What is really going on in Afganistan?

Read about it here; http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/fivelies.html

How can this war be fair? you've got a problem when the US is just toying with this country, and we're not actually out to get the real perpetrators of 9-11

Its lies lies and more lies mate :)

<i>"you've got a problem when the US is just toying with this country, and we're not actually out to get the real perpetrators of 9-11"</i>

Afghanistan...<b>home for terrorist camps and clandestine activities aimed at causing harm to the West?</b> Are we toying with them or just adjusting their attitude?

Godless:

The recipe for a good argument most surely includes respectable sources of information. Your link is crap.

Let me guess- "It's TRUE! I saw it on the internet. Yuk Yuk I sure is smart!"

......

Someone's giving us Atheists a bad name. :P

That's not news. It's opinion. A place called whatreallyhappened.com will put forth anything they can, harping off of current events for traffic.

I know it sounds like a load of crap! however if you were to click on some of the arguments, you will see that what the people are doing in whatreallyhappened, is cliping out news articles from other newspapers which are reputable!, BTW I didn't state that everything there is factual, however it does make you think.

What if?

I like to have a permession to post some articles here, I took them from a web site that has been shut down. It is very interesting and I bet very few of us have seen them. I rather send it to moderator and have him decide I don't want to be labled as anti american or less patriotic then any one else. So moderator please let me know what are my options.
thank you in advance.

Sure the source data is all true but it doesn't take much to realize how rediculous their arguments are based on that data.

I can see that Elvis is fat but that doesn't mean he has some covert motive to put major food chains out of business so he can start his own chain.

Ben

Originally posted by KalvinB
Sure the source data is all true but it doesn't take much to realize how rediculous their arguments are based on that data.

I can see that Elvis is fat but that doesn't mean he has some covert motive to put major food chains out of business so he can start his own chain.

Ben

Elvis is dead!, But perhaps you are right, the thing is not to jump to conclusions without having enough evidence. And the article is right, Bin Laden knows english, if it were true that he did it, why not come out and say it in english?

OBL, was an informant for the CIA, trained while The former Soviet Union was at war with Afganistan, that's well known, and the saying goes, "once in the CIA, you are never out".

However there's lots here in this ordeal that it smells fishy!

From the news references of (WRH) whatreallyhappened, a tabloid new source of contradictory nature.

http://www.copvcia.com/stories/nov_2001/michele.html

This one will surely make you go Hmmmm?.

Why would bin laden use the language of the infidels? Why would he use english on a tape intended for his own people?

Why am I even taking these rediculous claims on?

Did I say Evis is alive?

Ben

Sounded pretty conclusive to me godless, i always have thought this war was about oil, as was the gulf war.

OBL wouldent confess in English unless perhaps there was a gun to his head, he most certanly wouldent deliver a speach (possibly his last) to his soilders in English.

"Sounded pretty conclusive to me godless, i always have thought this war was about oil, as was the gulf war."

There's a difference between being about something and being "only" about something.

We're over there because we're taking out terrorists and a corrupt government. As an added bonus we will probably earn good relations with the oil people over there.

Oil is not the primary goal which is what the article posted claimed which is rediculous.

The Gulf war may have been about oil but it was also about Saddam Hussain.

So no, it's not intelligent reporting by any stretch.

Ben

The original of this page used to be at
http://www.eionews.addr.com/psyops/plot_within_a_plot_part1.htm
But that page, and all other material on that site concerned with the WTC bombing,
disappeared about October 21st without explanation.
Consequently links in this page to that site, including links to all enlargements (except for Photo 6), no longer work.



PART I PART II
The Split Second Error The Blockbuster



THE SPLIT-SECOND ERROR
...EXPOSING THE WTC BOMB PLOT...


by Fintan Dunne,
coEditor, PsyOpNews.com
Research Kathy McMahon
18 September 2001
mailto:%20news@psyopnews.com



VIDEO Windows Mpeg
THE HIJACK PILOT'S
SPLIT SECOND ERROR
14 mins @ 56K








"IT WAS DESIGNED
FOR A PLANE IMPACT"
Aaron Swirski, one of the architects of the World Trade Center, talks exclusively to Jerusalem Post Radio on the World Trade Center collapse. He says they designed the towers to withstand something like a plane flying into the side.
For interview, Media Player
JpRadio item ...Now working.


12th September, 2001

EXPLOSIVES EXPERT SAYS
WTC WAS BOMBED
Towers collapse "too methodical"

CHARGES PLANTED
TO TAKE
DOWN BUILDING



Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology says the collapse of the twin towers resembled those of controlled implosions used in planned demolition.

"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 said.

A demolition expert, Romero is a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and other structures.

He said he and Denny Peterson, vice president for administration and finance, were en route to an office building near the Pentagon to discuss defense-funded research programs at Tech. Romero told the Albequerque Journal that he based his opinion on video aired on national television broadcasts.

The detonations could have been caused by a small amount of explosive put in more than two points in each of the towers, he said. "It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points," Romero said.

BUILDING COLLAPSE SHOCKS
WORLD TRADE CENTER
ENGINEER, ARCHITECT

"I DESIGNED IT FOR A 707 HIT"
DETROIT, Sept. 11 (UPI) -- Lee Robertson, the project's structural engineer, addressed the problem of terrorism on high-rises at a conference in Frankfurt, Germany, LAST WEEK (!!!), Chicago engineer Joseph Burns told the Chicago Tribune. Burns said Robertson told the conference, "I designed it for a (Boeing)707 to hit it."
UPI REPORT

DETROIT, Sept. 11 (UPI) -- A lead engineer who worked on New York's World Trade Center Towers expressed shock Tuesday that the 110-story lanmarks in Lower Manhattan collapsed after each tower was struck by a hijacked passenger jetliner.
The determined man at the controls of Flight 175 was now less than one minute from his own demise, and was in that state of heightened alertness that only approaching death can generate.

Ahead, as he hurtled across New York towards Manhattan Island, he could see the vast plume of smoke (1). His colleague in Flight 11, approaching from the opposite direction had already made an almost perfect impact on the North Tower of the World Trade Center.

On the far side of the tower, concealed from his view, was the gash (2) where the hijacked airliner had spread its fuel payload over several floors of the building. Just as the trainers had coached.

But the sight still managed to unnerve him. It was one thing practicing the approach for countless hours on a computer simulator, but this was real life -and no mistake could be made. The planners had insisted that the planes must strike the towers at a banked angle. Otherwise the fire would be confined to only a couple of floors and would not set the building comprehensively alight. Without perfect execution, the imperialists would only suffer minor casualties, he had been told.

What they never told him was that the aircraft impacts were only one half of the plan. One visible and psychologically terrorizing aspect would be provided by the suicidal aircraft. But the other half of the plan was unknown to the two pilots and their accomplices. Bombs had already been planted inside both towers.

They would be detonated after the planes had struck, to ensure the total destruction of the buildings and their evidentiary contents. The bombs inside the towers were strapped to radio-trigger detonators. Other plotters would be near the scene -monitoring TV coverage to determine the right moment to push the final buttons. The full PsyOps (psychological-warfare) effect would be the complete disappearance of these two symbols of US confidence and power.

But if the plane struck at the wrong angle, or even worse -missed altogether, the whole scheme was in danger. Substantial fires were necessary as a cover for the subsequent collapse.

The planners had taken every precaution. Their flight approach paths were calculated to align the two towers as a single target -without a gap between them. His orders were clear. His target was the South Tower, but if the first plane struck the wrong tower, he was to switch to the other. In either event, he must strike at the remaining target with a military precision.

But he didn't. And that's where things began to go wrong.

BANKING ON SUCCESS

A straightforward level approach would have been so much easier. Just line up the towers in the cockpit window and plow straight in. This banked approach was much harder to accomplish. Imagine swinging a stone on the end of a string, aiming to strike a standing beer bottle. Imagine getting only one try. A fully laden 767 is like an elephant with wings -the apotheosis of maneuverability.

Now, the pilot was now less than two miles from his target. The screaming noise of the engines on high power were already causing heads to turn among the early morning crowds below. But they didn't really understand what was happening. One eyewitness would later recount that the first plane had tried to to veer off the tower, but hit it nevertheless. That witness had mistaken the intent of the final course correction.


For no matter how well executed the approach, it would be necessary to make one last seconds adjustment to get right on target. In the final five seconds, the tower would still be half a mile away. That's when the collective million hours of preparation would telescope into seconds and determine the success or failure of the mission.



Photo 3


Photo 4


Photo 5


Photo 6
And it wasn't going well. As the tower rushed to fill the view in the cockpit window (3), the pilot realized that he was going too fast and wide of the target to boot. He would miss to the right. Instead of a minor tilt of the controls, he would have to lean the aircraft hard left -NOW! (4)

As the airliner tilted acutely to the left (5), the air under the wings began to leak away -depriving the craft of vital lift, even as the extra centrifugal force generated by the turn meant that he needed more lift -not less. The maneuver was only partly successful. Despite the course correction, the plane still drifted to the right.

In that last instant (6), he never really had time to consider his own death. The training and his death-moment concentration focussed him so intently on the task. With a grinding crash the side of the building gave way, as Flight 175 struck near the corner of the tower -too far to the right (7).

The howl of metal and concrete impacting each other was overlaid with the crack of plate glass shattering. The concrete floors of the building cut through the plane like a egg passed through an egg slicer. The metal in its wings offered little resistance. In an instant, the plane had disappeared into the tower like a bird returning to its nest.

But it was no longer an aircraft. It's separated parts careered across the floors of the South Tower. It was no longer obeying the laws of aerodynamics. It was subject to the dictates of the angular momentum caused by the banked approach -and that last moment course correction.

That's when things began to go even more wrong for the cynical perpetrators of the mass death that was now being inflicted on those in the shattered airliner's path.





Photo 8


Photo 9


THE ARC OF FAILURE

Earlier, the North Tower impact site had been right in the center of the tower (2). The entire fuel load and flotsam was dumped deep inside and remained in the building -where it exploded (8)(fig 1 below).

But now as Flight 175 disappeared inside the South Tower, it burst like a paper bag full of water. The thousands of pounds of jet fuel were liberated to follow a path dictated by the momentum of what had once been an aircraft.

A wash of jet fuel and airplane parts tore through the interior of the building at hundreds of miles an hour; sweeping everything before it and just starting to ignite as it rushed along. But it didn't take the same course as had aircraft debris inside the North Tower, eighteen minutes before. By contrast, the majority of the fuel and debris from the second plane smashed out of the building and exploded OUTSIDE in the open air over the street (9)(fig 2 below).

The plane's approach was an arc of a great circle -one that had tightened even further with that final twitch on the controls. Imagine again a paper bag of water spun on the end of a string. If the paper bag bursts, the water inside will head off at a tangent to the original arc.



FIGURE 1


FIGURE 2

In the same fashion, the fuel now tried to take a course to the right of the original flight path. The aircraft had impacted near the corner of the building. Within fractions of a second the already igniting fuel had raced diagonally across the corner to burst out into the open air again, on the adjacent side of the Second Tower. Photos even show a smoking engine which shot out as it had not even been slowed by the building interior (10).

This air explosion provided a stunning pyrotechnic spectacle witnessed by countless millions, but it was an operational disaster. For it left the thorny question of explaining how the South Tower -which took less than half the fuel load of its North Tower twin -was the first of the two to collapse.(See Fig 1&2)



THE WRONG TOWER
FELL FIRST

Even before the second plane hit the South Tower, its northern counterpart was already burning strongly, with a great plume of dense black toxic fumes drifting over a stunned Manhattan. Flight 11 had rocketed deep inside the building before the fuel ignited. On some floors the fire burned across the entire width of the building. By 9:45 a.m. the North Tower was ablaze not just on the floors that took the impact, but all the way to the top of the building (10).

The towers sprinkler fire extinguisher system were bolstered by automatic hermetrically sealing doors on every floor to prevent the spread of fire. But office workers still found themselves stumbling down sometimes darkened and smoke-filled fire escape stairs.

The giant steel beams used to build the towers had been cast in Japan -no American steel milll could roll out the massive 'I' beams. The explanation accepted by the mainstream media pundits for the collapse of both towers is that these beams softened like warm toffee in the intensity of the fires.

If that were the case, then the North Tower was the obvious candidate to be the first to collapse. Not only did it have almost a twenty minute head start on the South Tower conflagration, but the fire extended to the whole area of many floors. The South Tower fire was smaller and more confined, so that by 10:30 a.m. there was an obvious difference visible to those in the streets below and the hypnotized TV cameras now trained on the incredible sight.

But can the collapse in any event be really blamed on the fires within? The great explosions on impact had consumed all the jet fuel in seconds. Now it was plastic fixtures, cabling and internal partitioning that were burning. Or smoldering, to be more precise. Only near the great gaping holes -where there was access to an air supply- did the fire burn with anything like the intensity required to melt great beams of steel.

Neither had the impacts significantly weakened the structural integrity of the buildings. Even under normal circumstances these flexible buildings swayed so much in high winds that seasickness was a noticeable problem among workers on upper floors. Even on floors near the impact sites, many had felt only a mild shudder as the aircraft struck.

For the fire to be the cause of the collapse, most of the array of steel beams that spanned each floor would have to be engulfed in continuous extremely high temperature fire. This did not happen, nor was it essential to the plan. If the real intent had been to collapse the towers by means of fire then the planes would have struck the corners of the towers nearest to each other. That would have increased the chances of one tower collapsing into the other.

What actually happened next -before either tower collapsed, was one or more massive explosions in the other buildings around the towers. Explosions that sent clouds of masonry dust into the air. The first of many blasts that would rock the World Trade Center complex.

The explosions marked the final phase.
The curtain was coming down on the performance.

And the towers themselves would be next to fall.....

PART II
THE BLOCKBUSTER

Copyright reserved 2001 www.psyopnews.com by
Fintan Dunne, Kathy McMahon and PsyOpNews.com
Reproduce freely on noncommercial / alternative media.

The original of this page used to be at
http://www.eionews.addr.com/psyops/plot_within_a_plot_part2.htm
But that page, and all other material on that site concerned with the WTC bombing,
disappeared about October 21st without explanation.
Consequently links in this page to that site, including links to all enlargements
(except for the images of the firemen raising the U.S. flag
and of Seven WTC possibly being blasted) no longer work.



PART I PART II
The Split Second Error The Blockbuster


TEXT Version HERE
PDF Version HERE


Thermal imaging of World Trade Center ruins gives the game away.



See that ruin with a hole at center-left.
That's was the U.S. Customs building
(Six WTC), and its mostly still standing.

See the gap in the buildings to its left.
That was Larry Silverstein's Seven WTC
-now completely ruined.



Take a look to the right of the building with the hole. That pile of rubble was once the North Tower (One WTC).



You can see the tower fell straight down and damaged -but did not flatten-- number Six WTC to its left (the building with the hole).

So how come Seven WTC (extreme left above) is totally flattened? The North tower would have had to collapse ACROSS Six WTC to its left to have demolished Seven.

But, as you see, Six WTC is damaged,
however large portions are still standing.
To the left is smoke emerging from
the totally flattened Seven WTC??



In close-up you see the
steel debris from the
North Tower(One WTC),
lying to the right of Six WTC



Six WTC is standing at top right.
Seven WTC flattened at center left.


Aerial view of the whole area.






An explosion at ground level

Is Seven WTC being blasted?




Another shot of an explosion
in the area of Seven WTC
-this time from CNN.





Click above to view
animation of CNN
broadcast frames
1.6 MB GIF
4 mins @56K

The animation shows the velocity of the plume is clearly too fast for it to be merly a swirl of dust from the collapse of one of the towers. The towers are still standing. The direction of the plume movement is upwards and outwards from the area of building Seven.

All this is consistent with an explosion in Seven WTC. One which flattened it completely.

CNN IMAGES ABOVE FROM
CYBERSPACEORBIT.COM
MORE ANALYSIS
COMMENTS




WESTFIELD,
SILVERSTEIN
AND THE WTC
GOLDEN
GOOSE

The World Trade Center is a gold mine. And Larry Silverstein knows it.

Silverstein already owned number Seven WTC, but he led a consortium that just months ago signed a new $3.2 billion US, 99-year lease on the WTC complex. That was the first time the WTC had changed hands in its thirty year history.

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey signed the deal with the Silverstein-led Westfield America on the 26th April, 2001. Westfield America leased the concourse mall, and Silverstein the office portion.

The deal was finalized and celebrated on the 23rd July -just seven weeks before almost the entire complex was destroyed. Port Authority officers gave a giant set of keys to the complex to Silverstein and to Westfield CEO Lowy.

Silverstein was ecstatic at that time. "This is a dream come true," he had said. "We will be in control of a prized asset, and we will seek to develop its potential, raising it to new heights." An ironic choice of words, in retrospect.

The leased buildings included Numbers One and Two (the Twin Towers), Four, Five and 400,000 square feet of retail space. The Marriott Hotel (3WTC), U.S. Customs building (6WTC) and Silverstein's own 47-story office building were already under lease.

Despite the transfer to private hands, the tax payments would still come from the Port Authority -who had been making yearly $25 million payments in lieu of taxes to New York City. The proper figure should be more like $100 million according to city administrators.

Silversteen is undeterred by the demolition of the complex. He already has somewhat insensitive plans to rebuild. Four towers this time. Although the complex was not insured against an act of war, new policies insured against terrorist damage.

Which leaves everybody financially consoled, even if not emotionally so. The vendors still have the $3.2 billion they made on the sale. The purchasers lease deal had spanking new insurance --with new beneficiaries-- for capital value and loss of income.

Silverstein has insurance money to rebuild and get the $110 million of annual rental income flowing again. Or double that with his planned four towers. Nice money if you can get it. Can he?

Not if the insurers could help it. They are the big losers. And they detest having to pay a claim on a policy taken out only weeks before. Indeed, they often delay payment to investigate cases where immediate claims are made against brand new policies.



Graphics and maps of buildings in the complex. Click to enlarge.










WHAT NEXT ?


WE WILL NOTIFY YOU
WHEN THE NEXT PART
IS ONLINE
NOTIFY ME.

(This is a privately maintained
mailout list. WE GUARANTEE
your email used only
for this purpose)




JOIN THE
DISCUSSION FORUM

World Xrossing FOrum
confidential registration
CLICK GRAPHIC ABOVE
FOR MORE INFO/MESSAGES



YOUR FEEDBACK,
COMMENTS, TIPS: mailto:%20news@psyopnews.com



Copyright reserved 2001 www.wagthewtc.com
www.psyopnews.com
by Fintan Dunne & Kathy McMahon
Reproduce freely on noncommercial / alternative media.




WAG THE WTC II
THE BLOCKBUSTER
PART II OF EXPOSING THE WTC BOMB PLOT


by Fintan Dunne,
coEditor, PsyOpNews.com
Research Kathy McMahon
4th October 2001
news@psyopnews.com


What you will discover here will shatter any illusions you have about the reasons behind the World Trade Center attack. This 'Wag the WTC' blockbuster is making a pile of money for some.

FACT: The contractor whose people were the first on the WTC collapse scene --to cart away the rubble that remains-- is the same contractor who demolished and hauled away the shell of the bombed Oklahoma City Murrah building. The name of the contractor is Controlled Demolition! Their WTC cleanup contract is worth over $7 Billion. Are you getting the picture?

FACT: The expert widely reported as certain the WTC was demolished --who later changed his mind-- is a demolition explosives specialist from New Mexico Tech Institute. That's precisely where the people first on the Pentagon crash scene were trained. Tech was also a hot tip to get the contract for training the new Federal Air Marshals. Are you getting the picture?

FACT: Most of the World Trade Center changed hands in a $3.2 billion, 99-year lease deal that was concluded only seven weeks before the attack; with a sweetheart tax deal and new insurance covering buildings and rents -payable to new beneficiaries. Are you getting the picture?

TALL TALES OF
THE WAG MOVIE

Let's all hold on to our emotional hats. Let's stop reacting and stop overreacting.

We are MEANT to react in shock. The whole purpose of the audacious World Trade Center attack was to psych us out.

Does the WTC attack feel like a movie? It does? Well of course it does! It has been specifically written as a movie script. Are you getting the picture?

Having studied for years how Americans react in movie theaters, the game planners have decided we are now ready for movie spectaculars in real life.

You are witnessing a cathartic and intense psychological operation. It is designed to alter your perceptions and hence your politics. It's a classic PsyOp. Its a made-for-TV movie with all the cliché blockbuster elements.

It has mayhem, evil warlords and subtle hints of a military coup. It has terrorists who wrestle for control of Flight 93 with Die Hard have-a-go Bruce Willis clones.

It has final deranged exhortations from a terrorist leader. His last letter is found bundled with a "You Too Can Fly a Plane!" instruction manual and some autographed photos of the great enemy --the legendary Osama Bin Gadaffi Bin Saddam-Laden.

It has whispered good-byes: the departure of the American sailors for war, was portrayed in 'Titanic' style on network TV and in print media coverage.

It has poignant last moments: the raising of the flag on the pile of WTC rubble is a director's steal of the classic Iwo Jima flag scene from W.W.II. They have turned the scenes of this devastation in New York into a movie lot to construct a cultural iconography of war.

This entire sequence of: hijack; first plane; second plane; Pentagon ;WTC collapse; phone calls from the planes; copy of the Koran; more attempted hijackings; arrests; plucky passengers; etc., etc., has been scripted by a crew of cynical planners who could care less that REAL people died in the Twin Towers --not political extras on the international stage of military-industrial machinations.

The story even has the ultimate terror of imminent death in the 'reported' (but unheard by you or I) last words of an airline stewardess. "My God, my God, I see buildings....water!"

Well hold my emotional hat, but I don't see buildings or water. I see a barrage of flimsy plot-bolstering fabrications.

So does award-winning British journalist Robert Fisk -if you read between the lines of his doubts about the authenticity of Mohammed Atta's last letter. In the London Independent, 29 Sept 2001 he questions the "weird references in the note," as he wonders if there is "something more mysterious" going on.

Indeed. Down at the bottom of the Bargain Bin, in the pulp fiction section of the local charity shop, I can find dime-a-dozen trashy novels with plenty of "My God, My God..." dialogue.

But the REAL world of actual airline stewardess, has people are not cartoon dumb blondes. They KNOW what New York looks like from the air, and Duluth and Vancouver too. Duh!

But in this "WAG THE WTC II" movie script, nobody knows they are flying over a city for the last ten minutes. And nobody knows what New York looks like. And the stewardess can't tell when an aircraft is descending, so is totally surprised to see buildings and water. Totally.

She might have said something credible like: "Jesus Christ! We're gonna hit Manhattan."

But no. "I see buildings...." (...and, wait for it...) ..pause.. "...water." Check out that pregnant pause is in every publication of the quote. Does that pause feel right to you? Not to me. The whole thing feels like a ham-fisted effort designed to make us believe certain things.

So let's us also pause, now. Let's jam our emotional hats down firmly and take a look at the MONEY. Let's take a good HARD look at the money. Let's follow the MONEY. Because, there is a mountain of blood-soaked money riding on all this.

VAN THE MAN
CHANGES HIS TUNE

No, not Van Morrisson the singer. But, Van 'the man' Romero. The man in the right place, at the right time.

Van Romero is vice president for research at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology (NMTech). The Socorro university has levered itself into one of the elite sites in the world for the study of explosives and terrorism, attracting nearly $10 million a year in federal money for programs that test explosives for US and foreign agencies. On the morning of the attacks, Romero and Tech's finance vice president Denny Peterson, were near the Pentagon.

They had come to Washington to discuss defense-funded research programs at Tech, leaving them very conveniently located to grab NMTech's slice of the imminent cleanup operation. Because New Mexico Tech offers counter-terrorism training of police and fire first responders to terrorism attacks in the United States!

Within hours Romero was telling the Albuquerque Journal that the collapse of the twin towers could have been caused by a small amount of explosive put in more than two points in each of the towers.

"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 said.

And Romero should know. After all Van is a demolition expert and a former director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center at Tech, which studies the effects of explosions on buildings.

Nevertheless, ten days later Romero had changed his mind. Not only that, but the Albuquerque Journal changed their story too. They altered the original web page about Romero's views. It now shows his revised views first. Check it here.

GREEN CHILI STEW
AT THE PENTAGON

New Mexico Tech's success is due in no small part to the advocacy of local Republican representative Joe Skeen, who has lobbied relentlessly on Tech's behalf to lucrative effect.

Skeen has contacted Israeli representatives about the prospect of having a detachment of fighter aircraft stationed in New Mexico. Israel's request is under review by the U.S. Department of Defense.

Meanwhile, Tech's terrorism first responder training is under the auspices of the public /private National Domestic Preparedness Consortium (i.e. military-industrial complex).

You can find Tech-trained first responders right now at the Pentagon scene. They are busy cleaning-up, in every sense of the word. Skeen has 'hung out with the guys' back at their training camp in the NMTech counter-terrorism facility. So naturally he soon followed Romero to Washington, where he called by the Pentagon crash scene to encourage the NMTech crew.

Skeen asked if there was anything he could do to make their task easier and the crew responded by asking if there was any green chili in the D.C. area. Skeen said yes and had New Mexico green chili stew delivered to the hotel where the crew is staying.

"These are the people who have the toughest duty in cleaning up the devastation left by the barbaric acts of terrorists last week," Skeen said. "We owe the people involved in the clean up... a great deal of thanks and gratitude." Indeed. We owe them a great deal of money also.

Tech will gain substantially from domestic counter-terrorism if Joe Skeen has his way. He wrote to President George Bush and relevant federal government agency officials thus: "Guarding against terrorist attacks must be the centerpiece of our plan and New Mexico, particularly New Mexico Tech University, has excellent technical resources in counter-terrorism."

Skeen proposed that the university triple within 60 days its domestic preparedness first responder training. Skeen said New Mexico Tech is prepared to initiate training for Sky Marshals at Roswell Airpark which has a variety of commercial jet liners ranging from 737 to 747 for hands-on training purposes.

"Dr. Dan Lopez, the President of New Mexico Tech has assured me, that all of these resources and any others identified by the government can be made available immediately to our government and I will do all in my power to help you and our country in managing this crisis,'' Skeen noted in his letter to the president.

Are you getting the picture?

BOOMING BUSINESS IN
CONTROLLED DEMOLITION

Cleaning up the estimated 1.2 million tons of rubble left by the destruction of the World Trade Center could take up to a year and cost $7 billion, according to Associated Press, 28th September, 2001.

"The New York cleanup will be a gargantuan undertaking, whose scale and magnitude will go beyond the customary types of disasters," said J. Mark Loizeaux, president of Maryland-based Controlled Demolition, who brought down the remains of the Alfred Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995.

Controlled Demolition Group, specializes in building demolition worldwide. They are one of a handful with the expertise to demolish a structure like the World Trade Center.

"We probably have more experience than anyone on the planet about how to handle this type of debris, and I will tell you right now we don't have all the answers," said Loizeaux. "It is going to be a learning curve for all of those involved, and it is going to take a very long time."

Given the public's suspicions about the World Trade Center collapse, the presence of Controlled Demolition at the site will hardly assuage their concern. Quite the reverse.
A company with vast demolition smarts has handled the cleanup of the two greatest terror bombings in the US to date.

In the case of Oklahoma building, Controlled Demolition carted off the remains and buried them in a hole in the desert before the smoke had stopped rising from the ruins. Then the rubble was covered over, surrounded by a security fence and guarded.

That was an investigative fiasco -given that there is no way an ammonium nitrate-fuel oil ('ANFO') bomb could have blown away a third of the structure. Furthermore, according to retired blast expert General Ben Partin, the blast velocity of ANFO bombs is incapable of the specific damage observed in the Murrah Building. Military explosive ten times more powerful would be needed to rip concrete away and leave steel reinforcing rods exposed.

A report written by an investigative committee was released earlier this year by the Oklahoma Bombing Investigation Committee. Leading member Charles Key, a former Oklahoma state representative, said the report contains volumes of evidence citing inconsistencies and omissions in the government's official version of events.

"There is sufficient evidence to confirm that law enforcement agencies in Oklahoma City, as well as Washington, DC, had sufficient prior knowledge of the impending disaster, yet took minimum measures to avert the bombing," the report said. "Documents and witnesses support this conclusion."

The committee's report also documents "at least four sightings of [additional] bombs inside the [Murrah] building," said Key.

THE PLOT THICKENS

As evidence has mounted, our concerns about the events at the WTC have grown. Yet, at this time there is no credible investigation by any official U. S. agency of the possibility of additional bombs in the World Trade Center. Neither has there been a call by any leading U. S. politician for an official inquiry into these events.

President Kennedy's death in Dallas at least spawned the Warren Commission investigation. But, so far the only examination of the WTC incidents is taking place on alternative web sites such as this.




Sorry all I cannot download the pictures they were pictures of lots of people and infrastructure and the logic behind all the analysis. If some one know how to upload those pics I can e mail these artiles to them.
Thank you

Why did you paste it all twice?:)

There's a difference between being about something and being "only" about something.
Indeed its not just about oil, its about money and having control where you shouldent have.

We're over there because we're taking out terrorists and a corrupt government. As an added bonus we will probably earn good relations with the oil people over there.
That will be why there is rioting in Islamabad and theres growing concerns over the people of saudi arabia oppinion towards the war.

Oil is not the primary goal which is what the article posted claimed which is rediculous.
True its not just about oil, its about money power and all the troubles that come with them.

The Gulf war may have been about oil but it was also about Saddam Hussain.
As this war is about Ossma Bin Ladden who lives in a cave and eats bread and cheese and orders attacks on countrys 10,000 miles away.

There are too many inconsitencys about this whole thing, too many concidences, everything fell into place like a jigsaw.
America wants afganistan, and all of a sudden an afgan based terrorist attacks america (coincidence).
Irony of it is America was selling guns and bombs to him just a decade ago.

"America wants afganistan, and all of a sudden an afgan based terrorist attacks america (coincidence). Irony of it is America was selling guns and bombs to him just a decade ago."

So 15 years is "all of a sudden?"

You define irony as an former allie biting your hand? How about this theory; Afganistan has been run by assholes for a very long time but we've let them slide. They don't bug us we don't bug them. Unfortunatly they decided to bug us and now we're going to kick their fucking asses and take their oil to boot which we were kind enough to let them keep 15 years ago.

I have no problem with this. They returned evil for good and they're getting what they deserve.

Ben

But let's not forget the battle here at home, anyone here remember Stalin?, the best way to keep people in fear is to make everyone an enemy of the state. This is not going on here in the states you claim, think again...;http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=2126

I hope the link works. If not well you all know were to find such contraversial issues. whareallyhappened, is were I found this!.

I know, I know not a very reliable news source, however if you care to see the brochure here it is; http://whatreallyhappened.com/FBIsuspect.html

So please, if you live in this country, be blinded by the flag, and don't fight for the constitution, you may be labeled a terrorist!.

I still dont understand why americans fight for the right to bear arms.
In the uk we have no guns, our police dont carry guns, our fatality rate in gun related crime is a thousand flod less then that of america, the reason seem rather simple, you cant go into any corner shop in the uk and buy a gun.
Why apart from hunting purposes would you want a gun, in an average american life, how many times do you need to draw a weapon to secure your life/property?

Godless

Good links, sir. The topic link, while asserting nothing we didn't suspect or know already, is a convenient starting point for activism; it puts 5 of the most common assertions about the action on trial, and why not? We are, after all, the United States of America, and see ourselves as the shining republic. Ought not our military actions maintain the integrity of a moral leader, as well? After all, we're prone to advocating our morals overseas, as well as our greed.

The ISI-connection link is one that I must give better attention at a later time. My first perusal found it quite fascinating, and now there remains the task of reconciling the rhetoric to the facts alleged. Thanks much for the links.

KalvinBDid I say Evis is alive? Well, sort of. You wrote of him in the presnt tense.

thanx all,
Tiassa :cool:

More on WTC!!!
What I am posting here doesn't reflect my views I still think they are just theories but who knows.

http://serendipity.magnet.ch/wtc.html

"Well, sort of. You wrote of him in the presnt tense."

So? It's just symantics.

"inside job"

"The towers did not collapse because of the plane impacts and the fires. Possibly (but not certainly) explosives were placed besides their structural supports in the upper levels of the towers, explosives which were detonated 45 to 90 minutes after the planes hit, bringing the towers down in controlled implosions, killing over six thousand American citizens and others."

How is that proven?

Ben

So? It's just symantics.No, it's called grammar.

http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=grammar

You know, they used to teach it in the schools.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

"You know, they used to teach it in the schools."

Grammer, semantics...whatever. This is still a stupid side track to the purpose of the thread and the point of what I said.

Ben

Originally posted by Benji
I still dont understand why americans fight for the right to bear arms.
In the uk we have no guns, our police dont carry guns, our fatality rate in gun related crime is a thousand flod less then that of america, the reason seem rather simple, you cant go into any corner shop in the uk and buy a gun.
Why apart from hunting purposes would you want a gun, in an average american life, how many times do you need to draw a weapon to secure your life/property?

The fight to bear arms, is a quarantee by our constitution, in fact it's the second admendment. The reason our ancestors created this law of the land is to keep the goverment from taking advantage of the people. It was for a civilian militia which has no part of goverment, these groups of people still exist today. I think it's a way to quarantee our freedom.

In Europe, if the cops come down with no reason at all, and bust down your doors, start beating and killing people, what are you going to do?. In America at least we can "shoot" a few of the bastards. However it's our right to bear arms, that keeps this goverment in check.

Godless

In America at least we can "shoot" a few of the bastards. While I won't argue with this reality, nor will I moralize or split hairs over the phrase "well-regulated militia" in the 2nd Amendment, I thought I should at least point out that even into the 20th century, "shooting the bastards" doesn't get you much. Depending on how one feels about Koresh, he was either justified or not in opening fire and resisting a federal agency. However, we might also point out that when the Irish Republican Army rose up and shook the British out of the most part of the country, they started by "shooting the bastards".

For the most part of my life, the IRA has been called terrorists for this. It's only in the internet and CNN age, when the news travels in seconds and governments can't regulate the information flow as well that people have started figuring out a little more about what's been going on in the occupied counties.

While I agree that you can always "shoot the bastards", I find it interesting that this sacred right to resist your government gets people so little in practical terms.

Two cents or so ....

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by Godless
....In America at least we can "shoot" a few of the bastards. However it's our right to bear arms, that keeps this goverment in check.

Please...

Do you honestly think that if the American government wanted to do something in particular to you that your ownership of a gun would stop them in some way? Did it stop them at Waco? The Taliban has far more, and far more powerful, weapons than any citizen of the United States owns and has it stopped the US government from doing what it feels is right?

Don't get me wrong, I am a total advocate of owning arms, but in reality, that type of arguement is totally invalid. My arguement for the ownership of arms is that it is a freedom and right of mine outlined in the constitution and unless you have an extremely valid reason for changing the constitution on this matter, then you have no right to take away my guns until the constitution is changed.

I think we like to kill brown people or Arabs?? That's why we like to buy all those guns or maybe I am wrong. Please help me out here. Why there was a massive uprise in gun sales after 9 11?? Who are we gona fight with all those guns?? I am just confuse I guess.

Why there was a massive uprise in gun sales after 9 11?? Who are we gona fight with all those guns?? The Postal Militia? (Look out! He might be bringing anthrax!)

I don't know what people expect when they buy guns. I just don't picture the Taliban hordes running through the streets of Seattle. Besides, people know our government will protect the white American from the dark-skinned people, just like they did during WWII. Maybe that's it: they're afraid that these inconvenient human rights will prevent the US government from rounding up all the dark-skinned Muslims in this country and locking them up for their ... uh ... protection. Or something.

In the end, I think the gun sales are kind of a security blanket; the Islamic radicals aren't landing at Astoria anytime soon, so I think it's kind of like holding up a bible or garlic or something to chase away vampires. I think what will be telling is if the American birth rate increases because of this; strange as it seems, disasters make people want to reproduce, and as we go forward into the New Violence Order, people may want to share its fruits with new generations.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

"I just don't picture the Taliban hordes running through the streets of Seattle"

The whole idea of the second amendment is to protect us from OUR government. We have what? 1 billion people in the US. That's one hell of an army. If the US Government ever tried to pull something so stupid it lead to a second revolution we have the right to bear arms so we can band together and take them out. Better to die free than live a slave. Or something. The first step to tyranny is disarming the citizens.

The government army is to protect us from other countries. The police are to protect us from criminals. We are to have guns just in case the forementioned authorities go bad or if they can't be there to protect us when we need them.

I don't think there's a country that hasn't overthrown it's government at one time or another. You're living in lala land if you think it could never happen again to your country. If you don't want to own a gun then fine. But you can't deny someone else that right.

Ben

Originally posted by KalvinB
"I just don't picture the Taliban hordes running through the streets of Seattle"

The whole idea of the second amendment is to protect us from OUR government. We have what? 1 billion people in the US. That's one hell of an army. If the US Government ever tried to pull something so stupid it lead to a second revolution we have the right to bear arms so we can band together and take them out. Better to die free than live a slave. Or something. The first step to tyranny is disarming the citizens.

The government army is to protect us from other countries. The police are to protect us from criminals. We are to have guns just in case the forementioned authorities go bad or if they can't be there to protect us when we need them.

I don't think there's a country that hasn't overthrown it's government at one time or another. You're living in lala land if you think it could never happen again to your country. If you don't want to own a gun then fine. But you can't deny someone else that right.

Ben

Hey!! Ben you took the words right out of my mouth. When someone asked me if I really think that nocking a few of the bastards out before I died, would make a difference, I forgot to think that's there 250+Million Citizens that would also nock a few of the bastards out!!. LOL.

BTW all federal employees of this country together make about 750,000 people. The ods are against them!.

In Europe, if the cops come down with no reason at all, and bust down your doors, start beating and killing people, what are you going to do?. In America at least we can "shoot" a few of the bastards. However it's our right to bear arms, that keeps this goverment in check.

Im sure the police in our country would never kill civilians, the reason for this being they are civilians out of uniform, and to kill someone with a batton, well i bet thats too much like hard work.
If our police had to carry guns around then it might be a different story, we have special groups of police that deal with any firearms crime, they have guns they know how to use them but we dont parade these blokes around in the street for everyone to see, like a break the law and you die threat.
To buy a gun for your own protection, lol then how on earth can you call yourselfs free?
Im free, i dont need a gun to go to the corner store, i dont feel my life is in danger if i dont protect myself.
The idea of a civilian militia almost makes me sick, wtf is the point of having an army or a police force if every one has there own gun and dispatches there own form of justice wherever and whenever they feel like it?
You say your right to carry a gun will protect you from the federal government, you could take all the guns you possibly could ever have and you still wouldent be able to put up any kind of defense if they chose to attack you.
Guns are not made for protection, there made to kill and mame people, there is NO justification for having a gun in 21st century America, your constituion needs changing, unless of course you plan another civil war sometime soon?
I could understand it 100 years ago, out on the wild planes, fair enough take a gun to "protect you" from native americans and wild life but if you live in a 21st century city what chance is there that your going to be attacked by a group of native americans?
Whats the chance on you being chased down time square with a few bears chasing you?
It aint gonna happen, but you've almost fucked yourselfs here, answer me one last question, how many people need to die before you relise there is no place for guns in the 21st century?

The whole idea of the second amendment is to protect us from OUR government.That's just the thing ... why, then, after an attack like this, do gun sales go up? What does 9/11 have to do with protecting ourselves from our own government? Are the people anticipating a martial crackdown?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

People thought the war could end up being fought on our soil. Those without guns would either be refugees or prisoners of war depending on how fast they could run. Those with guns would be a great asset to our government army which surprisingly can't be everywhere at once.

As Godless said there are only 750,000 government troops or something. When you don't care about blowing stuff up, you don't need many people. A few jets can take out a city no problem. But when you want to keep your cities in tact you need all the ground forces you can get.

Ben

I hold myself answered:People thought the war could end up being fought on our soil. Like I said, a security blanket. I don't see a mass landing at Astoria; I don't expect Afghani jets streaking up my sunset. It's all well and fine to want to protect yourself, but let's take a look at 3 attacks on the nation: WTC '93, WTC '01, and Murrah Federal Building--who the hell is there to shoot in defense?

I suppose I'm curious because I find myself apparently mistaken in my assessment of your counterpointing the Taliban hordes running through Seattle. It would appear we have no point in dispute, except perhaps the sarcasm I aim toward those buying guns specifically in response to 9/11. And that would be entirely up to you.

In other words, I'm unsure if we're at any odds here, but I'm also unsure if we're actually on the same track.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Gun sales after 911 went up, because, people were afraid, more attacks will cause riots to break out and want to protect themselves. It is a feel good thing...

BTW, the US constitution says it is our right to bear arms. Unfortunately arms can be defined to the standards of those glorious days. That means you can not have machine guns, larger clips, gatlin guns, tanks or other major fire power. Which means the arms are limited to personal protection from robbers and thieves - and not the government. One uses voting system to get rid of the government legislative body. There is no practical mechanism to get rid of government or justice branch employees.

And if the US government ever opresses its people, no other power on earth is available to liberate the people. This wont happen because, our economic supremacy depends on freedom of the society. As soon as they are clamped down, we will become another second grade country. Just watch the airport securities procedure and see how it affects economy over time.

You know, I am not much of one for supporting the NRA. You send money and like a politician they want more and then more still yet. I have my serious doubts that all that money goes for good things or even only to support the advocated ideas.

I own a gun because I can. Do I use it? No, I do not. Maybe tomarrow I get hungry and need it but not today.

While I agree that you can always "shoot the bastards", I find it interesting that this sacred right to resist your government gets people so little in practical terms.

In truth owning a gun will get you little in the way of protecting your self from your government except dead. One man, no matter how well armed, is not going to resist a police force, federal agency, or military troops. Much less a combined gang of them as is usually done. All it will get you is the label "criminal" and all that it entitles you to. Such as free room and board. Be it however basic.

Waco was a good demonstration of this. Only the commune members owned a little more than your basic handgun or hunting rifle. I had heard of no commune member threating the local populace and by all accounts pretty much kept to themselves. The ATF were after them for those "illegal" purchases of beyond basic firearms. And from there it was flubbled and fumbled until it got out of hand. After that it is my firm belief that they were made an example and that the devices that produced the fires were purposely choosen for that side effect with full knowledge of the consequences. (I am not sure that it was ever proved though I know that it was investigated). Happenstance made it worse by the kerosene lantern fuel but the structure was wood to begin with.

I too, do not expect that I will see the Taliban Air Force and ground troops in my neighborhood. And I can not say that the excitement of such would be to my likening. I would have no issue with them if they had not choosen the USA for target practice both at home and abroad. But they have and I have little sympathy for what befalls them. It is of their own making.

Still looking at the affect and calling it the cause.

KMGuruBTW, the US constitution says it is our right to bear arms. Unfortunately arms can be defined to the standards of those glorious days. That means you can not have machine guns, larger clips, gatlin guns, tanks or other major fire power. Which means the arms are limited to personal protection from robbers and thieves - and not the governmentI don't think you'll find the arms limitations nearly as vital as you seem to imply. To start with the reasonable: does the average citizen need a shoulder-mounted antipersonnel rocket bearing a nuclear payload? To scale back: does the average citizen need a 50-mm rifle mounted atop their minivan?

As a political idea, it is the NRA itself which focuses on the government. Certes, there are many a paranoid freak hiding out, packing food, awaiting any number of US-UN-Zionist conspiracies to come along and rape his children and throw him in a Korean tiger-cage somewhere outside Abu Dhabi .... But, really ... what about the time Charlton Heston went on Maher's Politically Incorrect and argued that the government was coming? I personally think he owes a few people apologies: I know people in the National Guard. And let me simply say that if the Guard units at McMinnville, Oregon, were ordered to sweep through the streets and relieve the communities of their weapons, they would not do so. Even if empowered by tank divisions and chem-warfare units in the sky, they would not turn against their neighbors, whom they are sworn to protect. And yet here sat Heston, pushing the "savage weekend warriors" bit so reviled by conservatives.

So, is this what we're afraid of? At what point do you trust your neighbor's discretion with that nuke? The only reason governments haven't blown anything sky high since Japan is the miracle of committee thinking: nobody has the cajones to do it.

However, on the more reasonable level: I'm not worried that I don't get to fire a fully-automatic deathplow that unloads itself in two and a half seconds. Look at the majority of your neighbors: when the revolution comes, do you trust them to fire an automatic weapon? Or will they be more dangerous to their own ken?

Thus I submit a point related to me by an absolute gun freak, though one who acknowledged a few things. Originally submitted to me as a point to justify paranoia toward automatic-weapons bans, there's a deeper notion readily apparent. The author, Stephen Weaver, provided the example as a reason to keep as many different kinds of weapons on ... well, you're welcome to read the article: http://www.shadeslanding.com/firearms/will.you.fight.html

Ready for this? I love this: During the latter stages of the Rhodesian Bush war, in the late 1970's a particularly salient tactical point was demonstrated to those with eyes to see. Embattled Rhodesia, fighting for its very life and ostracized by virtually the entire world, quietly adopted a policy change for its armed forces. As a result, the selector switches on thousands of FN-FAL rifles were deliberately switched from the full-auto mode to semi-automatic as a matter of standard procedure. The reason was the shortage of ammunition brought about by international sanction efforts. The effects were startling in that nothing changed as far as battle outcome in spite of a better-armed and equipped enemy in increasingly superior numbers penetrating Rhodesia from three fronts. The communist-trained and supplied terrorist maintained the full auto mode with their AK-47s right up until the end. When the final battles came, the outnumbered and out-gunned Rhodesians had never lost a single encounter; rather, their demise came at the negotiation table-which is a point for deep reflection. Weaver even goes on to say it flat-out: What this proves is that semi-auto fire is a match for full-auto in the hands of determined and committed personnel fighting for home and hearth. It should be noted that Mr Weaver missed his own point, and seems rather upset about the automatic weapons ban, and also about the looming semiautomatic ban that has not, seven years later, come about.

All of that in consideration, I submit to you that the limitation of what arms constitute protected has not overstepped itself. When the revolution comes, I want my friend J by my side, who can put a .22 round through a dime at 100 meters. End of story. I do not want someone trying to control an M-16 on full automatic; I've seen the flight-path of the rounds when the rifle is bolted in place; I've seen the flight-path when the rifle is fired by a US Marine. I am not encouraged by the idea of the guy just down the line not being able to control his weapon during a critical moment.

As to the robbers and the pimps: even in Tacoma Hilltop's worst days, I just don't think an AK-47 would have done me much good. Fully automatic? It wasn't that the gangs were trying to hit anything in particular, but the idea that if you spray enough fire in one direction, you're bound to hit something. Four-hundred rounds into a Chevy Blazer: even if the girl had an AK at hand and managed to fire it off in the direction of at least some of the incoming gunfire, it doesn't mean she wouldn't also have been shooting at anything behind those gangsters. And who's going to unload an automatic weapon in their own hosue? All that firepower in that small a space with a "family to protect" doesn't seem strategic; sure, you've got to protect them, but why do $20,000 damage to the house in the process?

An odd part of the definition I've always been curious about, when viewing the 2nd Amendment: What's your take on the phrase, "well-regulated militia"? It's so rarely discussed amid considerations of the Amendment that I don't even know what those more disposed toward firearms than I think of it.

But since we're on definitions for the moment ....

thanx much,
Tiassa :cool:

What's your take on the phrase, "well-regulated militia"?

Just in case you REALLY do not know, A "WELL REGULATED MILITIA" is what the federal government defines as"DOMESTIC TERRORIST". The US constitution was never meant to be taken seriously.

Ya!! it may be opinion, it may be factual, it may be made up. However it will make you think!!. Have we really been told the "truth"?. http://www.rense.com/general15/tr.htm

Blinded by the falg, by hatred, by the mass media!!.

Just in case you REALLY do not know, A "WELL REGULATED MILITIA" is what the federal government defines as"DOMESTIC TERRORIST". After the DoS attacks against commercial websites last year, Congress considered legislation that would classify hacking as terrorism. Don't really know what happened to it.

More relevantly, are you referring to a man with a gun who claims to know how to use it? (e.g. the manufacturer's representative who, while showing a weapon to an area law-enforcement unit, accidentally discharged the weapon and shot a preschool, hitting the teacher in the leg?) Or the "domestic terrorist" that is Mike's Mountain Militia (BYOB)? The distinction is important because while our nation's gun culture laments that gon-control legislation "punishes responsible gun owners", there is very litte consideration given to what responsible ownership and use means. In this state, it has happened that one can be drunk and cleaning a loaded pistol, accidentally discharge the weapon, kill an infant sleeping in the next flat, and walk away from it because it was an "accident". I don't even get to operate my car drunk and am under the presumption of harm if I do. I find it interesting that one cannot operate a useful tool while drunk, but apparently is allowed to own and operate a device designed to kill people under the influence.The US constitution was never meant to be taken seriously.It would seem that's how people behave. But it's seriously enough that my three hundred-million American neighbors will, by and large, let that government kill me and say I deserved it: Paz, Dorismond, Hernandez ....

If murder isn't a serious enough regard for the Constitution, what is?

thanx,
Tiassa :cool: