NationStates Jolt Archive

I loved it when she slammed Bob Kerrey's words about Saddam back in his liberal face. That Ben Venista (check my sp) was a real jerk. I was watching it in school. My liberal AP US History teacher even thought he was being a jerk.

I think she did well.

I think she did the best she could considering they really messed up and she was lying through her teeth.........and thats a lot harder with a gap like that you know.

bump and tell me a reason why you think she lied. She was more truthful than that Clarke moron.

bump and tell me a reason why you think she lied. She was more truthful than that Clarke moron.

I think there is another thread for that.......I thought the fact that they couldnt reinforce the WTC in the 7 months leading up to 9/11 because its so hard to do that kind of thing but it got done immediately after 9/11 shows she may have been being deceptive

4

I would have done the same thing in the face of some of those left-wing critics who kept drilling her trying to get her to slip up and say something out of context.

As for the August 6th document, they are working on getting it publicly declassified. but if I am correct, it is already declassified in private.

Either way, it is not easy to get stuff like that declassified. Look how hard it was just to get Condy to testify.

bump and tell me a reason why you think she lied. She was more truthful than that Clarke moron.

I think there is another thread for that.......I thought the fact that they couldnt reinforce the WTC in the 7 months leading up to 9/11 because its so hard to do that kind of thing but it got done immediately after 9/11 shows she may have been being deceptive

LOL. What do you mean by reinforce? do you mean to say they knew the WTC was a target when no methods, targets, or cities, let alone countries were named, just intercepts saying an event will happen. The odds of it being WTC were slim to none. Besides if we were to fortify targets, the libs would bash Bush calling him a militaristic Ronald Reagan who is fortifying our country for false threats and making a police state. What about Clinton's 8 years?

She kept her cool throughout the whole thing. Had some smart come-backs and snapped back when they asked abnoxiously and with some level of disrespect.

I can see why some people would be pushing her to run for the Republican candidacy in 2008. I could see her run, except for the fact that Mr.Giuliani seems much more interested.

bump and tell me a reason why you think she lied. She was more truthful than that Clarke moron.

I think there is another thread for that.......I thought the fact that they couldnt reinforce the WTC in the 7 months leading up to 9/11 because its so hard to do that kind of thing but it got done immediately after 9/11 shows she may have been being deceptive

LOL. What do you mean by reinforce? do you mean to say they knew the WTC was a target when no methods, targets, or cities, let alone countries were named, just intercepts saying an event will happen. The odds of it being WTC were slim to none. Besides if we were to fortify targets, the libs would bash Bush calling him a militaristic Ronald Reagan who is fortifying our country for false threats and making a police state. What about Clinton's 8 years?

Reinforcement for our most important buildings should have been a top priority because though a specific target wasnt named need we forget the whole "Osama bin laden is determined to attack the united states thing" that the president received and disregarded.

bump and tell me a reason why you think she lied. She was more truthful than that Clarke moron.

I think there is another thread for that.......I thought the fact that they couldnt reinforce the WTC in the 7 months leading up to 9/11 because its so hard to do that kind of thing but it got done immediately after 9/11 shows she may have been being deceptive

LOL. What do you mean by reinforce? do you mean to say they knew the WTC was a target when no methods, targets, or cities, let alone countries were named, just intercepts saying an event will happen. The odds of it being WTC were slim to none. Besides if we were to fortify targets, the libs would bash Bush calling him a militaristic Ronald Reagan who is fortifying our country for false threats and making a police state. What about Clinton's 8 years?

Reinforcement for our most important buildings should have been a top priority because though a specific target wasnt named need we forget the whole "Osama bin laden is determined to attack the united states thing" that the president received and disregarded.Oh come on, you know if we bumped up security without precedent people would be more freaked out than they were when the patriot act was initiated.

bump and tell me a reason why you think she lied. She was more truthful than that Clarke moron.

I think there is another thread for that.......I thought the fact that they couldnt reinforce the WTC in the 7 months leading up to 9/11 because its so hard to do that kind of thing but it got done immediately after 9/11 shows she may have been being deceptive

LOL. What do you mean by reinforce? do you mean to say they knew the WTC was a target when no methods, targets, or cities, let alone countries were named, just intercepts saying an event will happen. The odds of it being WTC were slim to none. Besides if we were to fortify targets, the libs would bash Bush calling him a militaristic Ronald Reagan who is fortifying our country for false threats and making a police state. What about Clinton's 8 years?

Reinforcement for our most important buildings should have been a top priority because though a specific target wasnt named need we forget the whole "Osama bin laden is determined to attack the united states thing" that the president received and disregarded.

ROFL! :lol: OK, there are thousands of targets, which ones do you reinforce and how? Are you going to put camoflage paint on the WTC? THat document wasn't even with current info, it just pointed out OBL's history and goals. There were no threats good enough to take action.

I pray you can't vote yet.

Ok people might be paranoid but maybe they wouldnt be dead....

Ok people might be paranoid but maybe they wouldnt be dead....yeah, you tell that to the half of the united states that already think Bush is evil for enacting anti-terrorism policies AFTER 9/11.

Ok people might be paranoid but maybe they wouldnt be dead....

If Bush did that Sept. 10th or earliet, you would call him a nut and condemn him as the next Stalin.

bump and tell me a reason why you think she lied. She was more truthful than that Clarke moron.

I think there is another thread for that.......I thought the fact that they couldnt reinforce the WTC in the 7 months leading up to 9/11 because its so hard to do that kind of thing but it got done immediately after 9/11 shows she may have been being deceptive

LOL. What do you mean by reinforce? do you mean to say they knew the WTC was a target when no methods, targets, or cities, let alone countries were named, just intercepts saying an event will happen. The odds of it being WTC were slim to none. Besides if we were to fortify targets, the libs would bash Bush calling him a militaristic Ronald Reagan who is fortifying our country for false threats and making a police state. What about Clinton's 8 years?

Reinforcement for our most important buildings should have been a top priority because though a specific target wasnt named need we forget the whole "Osama bin laden is determined to attack the united states thing" that the president received and disregarded.

ROFL! :lol: OK, there are thousands of targets, which ones do you reinforce and how? Are you going to put camoflage paint on the WTC? THat document wasn't even with current info, it just pointed out OBL's history and goals. There were no threats good enough to take action.

I pray you can't vote yet.


Yes there is also a Hooters near my house maybe thats where theyll bomb........Im saying reinforcements shouldve been put in place for the places of the utmost importance.....and I believe COndi said she was seeking to have the WTC reinforced but apparently it takes a long time...I think thats a lie and I also think that the nature of the threat made it very good sense it went straight to the top of their daily briefing...and I hope you cant vote but I doubt thats the reality

bump and tell me a reason why you think she lied. She was more truthful than that Clarke moron.

I think there is another thread for that.......I thought the fact that they couldnt reinforce the WTC in the 7 months leading up to 9/11 because its so hard to do that kind of thing but it got done immediately after 9/11 shows she may have been being deceptive

LOL. What do you mean by reinforce? do you mean to say they knew the WTC was a target when no methods, targets, or cities, let alone countries were named, just intercepts saying an event will happen. The odds of it being WTC were slim to none. Besides if we were to fortify targets, the libs would bash Bush calling him a militaristic Ronald Reagan who is fortifying our country for false threats and making a police state. What about Clinton's 8 years?

Reinforcement for our most important buildings should have been a top priority because though a specific target wasnt named need we forget the whole "Osama bin laden is determined to attack the united states thing" that the president received and disregarded.

ROFL! :lol: OK, there are thousands of targets, which ones do you reinforce and how? Are you going to put camoflage paint on the WTC? THat document wasn't even with current info, it just pointed out OBL's history and goals. There were no threats good enough to take action.

I pray you can't vote yet.


Yes there is also a Hooters near my house maybe thats where theyll bomb........Im saying reinforcements shouldve been put in place for the places of the utmost importance.....and I believe COndi said she was seeking to have the WTC reinforced but apparently it takes a long time...I think thats a lie and I also think that the nature of the threat made it very good sense it went straight to the top of their daily briefing...and I hope you cant vote but I doubt thats the reality

The only way that it is feasable to reinforce buildings is vehicle barriers to prevent another Ok. City. Tell me, will a concrete car barrier on the ground floor stop a 767-300ER at a speed of 450 knots hitting the 80th floor?

Besides, read "Debt of Honor" and learn what happens if a SAM is launched at an incoming airliner, try virtually nothing since it will just destroy an engine and not work fast enough to stop an airliner bearing down on you

OK, Aliedel, Here's the deal

before 9/11, we got a tip. Bin Laden will attack using planes. That's basically it. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? Come on, if you suddenly put armed guards on every flight and stalk every jetliner with an F-16 UNPRECEDENTED, Everyone would think Bush was a wacko.

Damned if he does, Damned if he doesnt. That is the stupidest policy ever, but you guys keep enforcing it.

OK, Aliedel, Here's the deal

before 9/11, we got a tip. Bin Laden will attack using planes. That's basically it. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? Come on, if you suddenly put armed guards on every flight and stalk every jetliner with an F-16 UNPRECEDENTED, Everyone would think Bush was a wacko.

Damned if he does, Damned if he doesnt. That is the stupidest policy ever, but you guys keep enforcing it.


Maybe I'm crazy but I think he shouldve released that info and then we couldve decided what we were willing to do......I doubt that would cause many suicides

Define your method of reinforcing and how you pick the right buildings when OBL's threat was vague and could be thousands of possibilities (probably millions)

OK, Aliedel, Here's the deal

before 9/11, we got a tip. Bin Laden will attack using planes. That's basically it. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? Come on, if you suddenly put armed guards on every flight and stalk every jetliner with an F-16 UNPRECEDENTED, Everyone would think Bush was a wacko.

Damned if he does, Damned if he doesnt. That is the stupidest policy ever, but you guys keep enforcing it.


Maybe I'm crazy but I think he shouldve released that info and then we couldve decided what we were willing to do......I doubt that would cause many suicidesYes, that's it:

"Attention america, stay away from any big buildings, stadiums, or festivals for the next 2 months!"

yeah right.

*pictures AA guns set up in parks and on rooftops :P*

No one would believe it, the info was too vague to do anything? Why didn't Clinton do anything, the threats on using planes came in 1998.

respond to this Aliedel:
The only way that it is feasable to reinforce buildings is vehicle barriers to prevent another Ok. City. Tell me, will a concrete car barrier on the ground floor stop a 767-300ER at a speed of 450 knots hitting the 80th floor?

Besides, read "Debt of Honor" and learn what happens if a SAM is launched at an incoming airliner, try virtually nothing since it will just destroy an engine and not work fast enough to stop an airliner bearing down on you

Define your method of reinforcing and how you pick the right buildings when OBL's threat was vague and could be thousands of possibilities (probably millions)


Im no architect by their are methods of improving a 20 year old building.....I think reinforcement of the WTC Lincoln Memorial Whate House Penatagon.....I could probably narrow it down to about 20 VIB (very important buildings)

How would reinforcing the structure be done without completely removing the steel structure, thus tearing down the bulding? Besides, it wasn't the plane impacts that destroyed the buildings, but the fires fuelded by jet fuel melting the steel causing a compound runaway pancake collapse of each floor coming on the one below it. There was no method. The building even had fireproofing on the steel.

Aliedel: There is no way to stop a 300,000 lb plane from penetrating your building if its on a colision course at 400 mph.

Aliedel: There is no way to stop a 300,000 lb plane from penetrating your building if its on a colision course at 400 mph.

try over 450 knots or 500 mph. And put in a full load of jet fuel to fuel a fire and melt steel.

Without the fire, the buildings would survive the impact. But, even with out an impact a fire at that temperature would melt the steel. This is simple metallurgy

LOL Aliedel... how many people were and still are opposed to going in after WMDs we didn't find yet? What do you think would have happened if we had our crosshairs painted on every airplane in america waiting for one of them to slip up?

LOL Aliedel... how many people were and still are opposed to going in after WMDs we didn't find yet? What do you think would have happened if we had our crosshairs painted on every airplane in america waiting for one of them to slip up?

This is honestly getting pathetic, if Adiela is allowed to vote, our country is then surely doomed.

LOL Aliedel... how many people were and still are opposed to going in after WMDs we didn't find yet? What do you think would have happened if we had our crosshairs painted on every airplane in america waiting for one of them to slip up?

I'm not saying that......I never said anything like this I'm just assuming these buildings could be reinforced and were after 9/11 by the info provided by Condi

Here's a list of Rice's innacuracies/lies from her testimony:

Planes as Weapons

CLAIM: "I do not remember any reports to us, a kind of strategic warning, that planes might be used as weapons." [responding to Kean]

FACT: Condoleezza Rice was the top National Security official with President Bush at the July 2001 G-8 summit in Genoa. There, "U.S. officials were warned that Islamic terrorists might attempt to crash an airliner" into the summit, prompting officials to "close the airspace over Genoa and station antiaircraft guns at the city's airport." [Sources: Los Angeles Times, 9/27/01 (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-092701genoa.story); White House release, 7/22/01 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/07/20010722-7.html)]

CLAIM: "I was certainly not aware of [intelligence reports about planes as missiles] at the time that I spoke" in 2002. [responding to Kean]

FACT: While Rice may not have been aware of the 12 separate and explicit warnings about terrorists using planes as weapons when she made her denial in 2002, she did know about them when she wrote her March 22, 2004 Washington Post op-ed. In that piece, she once again repeated the claim there was no indication "that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles." [Source: Washington Post, 3/22/04 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13881-2004Mar21.html)]

August 6 PDB

CLAIM: There was "nothing about the threat of attack in the U.S." in the Presidential Daily Briefing the President received on August 6th. [responding to Ben Veniste]

FACT: Rice herself confirmed that "the title [of the PDB] was, 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.'" [Source: Condoleezza Rice, 4/8/04 (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/politics/08RICE-TEXT.html?pagewanted=print&position=)]

Domestic Threat

CLAIM: "One of the problems was there was really nothing that look like was going to happen inside the United States...Almost all of the reports focused on al-Qaida activities outside the United States, especially in the Middle East and North Africa...We did not have...threat information that was in any way specific enough to suggest something was coming in the United States." [responding to Gorelick]

FACT: Page 204 of the Joint Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 noted that "In May 2001, the intelligence community obtained a report that Bin Laden supporters were planning to infiltrate the United States" to "carry out a terrorist operation using high explosives." The report "was included in an intelligence report for senior government officials in August [2001]." In the same month, the Pentagon "acquired and shared with other elements of the Intelligence Community information suggesting that seven persons associated with Bin Laden had departed various locations for Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States." [Sources: Joint Congressional Report, 12/02 (http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/24jul20031400/www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/recommendations.pdf)]

CLAIM: "If we had known an attack was coming against the United States...we would have moved heaven and earth to stop it." [responding to Roemer]

FACT: Rice admits that she was told that "an attack was coming." She said, "Let me read you some of the actual chatter that was picked up in that spring and summer: Unbelievable news coming in weeks, said one. Big event -- there will be a very, very, very, very big uproar. There will be attacks in the near future." [Source: Condoleezza Rice, 4/8/04]

Cheney Counterterrorism Task Force

CLAIM: "The Vice President was, a little later in, I think, in May, tasked by the President to put together a group to look at all of the recommendations that had been made about domestic preparedness and all of the questions associated with that." [responding to Fielding]

FACT: The Vice President's task force never once convened a meeting. In the same time period, the Vice President convened at least 10 meetings of his energy task force, and six meetings with Enron executives. [Source: Washington Post, 1/20/02 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A8734-2002Jan19?language=printer); GAO Report, 8/03 (http://www.house.gov/reform/min/pdfs_108/pdf_inves/pdf_energy_cheney_gao_aug_2003_rep.pdf)]

Principals Meetings

CLAIM: "The CSG (Counterterrorism Security Group) was made up of not junior people, but the top level of counterterrorism experts. Now, they were in contact with their principals." [responding to Fielding]

FACT: "Many of the other people at the CSG-level, and the people who were brought to the table from the domestic agencies, were not telling their principals. Secretary Mineta, the secretary of transportation, had no idea of the threat. The administrator of the FAA, responsible for security on our airlines, had no idea." [Source: 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick, 4/8/04 (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/politics/08RICE-TEXT.html?pagewanted=print&position=)]

Previous Administration

CLAIM: "The decision that we made was to, first of all, have no drop-off in what the Clinton administration was doing, because clearly they had done a lot of work to deal with this very important priority." [responding to Kean]

FACT: Internal government documents show that while the Clinton Administration officially prioritized counterterrorism as a "Tier One" priority, but when the Bush Administration took office, top officials downgraded counterterrorism. As the Washington Post reported, these documents show that before Sept. 11 the Bush Administration "did not give terrorism top billing." Rice admitted that "we decided to take a different track" than the Clinton Administration in protecting America. [Source: Internal government documents, 1998-2001 (http://www.americanprogress.org/site/lookup.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=39039); Washington Post, 3/22/04 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13541-2004Mar21.html); Rice testimony, 4/8/04 (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/politics/08RICE-TEXT.html?pagewanted=print&position=)]

FBI

CLAIM: The Bush Administration has been committed to the "transformation of the FBI into an agency dedicated to fighting terror." [responding to Kean]

FACT: Before 9/11, Attorney General John Ashcroft de-emphasized counterterrorism at the FBI, in favor of more traditional law enforcement. And according to the Washington Post, "in the early days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Bush White House cut by nearly two-thirds an emergency request for counterterrorism funds by the FBI, an internal administration budget document shows." And according to a new report by the Congressional Research Service, "numerous confidential law enforcement and intelligence sources who challenge the FBI's claim that it has successfully retooled itself to gather critical intelligence on terrorists as well as fight crime." [Source: Washington Post, 3/22/04 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A13541-2004Mar21?language=printer); Congressional Quarterly, 4/6/04]

CLAIM: "The FBI issued at least three nationwide warnings to federal, state and law enforcement agencies and specifically stated that, although the vast majority of the information indicated overseas targets, attacks against the homeland could not be ruled out. The FBI tasked all 56 of its U.S. field offices to increase surveillance of known suspects of terrorists and to reach out to known informants who might have information on terrorist activities." [responding to Gorelick]

FACT: The warnings are "feckless. They don't tell anybody anything. They don't bring anyone to battle stations." [Source: 9/11 Commissioner Jamie Gorelick, 4/8/04 (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/08/politics/08RICE-TEXT.html?pagewanted=print&position=)]

Homeland Security

CLAIM: "I think that having a Homeland Security Department that can bring together the FAA and the INS and Customs and all of the various agencies is a very important step." [responding to Hamilton]

FACT: The White House vehemently opposed the creation of the Department of Homeland security. Its opposition to the concept delayed the creation of the department by months.

CLAIM: "We have created a threat terrorism information center, the TTIC, which does bring together all of the sources of information from all of the intelligence agencies -- the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security and the INS and the CIA and the DIA -- so that there's one place where all of this is coming together." [responding to Fielding]

FACT: "Knowledgeable sources complain that the president's new Terrorist Threat Integration Center, which reports to CIA Director George Tenet rather than to Ridge, has created more of a moat than a bridge. The ability to spot the nation's weakest points was going to make Homeland Security different, recalled one person involved in the decision to set up TTIC. But now, the person said, 'that whole effort has been gutted by the White House creation of TTIC, [which] has served little more than to give the appearance of progress.'" [Source: National Journal, 3/6/04]
IRAQ-9/11

CLAIM: "There was a discussion of Iraq. I think it was raised by Don Rumsfeld. It was pressed a bit by Paul Wolfowitz."

FACT: Rice's statement confirms previous proof that the Administration was focusing on Iraq immediately after 9/11, despite having no proof that Iraq was involved in the attack. Rice's statement also contradicts her previous denials in which she claimed "Iraq was to the side" immediately after 9/11. She made this denial despite the President signing "a 2-and-a-half-page document marked 'TOP SECRET'" six days after 9/11 that "directed the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq." [Source: Condoleezza Rice, 3/22/04, 3/22/04 (http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0403/22/ltm.04.html); Washington Post, 1/12/03 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A43909-2003Jan11?language=printer)]

CLAIM: "Given that this was a global war on terror, should we look not just at Afghanistan but should we look at doing something against Iraq?"

FACT: The Administration has not produced one shred of evidence that Iraq had an operational relationship with Al Qaeda, or that Iraq had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks on America. In fact, a U.S. Army War College report said that the war in Iraq has been a diversion that has drained key resources from the more imminent War on Terror. Just this week, USA Today reported that "in 2002, troops from the 5th Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq." Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) confirmed this, noting in February of 2002, a senior military commander told him "We are moving military and intelligence personnel and resources out of Afghanistan to get ready for a future war in Iraq." [Sources: CNN, 1/13/04 (http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0401/13/acd.00.html); USA Today, 3/28/04 (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-03-28-troop-shifts_x.htm); Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL), 3/26/04 (http://www.cfr.org/pub6905/gerald_seib/senator_bob_graham_remarks_to_the_council_on_foreign_relations.php)]

War on Terror

CLAIM: After 9/11, "the President put states on notice if they were sponsoring terrorists."

FACT: The President continues to say Saudi Arabia is "our friend" despite their potential ties to terrorists. As the LA Times reported, "the 27 classified pages of a congressional report about Sept. 11 depict a Saudi government that not only provided significant money and aid to the suicide hijackers but also allowed potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to flow to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups through suspect charities and other fronts." Just this week, Newsweek reported "within weeks of the September 11 terror attacks, security officers at the Fleet National Bank in Boston had identified 'suspicious' wire transfers from the Saudi Embassy in Washington that eventually led to the discovery of an active Al Qaeda 'sleeper cell' that may have been planning follow-up attacks inside the United States." [Source: LA Times, 8/2/03 (http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/080303A.shtml); CNN, 11/23/02 (http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/11/23/saudi.fbi.911/); Newsweek, 4/7/04 (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4687305/)]

Condy Addressed the only possible way even remotely prvent 9/11:

Finish development of the armed predator UCAV, and send a bunch of them into Afghanistan looking for Osama. Zero Casualties on our side that way.

LOL Aliedel... how many people were and still are opposed to going in after WMDs we didn't find yet? What do you think would have happened if we had our crosshairs painted on every airplane in america waiting for one of them to slip up?

I'm not saying that......I never said anything like this I'm just assuming these buildings could be reinforced and were after 9/11 by the info provided by Condi

How would reinforcement stop a jetliner with a full load of fuel, when all that is available is stuff to stop truck bombs, which WTC had.

This is honestly getting pathetic, if Adiela is allowed to vote, our country is then surely doomed.

Ah yes attacking my character is going to help your argument.....I personally don't care.

How did she do?

She didn't, that's the point, nobody has been able to prove why Sept. 11th was destined to happen, only why none of them are to blame for it.

Adiel, respond to my numerous points on how reinforcement of structure wouldn't work, SAMs wouldn't work, and other defenses would fail.

This is honestly getting pathetic, if Adiela is allowed to vote, our country is then surely doomed.

Ah yes attacking my character is going to help your argument.....I personally don't care.LOL don't worry, we do this to all liberals :)

How did she do?

She didn't, that's the point, nobody has been able to prove why Sept. 11th was destined to happen, only why none of them are to blame for it.Then why the eff isn't the 9/11 commission interrogating the Bin Laden administration?

This is honestly getting pathetic, if Adiela is allowed to vote, our country is then surely doomed.

Ah yes attacking my character is going to help your argument.....I personally don't care.LOL don't worry, we do this to all liberals :)



I remember you getting ganged up on in the other thread so thats help me keep going

Adiel, respond to my numerous points on how reinforcement of structure wouldn't work, SAMs wouldn't work, and other defenses would fail.

Then why were they attempting it if it simply wont help?

aliedel, respond to my previous posts, or have I beaten you :lol:

Adiel, respond to my numerous points on how reinforcement of structure wouldn't work, SAMs wouldn't work, and other defenses would fail.

Then why were they attempting it if it simply wont help?

The only one that is feasable besides fire proofing which was done during construction was vehicle barriers and those do help.

But, it is for you to tell me how to feasably stop an aircraft. After all you say it can prevent 9-11. Tell me how

aliedel, respond to my previous posts, or have I beaten you :lol:


You have like 50 I cant reply to all those I only have 3 handsand I dont care if you declare yourself the winner or if you stick your fingers in your ears I'm gonna do this till I get bored and its getting near that time.

MOst of my posts are the same point reposted when you ignored it

MOst of my posts are the same point reposted when you ignored it

Ive been replying to your posts as much as possible and I'm tired of focusing on this one part of the issue and to tell you the truth I wasnt even able to see the entire thing so I'm done think of me what you will.

waiting for your response on how it is possible

MOst of my posts are the same point reposted when you ignored it

Ive been replying to your posts as much as possible and I'm tired of focusing on this one part of the issue and to tell you the truth I wasnt even able to see the entire thing so I'm done think of me what you will.

I want to ask straight out, how would you pick what buildings to reinforce and how would you stop an airliner and prevent the fires

waiting for your response on how it is possible

I just said I dont know.....I'm going on what Condi said ok thats it I'm not an architect I know nothing of it and I really am finished.

waiting for your response on how it is possible

I just said I dont know.....I'm going on what Condi said ok thats it I'm not an architect I know nothing of it and I really am finished.

Condi never said anything about reinforcment of buildings. It is impossible

She was brilliant. The woman is a genius. She speaks Russian fluently (I mean absolutely perfectly) and she's a concert-level pianist. And she was damn good during the Inquisition, errr, I mean, the questioning. Very good.

This is honestly getting pathetic, if Adiela is allowed to vote, our country is then surely doomed.
You don't believe in democracy?

This is honestly getting pathetic, if Adiela is allowed to vote, our country is then surely doomed.
You don't believe in democracy?

I believe in it and am scared when I see who is voting.