Politics & Government - 27 April 2007

There are very few things about which I agreed with the Soviets. That being said, they weren't always wrong, either. One of the times when they were very right was in Lebanon in 1982.

Hezbollah had been kidnapping Western businessmen and diplomats, and many governments were wringing their hands and gnashing their teeth, wondering what to do.

Hezbollah then kidnapped a Soviet diplomat. KGB found and abducted the wives and children of various Hezbollah leaders and sent them back to those leaders in very small pieces along with the message "We trust you will cease bothering Soviet nationals". Guess what? They did.

As the old adage says, even a blind squirrel occasionally finds an acorn. This is an acorn which deserves to be adopted by the US in its fight against terrorists.

2007-04-27 15:45:50 · 11 answers · asked by Rick N 5 in Politics

He won't veto,he wants out too.But he doesn't want to look like his Dad and pull out and get critized for it.So he puts up this big fuss before the bill reaches him.Telling Democrats to quite playing with the troops etc.Creating an environment which allows him to withdraw "against his better judgement"but is so patriotic he's doing it for the troops well being.Thus showing the Democrats as being stubborn and the Republicans as diverse and more concerned for the country.He knows his rating are low after the elections which cost Republicans seats.This would be the only way that Republicans could possibly win the White House again.Maybe he's not so dumb? What do you think?

2007-04-27 15:41:18 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

Was GITMO built by Halliburton and blessed by Dick Cheney?

2007-04-27 15:40:07 · 10 answers · asked by neddie 2 in Politics

2007-04-27 15:34:46 · 3 answers · asked by primamaria04 5 in Politics

Is this one of the subtle beginnings, a soft-sell start, before it really becomes a hard push with lies and deceit like it did with Iraq?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070428/ap_on_el_pr/on_the2008_trail_62;_ylt=Av6ZQYgOhOxHATiGe6GPGwVpu6cv

2007-04-27 15:31:39 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

Many European ( former) Allies have condemned current USA
policies and questioned the legality of the Iraqi invasion.
Some have chickened out completely, but the French contribute to the force in Afghanistan ( considerably ).
But the friendship seems to have cooled so much, even though
it dates back to the American revolution, that I wonder if the Statue of Liberty the French people presented as a gift of
friendship ought to be demolished and returned.
That would seem to be the appropriate and honest thing to do
considering the prevailing attitude.

Or should the torch be replaced by two stretched out middle
fingers welcoming us European immigrants and visitors to reflect the
prevailing mood in the USA today.

I'm sorry but here in 'Old Europe' friendship does not mean you
tell somebody exactly what he wants to hear, if we think a friend is wrong you ought to tell him. We're old fashioned.
The French are very proud people, this rift might take years
to close again.

2007-04-27 15:31:23 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Other - Politics & Government

Check them out next time you see them barefoot or wearing sandals (and really, is there any other way?). Their toes are always dirty and usually misshapen, and at least one nail always seems to be afflicted with fungus. I think toes are the window to a person's soul.

2007-04-27 15:30:30 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Other - Politics & Government

Just like the Democrats more than 15 years ago....except now the focus on the Republicans!!

When will it end? What can we do as ordinary citizens to put a stop to all this??

2007-04-27 15:29:00 · 15 answers · asked by Charlie Bravo 6 in Politics

2007-04-27 15:27:49 · 4 answers · asked by PlasticTrees 2 in Government

2007-04-27 15:27:01 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Military

Why was his police driver speeding 91 MPH in a 65 zone? Why was the cop driver texting his secret lover while driving the Governor?

All of these things are illegal and stupid. Don't the leaders live the same laws we do?
.

2007-04-27 15:21:37 · 5 answers · asked by Sincere1 2 in Law Enforcement & Police

2007-04-27 15:20:16 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Government

2007-04-27 15:20:14 · 8 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5 in Politics

The Patriot Act
The war in Iraq
The Federal Reserve
The income tax
The sixteenth amendment
The IRS
The fair tax
The 9/11 truth movement
campaign reform
The constitution and the bill of rights
Universal healthcare
Labor Unions
gun control
Affordable housing
The minimum wage/Living wage
Cost of living vs income growth
There are others, but these are the primary issues, that are most in need of being addressed right now! These are quality of life issues, so let me know if I have left out any important QUALITY OF LIFE issues, because quality of life issues are the only issues that really matter.

2007-04-27 15:19:59 · 8 answers · asked by LadyZania 7 in Politics

Rudy Giuliani
John McCain
Fred Thompson
Mitt Romney
Duncan Hunter
Newt Gingrich

2007-04-27 15:19:25 · 14 answers · asked by Seth C 1 in Elections

Yeah, well the tool of a boss I have calls me in like 30 mins before I leave and tells me "because the sales are slow we are going to let you go" come to find out they have replaced me, now is there something I can do about him lying?!?

2007-04-27 15:14:17 · 11 answers · asked by Domestic Goddess 2 in Law & Ethics

Which of these two countries aided and protected those who attacked the US?

2007-04-27 15:12:49 · 17 answers · asked by Chi Guy 5 in Politics

I'm so sick of the lase two decades of The whitehouse. What do YOU think?

2007-04-27 15:09:10 · 11 answers · asked by chdgarretson 1 in Other - Politics & Government

2007-04-27 15:08:49 · 7 answers · asked by Aladino Z 2 in Other - Politics & Government

Is it paid to create to havoc by political organizations to bash Bush? Is it a Yahoo employee as one has claimed to be or is it both?

2007-04-27 15:08:41 · 11 answers · asked by vegaswoman 6 in Politics

You ask a liberal a question and the answer something they heard earlier in the day. For example, I just asked if you had the choice to win the war in Iraq or impeach Bush, which would you do? Most say it is an illegal war or try to have it both ways. Once again, why can't liberal answer a question directly?

2007-04-27 15:06:30 · 12 answers · asked by Billy 3 in Politics

Are they paid to create to havoc by political organizations to bash Bush? Are they Yahoo employees as one has claimed to be or are they both?

2007-04-27 15:05:26 · 7 answers · asked by vegaswoman 6 in Politics

so they evolved more and turned darker if you will? If this is true, it proves the theory that racists are idiots. One has no control over color,its merely a factor of their environment. If any qualms are to be had, it should be over the other's culture correct?

2007-04-27 15:05:17 · 12 answers · asked by Serpico7 5 in Law & Ethics

The story...

The amount of energy required to pulverise the concrete in the North WTC tower, then heat up and expand the dust cloud was more than ten times that available from a gravity-driven collapse.

Our take...

Several people have said this, but Jim Hoffman lays out the figures most comprehensively. Here's his conclusion.

The amount of energy required to expand the North Tower's dust cloud was many times the entire potential energy of the tower's elevated mass due to gravity. The over 10-fold disparity between the most conservative estimate and the gravitational energy is not easily dismissed as reflecting uncertainties in quantitative assessments

The official explanation that the Twin Tower collapses were gravity-driven events appears insufficient to account for the documented energy flows.
http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3.html

This appears to be supported with plenty of figures, but we see plenty of room for alternative views. We detail some below, but please keep in mind that we’re in no way qualified to say these are correct. There’s no major structural engineering experience here, no in-depth knowledge of physics: these pages are probably the most likely to be embarrassingly wrong than anything else on this site.

Or to put it another way, if you don’t have the scientific knowledge to evaluate our arguments, please don’t assume we’re correct simply because that’s the conclusion you’d prefer.

And having said that, here’s a few potential issues with Hoffmans paper. For example...
We’re told that the energy required to collapse the towers and produce the dust cloud effects was more than ten times the potential energy available through a straightforward gravitational collapse. But how much energy did this source contain?

The magnitude of that source cannot be determined with much precision thanks to the secrecy surrounding details of the towers' construction. However, FEMA's Building Performance Assessment Report gives an estimate: "Construction of WTC 1 resulted in the storage of more than 4 x 10^11 joules of potential energy over the 1,368-foot height of the structure".
http://911research.wtc7.net/papers/dustvolume/volumev3.html

FEMA don’t tell us how that figure is calculated, what it may or may not include. (The word “construction” suggests they may be talking about the building structure and not including its contents, for instance). Therefore we have no way to tell whether this key figure is accurate or not, and there are widely differing figures: an ACSE article, for instance, reports this:

For example, the construction of WTC 1 resulted in the storage of more than 3 x 10^12 J of potential energy over the 1,360 ft height of the structure.
http://www.pubs.asce.org/ceonline/ceonline02/0502feat.html

That’s perhaps 7.5 times the figure estimated by the FEMA report, and in a curiously similar sentence. We might hope the more official FEMA figure is correct, but as neither documents show any calculations it’s impossible to say for sure. It does seem unwise to take either figure as a meaningful maximum, though.

In addition, whatever the energy in the building, there were additional sources of energy available to be released as heat.

Hoffman asserts that most of the dust was concrete, but this may not be true.

It’s claimed that most of the concrete was reduced to tiny 10-60 micron particles, but there’s no clear explanation of how this figure is derived, either. And there is some disagreement on this. While Dr Steven Jones has described concrete being pulverised to “flour-like powder”, for instance:

The horizontal ejection of structural steel members for hundreds of feet and the pulverization of concrete to flour-like powder, observed clearly in the collapses of the WTC towers, provide further evidence for the use of explosives – as well-explained in http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/towers/index.html. (See also, Griffin, 2004, chapter 2.)
Source

Jones January 2007 “Hard Evidence” article suggests otherwise:

As we examined the WTC-debris sample, we found large chunks of concrete (irregular in shape and size, one was approximately 5cm X 3 cm X 3cm) as well as medium-sized pieces of wall-board (with the binding paper still attached). Thus, the pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust, and it is a false premise to start with near-complete pulverization to fine powder (as might be expected from a mini-nuke or a “star-wars” beam destroying the Towers). Indeed, much of the mass of the MacKinlay sample was clearly in substantial pieces of concrete and wall-board rather than in fine-dust form...

It seems that the 9/11 truth community likewise “has been slow to understand” that the WTC dust particles in greatest abundance are the “supercoarse” variety rather than “fine” particles, and that significant chunks of concrete were also found in the WTC rubble.
Source

Hoffman’s calculations on pulverising, then heating the dust miss one point.

And although Hoffman assumes the dust cloud expansion is heat-driven, there may have been other contributing factors.

We’ve already made our lack of qualifications clear, though. Why should you believe us? No reason at all. So let’s say we’re wrong on every single point, and Hoffman is 100% correct. What would that imply?

We already know that Hoffman's article treats 4 x 10^11 joules as the amount of energy available for release in the towers from a gravitational collapse. And according to his conclusion this is less than one tenth of the energy required. Therefore we need to multiply this figure by at least 9, giving 36 x 10^11 joules of energy required from some other source. (And as Hoffman keeps saying the effects need more than ten times this amount of energy, and he’s being conservative, then this is an absolute minimum).

Now if this was to be provided by explosives, then how much might be required?

Well, a metric ton (1,000 KG) of TNT has 4.184 * 10^9 joules ( http://www.answers.com/topic/megaton ). A ton is a lot of explosives, but not enough for us: we have to get to 36 x 10^11 joules. Which suggests we would need 860.420 tons (aka 860,420 kilogrammes, or 1,896,901 pounds) of TNT to produce the WTC collapse and its observed results.

Nearly 1.9 million pounds of explosives placed without noticing? Per tower? How many detonators do you think might be required for that? How much cabling? Is this sounding just a tiny bit unlikely to anyone?

There are more powerful explosives, of course: C4 will offer 34% more energy, for instance, reducing out requirements to 642,104 kilogrammes. Let's assume the conspirators used something ten times more powerful still: now we're down to 64,210 kg, or 141,558 pounds of this mystery explosive. Per tower. We're being generous here, but this still isn't sounding very plausible.

Yes, we hear you, maybe the conspirators used something even stronger. Small nuclear weapons, for instance. Trouble is, that doesn’t really match with what we’re told are demolition “squibs” visible during the WTC collapse (centre of the tower, low down on this pic)...



Does that look like the result of a nuclear explosion to you? Or just a puff of smoke or dust as a floor collapses inside the building? If such a massive amount of explosive energy is really required, then shouldn’t it have been more obvious, both audibly and in the pictures?

None of this proves anything, of course, however it does suggest one of two options.

Either Hoffmans calculations are correct, in which case he's managed to prove that it's most unlikely conventional explosives can possibly have brought down the WTC.

Or Hoffmans calculations are wrong, in which case we can conclude nothing from them at all.

UPDATE: read another perspective on Hoffmans calculations in an interesting paper by Dr Frank Greening, which he’s allowed us to host here.

2007-04-27 15:01:00 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

stocks are up , unemployment is lower than ever , home ownership has tripled , interest rates are low . the economy is really moving forward , why dont the whining crybabies shut up ?

2007-04-27 14:58:40 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Elections

First off, this is obviously a what if scenario.

Scenario 1 - We win the war in Iraq (I'm not blind, it looks like we have no chance in hell, but once a again this is a what if scenario). Liberals start talking about how they were always for the war and Hillary changes her vote again. As a result the Republican party is seen stronger on defense and wins in 2008.

Scenario 2 - We lose in Iraq (which based on what we get from the media is inevitable). Bush is impeached because Liberals don't like him. The Democrats were always right and they parade in the streets. They win in 2008.

Which scenario would a liberal choose?

2007-04-27 14:56:00 · 20 answers · asked by Billy 3 in Politics

i am 14 and i plan on joining the military soon i am taking some classes and stuff to prepare me but what would you people suggest i do towards preparing for highschool and classes i would be able to take and if you guys know of any good fields in the military please dont hessitate to let me knwo ok thank you very much

2007-04-27 14:55:57 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Military

My boyfriend has been granted every other weekend with his son. Recently his son’s mother told us that their son feels uncomfortable with me and does not want to come over because I am around. My boyfriend and i recently moved in together and it seems like his son and son's mother are upset about it. Anyhow, she has requested that my boyfriend find other living arrangements during the assigned weekends or she will not allow his son to see his father due to her not wanting her son to feel uncomfortable around me. Can she do that? Can she really go to court and demand that my presence be eliminated during their visits? If so do you suggest that we please her to keep things civil? What can we do with out making a big spectacle and returning to court? Or is the only way to handle this is by going to court?

2007-04-27 14:55:17 · 13 answers · asked by karen g 3 in Law & Ethics

Okay, I need detailed and informative opinions of why or why not we should be in Iraq. If we should keep the war going, why? If we should follow the Congressional agenda for withdrawal, why? If we pullout will it be a good thing or a bad thing? Explain what you think about this issue. I look forward to INFORMATIVE answers.

2007-04-27 14:51:23 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics

Steven E. Jones is a professor at Brigham Young University. He has created the paper which has created the ground swell around the 911 conspiracy theories. His paper was peer reviewed but not by a civil engineering journal. One would think a serious professor would get his paper peer reviewed by a scientific journal which specializes in the field they are writing the paper on.

But is Professor Jones qualified to create a paper which says the towers must have fallen due to explosives? He is a physics professor but what experience does Jones have in building collapse forensics? He has none. His other peer reviewed papers consist of cold fusion technology. He conducts research in nuclear fusion and solar energy. Nothing in his background would suggest he is qualified to write a civil engineering paper on the infinitely complex building collapse of the towers.

Brigham Young University doesn't want anything to do with the paper.

A few department chairmen at Jones' university have issued critical statements, though none of these has yet addressed any of the points which Jones made in his paper and at his presentation at BYU. Chairman of the BYU department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Dr. Miller, is on record stating in an e-mail, "I think without exception, the structural engineering professors in our department are not in agreement with the claims made by Jones in his paper, and they don't think there is accuracy and validity to these claims".

The BYU physics department has also issued a statement: "The university is aware that Professor Steven Jones' hypotheses and interpretations of evidence regarding the collapse of World Trade Center buildings are being questioned by a number of scholars and practitioners, including many of BYU's own faculty members. Professor Jones' department and college administrators are not convinced that his analyses and hypotheses have been submitted to relevant scientific venues that would ensure rigorous technical peer review." The College of Engineering and Technology department has also added, "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones

Jones says his paper will pass peer review again. But will it pass peer review in a respected civil engineering journal? Nothing less would be taken seriously.

One of Jones BYU colleagues had this to say after reading his paper...

Letter to the Editor
Refuting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory

April 09, 2006
Dear Editor,

After reading in the Daily Herald the presentations made by Professor Steven E. Jones (BYU Physics) to students at UVSC and BYU, I feel obligated to reply to his "Conspiracy Theory" relating to the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center (9/11/01).

I have studied the summary of the report by FEMA, The American Society of Civil Engineers and several other professional engineering organizations. These experts have given in detail the effects on the Towers by the impact of the commercial aircraft. I have also read Professor Jones' (referred to) 42 page unpublished report. In my understanding of structural design and the properties of structural steel I find Professor Jones' thesis that planted explosives (rather than fire from the planes) caused the collapse of the Towers, very unreliable.

The structural design of the towers was unique in that the supporting steel structure consisted of closely spaced columns in the walls of all four sides. The resulting structure was similar to a tube. When the aircraft impacted the towers at speeds of about 500 plus mph, many steel columns were immediately severed and others rendered weak by the following fires. The fires critically damaged the floors systems. Structural steel will begin to lose strength when heated to temperatures above 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. Steel bridge girders are bent to conform to the curved roadway by spot heating flanges between 800 and 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. It is easy to comprehend the loss of carrying capacity of all the structural steel due to the raging fires fed by the jet's fuel as well as aircraft and building contents.

Before one (especially students) supports such a conspiracy theory, they should investigate all details of the theory. To me a practicing structural engineer of 57 continuous years (1941-1998), Professor Jones' presentations are very disturbing.

D. Allan Firmage

Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU

2007-04-27 14:48:07 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics