9/11 MORONIC JET FUEL ARGUMENT

I missed this when it was first posted on YOUTUBE.

About that "Them Twin Towers Wuz Deliberately Downed By The Gobmint, cause Jet Fuel Can't Melt Steel Beams!" set of theories.

Someone should have posted this little demonstration before, right?

Well, someone did. Some of us (me) just never heard about this one before.  But we're hearing about it now:




For the undying 9/11 MORONIC JET FUEL ARGUMENT - YouTube:

Published on Dec 15, 2015 Why don't these dumb things die? "For any licensing requests please contact licensing@break.com” Subscribe For More Blacksmithing Goodness and follow us on Facebook at "Purgatory Ironworks"!

Any questions?

No?

Good!

'Will you apologize to Muslims you've killed?': Obama's speech heckled - YouTube

'Will you apologize to Muslims you've killed?': Obama's speech heckled - YouTube:

Published on May 24, 2013 Obama's ironclad way of battling terrorists sparked heated debate during his speech in Washington. At one point the president was stopped in his tracks by an angry audience member. RT's Ivor Crotty outlined what made the woman break Obama's script.

 I do have a couple of things to say about this.

(1) "... Obama's ironclad way of battling terrorists ..." ?   Really?   This is a Russian describing Obama's method of dealing with anything other than his own Obama-socialist programs as "Ironclad"?  One wonders what he thought of Margaret Thatcher, or Ronald Reagan.

(2) The woman (audience member protester/heckler) asks if Obama is going to apologize for the Muslims he has killed.   Consider the worldwide distribution of videos of Muslims dancing in the streets in hysteric joy on 9/11 ... when Muslims killed thousands of Americans.  If this is what they consider an "apology", I for one am certainly willing to do the Wooley-Bully in the main street of my small town to show my own contrition.


(Not to say that there weren't sufficient American "Useful Idiots" fully willing to support that point of view)

Oh, and as for the question of "compensation"?  I'm amazed that Obama didn't offer "Forty Acres And A Mule".    This is one of those occasions when supreme irony would have been supremely satisfying.

PS:  it's not as if we're without emotion on this issue:



.... lest we forget ...

History Rewrites: Is this how we will see yesterday ... tomorrow?

H/T: Mark the Rock

Who is "Seal Team 6"?

- WWW.THEDAILY.COM

I don't know, you don't know, and I'm not completely convinced that the folks who produced this article / "app" really know who or what Seal Team 6 is, either.

But I HAVE read one of Richard Marcinko's books. (He has published over a dozen books, most of them in the "Rogue Warrior" series. Most, if not all of them, are available at Amazon.com.)

And I have at my desk my dog-eared copy of "Lone Survivor: The Eyewitness Account of Operation Redwing and The Lost Heroes of Seal Team 10", by Marcus Luttrell (with Patrick Robinson).

About half of that book addresses the selection and training for SEAL team acceptance. The training and winnowing-out process described there provides some small amount of understanding about what sort of man can call himself a Navy Seal.

And I am very impressed all over again, every time I reread Luttrell's fascinating, dramatic ... saddening account of the extended firefight which lead to the virtual elimination of that select group of warriors.

Getting back to "SEAL TEAM 6"; The Daily has also published an article which it says describes "The Raid". Among other information, the article refutes earlier reports to the effect that "... one of bin Laden's wives was killed ..." during the firefight.

(For further information about the background of involved agencies, read "The Secret Team that Killed bin Laden", from National Journal. H/T Michael Bane; "Who Says Double Taps are Old School?" May 02 2011)

Providing further background information, USA TODAY reported that "Obama laughed at a bin Laden joke" the night before the raid, at the White House Correspondents' Dinner. It's an interesting footnote, demonstrating that this raid ... the planning for which began last February ... had actually been delayed for one day. We can only imaging that this was an odd moment in the President's career, when he was forced by circumstances (and the need to maintain operational security) to publically dissemble in reaction to the joke about bin Laden hosting "... a daily program on CSPAN between Four and Five (pm) ..."

We must remember to give President Osama Obama credit for his great leadership: he has proven once again that he can dissemble with the best of them.

And finally ....

FROM ONE DEAD MAN TO ANOTHER:



Lyrics:

Steve walks warily down the street
With the brim pulled way down low
Ain't no sound but the sound of his feet
Machine guns ready to go

Are you ready, hey, are you ready for this
Are you hangin' on the edge of your seat
Out of the doorway the bullets rip
To the sound of the beat - yeah

Another one bites the dust
Another one bites the dust
And another one gone and another one gone
Another one bites the dust, eh
Hey, I'm gonna get you too
Another one bites the dust

Dick ... couldn't have said it better.

Geronimo-E KIA

AND .... America Reacts:


AND ... Apparently Rush Limbough isn't the only 'talker' who can't keep track of the difference between "Osama" and "Obama" when discussing the political assassination



(H/T: "Max Redline")

bin Laden dead!

Obama: Al-Qaida head bin Laden dead | General Headlines | Comcast.net: "WASHINGTON — Osama bin Laden, the glowering mastermind behind the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks that killed thousands of Americans, was slain in his luxury hideout in Pakistan early Monday in a firefight with U.S. forces, ending a manhunt that spanned a frustrating decade.

'Justice has been done,' President Barack Obama said in a dramatic announcement at the White House.

A jubilant crowd of thousands gathered outside the White House as word spread of bin Laden's death. Hundreds more sang and waved American flags at Ground Zero in New York — where the twin towers that once stood as symbols of American economic power were brought down by bin Laden's hijackers 10 years ago."

A Mosque at Ground Zero?

'10,000' throng to stop Ground Zero mosque

"Only in New York City is this possible," Daisy Khan, executive director of the American Society for Muslim Advancement, or ASMA, told the magazine. Khan is the wife of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, founder of ASMA.

Americans all over the country are rallying to stop the construction of a Muslim Mosque at "Ground Zero"; actually on currently unused grounds near to the Twin Towers which were destroyed by terrorist attacks on American infrastructure during the terrible attacks of September 11, 2001.

Meanwhile, the man who proposed this project has been quoted as saying: "I don't believe in religious dialogue". PJTV auditing his American and 'other' statements has found "extraordinary contradictions between what he says in English and what he says in Arabic..."

Many New Yorkers, and most friends and family of 911 victims, have attended public meetings to discuss the proposal.

The proposal was actually entered sometime before 911, and the prospect has been 'on hold' until just recently.
Here is a YouTube video describing some of the commentary regarding the proposed construction:

Although NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg seems to be in favor of the proposal (latest word is that the city council has approved the project 29-1), many people suspect that the motivation is more than to approve a previously proposed project. Some believer that the construction of a Mosque on Ground Zero would represent the Muslim religion placing it's foot on the neck of a conquered foe. ("It's a stab in the eye of America.")
There may be some justification for this interpretation, as suggested by this PJTV video:

It's difficult to know what's "right", when one considers the anguish of 1911 families versus the lack of understanding of what any gesture may mean from the perspective of an Islamic fundamentalist.

Some think that it would be a gesture to reassure the Muslim populations of the world that we do not hold 'them' personally responsible for the 1911 tragedy.

Others believe that it would be an insult ... to the victims, to the American People as a whole ... and also an acknowledgement that Islam has, by the American permission, forced America to bow in dimmitude to the Islamic Movement.'

And one wonders whether the primary imperitive is for the American People to thus acknowledge that it holds Muslim followers ultimately blameless, or to allow Islamic Terrorists to boast of their conquest over The Great Satan.

Should this decision be left to the City Council of New York City?

Or is it a decision that all of America should share?

Having trouble deciding which should be the priority? Perhaps it would help to have more information about what this Mosque conduction would mean to the Islamic Society. This 11-minute PJTV interview with Walid Shoebat, a former Islamic Terrorist, may help to to understand the issues.

I found it helpful:

TSA "Reconfirms" Commitment to FFDO Program

ALPA, Intl. FastRead
(Please click on the above link to read the entire statement in its original form.)

The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), in a response to an editorial from the Washington Times, confirms that the dera; Flight Deck Officers program (FFDO), which allows airline pilots to be armed in order to defend against aggressive take-overs of civilian airline planes, is NOT being terminated by de-funding the program. Rather, the program is expected to expand.

This is in stark contrast to not only the WaTimes editorial, but also to early reports that the United States Federal Government has historically made it exceptionally difficult for qualified Flight Deck Officers to take advantage of the opportunity to qualify for the program OR to acquire the training.

During this initial report on Cogito Ergo Geek ("Guns On A Plane"), we noted the difference between an "Editorial" and a news report. We also noted that this "opinion" is "... long on opinion and short on facts."

Historically, Liberal MSM sources have blurred the difference between "News" and "Editorializing". In this specific instance, the (conservative) Washington Times has fallen into the same editorial trap, to its supposed embarrassment.


We're not convinced that this 'expansion' of the program is the original intend of the government; it's possible that the clarification was the direct result of the initial outrage of those writers who took the Times Editorial to be literal fact.

Yes, I am suggesting that the intentions of the Federal Government have been changed in response to public outcry.

However, there is no evidence currently available to support this presumption, so I don't propose it as a valid 'conspiracy theory'.

On the other hand, just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get me.

Guns on a plane

Washington Times - EDITORIAL: Guns on a plane

After the September 11 attacks, commercial airline pilots were allowed to carry guns if they completed a federal-safety program. No longer would unarmed pilots be defenseless as remorseless hijackers seized control of aircraft and rammed them into buildings.

Now President Obama is quietly ending the federal firearms program, risking public safety on airlines in the name of an anti-gun ideology.

The Obama administration this past week diverted some $2 million from the pilot training program to hire more supervisory staff, who will engage in field inspections of pilots.

This looks like completely unnecessary harassment of the pilots....

A recent Washington Times Editorial suggests that President Obama's might be quietly taking steps to undermine the FFDO (Federal Filght Deck Officer) plan which allows some airline pilots to take special training to qualify them to carry firearms on the Flight Deck of airplanes, to defend the flight crew and passengers from Terrorist attempts to take over control of in-flight airplanes. (See: Twin Towers, Penatagon, Pennsylvania, 9/11.)

The article ... and please note that this is an EDITIORIAL, which means it is someone's interpretation and extrapolation of minimal FACTS ... describes the othewise-unsupported conclusion that this is a subtle blow at teh FFDO program.

Well, maybe it is. We note in passing that annual funding for this program is on the order of $15 million, and it's difficult to see where the money is being spent since anecdotal evidence is that pilots pay for their training, on their own time. What has the money been spent on so far?

The assertion that funding is being diverted "... to hire more supervisory staff, who will engage in field inspections of pilots." Our interpretation is that the Obama Administration is adding one more layer of bureaucracy to a program which is already under-funded, unsupported (by Congress, and other layers of the Federal government) and is the "Red Headed Stepchild" of 9/11.

Still, this ... "editorial" ... is long on opinion and short on facts. It's either a "good catch" by investigative reporters, or an unsupportable logical extention proposed by an Editor with an axe to grind against the incumbent administration and it's carefully hidden agenda vis a vis Gun Control.

Doesn't that about summarize the alternatives?

I have a lot more to say on this subject, but rather than to bore you with my personal interpretation I'll just provide the link and allow you to make up your own minds.

A thorough reading of the comments attached to this post will serve to acquaint you with the various 'positions', in response to the article. Although there are a few commentors who seem to be completely Clue-less about the concept of "Concealed Carry", both sides make pertinent points.
'
Usually, the discussion focuses (Rightly, I think) on whether the ruling is significant; and if it is, what does that mean?

I'm not as entirely clueless as I probably sound, but this uncertainty about the factual basis of the EDITORIAL is regretable. I would wish that the author had made a more thorough search on the background, the effect of the ruling, and the consequences. Does this mean that fewer FFDO's will be certified to carry a weapon on the flight deck of commercial airplanes? And what about the efficiency of U.S. Marshals riding (armed) on no more than 3% of the domestic flights?

Oh yes, while I have much to say, I have more to ask. Which is why I'm not saying much, while at the same time suggestion questions for the discerning reader.

Hopefully, during the next few days, more information will become available ... which will allow we few to form an informed opinion.


The best I can say at the moment is;
it seems folly to allow almost ANYONE on board a vessal which can easily be turned into a Weapon of Mass Desruction. (CF: 9/11)

Also, we already know (if we have read our day-to-day News Reports) that the FFDO program is not widely supported among Democratic Congressmen ... who form a majority in both houses.

Finally, we know that Gun Control measures, no matter what name they may hide behind, are only likely to significantly affect the Law Abiding. Terrorists will not be inconvenienced, let alone disuaded' by the potention penalties they may have to pay if they are found having toboard an airplane while in possession of a clearly definable "WEAPON".

Until we have more information, we are lot likely to express an opinion.

Still, it does generate some very interesting questions.

Who Was Behind 9/11?

International Poll: No Consensus On Who Was Behind 9/11 - World Public Opinion

On September 11, 2001, 19 young men from foreign countries effected the horrific Attack on America.


The attackers, three groups of 5 and one group of 4, hijacked American planes which had taken off from American airports, and flew them into iconic American buildings. The sole exception was the group which attempted to hijack Flight 93, which was overcome by a counter-attack by passengers on the plane.

That airplane augured into a field near Shanksville, PA. Its target was never definitively identified, although some suggested that it was intended to destroy a Federal Building in Washington, D.C. -- perhaps either the White House or the Capital Building.

We will never know for certain, but one thing is sure: the successful attacks turned the Twin Towers in New York City into smouldering grey heaps of rubble and billowing clouds of concrete dust; and one quadrant of The Pentagon into a funeral pyre.

On this, the 7th anniversary of the vicious and cowardly surprise attack, we know only a few certifiable facts. Primary among these facts is the identity of the perpetrators, who were all fanatics of the radical Wahhabi [cf] sect of the Muslim religion, and their motivation was to deal a blow to the United States of America, which they considered "The Great Satan". (And you can believe as much of Wikipedea as you like.)

But a recent poll by worldpublicopinion.org suggest that not all -- in fact, not even half -- of the World Community accepts this interpretation of events as fact.

A new WorldPublicOpinion.org poll of 17 nations finds that majorities in only nine of them believe that al Qaeda was behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the United States.

In no country does a majority agree on another possible perpetrator, but in most countries significant minorities cite the US government itself and, in a few countries, Israel. These responses were given spontaneously to an open-ended question that did not offer response options.

On average, 46 percent say that al Qaeda was behind the attacks while 15 percent say the US government, seven percent Israel, and seven percent some other perpetrator. One in four say they do not know.

Given the extraordinary impact the 9/11 attacks have had on world affairs, it is remarkable that seven years later there is no international consensus about who was behind them," comments Steven Kull, director of WorldPublicOpinion.org.

In fact, in some countries less than a third of the polled residents believe that Islamists were behind the attack.

Some do believe that Al Queda was the villain. A large number believe that the United States Government deliberately destroyed its own public buildings for a variety of nefarious reasons (which do not explain the failure of Flight 93 to cause destruction to the American infrastructure).

A significant number think that Israel was the author of the American Tragedy, presumably to encourage Americans to 'hate' Islaam.

A varying percentage of polled respondents said they "Don't Know' (DK), and a smaller fraction suggested that "other" agencies were to blame.

On this sad day, there remains (in Europe and the Middle East) a large number of people who think the United States Government has pursued some arcane agenda and slaughtered almost 3,000 (and it could easily been ten times as many fatalities) of its own citizens for the sole purpose of discrediting Islam.

And even more people, world-wide, are unconvinced by the evidence of the religion of the authors ... they just "Don't Know" (DK) if that's significant.


H/T: Geek with a .45 -- see the comments section