Investing in Precious Metals 101 Ad

Book Review: The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7

Login or register to post comments Last Post 78749 reads   571 posts
Viewing 10 posts - 41 through 50 (of 571 total)
  • Sun, May 18, 2014 - 07:13pm

    #41

    Wildlife Tracker

    Status Silver Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 14 2012

    Posts: 405

    count placeholder

    Lessons from Miantonomo

Miantonomo is one of the most fascinating humans in history for me. He was the central leader of the Narragansett tribes ( a group composed of many tribes, sort of sounded like a republic). He organized one of the first revolutions against the English here in New England based on recognizing the natural resource depletion in the landscape. He organized the Narragansetts, the Montauks (long Island, NY) and the Nipmucks (your area Chris) and maybe a few other tribes. 

This was what he said…

"our fathers had plenty of deer and skins, our plains were full of deer, as also our woods, and of turkeys, and our coves full of fish and fowl. But these English having gotten our land, they with their scythes cut down the grass, and their hogs spoil our clam banks, and we shall all be starved."

In his pursuit to get rid of the English, he engaged in a battle with the Mohegan tribe. The Mohegans were one of the many tribes that sided with the English and they were lead by Uncas. Uncas ended up capturing Miantonomo in battle and executed later on around 1641. Uncas now has a town named after him where his tribe now has a casino ($).

 

My point is this is a similar situation (though more dire). People are not going to change until forced. They are the lemmings on the cliff. For the sake of all the wildlife, trees, and everything that is beautiful we better have a net to catch the fall because whatever happened between the 1600-1800s regarding localized extinctions will happen again. This time is will be more rapid and more severe. Say goodbye to all the beaver, deer, turkeys, coyotes, foxes, otters, minks, moose, and bear. 

Building localized agriculture is the only that we can do to slow or prevent some of these localized extinctions. I know that is what I need to be doing, but so far I'm not there yet.

 

 

 

 

  • Sun, May 18, 2014 - 07:33pm

    #42

    darbikrash

    Status Gold Member (Offline)

    Joined: Aug 25 2009

    Posts: 297

    count placeholder

    cmartenson wrote:Darbs, well

[quote=cmartenson]

Darbs, well in the sense that I was looking for analysis and data rather than assertions and claims, I confess to not feeling very 'helped' right now.   At this point it would seem that conflicting belief systems are preventing progress here, but let's give this go nonetheless.

 

[/quote]

 

I’d like to address a few of the points from your last post directed at me. First, I will concede your point that a wide variety of outcomes is possible with intentionally detonated explosives. 

But I have trouble with the way this discourse is proceeding, as it seems to be subject to wordsmithing and yet more incredible claims (now I am a government operative!).

So let’s review, you made the claim that the NIST peer reviewed explanation of WTC 7 collapse violates “basic laws of physics” inferring that it is simply not possible to have some component of a building in free fall, for some time period, without the presence of explosives in some form of pre-planned and controlled demolition. If I have erred in my summary, please feel free to correct this- but that is my understanding of your position.

 

I take great exception to this statement.

 

I just want to be clear that it is this specific claim that has caused me to respond to this thread (and others where you have made the same claim). If you had simply said that you didn’t agree with the NIST explanation, or did not understand buckling theory- fair enough. 

Instead, you make these claims, then deflect the burden of proof on those who may object to these statements, including making remarks to 'show your work'. I think this is exactly backwards.

 

I find it entirely plausible that heat induced buckling caused the WTC 7 tower collapse. Not because the government says so, but because the engineering theory allows this. No principles of physics are violated in this collapse mechanism, however implausible it may seem, and once again if there is, I would be most interested in hearing exactly which principles and how, exactly, they are violated.

 

I also did some research to historical references of buildings that either collapsed or sustained substantial structural damage and found numerous examples. (Source below)

 

But I have some trouble with the logic of insisting that these data must be present for the NIST explanation (and your objection to same) to be plausible. To illustrate the source of my discomfort, I would like to revisit the subject of the Tacoma Narrows bridge video I posted earlier in this thread. You had dismissed this as irrelevant, and stated that the failure was due to 'harmonic oscillations'.

 

True, but this does not go far enough.

 

A more thorough explanation is that the wind load excited the structure to a frequency that matched, precisely, the natural frequency of the bridge itself. This unusual matching of frequencies set up a destructive, runaway cycle of displacements that ultimately destroyed the bridge.

 

The video shows grotesque, exaggerated, even cartoonish oscillations of the bridge, that, as far as I know had never before been seen- a truly unusual event.

 

Now, to my point.

 

Imagine if you had used the same criteria you have used in this thread to challenge someone trying to explain an arcane and unusual engineering failure mode to go forth and provide historical evidence that prior bridges had collapsed in accordance with the same failure mechanics.

 

How many bridges had this unusual pairing of load excitation with natural frequency that resulted in total destruction? I’d guess zero.

 

So is it reasonable to demand that someone go back and show other examples of the specific failures of WTC 7? Were the exact combination of factors replicated in previous building collapses? And if such data is not available, do we then claim government conspiracy?

 

As I have said, I have great difficulty with this line of reasoning.

 

I believe that much of the “truthers” doubt (but not all of it) is due to people seeing the TV videos, and simply not understandng in sufficient detail the principles of buckling failure- exactly as they see the Tacoma Narrows bridge and not fully comprehending that failure mode. How buckling failures can one moment provide a competent load path for a structure, and suddenly, give way (through the snap-through phenomena) and instantaneously, reach a state where the column provides either zero or near zero support.

 

 

Like it or not, that is the science.

 

These issues aside, I did find some references to fire related structural failures.

 

In the document titled "Analysis of Needs and Existing Capabilities for Full-Scale Fire Resistance Testing" the survey shows in the period 1970-2001, there were 22 documented cases of fire induced structural failures. Of these, 6 were structural steel and exhibited buckling failure in some form.

 

I have also provided  a link to a good paper in buckling theory (Collapse and Local Buckling of Structures), also below. The section on Euler buckling theory is relevant- and interesting.

 

Lastly, the NIST document provides an eye opening summary to the state of applied failure theory in modern building design.

 

If a column is exposed to a fire, how its behavior or failure will affect the structural elements that it supports is unknown. Currently, we would test the column with protection such that the element will not exceed pre-defined critical temperatures below which its structural capability is assumed to be adequate.

 

Even though the column is connected to a beam or floor,we do not evaluate the connection method, nor its protection, to assure that the connection will perform as designed. Also, if the column was to fail, the impact of this failure on the rest of the structure is unknown. It has always been assumed that if each individual element performs well by itself, then the whole will perform successfully. In some cases, this may be a faulty assumption.

 

 

 

It has been assumed in standard tests, that the actual fire will expose one side of anassembly. For example, a floor is tested with the fire under the floor. The connection of the floor to exterior columns or spandrel beams may be exposed both from the fire below and an exterior fire plume from window openings on the fire floor below. Thus, all of the elements are exposed and stressed simultaneously.

 

 

 

Structural performance at elevated temperatures except for the support of some live load or the attainment of a critical temperature, are typically ignored in current fire resistance testing.

 

In effect, an assembly or element is evaluated for its structural performance by attainment of a critical temperature or its support of a live load based on some requirement for the amount of the load to be imposed during the test. In many cases, the live load used in the test may not be the maximum design load. Other loads or stresses may also be imposed on a structural element that may affect its structural performance during a fire event that may need to be considered. Thus, the combination of thermal load effects and structural load-carrying performance is ignored.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References:

 

Fire and building collapse, Lancaster Pennsylvania

 

Compilation of structural collapses,

 

Collapse and Local Buckling of Structures

  • Sun, May 18, 2014 - 09:06pm

    #43

    kelvinator

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 25 2008

    Posts: 181

    count placeholder

    Science and Logic Don’t Represent Certainty, Just Probability

And clearly, rightly or wrongly, belief systems can and do fill in the blanks and trump the lack of certainty of scientific and logical analysis all the time.    From my point of view, it's important to you, darbikrash, that the official description of the WTC7 collapse be believed – that it was a freak, unusual, harmonized, buckling total collapse.  Personally, I also agree that that's theoretically possible, even though I don't see how in this case, and don't believe it's true based on everything I've seen.  I started out years ago thinking the WTC7 conspiracy was over the top, but I changed my mind long ago.

It's good that you distinguished your belief in the official WTC7 collapse story from anything that might have happened in history, because I looked through the links you posted as supporting resources and didn't find them particularly convincing.  To me, they more support the view it was a controlled detonation than the view it was due to fire.  IMO, the first reference link was irrelevant – apparently a single story auditorium in Lancaster, PA.  WTC7 is a skyscraper with a dense network of ground up support and cross-supports, so a random building on fire that falls over or has a roof collapse doesn't relate.  The second paper by NIST was more interesting, itemizing as it did "22 cases of multi-story buildings collapsing due to fire."  But when you look through the pictures, you don't see much that looks like a total, simultaneous collapse with a fairly even drop from the top, if you see a total collapse at all.  For almost all, the buildings look like what you'd expect – partially burned buildings with some portions of floors collapsed.   Only 7 of the 22 were listed as total collapses, and 3 of there were WTC1, 2 and 7.   So, 4 of 22 were other total collapses then, according to NIST, with some text indicating at least one was a gradual collapse and the others unclear.   I couldn't find visuals or any other descriptions that indicated that the remaining 3 buildings collapsed straight down into free fall like WTC7.  As you say, it's not necessary that anything like WTC7 happened before for the official findings to be true.  Still, I find the notion that densely interlinked lower floor supports buckled so simultaneously and uniformly that they created the flat, free fall drop we see on video to be really unlikely, based on all the controlled detonation videos I've seen, and all the sights, sounds and descriptions regarding the fire, etc. that I've seen come out of the WTC7 event.   So, IMO, there's no "proving" it or convincing likely to happen here.  We're each left with our own assessment of what we've seen.

  • Sun, May 18, 2014 - 09:13pm

    #44
    James Knight

    James Knight

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 21 2009

    Posts: 63

    count placeholder

    Sesame Street-esque video

I'm not sure if I found this on PP, but this says it all really:

https://archive.org/details/scm-97654-investigate911-promo7

  • Mon, May 19, 2014 - 12:25am

    #45

    Chris Martenson

    Status Platinum Member (Online)

    Joined: Jun 07 2007

    Posts: 4650

    count placeholder

    Helpful or additionally deflective?

[quote=darbikrash]

But I have trouble with the way this discourse is proceeding, as it seems to be subject to wordsmithing and yet more incredible claims (now I am a government operative!).[/quote]

I have not made that particular claim of you.  I mentioned that there are a variety of motivations that cause people to assume a deflective rather than a descriptive argumentative style, though I will confess that I have placed you much closer to deflective than descriptive.

Even more pointedly, I find you using a presumed mantle of expertise to diminish other's views.  It's akin to a brain surgeon, to use your analogy, saying you just wouldn't understand.  While it is always true that some specialties have more expertise than we might and we should listen to them carefully, it is my view that if you cannot explain yourself to layman then, as Einstein said, it is you that does not comprehend the subject well enough yet. 

On this basis let me respond to where I feel you are misusing your self-described engineering authority, and that this makes me very uncomfortable in return:

But I have some trouble with the logic of insisting that these data must be present for the NIST explanation (and your objection to same) to be plausible. To illustrate the source of my discomfort, I would like to revisit the subject of the Tacoma Narrows bridge video I posted earlier in this thread. You had dismissed this as irrelevant, and stated that the failure was due to 'harmonic oscillations'.

True, but this does not go far enough.

A more thorough explanation is that the wind load excited the structure to a frequency that matched, precisely, the natural frequency of the bridge itself. This unusual matching of frequencies set up a destructive, runaway cycle of displacements that ultimately destroyed the bridge.

The video shows grotesque, exaggerated, even cartoonish oscillations of the bridge, that, as far as I know had never before been seen- a truly unusual event.

Now, to my point.

Imagine if you had used the same criteria you have used in this thread to challenge someone trying to explain an arcane and unusual engineering failure mode to go forth and provide historical evidence that prior bridges had collapsed in accordance with the same failure mechanics.

How many bridges had this unusual pairing of load excitation with natural frequency that resulted in total destruction? I’d guess zero.

Your main claim here is that because something rare happens for the first time, then we should not be so quick to dismiss something new that is also rare and unheard of.  Fair enough.

Well, now to my extreme discomfort.  It is easily found that destruction of bridges due to harmonic oscillation had occurred numerous times in history prior to the Tacoma Narrows event and were as carefully and forensically recorded as they could be at the time.

There was the collapse of the Drybrugh Abbey bridge in 1818 that involved an oscillation event that wrenched the inclined chain stays from the deck leading engineers to conclude that ignored deck stiffening as a consequence of moving to seemingly improved eyebar chain cables was to blame.

In 1834 the collapse of the Nassau Bridge in Germany was thought to have resulted from oscillations of its unstiffened deck.

In 1838 the Montrose bridge collapsed due to reported oscillations that split the two main segments before the whole thing went down.

To quote from a book on this very subject involving an 1836 collapse: 

But the loss of Samuel Brown's Brighton Chain Pier in 1836 would provide the first clear evidence of resonance.  A storm had set the seaward three spans into gentle motion, but the third span generated the most interest.  From a first hand account penned by Lt. Col William Reid in the wake of the structural failure:

For a considerable time the undulations of all the spans seemed nearly equal.  The gale became a storm about eleven o'clock in the afternoon. and by noon it blew very hard….soon after mid-day the lateral oscillations of the third span increased to a degree to male it doubtful whether the work could withstand a storm; and soon afterwards the oscillating motion across the roadway seemed to the eye to be lost in the undulating one, which in the this span was much greater than thin the other three. At last the railing on the east side was seen to be breaking away, falling into the sea; and immediately the undulations increased; and when the railing on this side was nearly all gone, the undulations were quite as great as presented in the drawing.

And there are many other examples I can cite as well, but hopefully we can agree that the Tacoma Narrows was neither unique nor unprecedented.  In fact, as far as these things go it was a rather ordinary experience that we learned from and mostly avoided until the engineers on the Tacoma Narrows project screwed up big and ignored prior experience.  

Of course there were new learnings too in regards to suspension bridges of that length but thankfully there was a very thorough and well regarded engineering review panel that combed through the wreckage, the footage, and the then performed wind tunnel tests to definitively prove the theories and then state them as facts to be incorporated into future designs (thankfully!).

But how are we going to learn from WTC 7?  If all the key beams that allegedly softened and buckled were simply melted down for scrap before they could be properly examined, then what proper engineering principles and practices are in play?  As an engineer, how would you defend this?

So onto this:

I just want to be clear that it is this specific claim that has caused me to respond to this thread (and others where you have made the same claim). If you had simply said that you didn’t agree with the NIST explanation, or did not understand buckling theory- fair enough. 

Instead, you make these claims, then deflect the burden of proof on those who may object to these statements, including making remarks to 'show your work'. I think this is exactly backwards.

If the Tacoma Narrows was the first and the last example of failure due to harmonic oscillation then I concede you have a fair point. 

Instead what we find is that NIST and people like you are claiming that the first, and only, fire induced collapse of a class 1A building in all of history is the perfectly reasonable explanation that we should all accept that as our starting point.  

Further, that the burden of proof that it didn't happen this way somehow rests with skeptics of this thoroughly unprecedented explanation.  

So, yes, we do see this exactly backwards from each other and it is my background as a scientist that goads me on here.  Yes, I absolutely insist that if something brand new, utterly without precedent happens in a major way then it is upon the proponents of this new theory to explain themselves fully and show their work.

No ifs, ands or buts about that.  It's good science.

You make that sound unreasonable, but there's a missing element of proper skepticism in there, a good bit of the old Missouri show me!,  that I have come to appreciate in good engineers.

So here we are, and I am going to ask you to show your work, rather than recline on your engineering laurels, and to engage with us and give us more than stating trust me, I know better.

I find it entirely plausible that heat induced buckling caused the WTC 7 tower collapse. Not because the government says so, but because the engineering theory allows this. No principles of physics are violated in this collapse mechanism, however implausible it may seem, and once again if there is, I would be most interested in hearing exactly which principles and how, exactly, they are violated.

I've stated the exact principle before, two times already, but I'll state it again.  The conservation of momentum requires that any force acting upon another create and equal an opposite force.  

So here's the challenge.  Show us with real examples and data, all how it is possible for an entire edifice of a 47 story building to enter free fall, without any observable lateral distortion across a 330 span on one side and 140 span on the other two, for 2.25 seconds.  If taken from a resting point of zero (and it wasn't because there was already some velocity by the time the 2.25 seconds began), this means that more than 81 feet of resistanceless travel happened.  

That's eight full stories of 'buckling failure' that had to happen, in perfect harmony (sorry, an old jingle popped in there).   The NIST story starts with a single failure at one beam (#79) and that this somehow resulted in the whole building coming down, all at once, neat as you please.  Again, that's an extraordinary claim and it requries more than saying well, it could have happened that way.

Moving on, I enjoyed this next document:

In the document titled "Analysis of Needs and Existing Capabilities for Full-Scale Fire Resistance Testing" the survey shows in the period 1970-2001, there were 22 documented cases of fire induced structural failures. Of these, 6 were structural steel and exhibited buckling failure in some form.

Yes, structural damage, some deformations, but no complete collapses of steel framed high rises, not even in the One Meridian Plaza fire in Philly that burned completely out of control for an entire day consuming floors 22-30.

And, by the way, the entire document has exactly zero references to the words 'buckle' or 'buckling', so I would need you to point me to the other words that I might search to confirm your count of 6 buckling failures.  I could not find any.   

Next, this link is interesting, and thanks for providing, but grain silos and grain storage facilities are not really worth exploring for me at this time.

I have also provided  a link to a good paper in buckling theory (Collapse and Local Buckling of Structures), also below. The section on Euler buckling theory is relevant- and interesting.

The simple facts remain.  No class 1A steel framed structure has ever collapsed due to fire before, and of the building collapses in history, no examples have yet been provided anywhere that shows a complete collapse with or without the perfect symmetry displayed by WTC 7.  So it remains a completely unprecedented and without parallel example of a supposed fire-induced collapse.

On that basis alone, it remains,as described,  an extraordinary event and therefore the burden does indeed rest with those who promote that theory to provide extraordinary evidence far above and beyond well, we say it happened that way.

To demand a thorough and complete accounting of the collapse sequence and causes is just good science, common sense, and good forensic engineering so we can do better next time.

Meanwhile, if anybody can provide an understandable, and believable explanation for 2.25 seconds of free fall, where all structural resistance is removed over eight full floors of a modern steel framed high rise, I am most interested.  

  • Mon, May 19, 2014 - 04:48am

    #46
    Hrunner

    Hrunner

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 28 2010

    Posts: 209

    count placeholder

    You Pick Kochs, I Pick Obama and Hillary

The List of 25 you came up is very interesting Chris.  As a side commentary, I can pick out a BS i.e. not critical and rational argument from a mile away without the list, but I found it very interesting.  I guess I also just like lists.

I do find it interesting that you immediately leapt to the "Koch Brothers" (just like Mr. Reid of Nevada) and global warming, as I am not aware of any public disinformation campaign that they are supporting.  Not saying it's not metaphysically possible the dreaded Koch brothers are funding a covert op.

But rather than the Koch brothers, Benghazi came immediately to mind as a far more appropriate example.  The same could be said for the IRS scandal, the NSA spying scandal, the running of guns to Mexican cartels, so many to choose.  The playbook is the same.  But to wit:

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Apparently Benghazi is a dead issue for the mainstream media, as there is virtually no reporting of it, despite consequential emails directly and clearly pointing to the White House coming out.

2. Become incredulous and indignant.  "What difference does it make!!!"  (need I say more?)

3. Create rumor mongers.  Nancy Pelosi-  "Benghazi is a WITCH HUNT".

4. Use a straw man. " I said Benghazi was a terrorist attack the very next day in the Rose Garden"- Obama.  A bald-faced, provable lie.  But the idea of Dear Leader Obama as terrorist hunter is a good straw man.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. "The Republicans don't like Obama because he's black"  "they are a bunch of racists".

6. Hit and Run. "That was like two years ago, dude"

7. Question motives. See Number 5..

8. Invoke authority.  "I was in the Situation Room in close contact with my Defense Department staff.  You weren't there and don't know what you are talking about".

9. Play Dumb. "Well, we all know that running the State Department and the Oval Office is a very busy job, and you can't expect a person to be on top of everything.  They have people under them that are supposed to do these things for them."

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. "The Benghazi hearings are a witch hunt.  We had numerous hearings and we already know the facts."

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. "The President said Benghazi was a terrorist attack the very next day in the Rose Garden.  He takes terrorism very seriously and is doing everything possible to prevent another attack."

12. Enigmas have no solution. "There was a lot of confusion that night in Libya after Qaddafi, and we don't know who the rebels were going to align with."

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic.   "Our American ambassadors and State Department staff were murdered by a band of spontaneous protestors who were angry about a low-budget, not widely publicized, barely watched Youtube video some unknown guy in California made."

14. Demand complete solutions. "We will not rest until ALL the perpetrators of the Benghazi murders are captured."

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. See Number 13.

16. Vanish evidence and witnesses.  Eric Holder- "We're going to need to order some more cases of redacting ink!."

17. Change the subject.  "The President is focused on issues the American people care about."  .

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents.  "Benghazi is a witch hunt only proceeding because the President is black."'

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs.  See thousands of pages of direct testimony by those close to the scene."

20. False evidence.  See Number 13.  One Youtube video goes a long way.

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body.  "A California man was arrested today on charges of parole violation.  He also happens to be the producer of an inflammatory youtube video making fun of Muslims."

22. Manufacture a new truth. See Number 13..

23. Create bigger distractions.  "The President today went on a national tour to promote equal pay for women, and increasing the minimum wage."

24. Silence critics.  "Paul Ryan was criticized today by multiple sources due to insensitive comments about inner city culture."  "Darryl Issa was criticized today by multiple sources due to his treatment of Elijah Cummings in a House hearing today."

25. Vanish.  "Hillary Clinton resigned her position as Secretary of State today, to pursue other opportunities."

I'm kind of leaning toward we were secretly running weapons into Libya to disrupt Qaddafi's regime (similarities to Ukraine, no?), and when we learned the extent of how many weapons went to Al Qaida soldiers, we got concerned due to the obvious PR issues, and tried to get the weapons back.  The Al Qaida forces didn't like that idea so much and reacted by murdering our ambassador when they found out what he was trying to do.  But what do I know, I'm just a racist idiot.

  • Mon, May 19, 2014 - 05:09am

    #47

    Sterling Cornaby

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Sep 05 2012

    Posts: 150

    count placeholder

    debate on WT7 — to demons

Thank you again both darbikrash, Chris and others on discussing some details of the mess of 9/11.  This is a debate that is very hard to do in almost every setting I have seen.  From the evidence, I for one believe the established 9/11 story of 19 hijackers incomplete; the 9/11 story is holy (pun intended).  

 

Beyond the ill explained falling of WT7, are extreme implications for the US and world psyche; such thoughts are very damning to ones trust in US, at some high level.  Why the deception?  Just considering such a deception congers some unbelievable demons we do not want to know.  That is a very steep price, a kin to loosing one's religion.  This makes 9/11 a very touchy subject.  

Using 9/11 story as a catalyst, higher ups in the US performed wordsmithing at its absolute worst, bringing us swiftly into two wars (This is true even if you believe the official 9/11 story).  How many families and men in the US have suffered deeply defending the official 9/11 story?  How many in the middle-east have paid a large price for the 9/11 story?  Now this story is written in blood over every single community in the US and all over the middle-east.    

I am now scared of some unknown powerful evil lurking in the shadows.  Now that I am looking for this evil, I keep getting glimpses, in the US involvement in the Ukraine, in the NSA, etc.  Is this the same evil demon? Or are these events just a concert of mans collective hubris? Both?      

Point is, I don't know; my trust is broken.  Researching the 9/11 story does this to many people.   

  • Mon, May 19, 2014 - 10:53am

    #49

    Arthur Robey

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 03 2010

    Posts: 1814

    count placeholder

    Help please Girls.

(Cross posted)

Where is Dogs?

Anyway, can you girls tell me if these two Putins are the same?

A. June 5th 2003

and B (15 th April 2013)

Source

 

  • Mon, May 19, 2014 - 10:53am

    #48
    Mackay

    Mackay

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Mar 12 2013

    Posts: 15

    count placeholder

    Partisan Posts

Great list of 25 Chris. I forwarded it to my wife, who is making something of a specialty of such issues. And, yes, intentional disinformation appears to exist in a forum or two here on PP. That's easy to tell because this site is designed to sniff out intentional disinformation, while others are designed as conduits for it.

One thing that tickles my Spidey senses – particularly on this site – is the backing or attacking of any one political party. It's difficult for a poster here to maintain credibility while devoting hundreds of words to an attack that solely targets either Democrats or Republicans.

I think a core tenet here is that mainstream politics is leading us down the road to disaster.

We are at a fork in the road. Some out in the mainstream vehemently argue we turn right, while others vehemently argue we go left. I guess most readers of this site would point out that they are both wrong – instead of left or right, we have to back up, go cross-country, stop where we are, burrow underground, follow Arthur Robey to the high seas, track Wildlife Tracker's footsteps to our roots, or develop the healthy doubt of emotional bias espoused in the posts of DaveFairtex, PP's resident Dr. Spock.

Attacking Democrats solely, or attacking Republicans solely, is a dead give away.

Hrunner – You devoted plenty of words to blunders, incompetence and ill-will of the Democrats. I agree that voting for Obama, Hillary and the rest will lead our children, and even us, into a world of hurt. But such a lengthy, emotional reaction has to be accompanied by some level of conviction that Republicans are better.

Please explain how they will save us?

Cheers,

Mackay

 

  • Mon, May 19, 2014 - 12:13pm

    #50
    Hrunner

    Hrunner

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 28 2010

    Posts: 209

    count placeholder

    Running away is a choice for some

Mackay, I appreciate the chance to answer your question about a partisan post.  

I really believe we have three parties right now in America.

Democrats, who have shifted radically left and have used increasingly shrill and downright Orwellian tactics to get their way- ram healthcare reform through government without a serious debate or balanced approach, use the DOJ to strongarm groups that you politically disagree with, and for goodness sake, don't prosecute anyone in government, use the IRS to silence debate, use the left-wing mainstream media as a mouthpiece and a cover-up aid, just create a bunch of instant Democratic voters by creating a chaotic, open borders immigration policy, the list goes on and on….  I do believe you can find a tiny group in the Democrat party that have some sanity, i.e. Ron Wyden, but I hold them accountable for voting for monstrosities such as Obamacare, so at the end of the day, what good are they?  They have done very little in the big picture.

By the way, Democrats are now firmly the party of Big Business, it's just that their big businesses are big banks, big financial institutions, trial lawyers, insurance companies, drug companies, GE, entertainment and internet companies, Big Education, and Big Labor (I consider Big Labor just as much a business as GE).  

Everything single thing done by Obama has a primary political objective and angle.  This is not leadership.  This is a cult of personality and dangerous narcissism.  It is frightening how on any given issue, the Democrats have a media machine that turns out talking points like they are, well, Fed dollars.  Recall the bullying tactics to  ram through the almost $1 trillion stimulus package- "we've got to build schools, roads, bridges, hire teachers, firemen."  I heard that about 400 times from Mr. Obama.  Next it was, "if you like your health plan, you can keep your health plan."  Well now, the latest warcry from Mr. Obama is we need a new stimulus to, you guessed it, "build schools, roads, bridges, hire teachers, firemen."   What happened to all that obscene amount money in the first stimulus to build roads and bridges.?  Is anyone in the media or on the left asking that question.?

Democrat leadership frankly scares me.  As a student of history, I know where the left path leads.  Everything must be done to preserve the State.  And I do mean everything.

And all that socially progressive stuff is just exploitation of special interest groups to get useful idiot voters in the next election.  If Democrats cared about the well being of the children their constituents looked at actual data- for example, school scores versus dollars spent and number of teachers, compared with charter schools and school choice programs, they would be throwing money at those programs.  Problem is, it doesn't fit their political strategy.

Republicans, who are Progressives-lite- they are okay apparently with a lot of the same corruption and central planning that Democrats are, just not nearly as much of it.  Case in point, Obama budget- completely irresponsible and insane government spending increases, Paul Ryan budget- slightly more responsible but still irresponsible spending increases.  Republicans are of course staunch defenders of the military and projecting American power.  While I lean toward a strong military (that one is actually in the Constitution, unlike Medicare and Social Security) and believe the military contains some of the best people in our country, the official leadership as evidenced by the Iraq war and Patriot Act/ FISA Court Act, is unthinkingly committed to a world view of interventionism and military control.  I long for leadership in the Republican party that has the courage to say we must scale back our military spending, and that means scaling back in a deliberate and focused way, on all the projections of military around the world.  Republican leadership can't apparently stand up, and follow up with actions, for true American principles of smaller government.  I was one of those in the minority that was shouted down during the government shutdown.  I would endorse a government shut down until we had a sustainable budget.  The Republicans quit the fight because they did a political calculation, which is reprehensible.

Finally there is the Libertarian-Tea Party wing of the Republican party.  They are vilified by the mainstream media and their own party leadership as crazy, extreme (favorite Democratic talking point word), unreasonable, radical right.  Apparently wanting to try smaller government and free(er) markets is a radical idea right now.  This wing is led by a small group of people, who, unlike virtually all of their government colleagues, actually believe in something and are willing to do courageous things to fight for it.  I've been on record that there a handful of folks on the left that I disagree with but respect because I believe that they are willing to be honest about their positions and have a public debate, not just try to politically crush their opponents and take on more power and control.

The Libertarian wing is fighting for the soul of the Republican party, but they has a big uphill battle.  They ironically fight against the same group that is supporting the radical left- the media, monied interests on Wall Street, big money special interest groups.

Since I don't see any hint of such a movement on the Left (even I could get behind a Democrat that said "this social program or this government energy research program is so important that we must cut government spending significantly to preserve it"), I must turn to the Republican Party, with all it flaws and poor leadership, to try to engage politically.

For the record, I realize there are a lot of folks on this site, zerohedge, TF Metals, etc. that believe that "both parties are the same" and you are just throwing your vote away by voting for one of the parties.  I respect their opinion, but at the same time, I reject that approach.  Short of rebellion tactics, the only approach I have to change government, for myself and for my children, is to engage politically.   I support candidates that are flawed but headed in the right direction and who I can find some common ground with and vote for.  I think it is frankly immature, uninformed and weak-minded to state "they are all just the same, so I'm not voting".  That's my position and I'm sticking to it.

Have a great week,

H

Viewing 10 posts - 41 through 50 (of 571 total)

Login or Register to post comments