<p>good post Ari.
enough bashing of the "liberal media" already, which has practically nothing to do with this anyway.</p>
<p>Bush is an idiot. End of story.
Why are y'all bashing Clinton anyway? Just because he ****ed an intern dosen't mean that he does not have the ability to be a great president.</p>
<p>He was an okay persident in my opinion; I don't see why people were so outraged by his little "scandal".</p>
<p>Sex scandals are just easier for many Americans to comprehend and get indignant about. Much easier than trying to comprehend Watergate, Whitewater, Iran/Contra, or the politics behind the current mess we're in in Iraq.</p>
<p>You guys need to all watch Loose Change. Seriously. Watch it then come back here and discuss.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.loosechange911.com/%5B/url%5D">http://www.loosechange911.com/</a></p>
<p>What rebuttal? Oh, do you mean the Discover rebuttal? that has been rebutted (is that the right word?) rebuked?</p>
<p>OK, then can you please explain to me how the towers fell at free-fall speed, as though in a vaccuum? C'mon all you scholars: I challenge you to figure that one out!</p>
<p>I am actually NOT a conspiracy theorist! I am just really rattled by what I read and I am searching for someone to actually offer a genuine rebuttal that actually addresses all the 'tough' questions. So far, none of the rebuttals have done that!</p>
<p>What amazes me is that intelligent people (like the folks on this forum) tend to just accept a rebuttal, without researching it themselves. Or, they don't want to think about it at all. They already have their minds made up.</p>
<p>What happened to the pursuit of knowledge? Why do people let politics get in the way of the facts?</p>
<p>I'm not sure yet what I believe. I know I don't WANT to believe what the evidence points to. I wish people would quit getting so freaked out about it - why can't people actually watch the video, visit the websites, then discuss the info intelligently? Are everyone here sheeple, afraid to talk about a controversial topic?</p>
<p>Forget the video, then, if you are afraid of making your own mind up. How about looking at the peer-reviewed scientific analyses done by physics professors? (credentials from various universities listed on the websites below, as well as the entire studies done for your analyzing pleasure.) </p>
<p>These are the folks questioning the math and science of the 'official' story.</p>
<p>My point is that people ought to be willing to look at this objectively, without politics involved.</p>
<p>Check out physics911.net and scholarsfor911truth.org and
journalof911studies.com/ for the math and science.</p>
<p>Then, please someone provide a SCIENTIFIC rebuttal - but only after you've actually read the info and watched the videos yourself.</p>
<p>Just to clarify: the official 911 Commission Report confirms that the Twin Towers each fell in 10 seconds. This is the speed an object would fall from the height of the towers if there were ZERO resistance.</p>
<p>Page 322 (actual page 322 of pdf, labeled page 305) of the official 911 Commission Report states:</p>
<p>'...From 9:59 until 10:28 A.M.
At 9:58:59, the South Tower collapsed in ten seconds...'</p>
<p>But, the official 'pancake' theory relies on resistance - the resistance of each floor hitting the next. EVEN IF all the steel beams melted at convenient points for easy transportability (which they conveniently did), how do you explain the ZERO resistance?</p>
<p>If each floor had been slowed down by just 1/2 second, the speed would have been brought up to at least 40-50 seconds (not counting those hit by the planes.)</p>
<p>But I am not a scientist - see the websites for a more thorough analysis of why free-fall speed was NOT possible as a result of the 'official' story.</p>
<p>There are MANY other anomalies - but this is the one that has me the most rattled, because it's just basic math and science.</p>
<p>"He was an okay persident in my opinion; I don't see why people were so outraged by his little 'scandal'."</p>
<p>It wasn't really what he did with Lewinsky that outraged people; it was that fact that he out-and-out lied to the nation when questioned about it ("I did not have sexual relations with that woman..."). He did this on the stand, under oath, hand to Bible. </p>
<p>What does that say about the character of the leader of the free world? That was the issue. If Clinton had just come clean and said, "Yeah, I hit it," it wouldn't have been all that big of a deal. He's human. And really, being married to Hillary, it's not like anybody could blame him.</p>
<p>What, exactly, do you think is wrong with Hillary? I've listened to people take verbal shots at her for years, but no one as yet has given me a credible reason for despising her so much. She's intelligent, ambitious, reasonably good-looking, a dedicated civil servant. ... What's to hate? Enlighten me.</p>
<p>As they say,</p>
<p>"No one died when Clinton lied."</p>
<p>As if bush hasn't lied. And about WAY more important things, too. Things that caused US to go to war on false pretenses, and thousands have died as a result.</p>
<p>How many men would not have lied about an extramarital affair? Did it ever occur to people that he might have been lying to protect his marriage?</p>
<p>Lying about his personal business to the public (when it's none of their business) is just not the same thing as lying to the public about things like war, which IS our business.</p>
<p>The only person who should have cared about Clinton's affair was Hillary. Not anyone else's business.</p>
<p>Speaking of whom, I too have often wondered why repubs hate her so much.</p>
<p>Bumppppppppppppppppp</p>
<p>Lealdragon--I couldn't agree with you more. ... I too, have yet to hear a credible, articulate reason why so many Republicans despise Hillary and continue to mock and make fun of her. Why? Somebody please, please enlighten me, so that I can see what a despicable creature she is and join in the hate-fest. ... As for Clinton's affair, as far as I can see, Hillary took the "family values" thing seriously. She was enraged and hurt by his disgusting antics, but ultimately forgave and went on with her married life--which apparently infuriated a lot of people. So much for living by the preachings of Jesus, to love and forgive.</p>
<p>^^ Ah, but you make the mistake that the Republicans actually want the teachings of Jesus to apply to them, when it is not convenient for them. People often only believe things when it is convenient.</p>
<p>Tommeister--you're right. My mistake!</p>
<p>Yeah, and recently I heard a radio talk show in which it was pointed out that a high percentage of the Republican candidates had affairs and dumped their wives. What hypocrites.</p>
<p>It is a myth that neocons (to be distinguished from the genuine Republicans) follow the teachings of Jesus. They do not. Jesus was clearly a liberal. Neocons (under the disguise of the Republican party) follow the teachings of the old testament 'god' - a wrathful, vengeful 'god' who delights in war.</p>
<p>Yeah, the hypocrisy has amazed me, as well. I caught a bit of the Limbaugh and Hannity radio programs yesterday, and of course, they were trying to pin the Mark Foley thing on the Democrats. Huh? ... We all know the Dems have had their share of sex scandals, but when the Republicans try to portray themselves as holier-than-though, it's just too much. Check out the below site that includes a long list of scandals from the party that brings us wholesome Christian "family values."
<a href="http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Republican_Sex_Scandals%5B/url%5D">http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Republican_Sex_Scandals</a></p>
<p>Oops. Holier than "thou." Not "though!"</p>
<p>george bush is cool</p>
<p>"It is a myth that neocons (to be distinguished from the genuine Republicans) follow the teachings of Jesus. They do not. Jesus was clearly a liberal. Neocons (under the disguise of the Republican party) follow the teachings of the old testament 'god' - a wrathful, vengeful 'god' who delights in war."</p>
<p>You make me laugh. Easy there, Michael Moore. </p>
<p>As for the "liberalism" of Jesus, I must say yes and no. Jesus was the Messiah, ushering in the new Jerusalem and totally revolutionizing Judaism, so in that sense He was. But once He established His New Covenant, no. His teaching was cast in stone to be observed and obeyed. Just a little sampling of that teaching: active homosexuals are committing great sin, abortion and euthanasia are acts of murder punishable by the fires of Hell, and divorce does not exist. </p>
<p>How "liberal" does that sound to you?</p>
<p>If Jesus showed up today and tried to run for public office, the Democratic Party wouldn't touch Him with a ten-foot pole. Neither would the Republicans, for that matter.</p>