To answer your questions . . . and not hijack another thread

[Smee]

'splain it to me Lucy. What did I miss about "hate crimes"?

Then, list your questions . . . plainly, simply, and without any subterfuge and we'll see if they can be answered.

However, I still stand by the statement that you are a TROLL.

Since I've never once sunk to you level of name-calling, I should refuse this request entirely and allow you to live in your world of Ig-nor-ance, but since you asked me so politely......

I asked you, point-blank, how the government supposedly covered up their involvement in 9/11, but couldn't keep the world from finding out about Ruby Ridge. This was your response........

I wasn't responding to a "ruby ridge" question, but I will now. There are people where you work (or if you're retired, where you used to work) who are just not able to cut it. They have all the tools necessary to do the job, except the ability to properly carry out the tasks assigned. They are always "missing" something, and the problem goes to hell in a handbasket.

Uncle Sam has some employees like that too. Look at what happened at Ruby Ridge. Poor management, poor execution of the plan, or poor planning. One of those three did them in and the public learned about it.

Do you honestly think this is a valid answer? That in a relatively small operation like Ruby Ridge some knucklehead screwed up and the cover was blown, but in a massive project like 9/11 everyone managed kept their collective mouth shut? Even with all the "evidence" you and your ilk scream about and point to, not a single admission of any kind of wrong-doing from anyone? This is your explanation? Really??

Valid answer? Yes.

In Government / Military / Covert / Police actions, as in all other walks of life, there are those who can do and those who can't do - and some who, for whatever reason, make ONE BAD DECISION. Maybe -- IF the answers to the questions raised point to the government --- they just lacked the one screwup that could bring the whole house of cards crashing down around them.

As long as there are questions about what happened on 9/11, there will be those who question whether or not it was a conspiracy by someone on our side of the fence. It would not be without precedent. The Reichstag fire was NOT set by a communist, but it gave Mr. Hitler sweeping powers.

Shortly after the fire he said: "The German people have been soft too long. Every Communist official must be shot. All Communist deputies must be hanged this very night. All friends of the Communists must be locked up. And that goes for the Social Democrats and the Reichsbanner as well!" We all know what happened next.

And here’s a couple more. Don’t strain yourself……

As far as cordite, why does one person smelling cordite equate to cordite being on the plane?

Actually, more than one person reported smelling cordite. They I.D.'d the odor they smelled as a specific odor. A military veteran should know what cordite smells like. It doesn't smell like jet fuel burning, it smells nothing like kerosene.

I never said that there was cordite on the plane. The smell of cordite doesn't mean that cordite was on the plane. It is doubted by me that there was a plane because of the lack of damage from the engines or wings. Cordite would, however, be in a missile --- which doesn't have wings or a port and starboard engine.

What kind of debris field did you see in that Pennsylvania field? The bodies and plane bits?

Again, inconsistencies. There were reports of other suspicious military type aircraft in the area prior to the downing of the plane in Shanksville, PA. Those darned 6 ton engines are another problem. They just "evaporated"? Take a look at a real crash site:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=1925650n

Dang! Seats, which would survive such a crash can clearly be seen. What? Jet engines that don't evaporate on impact? Maybe we need to start using them Ruskies planes.

Seriously, there are other crashes of planes of similar size and the debris fields. Even the Lockerbie plane . . . they found the engines on it.

And, seriously, look up hate crimes and troll. Post the definitions for us here, in fact.

Hate Crime: To attack someone, physically or verbally, because they belong to a group which is unpopular or a minority. Can be attacking a homeless person because he is homeless, a black man because of his skin color, a Christian because of their beliefs, or anyone based solely on their membership in a group. Good enough?

Internet Troll - An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages in an on-line community such as an on-line discussion forum with the intention of baiting users into an argumentative response.

And one other thing I noticed but haven't commented on yet.

So it is a hate crime to state anything that YOU (and I don't mean SWR personally, but society in general) don't believe? For someone to say that homosexuality is a sin is a hate crime? Then those same homosexuals who use the term "breeders" need to be silenced also.

Calling homosexuality a sin is a hate crime? Nope, whatever gave you that idea?
Homosexuals using the term "breeders" is tantamount to a hate crime? Do you really think this? Did anyone say being a "breeder" is a sin? Other than you, I mean?

You might want to add the word "comparison" to your homework for the night. You seem to believe apples and orages smell, taste and look the same.......

LOL!!! Hate speech would probably have been the correct phrase for me to use. So, I had a brain fart. Big deal.

The problem is, the preacher doesn't have to "incite" anyone to violence. Simply stating that something is a sin is considered "hate speech", and thus the preacher's first amendment rights have been violated. The same folks who bitch and moan about the use of "queer" or "fag" feel it is ok to reverse the name calling. They think that these people need to be silenced. Maybe they aren't secure in what they are doing and don't want to be reminded that its wrong. In that case, maybe they need to grow a pair and learn to be real men. That doesn't mean they need to change their lifestyles to suit me, I have enough things to answer for in my life that I can't tell them how to live. But, I can tell them to grow up.

We should have learned better in grammar school. I've been called lots of things in my life. And as far as I'm concerned, I need to be a big boy and know inside whether or not its true. If it is, and I don't want it to be, then I need to change. If it doesn't matter to me what I am, then it doesn't matter so long as I am breaking no laws.

Taking away one's right to free speech, though, is breaking the law. That is one right which has been seriously eroded over the past 50+ years I've been here.

 

[Montana Jim]

 

[ClonedSIM]

As far as cordite, why does one person smelling cordite equate to cordite being on the plane?

Actually, more than one person reported smelling cordite. They I.D.'d the odor they smelled as a specific odor. A military veteran should know what cordite smells like. It doesn't smell like jet fuel burning, it smells nothing like kerosene.

I never said that there was cordite on the plane. The smell of cordite doesn't mean that cordite was on the plane. It is doubted by me that there was a plane because of the lack of damage from the engines or wings. Cordite would, however, be in a missile --- which doesn't have wings or a port and starboard engine.

Directly from your post re: this subject....
Another question: why was there cordite on that plane? One of the military officers interviewed by CNN said he smelled definitely cordite after the impact.

Of course, your explanation above doesn't explain the people missing that were named to be on the flight that struck the Pentagon. They were real people. Your explanation seems to suggest that the bodies found in the Pentagon either didn't exist or were killed by some other means and placed in the crash site afterwards?

 

[ClonedSIM]

I asked you, point-blank, how the government supposedly covered up their involvement in 9/11, but couldn't keep the world from finding out about Ruby Ridge. This was your response........

I wasn't responding to a "ruby ridge" question, but I will now. There are people where you work (or if you're retired, where you used to work) who are just not able to cut it. They have all the tools necessary to do the job, except the ability to properly carry out the tasks assigned. They are always "missing" something, and the problem goes to hell in a handbasket.

Uncle Sam has some employees like that too. Look at what happened at Ruby Ridge. Poor management, poor execution of the plan, or poor planning. One of those three did them in and the public learned about it.

Do you honestly think this is a valid answer? That in a relatively small operation like Ruby Ridge some knucklehead screwed up and the cover was blown, but in a massive project like 9/11 everyone managed kept their collective mouth shut? Even with all the "evidence" you and your ilk scream about and point to, not a single admission of any kind of wrong-doing from anyone? This is your explanation? Really??

Valid answer? Yes.

In Government / Military / Covert / Police actions, as in all other walks of life, there are those who can do and those who can't do - and some who, for whatever reason, make ONE BAD DECISION. Maybe -- IF the answers to the questions raised point to the government --- they just lacked the one screwup that could bring the whole house of cards crashing down around them.

As long as there are questions about what happened on 9/11, there will be those who question whether or not it was a conspiracy by someone on our side of the fence. It would not be without precedent. The Reichstag fire was NOT set by a communist, but it gave Mr. Hitler sweeping powers.

Shortly after the fire he said: "The German people have been soft too long. Every Communist official must be shot. All Communist deputies must be hanged this very night. All friends of the Communists must be locked up. And that goes for the Social Democrats and the Reichsbanner as well!" We all know what happened next.

Did you just compare the US Government to that of Nazi Germany?

And you still didn't touch the thrust of my question. There were very few (relatively speaking) members of the US Government that were involved in Ruby Ridge.

Now, I'm sure you haven't sat down to do the math, but let's think about how many people would have been involved in 9/11.

Anyone that was aware of the "project" before it began. Many people to be sure, but none of them knew a single person in NYC that might be hurt or killed by their actions? I live in New Mexico, but even I knew a man who died in 9/11. Do you really think that each of them knew that this would occur but were all heartless enough to let it happen?

Officials with the airline industries that would have been involved. Perhaps many, perhaps none, depending on your argument. Perhaps the US just hired folks to act as terrorists without the knowledge of the airlines?

The pretend "terrorists." Were they all simply suicidal maniacs? Ready to die for the US without questioning it?

The passengers on the planes. Were any of them involved? Based on the phone calls made before the crashes, it's apparent they weren't aware of what was going on.

It's pretty safe to assume that, in your world, none of the civilians that died were aware of the "project," is that right? Or is it your stance that no one actually died at all, but we were simply lied to about that as well?

And, perhaps most importantly, why would the US do this to begin with? Just to blame something on Osama Bin Laden? If that was the point of this, why not just blow up a US embassy somewhere? Why such a large, multi-pronged attack based in the US with so many chances for error?

Are you really giving the US government this much credit as to assume they could find so many people ready to kill their own countrymen, yet each one was trusted enough to never say a word about it? Have you stopped to think about how much money a person could make by blowing the whistle on this thing? Greed is an excellent motivator.

 

[Smee]

Did you just compare the US Government to that of Nazi Germany?

This ruse has worked for centuries. Why tamper with perfection? Why do you think Hitler was the first? Try going back to Joseph and his brothers. Commit a crime, blame it on an enemy.

And you still didn't touch the thrust of my question. There were very few (relatively speaking) members of the US Government that were involved in Ruby Ridge.

I don't care if there were 2 or 2,000. It only takes ONE screwup to ruin the mission. ONE member used bad judgment and it blew the entire operation. Another one shot an innocent woman . . . but maybe the infant she was holding had a loaded diaper? Universally stupid.

Now, I'm sure you haven't sat down to do the math, but let's think about how many people would have been involved in 9/11.

It could have been as few as 12 active agents.

Before trying to mention phone calls, please remember that this was not technologically possible prior to 2004. If they could have received signals from cell phones on jetliners, cell towers would have been changing so fast that they could not have kept up. Just one dead spot, and the call would end. Besides, the records of from the cell towers the calls were supposed to have come through don't show the calls as coming through.

Anyone that was aware of the "project" before it began. Many people to be sure, but none of them knew a single person in NYC that might be hurt or killed by their actions? I live in New Mexico, but even I knew a man who died in 9/11. Do you really think that each of them knew that this would occur but were all heartless enough to let it happen?

Officials with the airline industries that would have been involved. Perhaps many, perhaps none, depending on your argument. Perhaps the US just hired folks to act as terrorists without the knowledge of the airlines?

Why would they involve civilians? SOME people can be talked into anything in the name of patriotism, just as SOME people can be talked into anything in the name of Religion. Some people will follow anyone they perceive as looking out for the "good of the people" if they can convince them that the other side is destroying what they love.

The pretend "terrorists." Were they all simply suicidal maniacs? Ready to die for the US without questioning it?

The passengers on the planes. Were any of them involved? Based on the phone calls made before the crashes, it's apparent they weren't aware of what was going on.

Already answered above.

It's pretty safe to assume that, in your world, none of the civilians that died were aware of the "project," is that right? Or is it your stance that no one actually died at all, but we were simply lied to about that as well?

In the original plans for a similar "attack" back in the 1960's, the passengers were offloaded at a remote site and disposed of. The "hijacked" plane was not the one used in the attack.

And, perhaps most importantly, why would the US do this to begin with? Just to blame something on Osama Bin Laden? If that was the point of this, why not just blow up a US embassy somewhere? Why such a large, multi-pronged attack based in the US with so many chances for error?

Because war is perceived as being good for the economy by some. The depression of the 30's didn't end because of Roosevelt's new deal. It ended as a result of WWII. There was also the matter of unfinished business in Iraq. To complicate matters, there was a need to exert more control over the populace. The action resulted in sweeping changes in how we as citizens are treated. Prior to 9/11 how many people would have been willing to allow Uncle Sam to listen in on their conversations in the name of National Security? Almost none. Not too many are happy about it now, but they have given up their freedom from illegal search and seizure. The capturing of telephone conversations and other communications not meant for public dispersion amounts to seizure, even if they are not searched through. And if used later, they have carried out an illegal search if they captured the conversation without a warrant.

Are you really giving the US government this much credit as to assume they could find so many people ready to kill their own countrymen, yet each one was trusted enough to never say a word about it? Have you stopped to think about how much money a person could make by blowing the whistle on this thing? Greed is an excellent motivator.

You are on a treasure site and have never heard the expression: "Dead men tell no tales?"

 

[Montana Jim]

 

[spartacus53]

Remember Serenity now, insanity later

 

[Smee]

Thanks Jim and Spartacus. Glad I could give you both a giggle. Doesn't it make life a bit more interesting when the government isn't the only one able to spin a yarn?

My statements are more than a bit out there, and not exactly what I believe happened. It just bothers me that when people are fed a line of buffalo scat, some of them will swallow it hook line and sinker.

My answers are no more fact than what we've been told, but what is scarry is that it is no less factual either.

 

[Montana Jim]

Thanks Jim and Spartacus. Glad I could give you both a giggle. Doesn't it make life a bit more interesting when the government isn't the only one able to spin a yarn?

My statements are more than a bit out there, and not exactly what I believe happened. It just bothers me that when people are fed a line of buffalo scat, some of them will swallow it hook line and sinker.

My answers are no more fact than what we've been told, but what is scarry is that it is no less factual either.

Not just you smee... both of you... was this from some old political forum?

 

[Smee]

Thanks Jim and Spartacus. Glad I could give you both a giggle. Doesn't it make life a bit more interesting when the government isn't the only one able to spin a yarn?

My statements are more than a bit out there, and not exactly what I believe happened. It just bothers me that when people are fed a line of buffalo scat, some of them will swallow it hook line and sinker.

My answers are no more fact than what we've been told, but what is scarry is that it is no less factual either.

Not just you smee... both of you... was this from some old political forum?

This was started on another thread, but I could not see hijacking Timberwolf's thread just because someone was fishing for trouble. TW started a good thread on computers, security, and privacy. Someone came in and tried to hijack it with off topic junk, made accusations, so I thought I would oblige them but not on TW's thread.

 

[ClonedSIM]

Thanks Jim and Spartacus. Glad I could give you both a giggle. Doesn't it make life a bit more interesting when the government isn't the only one able to spin a yarn?

My statements are more than a bit out there, and not exactly what I believe happened. It just bothers me that when people are fed a line of buffalo scat, some of them will swallow it hook line and sinker.

My answers are no more fact than what we've been told, but what is scarry is that it is no less factual either.

Not just you smee... both of you... was this from some old political forum?

This was started on another thread, but I could not see hijacking Timberwolf's thread just because someone was fishing for trouble. TW started a good thread on computers, security, and privacy. Someone came in and tried to hijack it with off topic junk, made accusations, so I thought I would oblige them but not on TW's thread.

Yep, and I believe you should tarry back to that original thread and see exactly who it was that drove the thread off-topic. I think you'd be surprised! Or, I suppose it'd be more plausible to think that the government drove it off track?

 

[Smee]

Thanks Jim and Spartacus. Glad I could give you both a giggle. Doesn't it make life a bit more interesting when the government isn't the only one able to spin a yarn?

My statements are more than a bit out there, and not exactly what I believe happened. It just bothers me that when people are fed a line of buffalo scat, some of them will swallow it hook line and sinker.

My answers are no more fact than what we've been told, but what is scarry is that it is no less factual either.

Not just you smee... both of you... was this from some old political forum?

This was started on another thread, but I could not see hijacking Timberwolf's thread just because someone was fishing for trouble. TW started a good thread on computers, security, and privacy. Someone came in and tried to hijack it with off topic junk, made accusations, so I thought I would oblige them but not on TW's thread.

Yep, and I believe you should tarry back to that original thread and see exactly who it was that drove the thread off-topic. I think you'd be surprised! Or, I suppose it'd be more plausible to think that the government drove it off track?

Not surprised at all . . .

1st reply, by Plebah:
http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,264099.msg1876997.html#msg1876997

3rd reply, by Plebah:
http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,264099.msg1877403.html#msg1877403

17th reply, by Plebah:
http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,264099.msg1878623.html#msg1878623

20th reply, by Plebah:
http://forum.treasurenet.com/index.php/topic,264099.msg1878654.html#msg1878654

so, 4 of the first 20 posts were OFF TOPIC --- 20%, one in five.

Actually, there was one more, but it wasn't as interesting as those . . . Surprising isn't it? It wasn't to me, but then again, not much does surprise me.

 

[ClonedSIM]

TW himself was the first to bring up 9/11 - post #19.

Real De Tayopa brought up Sotomayor and terrorism- post #23. He also brought up property ownership in that post.

GoodyGuy brought up suicide - post #38.

It's tough to say, but either Kelly or Lasivian brought us the topic of sex first, but TEXAN connection brought up the issue of sexual intolerance.

Real De Tayopa brought up Obama's health plan - post #79.

Real De Tayopa brought up the Nazi's first - post #120.

Jeffro brought up global warming - post #123.

Real De Tayopa also brought up the issue of homosexuaity for the first time.

Enough of this though.

What I'm going to ask you to do now is go back and call each of these people a troll, because according to your own definition this is exactly what they are.

And I'll be expecting an apology from you for the name calling, as I merely participated in a conversation in which these topics were brought up by someone else.

 

[Smee]

TW himself was the first to bring up 9/11 - post #19.

Real De Tayopa brought up Sotomayor and terrorism- post #23. He also brought up property ownership in that post.

GoodyGuy brought up suicide - post #38.

It's tough to say, but either Kelly or Lasivian brought us the topic of sex first, but TEXAN connection brought up the issue of sexual intolerance.

Real De Tayopa brought up Obama's health plan - post #79.

Real De Tayopa brought up the Nazi's first - post #120.

Jeffro brought up global warming - post #123.

Real De Tayopa also brought up the issue of homosexuaity for the first time.

Enough of this though.

What I'm going to ask you to do now is go back and call each of these people a troll, because according to your own definition this is exactly what they are.

And I'll be expecting an apology from you for the name calling, as I merely participated in a conversation in which these topics were brought up by someone else.

Context. It makes a difference.

Your posts were not meant to further discussion or to be a bit of levity. They were meant to incite argument. Look at what you are doing now.

Please, don't hold your breath, as there are no appologies due or forthcoming. I call em like I see em. Have a nice day.

 

[ClonedSIM]

TW himself was the first to bring up 9/11 - post #19.

Real De Tayopa brought up Sotomayor and terrorism- post #23. He also brought up property ownership in that post.

GoodyGuy brought up suicide - post #38.

It's tough to say, but either Kelly or Lasivian brought us the topic of sex first, but TEXAN connection brought up the issue of sexual intolerance.

Real De Tayopa brought up Obama's health plan - post #79.

Real De Tayopa brought up the Nazi's first - post #120.

Jeffro brought up global warming - post #123.

Real De Tayopa also brought up the issue of homosexuaity for the first time.

Enough of this though.

What I'm going to ask you to do now is go back and call each of these people a troll, because according to your own definition this is exactly what they are.

And I'll be expecting an apology from you for the name calling, as I merely participated in a conversation in which these topics were brought up by someone else.

Context. It makes a difference.

Your posts were not meant to further discussion or to be a bit of levity. They were meant to incite argument. Look at what you are doing now.

Please, don't hold your breath, as there are no appologies due or forthcoming. I call em like I see em. Have a nice day.

someone who intentionally posts controversial or contrary messages in an on-line community such as an on-line discussion forum with the intention of baiting users into an argumentative response.

Each of the above people intentionally posted their messages containing controversial material. You don't know why they posted this material anymore than I do, but since you seem to put so much stake in what you see, then how about this? You responded to almost every one of my posts. If my posts weren't meant to further the discussion, how is it they did just that?

Let's be honest for a moment. You only call me a troll because I disagree with you. A very juvenile view, to be fair. So, allow me to respond in a way you may understand.

"I'm rubber and you're glue....."

 

[EDDE]

to stay on topic

 

[ClonedSIM]

to stay on topic

4 legs good, 2 legs bad!!