Justice

At least two people did say it looked like a smaller plane, so I guess you are pretending they do not exist. First off, two people out of...? Secondly, a smaller plane could even be a DC-10, and again, the Pentagon can make things look deceptively smaller than they really are. From a distance, it looks a lot smaller than it really is. I'm saying the explosion is inconsistant with what a normal missile would do. If it were a Tomahawk and exploded on the outside of the building, there wouldn't be nearly as much damage (all the way to the E ring, as you show us). Tomahawks generally penetrate through a window or such and explode on the inside. If it exploded on the inside, the penatration shown is possible, but there would be more debris thrown outwards from the Pentagon itself. Instead, we have a huge explosion on the outside and what resembles a skid on the inside, which would make you think something hit it, exploded but was big enough to keep travelling through. Either way, it's not at all consistant with what a missile would do. Exactly. There you go. Uh, not if it struck the outside, man. Look, you can't have your cake and eat it, too. There are two ways a missile could have done it: 1) It struck inside, which is inconsistant with both the explosion and the debris pattern. 2) It struck the outside, and is inconsistant with the actual damage to the Pentagon itself. The Pentagon is a highly reinforced building. For a missile to have any chance of causing THAT much damage, it couldn't simply hit the outside and hope for the best. Yes, but it would be impossible for it to be THAT much damage, especially to a reinforced building such as the Pentagon. The damage from the Pentagon is more consistant with something ramming into and skidding through it rather than something exploding on the outside of it (Which, from all visual evidence is, is what must have happened). If they were smoke or dust trails, they MAGICALLY disappear in the next frame. There would be some lasting white swirl or something there in the next frame had it been dust or something else (Because, remember, this is happening in a matter half-seconds and such). But since it seems to disappear right into the explosion, I'm fairly certain that the object itself because a dust trail or smoke trails would have lasted at least a second or so longer. And I think identify Alien Spacecraft is more up your alley than mine... ... Uh, where? I've never said it was inconsistant with a plane ramming into it. Of course, I'm sure you'll deduce a way to make it look like that. I did. First off, you links are almost uniformly broken. You obviously didn't copy the entire links because many of them have "..." right in the middle of them. Some of them were comparisons to what it seemed like. Just because someone says "It felt like a missile" doesn't mean that they are saying it was a missile. They are saying that's the best way to describe it. This Doesn't mean that he saw a missile. He means that it looked like a cruise missile on the way in. Hell, by your standards this means that a tidal wave was what brought down the first tower. Seriously, your quotes give you very little evidence to support your case because it's obvious that they are simply making comparisons to get a better description of the event to others. They still can't explain what happened to Flight 77 and their analysis came out before the Purdue study. Secondly, the article is debunked by many of the commenters below, who cite many inconsistancies and "convenient omissions" from the article. It holds NOTHING with me after reading it and all of the mistakes. So... this was your big comeback? With those websites you managed to dig yourself into a deeper hole than you were in before. Congrats.

Can you say "PWN3D!" ? I knew you could.

This reminds me of a story I read in 2001, about how an Australian man managed to fight and kill a burglar armed with an illegal gun only because he had a Japanese samurai sword and had been trained in how to use it. So the ban didn't do anything to keep the robber from getting the gun, but the person being invaded had to resort to a samurai sword to protect himself. THANK YOU. Do you really think that a guy committing armed robbery will care about the 90 day misdemenor for not having his gun registered?

Oh yeah? I'll even step on your lawn if I want to... *steps on Tyler's lawn*

A lot of it is from John Lott's study of FBI Statistics from 1977-1994. I'm not up for copying actual passages from the book (More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws ) at the moment, but it's a fairly good read. There are criticisms of his book, and a decent number of them can be found here. Their gun control page is pretty good at just looking at the facts as well.

No, this guy isn't biased... I like how he STILL doesn't note the 10 point gain in NM but notes Ohio's huge gain. Plus he didn't note that WISCONSIN went to Bush today (Just outside the margin of error, too). That's something HUGE that he didn't comment on. If Kerry can't win there, he's gonna be hard-pressed to make up the votes somewhere else...

Brian gets a Bagel Bite for remembering what was going on in the primaries BEFORE Dean came around.

Did you know in places where gun laws are looser and that there are more legally owned guns, less crime tends to occur? The entire state of Texas had less car-jackings than the City of Detroit. Why? Because, in Texas, if you can carry it, it's yours. If I'm a criminal, do I want to rob someone who might be carrying a pistol, or a shotgun, or hell, and Uzi? Point in case as well on the bolded statement: did you know that every country that has issued a full weapons ban has had massive increases in crimes like assault, car-jackings, and other crimes of the same nature? Seriously, you're putting forth crap you saw in Bowling for Columbine, and it's coming off even weaker than the film.

I think if we are looking at Ice Cream, Kerry is "Non-flavored Ice Milk".

The Pentagon is deceptively huge. It might look smaller from all those aerial photos, but if I remember correctly it is the largest administrative building ever built in terms of footage. They go down a few stories and I believe the underground place extends under the parking lots.

No. That's utter bullshit. To compare a Jetliner to a cruise missile is like comparing a Jetski to a Ferry boat. There is a huge, noticable difference in their size and overall look, even if going at 450 mph. The size and wingspan difference would be enough, even at that speed. That's like saying a fighter jet doing a flyby and a 757 doing a flyby look the same because they are going at 500 mph. No, there's too much of a structural difference to mistake the two. Secondly, it's pretty obvious (Especially from the explosion; a tomahawk wouldn't have exploded nearly as much on the outside of the building as it would on the inside, because that's where it's designed to hit; through windows and such) that the craft there is much longer than any conventional missile we field today. Look at the first and second frames: It's exploding and it's fuselage is STILL almost past the guardhouse. That's WAY too long to be a Tomahawk. Is there any proof the government has more video that has more definitive resolution to show us that something other than a plane could have hit? Simplying saying "WE NEED A CLEARER PICTURE" isn't an argument when much of the evidence is already against you. The blast isn't consistant with what a Tomahawk is designed to do, the object in that video is obviously longer than a Tomahawk, the computer anaylsis of the crash shows why more windows weren't blown out, and your eyewitnesses are often taken completely out of context. And we haven't even gone into the whole "Flight 77 was shot down" theory. Yes, this is a theory, because it bases much of its "facts" on circumstantial evidence and hersay. And it's a very shitty one at that.

But, strategically, he's completely wrong is the thing, Edwin. In Vietnam, we weren't just fighting a guerilla force, we were fighting a well-equiped regular army as well. There were much more massive protests than Vietnam and the reasoning for being there and continuing to be there is much harder to justify to the public than Iraq could EVER be. Vietnam was such a strategic quagmire we would eventually have to pull out because of public opinion. Iraq is definitely not that bad, especially because the Interim Iraqi government is starting to become accepted by the people. Edwin, to compare Vietnam to Iraq is moronic, plain and simple. There are superfical similarities, but any indepth comparision falls very flat very quickly. A lot of his points were hersay, really, and nothing actually substantial. The criticisms of him comparing it to Vietnam are dead-on; he's just showing the Democratic tactic that has been echoed throughout the last year that Iraq is turning into a mess we can't get out of. It's why John Kerry was nominated, and the tactic deserves as much criticism as possible because of how it's trying to undermine support for the war by bringing up unfair comparisons of something that is still a touchy issue.

A video you should look at.

And, frankly, there would be a LOT more debris if a Tomahawk missile hit. These missiles are designed to demolish strongpoints; a much larger chunk of the Pentagon would be missing if that had hit. You'd DEFINITELY see a lot more debris out on the lawn because it would have likely detonated inside the building. Instead, you see that there is very little debris anywhere, which is more consistant with something just ramming into it rather than something exploding inside it. If you watch the planes hitting the Twin Towers, you'll notice that there's a lot more of an explosion on the other side of the tower rather than where it actually hits. Not only this, but when you are acting as though the wings couldn't have been crunched in. The swept-wing design of the plane makes it very easy to believe that when the plane hit, the wings crunched in towards the fuselage because they would snap inwards when it impacted because of where the base of the wings are in comparison to the end of the wings. Your pictures are more accurate for a straight-winged aircraft, where it would all hit at the same time. That clearly wouldn't happen with a swept-wing aircraft. Thirdly, your quotes are meaningless. That means shit. A jet engine sounds very much alike when rushing at you just below the speed of sound, whether from a missile or a jet liner because both were subsonic. Is useless. He's making a comparison, not an eyewitness account, nimrod. Because, well, planes don't go boom. I mean, no boom on the ones that hit the towers... Oh, wait... I'd like to see the actual context of this quote, since you so conviently missed that. And since when do missiles hold 8-12 people? Perhaps that's all he could see inside of it and it actually was the plane in question. See, this is hilarious. How could so many people say they saw a plane actually hit the Pentagon be overruled with a very few (I think the small commercial aircraft one is the only real deviant here, and I wonder if he was far enough away that he just thought it was a DC-10; the Pentagon is very deceptive when it comes to size. As though incredibly overwhelming eyewitness reports weren't enough to debunk your theory...

Do you really think that the terrorists would hide the fact that they can launch missiles like this? I mean, that by definition is a HUGE terror weapon. Why do you think they wouldn't let us know about it if their objective is to terrify us? And it is fairly hard to believe that they have enough hardward to launch a Tomahawk missile and safely guide it in. It's just not hardware you can find lying around.

I hope to God that Bush jumps all fucking over that all day, because that is a quote (And not even out of context) that you could toss back at him all day long and he couldn't dodge it.

I'm still the loyal left hand of God, right?

Just wanted to dive in here amidst the politics and clarify that some of the movies were made during the Korean War, thus were in fact a wartime crime. And I don't think the popularity of the movies should determine the severity of the sentence. King, what the fuck are you ta-OH! Crap, the actual topic. Yeah, I agree.

"And we would have gotten away with it to if it hadn't been for you meddling kids and that damn Dean of yours..." "YAAAAAAAARGH!!"

It's in the first post of the friggin' thread. Point, Jobber. And if he's talking about a 10 point boost, why does he so readily take the 10 point lead that Zogby recorded in NM after it was deadlocked?

So... you basically ignored most of what I said to get in a pithy comment. Congrats, Jobber. Your comment is a gross overgeneralization what I said. He's bound by political fallout that will be caused by it, yes. The Dems will cruicify him if he goes in without a UN Sanction. I believe Tyler's reasons for criticizing him are much more political than Bush simply adherring to the UN. I think Bush has always wanted the world on board, and it's hard for him to justify a second shunning of the UN to the public, even if it is genocide. So political? It's political, much because people like you and Tyler will jump all over him once he shuns the UN again for ruining our image and being a 'divider' once again.

Well, I'm glad someone does. And I agree with you on some of your points because I do want Bush to stick his neck out and do this. But I can understand why he'd try to get the international community on board after the shit storm the Dems raised after Iraq. But the reason he is trying to get the UN on board is he doesn't want to complicate the damn thing with the political bullshit again. How complicated do you think this war became when every Dem in the country proclaimed it the new Vietnam and that there was no way to win it? Do you really think he wants to fight that sort of PR war while fighting in the Sudan AGAIN? If you invade, you want it to be at your best. With the Dems proclaiming the UN as something we HAVE to have onboard for such an operation, there's no way we could sustain anything there for long: The Dems would attack it, Bush would be voted out and Kerry would likely pull out in favor of whatever mild maneuvers the UN would want to take with it. I don't like Tyler taking some sort of moral highground when this is the sort of action he wanted. You can't be against Iraq and be for this. It just doesn't work, and it pisses me off because I'm sure one of the reasons that Bush is still going through the UN is people like him (And even you) who wanted him to go through the UN before and bitched endlessly when he didn't. It's hypocritical and it irritates me because it looks to me like much more of a political reason for wanting to be in Sudan than an actual honest and compassionate one.

His view is actually more consistant than yours. Consistancy is what your arguement is specifically lacking. What? I want them to go in just as much as he does. But he has no right to bitch and try to take a moral highground on me when he is doing exactly what he wanted before. I have consistancy: I don't want Bush to waste time here. But for Tyler to bitch about how he shouldn't is hypocritical on his part because it's exactly opposite of his view on Iraq.

I want to make this clear: I want troops in Sudan. If Bush were to skip out of the UN circus, I would fully support it. I'm not exactly proud that he isn't going in right now. But to think you have the moral highground to tell him what to do when he is doing EXACTLY what you wanted to do with Iraq, is fucked up and absolutely hypocritical. I can see why he'd want to try and get the UN onboard for this, but the international community refuses to give him a fucking break.

So... now that the Administration is trying to go back to the International Community to get help, you fucking chastise them? You are a fucking hypocrit: you can't say "Going into this hell hole is bad without UN approval, but going into this hell hole is a-ok without UN approval!" and expect for people to fucking believe it. This entire idea of "Well, if he went into Iraq without the UN, why doesn't he go in here?" is the biggest fucking straw man on the board. First off, it directly contradicts your entire fucking argument against Iraq if he did; Why do you want him to do something you've demonized him on countless times? Secondly, he's acting within YOUR rules. YOU want to go through the UN. He's doing all he can THROUGH THE UN. I mean, fuck, you act like he really wanted the UN to go fuck off. I'm sure if he wanted to do that, he wouldn't have had Colin Powell go to the UN numerous times pleading their case for a deadline on inspections and disarmament, to waste all that fucking time in useless fucking debate with countries like France, who refused to change their view at all on Iraq. He didn't WANT to go against the International Community on Iraq, but he felt he had to, and he's be chastised, demonized, and utterly blasted by many people for that decision. And you, who have done all that, are asking him to do it again? Bullshit. You want him to do this so you can blast him again. There's no real compassion here, otherwise why isn't there a massive democratic outcry for it? Explain to me why your party has done nothing to encourage action in Sudan, why they haven't given him a reason to deviate from the International community, and we'll have an answer. The reports that Bush was given on Iraq said that they had weapons that could be devestating if in the wrong hands (not as though they were in the right hadns in the first place...). He acted, he got burned by your party and the international community. Why would he want to do that again? So you can bitch at him more? The international community obviously doesn't think it's a threat, so do you want him to stick his head into the fire again for something he'll get endlessly bitched at for? No, what YOU are doing is horrible, pathetic politics. Bush is FINALLY doing what you wanted him to do with Iraq, what he was forced to give up with Iraq because countries like France (hilarious that they are doing this to us AGAIN) didn't want to go along with it. You're argument is fucking shot. You didn't support Iraq, you bitched that we should have gotten more UN support, but now we should get into ANOTHER war with likely MORE COSTS and a MUCH harder road ahead without UN Support? What the fuck?! Oh fuck you. Fuck you. You impose standards on Bush that you yourself don't live up to. You want him to get approval from everyone, and finally when he's trying to get it, it's not quick enough. Welcome to my world with Iraq, asshole. Bush wants to get something fucking done, but he can't fucking do it because of YOUR party will play fucking politics on him. You say he's playing fucking politics, and if he is it's because YOUR party is the one binding him to it. He goes in, you fucking destroy him for not acting with UN approval, for getting us into another "Wrong war, wrong place, wrong time". YOUR party is the one that won't allow us to go in right now, not him. So shut the FUCK up before you accuse me of the one being heartless when it's your rules we are playing by.