taken seriously by anyone on this site again.

Gaze well on these animals WTH, and be glad.  There but for the grace of God and all that.  What better argument for the incredible blindness afflicting so many of your countrymen than two such deceitful little trollops.

Welcome Rabbit,

these two individuals sure are fighting hard to defend the perfidious paranoid mental infection known as American Militarism.

I have some questions on that video, but it is worth seeing by others Back to subject ! 

Funny old Scorpy, you are still ignoring the scientific analysis Jones refers to.  Still since it isn’t publically released yet you can pretend it doesn’t exist.  Even if the photo wasn’t actually of a charge cut column, it would not disprove the demolition theory AT ALL. 

Your claims about the video and the similarity to other controlled demoklitions are right off the mark. The WTC 7 collapse is identical to other controlled demolitions shown, and if you say otherwise laddie you are simply lying.

Where the North and south towers differ, is in that the explosions have been set off from the top down, so of course you don’t get the big cloud of dust at the base.  The internal columns have apparently been taken out, or weakened in the initial explosion in the basement before the plane hit.  There are more than twenty witnesses to this explosion in at least one building, and one person who was injured by this blast even. The way in which the buildings are brought down in the unusual reverse is one reason these collapses look a bit different to regular demolitions, and another is the sheer scale of these buildings which actually make the Squibs look smaller than they are.  They are there all right, and like you say they are interesting.  Trying to invent some new theory to explain them is poverty stricken, you poor baby.  Do you expect ever to be taken seriously Scorpy?

Not only do you ignore the witnesses even yet, you are also ignoring the seismic evidence.  The observed pattern of apparent blasts corrsponds with seismic data from two separate measuring stations.

Keep on peddling the bull though, nothing like watching a drowning rat struggle against the tide.

The popular mechanics article you dared to mention is old, and long since thoroughly debunked, scientifically too, not your idea of debunking which is to call the authors liars and drug addicts or something.  Properly scientifically answered.  Of course the fact that the source has also been found to be totally “connected” and corrupted in this case is a matter of record, but not necessary when the science proved to be crap or based upon strawmen arguments.

Scorpy my posts are longer than yours because rather than just make a few unfounded statements and spout off like you, I actually do include the details and facts which you claim I do not.  I also include quotes and sources for my claims. 

Now if my only intention was to deny everything out of hand and avoid the truth, it would be easy to be brief like you.

Natty Bat

Frog as POTUS after 911 is a lovely idea.

EVERYONE here, including you, is brighter than the Bush creature, and I can assure that frog would rarely if ever do the same things as bush, and usually the opposite.

The biggest difference between the Soviet and U.S. occupation is that since 1989, Afghanistan has become a total narco-state. Close to 80% of national income comes from export of opium and morphine/heroin. Washington’s allies (the Karzai regime and Afghan communists) are believed to be up to their turbans in the drug trade.

Sending troops to Afghanistan was marketed to Americans—and Canadians—as a crusade against terrorism, with nation-building as a sub-theme. Blaming “terrorists” for the current upsurge in fighting obscures the natural and inevitable growth of resistance to foreign occupation.

Eric Margolis

In my youth I knew many majors and colonels who had served their apprenticeship in warfare on the Indian NorthWest Frontier, fighting the wily Pathan as Rudyard Kipling called them.

Warfare was a noble sport for them, and there are stories that after the season’s battles were over, some even asked for the Campaign Medal. “After all, if WE hadn’t beeen so kind as to fight you, in this war arranged by the King-Emperor, YOU wouldn’t have any medals.”

Now the Armchair Warriors are revisiting the Afghan wars, , and coming up against REALITY, as Brit generals are pointing out to them. British troops are no longer safe in their bases

Of course, if frog had been POTUS before 911, there may well not have been one.
All these ifs are a little silly, but fun .
Frog knows a little about the Secret Services, met quite a few socially, and I suspect would not have done worse than the bush regime.
Frog hates “yesmen”, and timeservers, and personally ambitious scum.

Frog would recruit language speakers, install them on the ground, but never engage in Falseflag ops .

Frog would not use the Agencies to engage in Terrorism. So he would not have created al qida. QED

This is a year old, but interesting…

BREAKING: NON-PARTISAN GAO REPORT CONFIRMS CONCERNS ABOUT SECURITY OF ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES !

The GAO report indicated that national initiatives to improve voting system security and reliability of electronic voting systems either lack specific plans for implementation or are not expected to be completed until after the 2006 election. According to GAO, “Until these efforts are completed, there is a risk that many state and local jurisdictions will rely on voting systems that were not developed, acquired, testing, operated, or managed in accordance with rigorous security and reliability standards - potentially affecting the reliability of future elections and voter confidence in the accuracy of the vote count”

This is two-weeks’ old

ILLEGAL VOTING-MACHINES USED IN BUSBY-BILBRAY ELECTION (CA 50)

People across the political spectrum have begun waking up to the immense risks posed by electronic voting. For instance, conservative CNN commentator Lou Dobbs recently weighed in that, “The security of our elections and the integrity of our democracy is in jeopardy. Nationwide, there is concern and even alarm that electronic voting machines are simply too easily compromised and vulnerable to fraud..”

And Diebold machines, which were decertified in California at one point, are probably the most controversial of all. Computer experts given even brief access to a Diebold machine have demonstrated how easily it can be hacked, with election-changing results. A highly detailed “security alert “ about Diebold, issued in May by the nonpartisan Black Box Voting, warns:

“ Based on publicly available documentation, source code experts and testing performed with the system, there seem to be several backdoors to the system which are unacceptable from a security point of view. . . .

Redhorse,

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

�The first president to issue a signing statement was James Monroe.[2] Until the 1980s, with some exceptions, signing statements were generally triumphal, rhetorical, or political proclamations and went mostly unannounced. Until Ronald Reagan became President, only 75 statements had been issued. Reagan and his successors George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton made 247 signing statements between them. As of 2006, George W. Bush has issued over 130 signing statements containing more than 750 constitutional challenges. [3]�

Reagan = 75
George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton = 247 signing statements between them.
George W. Bush = over 130

�Bush supporters note that previous administrations had made use of signing statements to dispute the validity of a new law or its individual components. George H. W. Bush challenged 232 statutes through signing statements during four years in office and Clinton challenged 140 over eight years. However, George W. Bush’s 130 signing statements contain at least 750
challenges.[3] [5] In the words of a New York Times commentary:

George H. W. Bush = 232
Clinton =140
George W. Bush =130
-----------------------------------------

These two paragraphs are from the same reference, yet they don�t seem to add up.

Whatever the actual numbers are it seems to me the constitutionality should be decided for the process and in the meantime I would like to see each of these published at the time they are signed with an explanation of the rationale.

Again, my objection is the choice of the most extreme and misleading use of data by writers and our tendency to accept the worst IF it fits our wishes.

Let�s try for the truth without trying to make a bad thing worse.
----------------------------------------
�Nazi Germany was also very much worried about Flag Desecration�

The flag talk is just political eyewash. Sure, there are some people who see disrespect or the flag as equivalent to the story of flushing the Koran down the toilet. Symbols have whatever meaning we impart to them.

In this case I think the most outspoken politicians know an amendment or law won�t �fly.� It�s a chance to get �extra credit� from the people who think it�s important. In four years, two or maybe even ten someone will say, �I remember he supported the flag � if nobody else says it � he will.

To me (and I believe many others) it is a symbol of the millions of individuals who made our freedom to choose our symbols. I respect the right of people to do stupid things, but I don�t have to like it.

The money tracking:  If it was doing any good at all they should have kept quiet. Many people asked them not to print it � Executive Branch, congress (both sides)indicated it was helping and the Times excuse of our �right to know� is pretty thin. My financial deals will be unaffected in any way, but a lot of funny money in business travels and should be checked for tax implications.

Frog,

�In your little fracas with Sally, you stated that her fellow-citizen �wanted� to be arrested. No proof.� Maybe she just wanted to post the rest of her pile and go home for a cuppa tea .�

Guilty as charged. 
Well, I did say, �...nearly everyone, whether liberal or conservative, is too quick to profile and categorize...� I think I just proved my point � the hard way.  :-)

My cartoons have been mostly about local issues, but I did a few about the Clintons just for fun. I think I may still have them somewhere, but don�t think I can attach anything here.

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

Sallyb, Redhorse and Frog,

Call the cops and complain even if it is a cop breaking the law. NO, Especially if it is a cop!

Our former sheriff was arrested by the DNR for shooting too many deer on his own property. Somebody tipped them off and he was caught, fined and lost the next election.

You CAN fight city hall. I�ve beat the real estate tax assessor twice � their info on my property was wrong. It took four years and a lot of work on my part, but I got it corrected.

LATEST SECURITY VULNERABILITY IN PAPERLESS E-VOTING UNDERSCORES NEED FOR PAPER-TRAIL, AUDITING

A critical security vulnerability has been brought to light in Diebold touch screen voting machines, just as several primaries are about to occur.

In a May 12th New York Times article, Avi Rubin, a Professor at Johns Hopkins and Verified Voting advisory board member, said “I almost had a heart attack ” when he understood the nature of the problem. Michael Shamos, a computer scientist and voting system examiner in Pennsylvania, was quoted in the same article, “It’s the most severe security flaw ever discovered in a voting system.” Indeed, several experts have urged that the technical details of the problem not be discussed because it is so easy to exploit. Such recommendations are extraordinary, coming from a community that values openness and transparency on computer security issues.  Read more... at VVF”

WTH
Good for you !

I think this thread needs to get back on target.. Me guilty, too.

And for me the real ones are blackbox voting , and disenfranchisement. .

Exit - polls are an interesting detail, a diversion like signing statements, 911, Iran, Afghanistan (mine that one !) , police oppression etc.

My interest is not to criticise Amerrica, as you are realising, just to see how the criminals COULD get and then hold power.

And then keep a weather-eye open for WHEN they start on US here in frogland , too, . (maybe they have already, and i’m out of date...)

As STALIN said, “ its not who votes that counts, its who counts the votes”

Natalie -

Can I call them, or what?

I am afraid that our good acquaintance Lagomorph is in permanent panic mode.  Every time he is presented with information he can�t answer, he gets more long-winded, more shrill, and more out of touch with himself. 

Check out Lagomorph’s latest three (!) posts.  He has this weird obsession about “the only way three skyscrapers could fall into their own footprints”.  I take it that he means that, without demolitions, WTC buildings should have fallen sideways, like a tree that has been chopped down.  But a huge narrow skyscraper weighing one-half million tons is not a tree, and gravity works straight down, regardless of what Lagomorph thinks. 

When the upper stories, perhaps 80,000 or 100,000 tons, started to move, straight down, of course, the essentially hollow buildings offered almost zero resistance to the inexorable force of gravity.  There is absolutely no way to make one-half million tons of concrete and steel fall sideways.

Death Stalker Scorpion
Leiurus quinquestriatus

Powerful venom compensates for the scorpion�s weaker pincers and lack of brawny strength.

Hello O venomous One, any good reason why you are not responding to posts about US elections ?

Good points all scorp, but let’s not be too hasty in dismissing eyewitness....er.....earwitness testimony about that terrible morning:

Keith Murphy—(F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 47] At the time, I would have said they sounded like bombs, but it was boom boom boom and then the lights all go out. I hear someone say oh, s___, that was just for the lights out. I would say about 3, 4 seconds, all of a sudden this tremendous roar. It sounded like being in a tunnel with the train coming at you.

Rabbit says:

“The popular mechanics article you dared to mention is old, and long since thoroughly debunked, scientifically too, not your idea of debunking which is to call the authors liars and drug addicts or something.  Properly scientifically answered.  Of course the fact that the source has also been found to be totally �connected� and corrupted in this case is a matter of record, but not necessary when the science proved to be crap or based upon strawmen arguments.”

In this case, a teeny tiny miniscule morsel of truth is blown entirely out of context, with a pinch of good ol’ fashioned dishonesty thrown in.

Chris Bollyn is regularly featured on Rense.com, BTW.  He is a deliberately dishonest “journalist”, as I have documented several times in the past.  This is yet another example.  He seems to be the source of several false notions regarding 9/11.

Nat and Scorpy, no matter how much you pair of professional liars ignore the facts and the paucity of your arguments, nothing changes.  You are convincing nobody, and the numbers of people waking up to 911 are increasing, constantly.

Frankly I’m sick of feeding you two shill trolls and am satisfied that more than enough information is posted to show anyone who does care, the truth.  Your combined dishonesty is apparent for all to see, and your fake claims of having achieved any sort of points made, is just that, fake.

Trying to spin what is posted by others, when what is posted stands yet to be checked, is really dumb.  NO buildings ever collapsed into their own footprints without explosives input, and even those who try to pretend it is possible, (NIST and FEMA) admitted their scenarios were actually highly improbable.  They had to because they are highly improbable.  There is so much evidence of what happened on 911, and though you both pretend none of it exists, it does, it is clear as a bell for anyone who looks.

Now Scorpy we know Natty is a shill, and many are beggining to suspect you may be too.  If indeed you are not, then the question is do you even want to know what happened on 911?  Since NO proof, no real evidence has ever been presented to support the official fantasy, it would seem you are stuck on Panic yourself. In panic at the scale of the lie and its ramifications, you may just be living in the 51st State of the USA.  The state of denial.  There is actually no doubt in the engineering world beyond bought and paid for liars.  As for the explosives in the WTC, the proof is in.  The chemical residues which you have been so careful to avoid mentioning, are proof positive.

The simple FACT is that nobody new has come forward with any support for the official lies, and nobody who has attacked those who have spoken out like Steven Jones, Morgan Reynolds or Ray Griffin, have ever even raised the actual points being made by these people.  Just personal attacks and repeats of lies.  That is a smoking gun for coverup of lies.  Never has anyone actually questioned the science of Jones’ report, because they cannot.  They cannot because the science and all the history of building fires and demolitions, speak for themselves.  Lie and pimp till your hearts turn to mud, you are convincing nobody.  How obvious is it that people are lying when they withold all evidence and avoid any scientific discussion, when it is largely all about science?  Maybe to people who live by deceit, the answer is not obvious, but to the rest of us, simple.

On the off chance you might actually be interested in what happened and why, then Rabbit has found something which has the answers.  The story is long, and complex, but it is the answer.  It involves someone who was on the inside, and who has exhaustively collected an enormous amount of evidence, before blowing the whistle.  Read it all, or don’t.  I am not interested on your opinion of it, for it speaks for itself, and I already know you are determined to avoid the truth no matter what, you’ve proven this much.  The following checks out, I have just spent almost twelve hours researching the many details provided by Grove, and I admit my head is spinning with the immense amount of information.  One thing I can promise anyone who checks is it all checks out. So any denial by the shills must be seen as nothing but hollow lies.  Either they have checked nothing and merely will debunk anything which challenges the eminently ridiculous official lies, or they are doing their jobs, as paid shills.  In which case they will still not look at this story.

For WTH, I think you should make the effort my friend, because even though it is a scary story, and will not make your life better, it is clearly the answer to many things, and an intelligent person will come to recognise the essential truth, the overall scenario which is laid bare.

Besides which it is all checkable.  This may be the single most important story on the internet at the moment, for those who can follow its complexity. 

Why and who did 911. A whistleblower speaks out at last. God bless and protect Richard Grove. 

To the people on this thread, Rabbit apologises for still being off topic, but this is too important not to be seen.

Beyond this, I intend to let the Natty and Scorpy rant on about 911 by themselves.  They have lost the argument, lost every point I could be bothered to challenge, and if I was waiting for an acknowledgement from either of them I’d be an old bunny long before that happened.  There is no bottom to human moral and intellectual degradation when it comes to cognitive dissonance and intentional deception for profit.

Is it a Rendon outfit you work for Natty?  I think it is actually since like all the most uncomfortable truths you have ignored that accusation completely despite my mentioning it quite a few times over time. I’d say she is Rendon. Scorpy I still think is to dumb to be a Shill, but who knows, they are probably scraping the bottom of the barrel these days.

Frog your information on electoral fraud is good, and I’ve been looking at it.  Actually Rabbit has followed the Brad blog for awhile and is familiar with much of it. As always my opinions of things are based upon research unlike some people we shall not name, which is why I have long since known the 2000 and 2004 elections were stolen.

Actually the Shills attempts to keep things off this topic, is obviously why they are busy wanking around on issues which have nothing to do with it, all the more reason to get on topic.

Baty Natty, the Scorpy made no points whatsoever, when you say good points like that it is funny as anything.  So pathetic one almost feels sorry for such feeble creatures that you could take a bit of ad-hominem or a bit of bombast as a “good point”.  As for you having proven Chris Bollyn to be dishonest, what a laugh.  The most profound liar on this site, cannot actually discredit anyone.  Of course Rabbit has already conceded that the photo was the least solid of the evidence of Thermite, but you have concentrated on it and it alone.  As usual at the expense of your integrity.

WTH

I do appreciate your point about people only paying attention to information which supports their views.  So why do you do it?

Rabbit has before proven he is open to correction, and as far as the signing statements issue goes, there is some discrepancy in the way they are being reported.  Your own numbers above are actually pointless. 

Now the figure of 750 is an estimate, many sources speak of 500+ which is still not denying the number could be 750.  Do you not realise that little cross next to the figures means the number given is lower than the likely total?

If you read the references I already gave for the figure I used, the answer is actually quite clear, the means and how they are counted to arrive at 750, is stated..  Please look at the following before you jump back in with your mumbo jumbo.  BY the Way, Wikipedia is NOT a final source on such things as this, and the means of its information gathering is the weakness which makes political info on Wikipedia suspect.  Of course by writing 130+, they kind of cover their asses.  But they could write 10+ as well and it would still be truthful.  It is the sort of stunt which is useful for helping people living in denial.

Now I’m not sure how many times you need the facts spelt out for you, but following are some attempts to clarify, because it seems to me you are getting stuck on this detail in the same way a barnacle sticks to a boat’s keel.  No doubt the reason is that you are yet struggling to leave the 51st state yourself. You really do need to read about cognitive dissonance.

Bush signing statements.

(CBS/AP) As a Senate hearing into President Bush’s prolific use of “bill signing statements” got under way Tuesday, the White House defended the practice, which tends to limit the impact of bills he signs into law, saying it helps him uphold the Constitution and defend the nation’s security.

“There’s this notion that the president is committing acts of civil disobedience, and he’s not,” said Mr. Bush’s press secretary Tony Snow, speaking at the White House. “It’s important for the president at least to express reservations about the constitutionality of certain provisions.”

Signing statements are not new, reports CBS News correspondent Bob Fuss, nor is the power of the president to refuse to enforce a law he considers unconstitutional — at least until a court rules on it.

But a number of Democrats, and notably the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Arlen Specter, say President Bush, who has never vetoed a bill, has abused signing statements as part of a pattern of taking greater powers.

Such statements have accompanied some 750 statutes passed by Congress, including a ban on the torture of detainees and the renewal of the Patriot Act.

Before you compare this to other presidents you need to be sure they to are being counted on the same basis, obviously.

MSNBC

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter opened hearings today on the signing statements. Bush has used the statements on some 750 statutes passed by Congress, including such high-profile issues as a ban on torture and renewal of the Patriot Act.

There is no dispute with thes figures WTH, if there was don’t you think such obedient mouthpieces as CBS and MSNBC, would have been mentioning it by now?

George W. Bush issued 23 signing statements in 2001; 34 statements in 2002, raising 168 constitutional objections; 27 statements in 2003, raising 142 constitutional challenges, and 23 statements in 2004, raising 175 constitutional criticisms. In total, during his first term Bush raised a remarkable 505 constitutional challenges to various provisions of legislation that became law.

from John Dean quoting Phillip Cooper “a leading expert on signing statements” from his 2002 book, By Order of the President: The Use and Abuse of Executive Direct Action

Now WTH, it isn’t as if the rabbit minds helping you to see the truth, but you could have found all this for yourself, if you had not been determined to merely find something which made you feel less afraid.
Mate, if the number was only 130, then I’d happily concur.  But the methods used to arrive at that figure would have made the numbers of other presidents MUCH lower than the figures you give too.

I think you’ve had this one, and it details a few too. Again the number is about 750.

The following is by LAURIE KELLMAN - Associated Press
June 27, 2006

http://www.nysun.com/article/35129

WASHINGTON - The Senate Judiciary Committee is opening hearings this week into what has become the White House’s favorite tool for overriding Congress in the name of wartime national security - signing statements.

“It’s a challenge to the plain language of the Constitution,” the committee’s chairman, Senator Specter, a Republican of Pennsylvania, said in an interview with the Associated Press. “I’m interested to hear from the administration just what research they’ve done to lead them to the conclusion that they can cherry-pick.”

Apparently, enough to challenge more than 750 statutes passed by Congress, far more than any other president, Mr. Specter’s committee says.The White House does not dispute that number, but points out that Bush is far from the nation’s first chief executive to issue them.

Maybe not, but he is the first to use them on virtually every bill he ever signed.  The clue to his intentions is in the afct he’s never vetoed anything.  I’ve said it before WTH, how you have survived as long as you have with such alevel of gullibility is beyond me.  Maybe its just selective gullibility.  Gullible when the old fear factor kicks in.

The following is from your Wikipedia article, and since it was there all along, I think you’ve been a naughty WTH for being so selective in your quoting of it. I repeat your own quote of it, to point out what you are ignoring. 

Wikipedia

The first president to issue a signing statement was James Monroe. Until the 1980s, with some exceptions, signing statements were generally triumphal, rhetorical, or political proclamations and went mostly unannounced. Until Ronald Reagan became President, only 75 statements had been issued. Reagan and his successors George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton made 247 signing statements between them. As of 2006, George W. Bush has issued over 130 signing statements containing more than 750 constitutional challenges.

So it seems we may be talking at cross purposes here.  I’d guess that virtually nobody, including you, knew what a signing statement was this time last year anyway.  The issue is with 750+ statutes which are being undermined by the closest thing to a dictator any country could have and still kid itself it has a democracy. Exactly how many times the Bushling has signed his name is hardly consequent.  OR is the actual important thing to you the usage of the word signing statement? 

Do the semantics matter?  The Bushling is riding roughshod over 750+ statutes. Only you know how important your congress’ bills are, but surely they should be more important than a school report card, where mum or dad attaches a comment?

Here we have a sound comparison, apples with apples.

Bush supporters note that previous administrations had made use of signing statements to dispute the validity of a new law or its individual components. George H. W. Bush challenged 232 statutes through signing statements during four years in office and Clinton challenged 140 over eight years. However, George W. Bush’s 130 signing statements contain at least 750 challenges.  In the words of a New York Times commentary:

And none have used it so clearly to make the president the interpreter of a law’s intent, instead of Congress, and the arbiter of constitutionality, instead of the courts.

One of the signing statements which has attracted most controversy is the signing of the McCain Detainee Amendment, prohibiting cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of detainees in U.S. custody:

“The Executive Branch shall construe [the torture ban] in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary Executive Branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power.”

Bottom line, WTH, is that the Bushling has done more to undermine the separation of powers and the constitution of the United States of Avarice than all other presidents combined it would seem.

Now hopefully you are getting the picture and rather than nitpicking the semantics of it, you should perhaps be forming an opinion about the significance of it all.  I would point out again that the Bushling has not vetoed anything.  That is a serious clue about the intent of his signing statements if you are thinking.

Actually WTH, since you are a nitty picky fellow, you probably are more woried about the semantics, so out of a sense of generosity, Rabbit shall give you the point.  Bush has issued 130+ signing statements.

The figure of 750+ relates to the number of statutes being affected, which is more than all other presidents combined.  It is the important number though and not the number of actual signings themselves.  Unless you are concerned with the amount stationary being used. 

It is apparent we have all been talking at cross purposes here, but due to our previous ignorance of signing statements not any desire to decieve or be decieved.  It has nothing to do with only looking at information which we desire, but as I hopefully have demonstrated to you, defining what the facts are.  I trust that we have now got these facts into a format we can all understand.

Richard Andrew Grove.  Another computer programmer with a psychedelic imagination?  Perhaps he’s a friend of Peter’s.

A structural enginner, preferably without a drug habit (not that there’s anything wrong with that) would be who you’re looking for.  Someone who’s actually QUALIFIED to challenge the NIST final report and does so successfully is your only ticket out of Art Bell’s basement.

Rabbit , WTH.....Not at first knowing what a signing statement is ,Redhorse is not surprized that the facts are somewhat convoluted , obscure . Given the secrective nature of this regime , and the overt duplicity , signing low and playing high , appeared to be the solution to the discrepancy in actual numbers of statements signed....
WTH , you seemed to be doing so well , making progress...in weaning yourself from the cobweb of deception that so many amerikans suffer under...I sense some disturbance in your critically analysis skills...Is everything well on the home front., family ok ?
No pun intended.............

Looking at Bush’s signing statements, it would appear to me that he is merely stating some basic facts as pertains to who is granted power by the constitution to manage issues relating to war, foreign policy, and issues involving his cabinet.

It is the congress who should be faulted for making so many statements necessary. 

I would imagine that had Al Gore been president on 9/11, and congress sought to tie his hands while he was trying to protect the nation from another terrorist attack, he likely would have had 750 things to say as well.

This is why we have one president, not 535.

Nata-lie...Do you really believe this nucklehead cares about keeping you safe...news flash...this is an invasion ,an occupation of another sovereign nation...nothing to do with protecting you or me...If anything the US is in more danger now than ever before.....

You see what I’m talking about WTH , Natty thinks this whole nonsense is about safety...this broad is delusional...all caught up in believing something that is not so....
My guess is Al Gore would not have invaded Iraq in the first place...Natty baybee...............
Truth be told...9/11 may never have happened if Hollywood Al “ the wife kissing bandit “ Gore was in the White House..

“As for you having proven Chris Bollyn to be dishonest, what a laugh.”

This is incontrovertible proof that Chris Bollyn is a deliberately misleading journalist.  In fact, the words “journalist” and “Chris Bollyn” shouldn’t appear within a hundred miles of each other.  Out of all the “truth” articles that have abused and misused Bill Manning’s Fire Engineering editorial from Jan. 2002, this particular article is far and away the most blatant.  Instead of simply leaving out the key sentence that would of course make referring to Manning’s editorial counterproductive in the first place, as does Steven Jones, Bollyn actually uses part of the sentence and weaves it in and out of his own words to create his desired outcome:

Manning challenged the theory that the towers collapsed as a result of the crashed airliners and the subsequent fuel fires, saying, “Respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers.”

An eyewitness to the collapse told AFP that as he stood two blocks from the World Trade Center he had seen “a number of brief light sources being emitted from inside the building between floors 10 and 15.” He saw about six of these brief flashes, accompanied by a “crackling sound” immediately before the tower collapsed.

World according to Bollyn

From the last paragraph, it’s clear that Bollyn is attempting to imply that explosives were planted in the building.  But what’s not clear to the unsuspecting reader is the fact that in order to support his implication, he has seen fit to butcher and manipulate the words of Manning, to the point of actually making nearly the opposite point that Manning was trying to make.  Bollyn reconstructs the editorial to read as if Manning doesn’t believe that fire of any kind directly caused the collapse.  But in reality, Manning said that his theory was that the content fires resulting from the jet fuel bomb did “directly cause the collapses in an alarmingly short time.”

Again, in context:

“However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.

And this is a source that Steven Jones uses in his supposedly peer-reviewed, scholarly scientifically based paper.  Is Jones really this naive to cite such deliberate dissemblers as Bollyn, or is he of the same mind?

Redhorse,

I didn’t say that Gore would necessarily have gone into Iraq.  But surely you would agree that he would likely have had a strong response to 9/11 and would have sought many of the same intelligence gathering, prisoner detainment and finance tracking powers as has Bush, or at least I hope he would have. 

If congress had put out legislation that conflicted with those powers, which very argueably belong to the president alone, I certainly hope he would have had something to say.

My point I guess is that to compare the recent history of signing statements without taking into account the extraordinary events and aftermath of 9/11 is kind of silly.

Ha Ha Ha

Natalie you are indefatigable and without any honour or honesty.

You have not even had time to read what Grove says.  It is all verifiable anyway, no imagination deary.  But you have attacked the guy without even looking at it.

How much more proof is needed that the truth is NOT in Natty’s interest.
You actually think your pathetic little denial made any difference to anything?  You are a joke.  A sad pathetic litle joke.  Besides which you are the most loathed and disrespected creature most of us have ever come across.  That is why its such a pleasure to see the eminently disreputable Scorpy swimming in the filth with you.  Neither of you have any credibility, but together you are just a sack of mucus in a field of rancid lying pus.

Foolish little denier Natty, the signing statements are patently more than merely clarifying things.  For the most part they completely undermine the point of the statutes, and various examples are included above. Of course you are right in that for example on the Mc Cain bill about torture the Bushling clarified that he intends to keep on torturing, is that what you meant by clarification?

Spin it Shill, spin it some more, show us how low you can go, shill.  Crawl on the floor, act like a whore, show us how much the truth is no more.

Natty you and the disgusting cockroach Scorpy, really should stop playing around with the least important of three pieces of evidence.  Will it help you get over it if Rabbit agrees the Bollyn source PROVES NOTHING?  Because I’ve admitted ages ago it isn’t irrefutable, but the witnesses, are iirefutable for there are so many of them, and cherry picking one fireman out of hundreds of witnesses to the explosions, some even BEFORE the plane hit, is in combination irrefutable.

The analysis of video footage and comparison to known explosive demolition and the analysis of the actual fall, including the impossibly short time, about the speed of gravity, is damned solid evidence.  The fact that the Chemical analysis is now done on structural material is the most absolute of course and that is why you cannot bear to face up to it.

I don’t give a fuck about the photo.  Experts have stated it is not an Oxy cut. I happen to be something of an expert in that field too and can say it doesn’t look like an OXY cut for the reasons given and finally, Bollyn’s credibility is not the issue, the photo is.  Still drop the photo, it proves nothing on its own, which is why you pair of liars would stick to discussing it alone while ignoring all the rest.

Natty you are creeping into weirdsville again.  .  Steven Jones used no such sources as Bollyn for his scholarly review.  The accuracy of Jone’s analysis has not been questioned by anyone, some questionablecharacters attack the man, but ignore what he says.  When you can come up with ANYONE who actually addresses the review and analysis by Jones, let us know, until then you really should stop making such a pathetic fool of yourself.  We already know you have nothing except character attacks to use.  Do you have to keep on showing your moral degeneracy?  Its disgusting of course.

I repeat there has not even been any attempt by anyone to critic the review by Steven Jones.  Who by the way, is clearly a man of integity and honour.  He is also highly qualified to make the report he has done.  Find someone who can debunk the science, or don’t.  But if you don’t then the assumption even for those unable to understand the science, is that the science stands.  Who then cares what a denialist Shill can say about a man of excellent reputation and respect in the community. How revolting a human being you are, to throw hate and mud at anybody who challenges a competely farcical and totally UNPROVEN conspiracy theory by the most historically dishonest administration in the world.

Has it escaped your notice that the FBI admits it has NO EVIDENCE of Bin Laden’s involvement?  NONE.  Anyway, the Link to Andrew Grove’s story is the final nail in the coffin.  Your lie just hit rock bottom.  Now it is only a matter of time.  Not only do we know how the buildings were brought down, we now know why and by whom. Read it all or don’t but others will, and isn’t it supposed to be others you are meant to be convincing?  You are not just trying to shore up your own pathetic imaginings like the Scorpy, after all. You are a shill, you have work to do, and you are not performing really.

Redhorse, do not be surprised at the apparent braindead condition of the Bat.  She isn’t a person for whom truth about these issues matters at all.  She is a real live government shill and has long since sacrificed her credibility on ITT.  She shills for the official line and will change her whole story the second the admin changes it’s. She calls everyone who challenges the lies a drug addict and a Bush hater, as if either in any way alter the facts of what these people are saying.  She refers to official propaganda sites to make her few small points and ignores anything to which she has no answer. She will play this game for many many days and then finally when the heat is off she will slip back in and simply make some spurios claim about what she previously ignored, as if she’d never heard it before that moment. 

Really she is the archetypical SHILL.  Scorpy may be also, but actually I think he is just a denialist moron.

Truth be told...9/11 may never have happened if Hollywood Al � the wife kissing bandit � Gore was in the White House..

Is that the same Gore that took cash from the airlines so as to NOT implement airline safety recommendations that his own commission proposed, back in the late 90’s?

I don’t think bin Laden thinks much of Hollywood.  In fact he might have approved the more ambitious plan to attack several more targets that day if the President would have had ties to that hedonistic bunch. (not that there’s anything wrong with that)

“I don’t give a fuck about the photo.  Experts have stated it is not an Oxy cut. I happen to be something of an expert in that field too and can say it doesn’t look like an OXY cut for the reasons given and finally, Bollyn’s credibility is not the issue, the photo is.  Still dop the photo, it proves nothing on its own, which is why you pair of liars would stick to discussing it alone while ignoring all the rest.”

Boy, that’s some paragraph.

I don’t care about the photo
the photo is the issue
drop the photo, it proves nothing

How can Bollyn’s credibility NOT be an issue when you and Prof. Jones and so many “truthers” cite so many articles by him?

Rabbit, you type so much that it’s physically impossible not to ignore much of it.  However, whenever I have pinned you down on an issue, you say:  “it proves nothing on its own”.

A reliable theory cannot be constructed from huge numbers of falsities.

BTW, I downloaded the mp3 by Grove and I will listen to it.  I did read through your link, albeit skimmingly.  Glad you’re back to your perky old self.

Natty

I just looked at the article by Bollyn and surprise, surprise you are telling lies.  Nothing about Bollyn’s article is misrepresenting anything. 

He neither misquotes nor misuses anything said by Manning. 

Manning simply says that the FEMA investigation is a load of shit, which is what virtually everyone says. Bollyn doesn’t make any false claims for anything Manning says and you are just making that up. Anyone can read it and see. 

The rest of your post is crap. Rabbit admitted from the outset the photo isn’t proof, but it is consistent with the explosives theory. You are still ignoring the two other sources given so I guess you have no answer.  Why else would you go on and on about the most minor of the points?  I change nothing, it is you who spin and lie, and your lies about the Bollyn article are just another example of your lies.

I suggest you drop the photo because you are using it to ignore the real evidence, of which the photoc is peripheral, not important and merely consistent. I accept the photc as evidence of explosives cut and have detailed, in actual point for, why. Not merely made stupid half assed spurious claims like you do.  I don’t lie about what is written by others yet you continue to do so. You are as always the most revolting beast of lies.  How much lower can you go? 

Bollyn’s piece is factual, it quotes people, that is al it does, and yet you try to call that lying in some way? He doesn’t draw any bows beyond what people say, So once again, you are just a liar.

You actually posted the link to an article which you then proceed to misrepresent, how stupid does it get?

Natty, Jones does not quote Bollyn or use anything by him to make his case, where do you get this shit? 

Natty, you have not pinned me down on any issue. You have simply denied, and denied one minor part of one post for pages, all the while ignoring everything else, all of which was far more substantial.  If you were really struggling to keep up with it all, then I’d think it would be logical to stick to the most important issue, rather than as you do the least important. 

You are so transparently dishonest I cannot understand how you can live with yourself.

You did not read through that link. You did not skim through it.  The bloody thing is enormous, and as for the mp3 file, I suspect you are once again lying.  The last I looked the link to the mp3 is broken, and that is why the transcript is what makes up the bulk of that page.

I do wish you were not such a big liar, It makes communicating with you the most pointless exercise in the world. I will tell you again, that if you care to read it all, and by all means check the references given by Grove, you will have al the answers about who and why 911 happened.

Would it be so hard for you to actually face up to the more important fact that the FBO has no evidence of Bin Laden for 911?

Would it be so hard to stop carrying on about people’s motives and assasinating their character without any cause but that they are saying something you don’t like?  Would it be so hard for you to actually admit you don’t have a scrap of evidence for the official fairy tale?, for you have none, that is fact.

If you have any then lets have it.
By the way I am not to my perky old self, I am deeply depressed, virtually suicidal as it happens, due to personal problems, so do not be fooled by my online nature.  I simply value this truth more than my life just now.

Seriously, the Grove story is the finish. The answers not only for 911, but many things have fallen into place.  It is quite simply, the most shocking expose I have read.  Not that its a surprise, but the scale and the utter horror of the scenario laid out in black and white does take some getting used to. Twelve hours I have been looking at the details, and everything checks out.

Natalie

Should the day ever come, when you decide to open your mind, and actually seek the answers, assuming by some chance you are not a paid shill, do not hesitate to let me know.  I will be pleased to apologise for all the well earned invective I have heaped so generously upon your worthless head.

Most of the loathing is due to the fact I am sure you are consciously lying and not merely struggling with Cognitive Dissonance.

For example everything you said of the Bollyn article was a lie.  Surely you can see this yourself, assuming you haven’t merely copied your argument from someone else. Go read the piece yourself if you have not.

This what I said when you first challenged the photo, which isn’t taken by Bollyn after all, merely analysed by him, as it can be by anyone. 

Pretending that the photo above is the only evidence of thermite or thermate as we now know, is disingenuous.  I referenced about the chemical analysis and the video footage also gives every appearance of Thermite explosions.  That’s three out of three.  The molten steel of course confirms the same thing, which is to say four major items of evidence pointing to precisely what explosive was used

How much more simple does it get. You are fiddling with the minnow of the issues and ignoring the marlins.  AND you have been doing it for a long time too.

Frog,

I agree � back to the topic.

Thanks for the link to VVF. I�ll read it later.

Stalin may have been a ruthless bastard, but he was no idiot.

Hmmm. I may check out the subject of reincarnation. Would he still have a big bushy mustache?
-------------------

Well, it has taken so long to get back in here that I have read the VVF article.  I have been concerned about the prospect of mischief since I read an allegation that the S. Korean national election had been �fixed� by computer. That was before 1990 I�m sure since that is when I bought my first Mac.

My oldest son has a degree in statistics and does a lot of programming � he has suspected for some time that the presidential voting has been tinkered with.

What amazes me is how few people I speak to about this believe it is even possible. I guess even though they use computers they know nothing about the tremendous potential for misinformation and outright fraud they hold.

Thanks for the link. I plan to send it to several friends.
---------------
I may have found a way to gain access after much fooling around. I was just about convinced the problem is at the site, since I only have trouble on topics which have had many replies. </