Are you kidding? I have more important things to do than watch a criminal lie his way through his last SOTU speech. Good riddance to trash.

I can't even find any decent live blogging on this. I've had to entertain myself reading the dkos comment threads.

Oh thank god it's over.

Nancy was in perfect position to shove a glass ceiling shard up the chimp's ass, and blew it.

"Nancy was in perfect position to shove a glass ceiling shard up the chimp's ass, and blew it."

And destruction of the Democratic Party continues apace. (The tree dies from the roots up.)

357 days.

We stopped a plot to destroy the tallest building in LA? We must monitor terrorist communications. We need to know what they're talking about. Congress, you better do something about this by Friday, or Americans will be in danger. Ok, wait. So give the telecoms immunity, or I'm gonna put Americans in danger by using my veto power. Do I have that right?

A plot to blow up passenger planes? Al Qaida is on the run in Iraq?

"Ink-stained thumbs" in Iraq? There was a vote there? Or is he talking about that one like 3-4 years ago?

There's a new policy, "return on sucess," we're bringing the surge forces home. Oh, but not too fast. Petraeus says that would hurt Iraqi forces and al-Qaida would regain their ground. So the forces have to come home verrrrry sloooowwly.

Stopping the development of uranium in Iran? Heard that one before. Wow, is that scary. He still has a year left, people.

No one can deny the results of No Child Left Behind? Is he joking? Where do I get in line to deny that?

To keep us competitive into the future, we must trust in the skills of our scientists to persue the breakthroughs of tomorrow? Like stem-cell research? Oh, wait, "while respecting moral boundaries." He still hears the screams coming from the petri dishes.

Things are great in Afghanistan, so we're sending 3,000 more troops.

Wait, this just in...my mom just called and asked if I heard this: "we must also reform our veterans system to meet the needs of A NEW WAR and a new generation." I'm looking for a transcript.

Oh man, this was his last one of these. That is just so great.

The response is by Gov. Sebelious, a prominent Obama supporter...The message was obviously a post partisan Obama supported message. If this doesn't convince people we need the Clintons to fight this out, I don't know what will.

This is what losing looks like. This is embarrassing. Since she was an Obama supporter, I assume he had a hand in this. Any other ideas? And the message was clearly post partisan crap.

I hope people wake up. This is lethal. Like a bottle of sleeping pills.

Sebelius= defeat.

"Ink-stained thumbs" in Iraq?
...it was a typo, Jeff. Should have read "Blood-stained thumbs"

Kathleen Sebelius was as inspiring as the Creation Museum, also in her great state of Kansas.

How 'bout the post debate coverage? Tim Russert used it as an excuse to obsess about Ted Kennedy's endorsement of Obama.
CNN just said Hillary was scheduled to talk to them but her campaign cancelled at the last minute. I'm not sure that was a good idea. Romney, McCain and Obama were all on. Wonder what gives.....At least Olberman is giving Bush hell for Bush's hyping terrorism.

You're right, Tiki, blood is would be much more apt.

But you're ruining my plans for a road trip to the Creation Museum. I thought it was near Cincinnati in Kentucky. We have to get this straight. I wanna go saddle up and ride that dinosaur, like our ancestors did.

Hey, and can someone answer something for me? Why is Hillary being labeled as "the politics of the past?" Kennedy said that today, Obama's always saying that. She's worked her whole life to get to this moment. What if Kennedy endorsed Hillary? Would it get this much press? And here's my biggest question: If there was a presidential candidate Obama's age, what is he, early-mid fourties, with his amount of experience, that was a woman, would she be getting the time of day from Ted Kennedy or John Kerry or ANYone? Am I crazy here? Because it seems so obvious to me. I mean, it took Hillary this long to get to this point, and she's dismissed as "politics of the past," but if she were Barack's age, she'd more than likely be termed as, I don't know, "cute?"

Maybe Gov. Sebelius can get the President to play her son's game "Don't Drop the Soap". The game goes on sale Jan 31st for $34.99.

Stirling Newberry at The Agonist:

They did do nothing to deserve the name, "Americans".

Showing that he is untouched by self-reflection, intellectual honesty, or self-doubt, George W. Bush has delivered a hard partisan, nasty and crassly self-promoting state of the union to a Congress. He demanded total acquiescence to his economic, foreign policy and domestic agenda, and high handedly threatened that Congress repeatedly if they did not yield to his every demand. Piling on dog whistle after dog whistle to anti-government and anti-tax zealots, in direct contradiction to being the most free spending executive in post-war history, he threw in the face of that same Congress his own duplicity on the matter. Trillions for corruption, but a few spare pennies for everyone else.

Bush was never a uniter, he was never interested in bi-partisanship, and he was always interested only in imposing his will and vision on America. A series of Congresses, filled with the corrupt and the craven, not merely bent it's knee to the monarchial impulse, but eagerly participated in outrages against the Constitution that Bush now so gaily flaunts only the first three words of.

Because the faith of the founders was in the Union, that web of people, states, government, law and history which was bound together by wars and conflicts, and given a living presence in a document which is fouled by the expectorant of signing statements, secret courts, and overturned elections.

It is a mark of shame on this time, and on every American, that we have tolerated such continuous stream of lawless outrages by an executive that knows no honor, and a string of Congresses that have chosen to slop at the trough of pork and personal privilege, before even beginning to move a finger...

Read the rest, the best rant on the SOTU.

Mr. Hope and Unity and A New Kind of Politics Greets Hillary Clinton at SOTU tonight

I think this photo says a lot about our petulant little messiah.

(And this is after he had a GOOD day).

One of the "W"orst moments of the SOTU..Bushbot Christopher Shays (R-CT) planting a kiss on Bush...whoever runs against Shays...here is your 30 second TV spot..it's a good thing Bush didn't have his back to Shays, lest he would have planted the wet kiss on his ass....

The big news tonite is the snub Obama gave Hillary .....pictures and article in this link in AP....

http://www.thenewstribune.com/tacoma/24hour/politics/v-enlarge_photo/story/267475-a267448-t2.html

Yet another Neocon SOTU?

STFU!

It was the last! It was the last! Thank God almighty, it was the last! (apology to MLK)

Didya catch his ferverent believe that his "every child left behind" program was successfull? Jebus, the most conservative state in the union, Utah, is going to drop it. What kind of bubble does this boy live in? His success in education is precisely mirrored by his "victory" in iraq. His repetitive use of the word "enemy" without any definition is really reminiscint of someone wearing a toothbrush moustache. If he had 4 more years he'd be bellowing "Wir haben die Kriege verloren dorwegen die verdamned liberals und Hilary Clinton". Heck, he might do it anyway.

Jeff...thanks for remining us of all the Bush failures..oh wait..that was Bush reminding us of all his failures. What a complete dunce he is....

Do you hear a battle cry? I do...After the blatant sexist rants of the loser parts of the Democratic party, Kennedy, who ran for president, kerry who lost the Presidency, daschle,who lost his Majority seat, and the fat, loathing, patronizing, marginalizing press,who report nothing of importance, women should redouble their efforts to destroy the opposition and get as many people to the polls for Hillary as humanly possible...I hope all women finally get it...including Republican women..This is what it's really come down to...Sexism is far worse than racism in this country.

Women are paid less than men and treated as second class in the political elite...even though the leadership in the Senate for example, is disastrous. Kennedy's speech was despicable. I hope there are as many women who are as infuriated as I am and intend to do something about it.

I'm consider myself an accomplished woman...but when I see this hatefest towards Hillary,and the animus toward her candidacy, I realize there is no insulation from this subliminal or conscious resentment/hate of female leaders who actually wield real substantial power. We cannot ignore it any longer nor convince ourselves that it is someone else's problem but not ours. This is the time to take a stand. Because this is what is out there...these are our Democratic leaders...throwing mud in our face. Kennedy's attack was unnecessary to his endorsement. But it is emblematic of what they think of a substantial qualified, exceptional woman (the NYT would add brilliant and other superlatives). A woman with Obama's experience would be laughed off the stage of a Presidential race. This is sheer hyocrisy coming from supposedly big liberals... and betrayal. But it was also a challenge. I for one, will be rising to that challenge and going all out for Hillary. And I admit...hoping for a little payback later.

It almost as if these guys were of an opinion that a Republican was better than Hillary.
As for Obama...I've already stated that I think he is a Trojan Horse.

of course, I recognize that there are many men who are as repulsed as the women. It is an unfair fight..and a dirty one...except the rules require Clinton to tie one hand behind her back. And these same men recognize what it takes to be a winner...I know they are joining this battle too...But it is particularly galling as a woman to hear this from Kennedy whose own history has its many untidy issues.

The photos of Obama snubbing Clinton at SOTU are going to be explosive in the next few days.

It's truly amazing to me how Obama could have the kind of day he had on Monday, and then be so ungracious toward Clinton with all the cameras around. It's the ultimate unmasking of the phony messenger. Christ, you'd think he'd know better than to act-out in that venue. Unbelievable.

Post partisan is the way to peace, some might say.

MLK had another view:

"Without Justice, there can be no peace."

For all the crying about who cried for Katrina's victims, will Obama pursue those who caused all those unnecessary deaths? Or will he reach across the aisle in solidarity?

Story of the night: the photos. The 2nd one is almost worst. How old is guy, 12?

Ok, let me try that again. The second photo could be worse than the first, and I'm further questioning if the man has the mindset and maturity of a 12-year-old.

It's late here.

the man is not worthy of my time..absolutly not the slightest interest in anything he has to say

as a politically calculation..if the clintons have come to the conclusion that the black vote has deserted them..and they decide to pit black against white..in order to win..is that wrong?

Ok, I'll be the contrarian, here. I actually watched the whole disaster. It was definitely NOT to watch the pathologically shameless war criminal thumb his nose at his victims one last time. I was watching the Demorats. I was pleased to see that, for the most part, they managed to sit in stony silence, after ludicrously clapping for minutes when the fool ambled in with his self-consciously, unnatural gait; doing the only thing he still has some tattered skill at; slapping backs and asking things like, How's the girl at faces he dimly remembers.

The Republicans were amazing; actually hooting and cheering while the other half of of the chamber read their notes. What a truly bizarre display of immature tribalism!

As the cameras panned the room, I gritted my teeth every time they displayed the reason we MUST rally behind whatever Dem candidate emerges, the incestuous Supremes. They sat there smugly, those who installed the Butch and those installed BY him; prepared to destroy civil society for a generation. There can be NO MORE Republican, Activist judges!

Nancy "Tables" Pelosi several times, seemed to look to the floor to decide whether to stand and applaud a banal talking point. Now THAT's leadership. Cheney alternated between boredom and malignant pleasure. I'm definitely not going there. At least he didn't have to lurk in the bushes to watch his acolyte mangle his lines.

As to those damning pictures; sorry, they are not significant. While the frat bubble boy SLOWLY wended his way through the crowd who STILL seemed to want his autograph, including MANY Democrats WTF??, I actualy saw the exact moment captured where it looked like Bush breezed past Obama to shake Clinton's hand. I thought at the time, what a Churl! However, it was just a moment. About ten seconds later, He was shaking Obama's hand and sharing some gross banality. At one point, I beleive I also saw Barack and Hillary speaking. No doubt the picture will be hailed far and wide as some hideous slight, but it's simply not true It was a monent in time, nothing more.

When it came time for the remarkably stiff Sibelius to speak for the Democratic response I too was ready to projectile vomit when she started up with the the post partisan crap. It is highly inappropriate for an endorser of one candidate in a tight primary to speak for the Democrats, especially one who tends to be dangerously close to being a blue-furred canine.

However, the speech actually hit some good points, in a somewhat oblique fashion. She made the point consistently that "we are ready to work in a bi-partisan fashion" and pointedly invited the President to "JOIN US". She said things which implied that, while the American people are ready to endure sacrifice, they deserve more than "politicians who demand absolutely nothing". It was subtle, and it wasn't good enough, but she DID express the idea that Bush was recalcitrant and the Dems were the "grown-ups".

She had bizarre, pauses between paragraphs during which she seemed like a deer in headlights. I would like to know who picked her for the rebutal. Clearly, there is a rich story there. It was gruelling to watch, but I needed to see how the Democrats acted last night. It could have been worse, but it was plenty bad enough.

That picture of Obama supposedly snubbing Hillary is meaningless. We don't know what happened just before or after--they may have greeted each other. It looks like she's extending her hand to Kennedy (if that's Kennedy there.)

I wanted to hurl when I saw people asking Bush for his autograph. First of all, I kind of think autographs are stupid anyway. Second, these people are on a first name basis with him--I wouldn't ask my boss or co-worker for an autograph. Thirdly, it's Bush. Someone wants his autograph? Seriously? Blech.

Can you say people are out to stir shit up?

Commenters -- and you know which ones you are -- knock it the fuck off.

Good call, idio. It's like a caption contest gone horribly awry.

If you're gonna talk about that damn photo the most important thing I see in it is a gracious Sen. Hillary Clinton warmly greeting a fellow Senator who just hours prior had endorsed her rival for the presidential nomination.

Idio, thank you.

CG, that was my take on the picture also.

"I see in it is a gracious Sen. Hillary Clinton warmly greeting a fellow Senator who just hours prior had endorsed her rival for the presidential nomination."

Snark, right. However, that's not relevant to some folks. I see a mature woman with class.

Huh. Sorry for my observations. I tried earlier to get into the substance of the actual speech this thread was created for, but nobody seemed to want to talk about it.

What the hell, I'll give the Messiah the benefit of the doubt, it's the only fair thing to do. And anyway, I've already been doing it for 6 fucking years.

Rule No. 1: Kid Gloves must be worn at all times. Rule No. 2: ignore all potentially damaging evidence. Rule No. 3: faith is everything; do not push for substance for it may offend; if you have any questions, please refer to the Good Book, the Man's Memoirs, written when he was 31, that is all ye need to know.

Hey Turk, I heard Osama's name at least once, you must have dozed off, old age and all. Come on folks, get that governor as your presidential candidates running mate. She'll cost you votes for sure.

"Blithering lunatic gives last State of the Asylum speech!"

Funny line from Huffington.

Jeff, You forgot, Rule No. 4: No one can like Hillary and Obama.

"Osama"

Peter, you guys just can't help distorting everything, down to and including, someone's name.

Bush was never a uniter, he was never interested in bi-partisanship, and he was always interested only in imposing his will and vision on America.

Whose will? Whose vision? George W. Bush's?

Yeah. Pull my other leg and it plays "Jingle Bells".

SoS, see, I don't understand why not, politically. They're both centrists. Just like Bill and Al and most of the others. The DLC was very successful in the early '90's.

I hate to be so angry about it, and I really shouldn't be, but I just wish Hillary got the same treatment as Barack. It won't happen, though. Maybe we need a reality check. A big table with important issues and each of their plans spelled out. Ignore the MSM.

I've officially come to grips now with the grim reality that Kucinich is not a player. And personally I'd rather see Hillary and the competent people who surround her take the reins during a very dangerous time. Plus the Cult of Personality thing that surrounds Barack rubs me the wrong way. I just wish he were doing this in 2012 when we'd know him a little better.

Man, was that speech last night frightening.

Peace!

Should Obama get the mon it's going to be very interesting to see who he populates his administration with. VP selection will be interesting. But how does a guy running on "change" and "altering the conventional wisdom" fill hundreds of offices without, a) hordeing his friends and hangers on into the bureaucracy ala cronyism or b) packing the executive branch with the same old same old inside players?

dyslexic moment.

That's "nom". Not "mon".

Am I the only one who can clearly see the "buzzer" in Hillory's outstretched hand to Teddy? And if you listen closely, you can hear Obama remark "Don't taze me, sista", as he wisely turned away.

You are right, Jeff. Your Creation Museum journey to enlightenment will end in Petersburg, Kentucky. Turn left 2 doublewides past the "Deliverence" dinner playhouse.

Jeff, It's like a lot of folks have said, "Can't wait for the primaries to be over."

MSM are the ones making the petty shit up and framing the argument.
Then on the blogs, we have everyone defending their candidate like it'll be the end of the world if it turns out to be anyone else. Chirst, I just want a Democrat in office. And, I'll support whoever the nominee is!

And I can't understand those who won't vote for Hillary. WTF... if only for SCOTUS! They risk losing this country further without thinking rationally.

But then I just had my congressman, Grijalva switch from Edwards to Obama. Pissed me off!

(The tree dies from the roots up.)

Much like your brain.

It almost as if these guys were of an opinion that a Republican was better than Hillary.

How does the Republican differ from Hillary?

Did you like Hillary sitting next to that guy during the SOTU address? Wonder who he was? What message could she have been trying for? Here, I'll use my incredible photo-telepathy (telepathy from just looking at a picture) to examine the event -telling you exactly what she was thinking- and how it was far superior to the thoughts others were having. Lets see, mind-reading goggles on....Ahhhh! She has a plan to plan for the plan that requires releasing the plan that planned for what she was concerned with planning for! She was only constrained because others had a plan and didn't plan to release it! Inscrutable! Now that's a plan I can get behind.

It is an unfair fight..and a dirty one...except the rules require Clinton to tie one hand behind her back.

No. Your rules require allowing Billary to say anything, including propagating lies and partial truths, without responding. Those are the rules you want. Unfortunately for you, it's politics. If you want people to play nice and by your rules go to a bar and buy unlimited rounds for the patrons. Otherwise, messianic zeal for any candidate without analysis of their positions past and present is quite limiting when it comes to making an informed decision about a presidential candidate.

Osama was left out because Bush's handlers thought he would say Obama instead.

But how does a guy running on "change" and "altering the conventional wisdom" fill hundreds of offices without, a) hordeing his friends and hangers on into the bureaucracy ala cronyism or b) packing the executive branch with the same old same old inside players?

Answer: He doesn't. He's saying what he needs to say to get elected. He's telling us what we want to hear.

Maybe we need a reality check. A big table with important issues and each of their plans spelled out. Ignore the MSM.

I thought that was the entire purpose of the "blogosphere" or whatever it's called. So real people, and people like snark, could discuss the real issues free from the influence of the MSM.

But lately it seems to be all you guys talk about. Sexism, race cards, etc.

So, yeah we need somebody to host a big round table where we can examine the differences among the candidates, ask questions about things we might not understand, and decide now, before it's too late, who the Democratic nominee should be.

I second Jeff's motion.

While the frat bubble boy SLOWLY wended his way through the crowd who STILL seemed to want his autograph, including MANY Democrats WTF??

Kinda like wanting Hitler's autograph... it might be worth something one day.

Well, it does seem that Clinton and Obama did not greet each other.

If you can believe the Obama campaign anyway.

Turning away to avoid an 'awkward moment'? Doesn't exactly mesh with the campaign rhetoric does it?

I hate to be so angry about it, and I really shouldn't be, but I just wish Hillary got the same treatment as Barack. It won't happen, though. Maybe we need a reality check. A big table with important issues and each of their plans spelled out. Ignore the MSM.

Heh.

Wow, Hillary is so completely ignored.

Coverage is coverage. Especially when so much of Super Tuesday is name recognition alone.

If only Edwards could be as snubbed by the media as Hillary.

snark, Steve Clemons said the same thing, that Obama turned away. If so, whatev, dude. It doesn't change my already low opinion of him anyhow. (I hate fads, especially religious ones) Still, he's better than a Republican. Rachel Maddow was talking on Friday about how he made a conference call to a bunch of reporters last week, which would be just fine, if they weren't in the frikkin bus right behind his on the campaign trail. You gotta admit, his campaign has cleverly managed to ramp up the "calculating" meme around the Clintons to disguise his own highly calculated moves. Come on, all it took was a couple people to cry "racism!" and the media did what they always do: trash the Clintons. Why wouldn't he take advantage of that? To tell you the truth, I'm disappointed that the Clintons are being so bad at this - if the stereotype about them were true, you'd think Hillary would be doing much better. I guess we'll see.

Yes, SoS, if I have to, I'll wear an Obama t-shirt or hat or whatever all summer. The Supreme Court is, like you said, all we should be worrying about. That and the wars. You're right.

You're also right about the next, what, 8 days before half the country votes for the nominee. Like the Vigilante says, let's take a sober look at the issues, make our decision, take a break, and get on with it. This is a big election. Again. And we're gonna get "swift-boated. Again. Our candidates offer plenty of ammo for the Dark Side. They got a gun. And they know how to use it.

And then we can worry about the Diebold voting machines, which will be hacked again.

Sorry. I shouldn't be so cynical. I'm just concerned for our democracy. That sounds alarmist, but, I mean, the writing's on the wall.

I know I'm repeating myself, but if anyone's got time on their hands, like 5 minutes, take a look at the transcript from last night. It will give you chills. If Congress isn't careful, they're gonna find their hands tied on Iraqi occupation and FISA, and it really won't matter who wins in November.

Anjha, what KIND of attention is Hillary receiving? I'm in total agreement she's being talked about.

Coyote, think about this. In S. Carolina, half the voters black, why the hell would Hillary wanna play the race card? I mean, let's look at motive here. How did that all start? Who benefitted? I hate this campaign so much.

Sorry. I shouldn't be so cynical. I'm just concerned for our democracy. That sounds alarmist, but, I mean, the writing's on the wall.

We are alike more than you know Jeff. We care about the direction our country is headed. Just like the rest of the gawdless souls here. ;)

If only Edwards could be as snubbed by the media as Hillary.

Damn right Anjha!

Hey, SoS, speaking of gawdless, everyone's talking about a black or a woman's chances (including me), what chance would an atheist have in an election? I think there's one in Congress somewhere, but I don't know his name. What does THAT say about the good ole' U S of A?

This is a big election. Again. And we're gonna get "swift-boated". Again.

Obama will, for sure. Does anybody really think he's got what it takes to fight back against the imminent GOP shit storm?

again I've tired of the As Hillary Turns narrative here. I'd like to talk about Rudy Giuliani's exit from the GOP. In Texas, the attractively coiffed governor Rick Perry went out and threw his support behind Rudy, dissing Bush in the process. Now that Rudy is a non-issue, where does that leave Perry? I'd say out on a limb with the chainsaw revving up behind him. Stupid is as stupid does.

So Bush says how proud we should be that we Al-Qaida on the run in Iraq...and Hillary stands and applauds! Good show Hil, way to show your support for the Republican "surge success" meme!

Remember last election all we heard was how Kerry was "for the war before he was against it"? Well, when Hillary voted to fund the war, she lost all credibility on the issue, and if she is our candidate the opposition will say the same thing about her that they did about Kerry. Put up against McCain, she'll be the flip-flopper on the issue, and our strongest argument will be taken away.

Let's not go down the same losing path. Vote Obama!

I should add that Jeff's weekend post on Hillary had a great point that explains a lot - any attempt by her or her people to mention sexism gets screams of indignation from all sides. If Hillary even refers to herself as a woman, there's much wailing and gnashing of teeth from left, right, center everyone, so pretty much the one thing that distinguishes her is a net downer, while Obama is free to use the race card to his benefit at any time. Not only that, if a woman says she's voting for Hillary because she's a woman, she's sneered at, but no one's sneering at the major outpouring of AA support for Obama. I've always said that a black man would be prez before a white woman, now I know why it's possible. Because of the Hillary hatred, it's still okay to be sexist to any woman, whereas the PC police on the left and the right (even if it's a cynical attack on Hillary) scream bloody murder at the merest mention of race.

T2, yeah, it's a frikkin' soap opera - if you're not female. And this isn't about who the Dem candidate is, this is about our lives, and the shit we have to listen to day after day because everyone hates the Clintons. It's acceptable to reinforce the stereotypes because she's such a bitch. We can't even talk about feminism any more because it might be construed as a vote for Hillary.

Anjha, what KIND of attention is Hillary receiving? I'm in total agreement she's being talked about.

Most of it has been positive. Recently, over the past couple of weeks, the MSM has been playing the race card and the negative coverage has been dished out to Clinton and Obama both - with a lot of negative media attention on Bill.

Some of the negative attention they have received, however, has been brought on themselves. I can't consider a direct quotation as 'negative.'

Even so, attention is attention. Personally I think that the whole "rift" between Obama and Clinton and the big, bad, dirty campaigning crap was a myth concocted by the MSM...I really didn't see any big deal between the two campaigns.

Media likes conflict; even if it is they who create it.

The day before the NH primary it was all Hillary, all day. They showed her "emotional moment," where she teared up, non stop. Hillary received millions and millions of dollars of free, positive, advertising.

The media has also up-played "Hillary as victim" over and over again. They have moved a tremendous amount of support her way by appealing to the "I hate to see any woman victimized" crowd. This has been done non-stop and it again translates into a ton of free media.

The MSM has wanted a Hillary candidacy for the last two years. They have pushed it in any way possible.

Personally, I am disgusted by the media's ability to choose who our nominees are by yielding their coverage to the candidates who they want.

I think that there should be free, equal time mandates to all candidates...but that would eliminate the MSM big profits on candidate advertising.

Bottom line: winning in November is far more important than who wins. I think that all three of our contenders would do an excellent job and it is absolutely necessary that we win and that we win big (in order to make it less easy to steal the election.)

Also, it is extremely important that whoever our candidate is that they bring with them a ton of down ticket Dems. We must pack the Congress if we are to take care of the Nation's business and save us from the tyranny of the last 8 years.

I am not interested in tearing any Dem down, and certainly not interested in fighting with my TLC family, I just would like to see the most electable Dem nominated.

iamcoyote, I'm not sure what being female has to do with soap operas. And I'm not sure everyone hates the Clintons as he was elected president twice and left with a 60+ approval and she is the current national leader for the Dem nomination. But some people hate the Clintons, no doubt. Some people hate the Bush's also. And the Giuliani's. And Tony Romo. Some people hate blacks. Some people hate women. Some people hate muslim's and some people hate the French, and some people hate Jews and Mexicans.
And some people hate politics.

She's for 'us' not against 'us'(Clinton), on the war. Who did the "swift boating" in the primaries so far? So for all means, let's vote for Sen. Clinton. Those NE people just are so wrong. Senator's Kennedy and Kerry supporting the wrong person as well as Leahy. Let's restore the Clinton's to their rightful place. She's been measuring for drapes all these years.

Anjha, well-said. We all have the same priorities, I think. Peace.

But I agree with Coyote (obviously, after my Sunday post), too. Women are still treated differently than men of any color. And putting the campaign aside for a moment (you don't have to vote differently because of this), we should all really think about that, because this is the ultimate example.

iamcoyote, I'm not sure what being female has to do with soap operas.

Heh. 'Cos it's men associated with soap operas, right, T2? All's I'm saying is that the Hillary hate has made it okay for people on both left and right to make comments that at any other time would be considered sexist by most on the left. Now, it's a free for all - you wouldn't believe some of the vile shit about Hillary I've seen on lefty blogs the last couple months. It seems like since it's okay to hate Hillary, it's okay to say anything and call it "just politics." Anyone trying to point out the sexism is dismissed as a Hillary lover, which is just as dismissive as calling feminist outrage a "soap opera." Go ahead, read some of the comments on Jeff's post. Many people said what amounts to: it's okay, because it's Hillary. It's pretty shitty to see that garbage coming from our side - and there's no way to defend women without it being construed as supporting Hillary. Do you see why it might not be as trivial to some women as a soap opera?

He snubbed her because he's arrogant and all of this unwarranted adulation has gone to his head. You'd almost think he'd have been in a magnanimous mood after the fluffing he received from Teddy, the media, Toni Morrison, the governor of Kansas, etc. I guess seeing Hillary last night was like being slapped in the face with reality. He had to turn away! How could some old broad stand between him and his mission of being the new JFK? It ain't fair, I tell ya.

T2, now you've crossed the line including Tony Romo in all of this. You're on my List, Buddy.

Coyote, where were you Sunday? I was waiting for you to chime in (maybe you did, I haven't checked). Don't you love my girlfriend Jessica Reaves? I've been writing to the Chicago Trib urging them to set her loose on this campaign, but they have her stuck in the Features Section. Her work for Time Magazine during the 2000 disaster was great stuff. She wrote the memorable article urging all those "undecided" voters before the election to get their heads out of their asses. What exactly was there to be undecided about between Al Gore and George Bush? I've urged her to send me a post sometime, I really hope she does, her work always contains a snarky bit of wit along with being informed and able to distill an issue down to its essence. Totally love her.

Sorry, Jeff - we had sunshine all weekend, then a snowstorm on Monday, so I was taking a break from the 'nets. But yeah, Jessica's great.

Jessica?

Didn't Tony Romo dump her?

Wonder what (or who) Tony's gonna be doin' this weekend?

Wasn't that Tom Brady? I get 'em all mixed up. So, did they already do the Superbowl yet?

"packing the executive branch with the same old same old inside players?"

Snark, there is talk, nothing more, about Edwards being offered the AG position. From my perspective, he would be a perfect fit for that posiiton.

LOL...snark, MY girlfriend is Jessica REAVES of the Chicago Tribune. Tony Romo's girlfriend is Jessica SIMPSON, and if anyone would've read my gossip column on Friday night, which I think I'll make into a regular feature just to spite all of you, you would know that the original reports of Romo and Jessica breaking up were swiftly denied by the blonde diva.

So, to answer your question, I assume Tony will be doing Jessica this weekend and, sadly and unfairly, WATCHING the Super Bowl sharing a bowl of popcorn and some Mike and Ikes with Daisy Duke on a couch somewhere.

Jeez, I'm glad you guys don't know Eastern Illinois' basketball team is 3-17 right now. I'd really be getting takin' some crap.

"Turning away to avoid an 'awkward moment'? Doesn't exactly mesh with the campaign rhetoric does it?"

That old adage comes to mind. It's not what they say that counts, it's what they do.

Coyote, I still don't get the point you're trying to make about women and Hillary, but by all means keep trying to make it.

Meanwhile, can anybody come up with some actual quotes of credible, published sources making sexist or racist remarks during this campaign?

(By "credible, published" I mean at the very least from a website. Not what the guy at the liquor store thinks.)

I keep hearing about cards being played, but I never see them.

Also, I thought we weren't supposed to talk about Snubgate at the SOTU last night.

"Wasn't that Tom Brady? I get 'em all mixed up." Guys don't, iamcoyote, :-)

Coyote, I still don't get the point you're trying to make about women and Hillary,

And that's my point.

(By "credible, published" I mean at the very least from a website. Not what the guy at the liquor store thinks.)

What if I saw it on the guy at the licquor store's website?

Also, I thought we weren't supposed to talk about Snubgate at the SOTU last night.

Who's talking?

MV, you've gotta be kidding me. Read my Sunday post and then come back and tell me you don't get it.

Guys don't

Heehee. Good one, T2!

But really, I recently saw something somewhere where they were talking about Brady (the guy with the fake injury, right?), and Jessica Simpson dumping him! Maybe they were joking about it? I have to say, whenever I see Simpson, my brain shuts down. She's made her living on the dumb blonde stereotype, so I guess it's possible they were talking about Romo, and I just tuned out.

And that's my point.

Because, as a man, I wouldn't understand?

What if I saw it on the guy at the licquor store's website?

Credible.

MV, you've gotta be kidding me. Read my Sunday post and then come back and tell me you don't get it.

I read it. Enjoyed it. I get that sexism is tolerated more so than racism in this country.

And I get that your girlfriend Jessica has been startled by the way the MSM has treated Hillary since the jump.

I avoid the MSM, so I'm looking for quotes. The Chris Matthews "nails on a chalkboard" thing doesn't really count.

Again, everybody's talking about this card and that card being played -- what are we really saying? Is this all just a perception thing? Is that all this blog is about -- the perceived bias of the MSM?

LOL...Coyote, you're awesome. We need to assign you TLC Sports Reporter.

Because, as a man, I wouldn't understand?

Because as a commentor, you've already admitted that you don't. Unless you're just trying to be funny, in which case, again, you've proven my point.

So Jeff, what's it gonna be this Sunday?

Can you put aside the bitterness of the loss to the Giants and get behind them as the Cindarella team?

Or are you gonna pull for the Patriot perfect season juggernaut?

As awesome as the Giants' defensive pass rush has been, I think the Mad Scientist (or whatever Belichik is nicknamed) will figure it out.

Pats by 20. I don't even know what the spread is but I'd give the points. They're just a machine.

And no, my bitterness will not go away. Ever. Or at least until next season starts. Go Tony!

Because as a commentor, you've already admitted that you don't. Unless you're just trying to be funny, in which case, again, you've proven my point.

No, I'm not trying to be funny. I just really don't understand what you're all trying to accomplish here.

I just really don't understand what you're all trying to accomplish here.

Maybe your mask is too tight? Try unzipping the little mouth hole.

Try unzipping the little mouth hole.

Hey, I didn't say "Mistress Coyote Says!"

I just really don't understand what you're all trying to accomplish here.

Who's trying to accomplish anything? Why should something be accomplished anyhow? We're all just jabbering for fun, aren't we? If someone else learns something new, that's just bonus.

Okay. It's just jabbering and political analysis. That's cool. Please, carry on.

Oh, speaking of learning something new, check this out sometime. You can read the opinions of other tin foil heads like me, only with really impressive credentials.

120+ Senior Military, Intelligence Service, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials

300+ Engineers and Architects

60+ Pilots and Aviation Professionals

190+ Professors

200+ 9/11 Survivors and Family Members

All of whom don't buy the official 9/11 story and would like to see an independent investigation.

Jeff, I live about 8 miles from the stadium and we went to the NFL Experience this weekend, interesting.
The spread started at 14, down to 12. I keep hoping it will go lower. Then put a bunch on the Pats and the perfect season.
I don't think the last game meant much, the Pats were resting 2 starting offensive linemen. Plus, Belichik has had two weeks to prepare, the Giants secondary is hurting and Brady is looking fine on the news in workouts here.

Coyote, Brady goes out with this fancy, smancy, super model from NY city. No Texas trailer trash for him.

They may have impressive credentials but they generally can't back up their "opinions" with "facts" any better than you can MV.

I have been to that site, MV, and pretending like all those folks agree that Bush personally planted bombs in the 2 towers is really stretching it. Anyone important who has ever said anything about needing a proper investigation into 9-11 instead of the whitewash commission is included in there. Many of them probably don't know they're being lumped into the wackadoodle Building Seven, Man, Building Seven, I tell you!!! crowd.

Texas trailer trash, heh. I suppose it's better than Louisiana trailer trash, eh?

Yeah know, I go to those stupid sites thinking maybe this time I'll really be impressed. Maybe this time they'll really make a compelling case.

This is the first thing I clicked on at patriotsquestion911.com;

After reading fifteen well researched books, studying 8 or 9 DVD documentaries and devoting months of personal research and investigation I have arrived at one ultimate conclusion; - Former Air Force Lt. Jeff Dahlstrom

Wow! He read fifteen books AND studied 8 or 9 (hard to keep track I suppose) DVD documentaries!

I don't know why I even bother.

Ok, SoS, I may need to emphasize this again. Tony comes from Eastern Illinois University. Like me. We are generally known as alcoholic, cursed losers who only learned bong etiquette at the school.

One of us is the starting quarterback for the Dallas Cowboys and is dating Jessica Simpson. For us, that's huge, Man.

There are exceptions: Former Gov. Jim Edgar, Mike Shanahan, Sean Payton, Brad Childress, John Jurkovic (lots of football jocks), Burl Ives, Kevin Duckworth, John Malkovich (though he denies ever being there), and my favorite success story, porn star Calli Cox, who got an education degree. I mean, what else to do with an education degree from EIU? You go into porn, of course!

Wow! He read fifteen books AND studied 8 or 9 (hard to keep track I suppose) DVD documentaries!

Yeah, but did he watch every single episode of the X-Files??

The next ‘credentialed’ expert is Capt. Daniel Davis. Former NORAD Officer (retired over 30 years ago) and later CEO of a turbine engine company. His contribution? There’s no way that the plane engines could have been completely destroyed in the fires. Where are the engines he asks? Well, I’ve seen photos of the engines from the WTC strikes and from the Pentagon crash. Odd that no one has shown this expert those photos. Perhaps he's never been to this site? He also talks about the virtual impossibility of an inexperienced pilot flying the maneuvers necessary to crash into Pentagon. Huh? What does he suppose hit the Pentagon? He doesn’t say. What of all the eyewitnesses who ACTUALLY SAW AN AIRLINER FLY INTO THE BUILDING? Are all those people lying? Are they all part of the plot?

Another load of crap.

You're cherry picking, snark. You know this is the first one you REALLY saw:

“A lot of these pieces of information, taken together, prove that the official story, the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a bunch of hogwash. It’s impossible,” said Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret).1

With doctoral degrees in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, Col. Bowman served as Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.
“There’s a second group of facts having to do with the cover up,”
continued Col. Bowman. “Taken together these things prove that high levels of our government don’t want us to know what happened and who’s responsible. Who gained from 9/11? Who covered up crucial information about 9/11? And who put out the patently false stories about 9/11 in the first place? When you take those three things together, I think the case is pretty clear that it’s highly placed individuals in the administration with all roads passing through Dick Cheney.”

Regarding the failure of NORAD to intercept the four hijacked planes on 9/11, Col. Bowman said, “I'm an old interceptor pilot. I know the drill. I've done it. I know how long it takes. I know the rules. ... Critics of the government story on 9/11 have said: ‘Well, they knew about this, and they did nothing’. That's not true. If our government had done nothing that day and let normal procedure be followed, those planes, wherever they were, would have been intercepted, the Twin Towers would still be standing and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive.”

During his 22-year Air Force career, Col. Bowman also served as the Head of the Department of Aeronautical Engineering and Assistant Dean at the U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology. He also flew over 100 combat missions in Viet Nam as a fighter pilot.

That guy is a combat pilot, war hero, and a rocket scientist under two presidents. I don't know what your qualifications are, snark, but that's a pretty tough hand to beat.

I have been to that site, MV, and pretending like all those folks agree that Bush personally planted bombs in the 2 towers is really stretching it.

Nobody's pretending that and nobody's saying that. These are people who know what they're talking about giving their honest opinion.

Which is pretty hard to give, obviously.

Anyway, though a few come up with conclusions regarding who is actually responsible, most just want a real investigation. It's a pretty big crime for there not to be a pretty big *INDEPENDENT* investigation.

Wow! He read fifteen books AND studied 8 or 9 (hard to keep track I suppose) DVD documentaries!

How much research have you done? Besides cnn.com.

Bowman presents no evidence other than his personal opinio that the planes should have n reb intercepted. Nothing. Thé others. I cited offered easily refutable falsehoods.

I'm not the one presenting myself as a 'credentialed expert' and then offering previously refuted 'evidence'.

offering previously refuted 'evidence'

Previously refuted where? In Popular Mechanics? In the 9/11 Commission Report? Where's this infallible info you're relying on?

Oh right, you still don't believe that there are pictures of plane engines in the Pentagon debris. Silly me.

No, not that. We established that. I conceded there were pictures of airplane parts in the building.

What about the rest though? Coyote implied you had a good explanation for WTC 7, for example.

Texas trailer trash, heh. I suppose it's better than Louisiana trailer trash, eh?

I was trying to be kind to her after Cowboy fans referred to her as, "Yoko Romo".

Heh, SoS, and I was being mean by comparing her to Britney Spears...

MV, that guys testimonial about the missing plane parts was just added to the site on January 14, 2008. So how is one to take anything else on it seriously?

Regarding WTC7 go to the NIST website. They have an entire section dedicated to their work on the building collapses. They released a preliminary report on building 7 some time ago. It explains the details of how the building was built and what their working hypothesis is for how it collapsed. They are finishing their final reports which will be released later this year.

Heh, SoS, and I was being mean by comparing her to Britney Spears...

Unfortunately, it's the projection on what it is to be young, blonde, pretty, female, famous, and rich in Hollywood these days.

SoS, that is totally hilarious. Yoko Romo. I'd never heard that one. Damn!

Masked Vigilante,

If you're interested.

The NIST preliminary report on World Trade Center 7.

These are professionals with no other agenda than making sure that we learn what we can from why these buildings failed so that we can build safe buildings in the future.

Who is it that you think can do an "independent" investigation of the events that day?

Who would you trust?

Who would you trust?

Well, NIST is a federal technology agency, so I'd prefer an organization from the private sector.

The NIST report is widely debunked. Mainly because the report relies on a vague assertion that "global collapse" inevitably follows "collapse initiation".

[The NIST] Report implies that the only issue worthy of study is how the jet impacts and fires led to collapse initiation -- an issue to which it devotes well over one hundred pages. Thus, the Report makes two fundamental claims, the first explicit and the second implicit:

The impact damage and fires caused the tops of the Towers to lean and then begin to fall (collapse initiation).

Once initiated, the collapses proceeded to total collapses.

NIST goes to great lengths to support the first claim, but commits numerous omissions and distortions in the process. It remains quiet about the second claim, except for its vague rehash of the pile-driver theory. This is indefensible, given NIST's charge to investigate the collapses. Accepting that claim requires us to believe:

That the collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7 are the only examples of total progressive collapse of steel-framed structures in history.

That those collapses were gravity-driven despite showing all the common physical features of controlled demolitions.

In the cases of the Twin Towers, those features included the following:

Radial symmetry: The Towers came straight down, blowing debris symmetricaly in all directions.

Rapid descent: The Towers came down just slightly slower than the rate of free-fall in a vacuum.

Demolition waves: The Towers were consumed by synchronized rows of confluent explosions.

Demolition squibs: The Towers exhibited high-velocity gas ejections well below the descending rubble.

Pulverization: The Towers' non-metallic components, such as their concrete floors, were pulverized into fine dust.

Totality: The Towers were destroyed totally, their steel skeletons shredded into short pieces, most less than 30 feet long.

All of these features are seen in conventional controlled demolitions. None have ever been observed in steel-framed buildings collapsing for any reason other than controlled demolition.

What are the chances that a phenomenon other than controlled demolition would exhibit all six features never observed elsewhere except in controlled demolitions?

NIST avoids asking this and other questions by implying that they don't exist. It uses the false assertion that partial collapse will inevitably lead to total collapse (couched in the ill-defined terms of "column instability," "global instability," "collapse initiation," and "global collapse") to imply that nothing about the actual collapses is worth considering.

Well, NIST is a federal technology agency, so I'd prefer an organization from the private sector.

So you believe that every person working on this at the NIST is either in on the conspiracy to hide the truth or the vast majority are being duped by their higher ups who are in on the conspiracy and not one of them has come forward to say that the NIST is not doing an honest investigation?

The NIST report is widely debunked. Mainly because the report relies on a vague assertion that "global collapse" inevitably follows "collapse initiation".

The NIST was tasked with determining why the buildings collapsed. They analyzed the building structure, the observable damage to the buildings and the probable internal damage. They presented a theory for why the building failed. The failure started at the floors where the planes impacted. Do you dispute this? The building structure above those points began to fall. Do you dispute this? As the mass of the building above fell the building structure below was destroyed by the falling debris, resulting in total collapse. NIST determined that there was no compelling reason to doubt that global failure would have resulted to warrant doing any further analysis of why the rest of the building collapsed. The 911reasearch group does nothing to ‘debunk’ the NIST report regarding the cause of the initial failure of the buildings.

That the collapses of WTC 1, 2, and 7 are the only examples of total progressive collapse of steel-framed structures in history.

This does nothing to debunk anything. The fact that it is unprecedented is irrelevant.

That those collapses were gravity-driven despite showing all the common physical features of controlled demolitions.

This statement basically says nothing.

In the cases of the Twin Towers, those features included the following:
Radial symmetry: The Towers came straight down, blowing debris symmetricaly in all directions.

Given the laws of physics and the construction of the buildings there’s no other way for this to have happened.

Rapid descent: The Towers came down just slightly slower than the rate of free-fall in a vacuum.

So? But beside that, it’s not demonstrably true. Look at the collapses. Debris is cascading down as it falls off the buildings. This debris falls faster than the exterior perimeter walls of the towers disintegrate. Hence the lower portions of the building are shrouded in dust as the debris from above falls to the ground. Are you going to propose that this debris falling is falling FASTER than free fall rate in a vacuum?

Demolition waves: The Towers were consumed by synchronized rows of confluent explosions.

Really? Where is the evidence of this? What caused the synchronized rows of explosions? Explosives placed in every floor of the towers? Something which none of the thousands of occupants noticed being done all around their offices? Come on. There is not a single shread of physical evidence pointing to planted explosives.

Demolition squibs: The Towers exhibited high-velocity gas ejections well below the descending rubble.

Again, short of someone ‘analyzing’ video there is no evidence of demolition explosives. None. This could just as easily have been the results of overpressure from the compressing debris blowing out windows.

Pulverization: The Towers' non-metallic components, such as their concrete floors, were pulverized into fine dust.

This is false. The photos of the debris piles clearly show large chunks of concrete. In any event, almost all the concrete in the upper portions of the towers was in the floor slabs. It was not structural concrete and was not heavily reinforced. There’s no reason to believe that much of it would not have been smashed into small pieces as the buildings collapsed.

Totality: The Towers were destroyed totally, their steel skeletons shredded into short pieces, most less than 30 feet long.

So. Again, is the contention that this could not have happened unless enough explosives were planted to sever all the steel components into short pieces? Because then you’ve got an even harder time explaining how all that explosives got planted without anyone noticing.

All of these features are seen in conventional controlled demolitions. None have ever been observed in steel-framed buildings collapsing for any reason other than controlled demolition.

Since the authors maintain that such a collapse has never happened before this statement is meaningless. And as I noted, there is nothing more than circumstantial evidence that they are all present here.

What are the chances that a phenomenon other than controlled demolition would exhibit all six features never observed elsewhere except in controlled demolitions?

What are the chances that you’ll win the lottery. The fact that it never happened before does not make it impossible. A 737 airliner had never been flown into a building of exactly this contruction before either. Does that mean that a 737 flying into a building of the WTC towers design is impossible?

NIST avoids asking this and other questions by implying that they don't exist.

For several of them there is indeed no evidence that they do exist.

It uses the false assertion that partial collapse will inevitably lead to total collapse (couched in the ill-defined terms of "column instability," "global instability," "collapse initiation," and "global collapse") to imply that nothing about the actual collapses is worth considering.

What makes this a false assertion? Other than the authors saying so?

And did you even bother to read the preliminary report on WTC 7 that I linked to?

Crap. I wrote a huge response and lost it.

Never mind. Bottom line: circumstantial evidence is all we have at this point. That, and theories. I'm glad you're confident in the NIST report and everything else we've been given as being the truth.

The world's biggest crime scene, and the physical evidence was hauled away and destroyed. Theories and questions are all that's left.

Crap. I wrote a huge response and lost it.

Dog ate your homework? ;)

But did you read the preliminary report on WTC7?

circumstantial evidence is all we have at this point. That, and theories.

That's not entirely true. While we can never know exactly what the conditions were inside those buildings there is plenty of evidence as to why the buildings collapsed.

I'm glad you're confident in the NIST report and everything else we've been given as being the truth.

I never said I was confident in 'everyything else we've been given as the truth'. I have no reason to doubt the integrity of the NIST's work. And I certainly have no reason to believe that someone was able to plant demolition explosives throughout three office buildings occupied by thousands of workers who saw nothing and that those explosives left absolutely no physical evidence of their presence.

The world's biggest crime scene, and the physical evidence was hauled away and destroyed. Theories and questions are all that's left.

Ohh the drama! Get a grip. Contrary to what the tin foil hatters would have you believe tons of the steel from the buildings was preserved and tested. The reports are on the NIST website. Oh, I forgot, you don't trust any of them because they are a "federal" operation.

Heh, hasn't MV run out of butbutbuts yet? I suppose if you want to believe, no amount of evidence will convince you otherwise. Which pretty much makes the troofers a religious cult. You gotta admit, though, albert champion had way more of himself invested in the mythology!

Hey MV, I saw the face of Satan in the smoke of the falling towers! The debbil did it!

and that those explosives left absolutely no physical evidence of their presence

Yeah, except they did leave behind physical evidence of their presence. THERMITE!!!

Checkmate, Mr. Bond.

Which pretty much makes the troofers a religious cult.

Now now, coyote. I'm not putting out infomercials about how I'm the only guy who could've stopped 9/11.

So no, I don't belong to a religious cult. Although I am thinking of starting one. Big money in that.

Either you are pulling my leg or you're completely stupid.

Steven Jones' 'thermite' theory has more holes in it than Clyde Barrow.

It would be about the most ass backwards and difficult way to knock down a building imaginable. He saw one stream of molten metal falling from the area where the bulk of the plane wreckage probably came to rest and from this he extrapolates that the entire building was brought down by thermite? But the NIST's motives are questionable because it's a federal organization?

And btw, how does the use of Thermite square with several of the points from your previous proof. Demolition waves, demolition squibs and pulverization? Oh! It doesn't. Thermite would not have produced any of those effects. It's not an explosive so there would have been no shockwave, no squibs and most certainly no pulverization of the concrete.

And another thing.

Where exactly did the Thermite do it's cutting? I mean, it obviously wasn't cutting every connection at every one of the perimeter columns. That would have been readily apparent in videos. There would have been molten flows like the (single) one observed all over he exterior of the building if Thermite was cutting through them all. And the core? Well, the videos clearly show towering portions of the core columns still standing after the perimeter and the floors have collapsed before they too collapse. So clearly, the core columns weren't cut by Thermite. Did they wrap every floor truss connection at every floor, literally dozens and dozens per floor, with Thermite to seperate the floors from the core and the perimeter? Wow! Talk about intensive and intrusive! Yet no one noticed any of this? Odd that.

Where exactly did the Thermite do it's cutting? I mean, it obviously wasn't cutting every connection at every one of the perimeter columns. That would have been readily apparent in videos.

You mean like in this picture???

Look at the angular cut in the beam directly behind the central firefighter. See the molten iron dribbling down the outside?

Isn't it weird that the planes hit floors that had extensive computer rooms? They could've hit any other floor. I work in IT and I don't have access to our computer room. Neither does anybody else in my department.

It'd be a good place to plant something that wouldn't be noticed.

And as far as this theory contradicting the squib theory, like I said: I don't know exactly what happened. I do know that whatever happened, it was the first time it's ever happened in the history of the world, and it happened 3 times in lower Manhattan.

That smells fishy.

I believe this is the same photo.

Read the whole page. It should give you a good idea of what a crackpot Steve Jones is.

It's amazing how you can overlook the big picture and latch onto a singular detail that suits your desire to blame someone other than the terrorists.

Isn't it weird that the planes hit floors that had extensive computer rooms? They could've hit any other floor. I work in IT and I don't have access to our computer room. Neither does anybody else in my department.

It'd be a good place to plant something that wouldn't be noticed.

So the IT guys at the occupants of these floors were involved in the conspiracy? People who probably died in the attacks?

And that comes no where near to explaining how the entire buildings collapsed.

And as far as this theory contradicting the squib theory, like I said: I don't know exactly what happened. I do know that whatever happened, it was the first time it's ever happened in the history of the world, and it happened 3 times in lower Manhattan.

That smells fishy.

Right, so we come back to "it's never happened before" as the fallback explaination.

[rolls eyes]

I was gonna see how long I could keep this thread going, but I'm bored.

You're probably right. I hope so. I like your version better.