Give to the Red Cross, unless your name is Romney

[Jarlaxle]

The guy looked amazed when Liz said her boss would fuel the truck...that is serious coin. (Even starting with half a tank, it would be $200+.)

But . . . but . . . wealthy, successful people are mean, greedy, stingy, and out to screw everyone over! I KNOW they are, because liberals told me so! How could this guy POSSIBLY want to make such a generous donation to help others?!

It's like everything the left ever told me about the world was a giant, steaming pile of crap, or something.

Yeah, Chuck (the owner) is so greedy that for close to twenty years, the driver on call on Christmas Day was...him. Yes, for twenty years (until his wife threatened to strangle him), he gave everyone Christmas Day off and took the calls himself. Even now, the only driver ever on call for more than one holiday in a row was me. (I hate Christmas with a passion and asked for it.)

 

[336thF15E]

Yes: that Massachusetts is inhabited by a vast number of cattle, who shuffle down to the polls, pull the lever for straight-ticket "D", then shuffle home to chew their cud. The state would be greatly improved by the application of carpet bombing.

Of course, you completed ignored the facts supporting the post and the implication. Romney, was able to become Governor of this state, yet he can't carry it all the way to the White House.

Why is that case?

 

[Jarlaxle]

MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell Attacks Romney For Collecting Storm Supplies For Event - YouTube!

Romney wanted to give them food, they wanted money. They ALWAYS want money and very little of the cash you give them gets to those for whom it's intended. Did you know the blood you donate to the red cross is SOLD to hospitals? That during WWII they took up a collection here to provide coffee and refreshments for the soldiers overseas and then they CHARGED those soldiers for the refreshments the people here paid for?

I'm surprised nobody shot them dead.

I will not donate blood to the Red Cross...I donate to another organization. They may not be any better, but I have a hard time thinking they could be any worse.

 

[Jarlaxle]

God and goddess, what an egomaniacal blowhard.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MW8ZYDLEl4]Mitt Romney - Add business experience to the Constitution? - YouTube[/ame]

I disagree with you 100%. Instead, he's a megalomaniac blow-hard and you are a total hypocrite.

As long as were talking about how successful Republicans are, you are happy. But, the moment someone comes along who is just as (if not far more) successful, and who happens to not carry the Republican water bucket, you have a problem with it.

That's hypocrisy defined.

I'm sorry...but the egomaniacal blowhard in question is YOU, kid!

And while you are being, as usual, wrong about everything: I am not a Republican, I did not vote for Mitt Romney, and in fact, I considered him the second-worst candidate in the Republican primaries.

You claim I am a hypocrite: prove it or retract it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

God and goddess, what an egomaniacal blowhard.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MW8ZYDLEl4]Mitt Romney - Add business experience to the Constitution? - YouTube[/ame]

I disagree with you 100%. Instead, he's a megalomaniac blow-hard and you are a total hypocrite.

As long as were talking about how successful Republicans are, you are happy. But, the moment someone comes along who is just as (if not far more) successful, and who happens to not carry the Republican water bucket, you have a problem with it.

That's hypocrisy defined.

I'm sorry...but the egomaniacal blowhard in question is YOU, kid!

And while you are being, as usual, wrong about everything: I am not a Republican, I did not vote for Mitt Romney, and in fact, I considered him the second-worst candidate in the Republican primaries.

You claim I am a hypocrite: prove it or retract it.

You're going to have to define it for him first. Despite his penchant for packing multiple nine-dollar words into his sentences via Roget's, vocabulary isn't his strong suit. Not sure what would be, except perhaps bragging. He should change his screen name to WalterMitty.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Yes: that Massachusetts is inhabited by a vast number of cattle, who shuffle down to the polls, pull the lever for straight-ticket "D", then shuffle home to chew their cud. The state would be greatly improved by the application of carpet bombing.

Of course, you completed ignored the facts supporting the post and the implication. Romney, was able to become Governor of this state, yet he can't carry it all the way to the White House.

Why is that case?

Keep rereading the post you quoted until it sinks in.

 

[Jarlaxle]

You're going to have to define it for him first. Despite his penchant for packing multiple nine-dollar words into his sentences via Roget's, vocabulary isn't his strong suit. Not sure what would be, except perhaps bragging. He should change his screen name to WalterMitty.

Seen it many times before...five-dollar words from a five-cent mind.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You're going to have to define it for him first. Despite his penchant for packing multiple nine-dollar words into his sentences via Roget's, vocabulary isn't his strong suit. Not sure what would be, except perhaps bragging. He should change his screen name to WalterMitty.

Seen it many times before...five-dollar words from a five-cent mind.

Who knew a thesaurus could be a dangerous weapon?

I'm also willing to bet a cookie he has to hit Wikipedia to understand the Walter Mitty reference. And I'll bet another cookie he won't be the only one.

 

[saveliberty]

So the retard 336thF15E doesn't realize that a taxed good is really a tax on the labor to produce that good? Figures.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You're going to have to define it for him first. Despite his penchant for packing multiple nine-dollar words into his sentences via Roget's, vocabulary isn't his strong suit. Not sure what would be, except perhaps bragging. He should change his screen name to WalterMitty.

Seen it many times before...five-dollar words from a five-cent mind.

Who knew a thesaurus could be a dangerous weapon?

I'm also willing to bet a cookie he has to hit Wikipedia to understand the Walter Mitty reference. And I'll bet another cookie he won't be the only one.

Sadly enough, I agree with you that he won't be the only one.

 

[saveliberty]

What kind of cookies we talking here?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Romney gives a larger share of his income than Obama and Biden do combined.

In fact, on average conservatives give a larger share of their income to charitable organizations than liberals do.

Liberals want to be generous--with other people's money, not with their own.

I'm neither a Democrat, nor a Republican and I will be giving more than Romney/Ryan combined. So, how do you explain that? Exception to the rule?

Prove it.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...e-336thf15e-to-provide-proof.html#post6278948

 

[Cecilie1200]

What kind of cookies we talking here?

I made snickerdoodles today.

 

[saveliberty]

What kind of cookies we talking here?

I made snickerdoodles today.

Mrs. Liberty has a box of something called Chocolate Chip Cookie Brownies. Might have to help it out of the box tomorrow night.

 

[mex]

I've been an unregistered Free Agent Voter ever since and have not looked back. I vote independent of the ideological garbage that prevent you from making clear, rational, intelligent, thoughtful decisions about who should be managing the nation's business.

so you're voting for GJ then? (because you certainly couldn't pull the lever for The Annointed One... right?)

 

[mex]

Romney gives a larger share of his income than Obama and Biden do combined.

In fact, on average conservatives give a larger share of their income to charitable organizations than liberals do.

Liberals want to be generous--with other people's money, not with their own.

I'm neither a Democrat, nor a Republican and I will be giving more than Romney/Ryan combined. So, how do you explain that? Exception to the rule?

Prove it.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-f...e-336thf15e-to-provide-proof.html#post6278948

indeed.

might as well have arnold schwartzeneggar as an avatar... make everyone think you're a tough guy.

Oh wait. never mind.

 

[336thF15E]

You claim you are. Strangely enough, I don't believe you, despite your massive ignorance.

Who told you that your belief was necessary, or even desired?

The obvious envy that some of you hacks put on display is more transparent than the glass cockpit of my Phenom 300. (look it up if don't already know what that means)

Only conspiracy nuts with no brains think the world runs on conspiracies.

Only an ignorant fool fails to understand the definition of the word conspiracy, and therefore, the fact that conspiracies exist by definition.

Buy the way, given that you are a conspiracy nut who obviously believes the government is covering up everything, why don't you think questions about what happened in Benghazi are legitimate? Do you have some kind of agenda? Are you actually part of the cover up? Is that why you try to deflect questions about it into how Bush covered up 9/11?

Flipping the script, we can ask the same questions about you. Why is it that Republicans are so willing to accept that Benghazi, is a conspiracy? The net effect of the fall-out from Benghazi, is that four (4) people are dead. The net effect of 911, is that hundreds of thousands of people are dead, and the United States Constitution got shredded in the process.

Only a completely ignorant hack has a problem with that math, or attempt to equate the two as somehow being equal. Lastly, there is FAR more evidence that 911 was an inside job, than Benghazi, being a cover-up. Unfortunately, you are completely ignorant of the elements that provide the evidence for 911 being an inside job, and since you cannot speak them technically, you pretend that there are no outstanding questions that have never been answered.

I think you should stick to matters that you understand - like how to pick your nose between mouse clicks.

See my response to your previous drivel.

Explain President Andrew Jackson's battle with the Federal Reserve, and the member banks response to his Presidential campaign and his Presidency, if conspiracies do not exist. Can you do that?

Was President Andrew Jackson, a conspiracy nut? Did he believe that the Fed was a minority wealth elite conspiracy, or not? Answer the question and don't run and hide from it this time. Your answer will either demonstrate your duplicity and circular reasoning, making you a partisan hack. Or, your answer will demonstrate your total ignorance and blind Sheeple tendency to be walked off the nearest cliff, without even putting up a fight, making you a total fool. Either way, you have just typed yourself into trap.

You problem is that you don't even make a good pretend smart ass. You are just an ass, absent the smart.

Feel free to link to the CBO, or whoever you want, to prove my numbers were wrong.

Keep reading.

Yet you claim I got the debt on 20 January 2012 wrong, and don't post a link to refute it. That makes me think your business is as real as your claim that the Air Force let you fly a plane before you graduated from flight school.

The correction you received was that your $600+ billion claim was a total lie, not the absolute total of the national debt for 2012. Apparently, you never learned how to read in context before you dropped out of High School.

Go back to school and learn how to read in context.

Yet you have posted an average of 26 posts a day, and quite a few of your posts have over 140 characters. In fact, they have over 140 words. You have also devoted quite a bit of time to personally attacking at least 3 separate people that have called you on your BS, and follow us around trying to prove you are smarter than us.

Since I actually have an idea how hard it is to run a multimillion dollar company, and how important it is to stay in touch with everything that is going on if your company actually has to track multiple economies, I just don't believe you.

Were you asked to believe anything? I'm merely correcting your sub-pseudo intellectual meanderings. When you start complaining about the length of posts that bury your hide an expose your claims as week partisan drivel, then you know full well that you are losing the argument at every level, don't you.

Somehow, you've deluded yourself into believing that having a million posts on a political discussion forum, is tantamount to having a real education and life experience. Can you point me to the US Message Board Student Registration Office, so I can sign-up to earn my own USMB Ph.D? That piece of paper would look really neat on my wall of "really important" accomplishments.

Wake up, clown. You've got 30,000+ posts on the "Internet." (lol!) And, you have the audacity to question a 140 word post? You are such a hypocrite that all I can do is laugh at your pedantic ritualistic retorts.

You are an amusing clown and that's why I respond to your posts.

Yet you still manage to find time to post.

Here's how it works. When you get to a point in your life where you can convert your ideas into a thriving business, you too will have the ability to control your own time. I am the master of my own time. No one dictates to me when I work. No one controls my time.

Therefore, I have the option to decide whether or not I want to be here to be amused by your petty rants, or not. Besides, the work I do is somewhat of a mental grind and I often take small breaks during the course of the year to intentionally divert my attention. Reading some of your fictional writings, classifies as a diversion.

I notice you didn't actually provide a link for your real spending. Is that because the page that has it is filled with comments debunking it, or did your official IE6 aide not show up for work today because he can't stand your drooling all over the keyboard?

So, its OK for you to post 30,000+ instances of absolute meaningless blither without support for your claims. But, if someone else posts facts that prove you to be dead wrong without posting a link to what should be well known information by anyone knowing what the heck they are talking about, is somehow not good enough for you?

Could you be a bigger hack than you are? You act like these numbers are debatable.

Those are numbers that come directly from Authorized Legislative Acts and Omnibus. You can get them from CBO and OMB. Go find a report that details Obama's spending for 2009, that is any different than what I just posted and I'll eat my hat right here on this forum.

Oh neat, an actual source for your BS.

The problem is that the CBO scored the Omnibus Spending Act as adding 8.6% in spending above the baseline, and that is the number that actually counts, not the 4% of total spending.

The CBO says NO SUCH LIE!

Omnibus spending, was put in place BEFORE Obama, took office for 2009. So, how the heck can you put that on his account? The remainder of the non-discretionary spending made up the difference in what the Republicans have been lying about for four (4) years, when they falsely claim that Obama, added $5 trillion to the debt.

You need to get yourself educated my dear, friend! You posted something that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that you DO NOT have a grasp of the facts.

Stop faking it. You either understand Economics, or you don't. What you just said, makes no sense whatsoever to any economist worth their weight in salt. You might be able to pass off convoluted statements like that around here, and impress utterly clueless people with it, but the moment you run into someone who does understand what they are talking about, you will get exposed just like, a lot more than "8.6%" of the time.

LOL! Unreal, that you would attempt that little stunt and think you could get away with it.

Then we get to add in the the boondoggles that Obama personally championed, which include both of his stimulus plans, and the wonderful cash for clunkers. Mitchel might not be a Democrat, but that doesn't make him right.

Here's the point you clueless clown. The definition of a stalled economy is the fact that money is not circulating at a robust enough rate. Stimulus is not a boondoggle. It is a well known Economic Principle that is actually taught in every single Business School on planet earth. The fact that you did not already know that is epic.

An economy that dips to -8.0% GDP, before moving back up to the positive side of zero, is no doubt and economy that needs Stimulus. Furthermore, you can sit on the fat of your ass and complain using 20/20 hindsight until you are blue in the face, but one thing is certain - had your ass been sitting in the Oval Office when Obama, took office, you too would have found a way to spend the money whether you have the integrity to admit it now, or not.

Over six (6) million jobs had been lost up through the first three (3) months of Obama's first term. There is no way in hell, that those jobs were lost as a direct result of any Obama policy, because the economy has not had a chance to respond to any of his policies at that time. So, that job loss HAD to have come from the Bush 43 policies. If you do not understand the well known principle of Negative Economic Momentum, which is ALSO taught in every single Business School in the world, then that is YOUR shortcoming, not anyone else.

Educate yourself, so you don't spew 30,000+ posts of dumb, idiotic nonsense.

8.6% for one bill, but I am repeating myself.

Trying to communicate basic principles of Economics to someone like you is futile, because you are ineducable.

8.6%, is a non-sequitur reply. It is meaningless drivel that you injected in order to continue your pretense, that you are somehow keeping up with this dialogue. It is the $3.52 trillion that Bush 43 launched, that spilled over into the Obama 44 spending - yet, you are sitting here pretending to know otherwise.

You live in a deluded fantasy world.

Since you are a big fan of Mitchell, lets see what he says about the Obama is the smallest spender in history claim. It turns out that he rates Obama as the send worst of the last 8 presidents, and puts his spending increasing at 7% after adjusting for inflation, defense spending, and TARP.

LOL! You really make me laugh - that's why I even bother responding to you. Eventually, I knew that if I lead you long enough, you would hang yourself. And, guess what? You just did. Here's how.

I selected Mitchell, expressly for two reasons:

1) I understand the numbers. I know that Obama, is indeed the Smallest Spending President since Dwight D. Eisenhower. I know that's a fact.

2) I knew that Mitchell, had done analysis that ticked-off many Republicans, when he initially published his findings. I also knew that Mitchell, after probably receiving hate mail from his "Republican friends" as he likes to say, had gone back to CBO and engineered a bogus scenario that no other genuinely independent economist agrees with, that you can somehow pick and choose the metrics you want to use, in order to come up with some wild theory about what expenditures you will allow and disallow for each President.

The proof of that is here:

"But then I figured we should take interest payments out of the budget and focus on inflation-adjusted “primary spending.” After all, Presidents shouldn’t be held responsible for the national debt that existed before they took office."

Looking at these numbers, it turns out that Obama does win the prize for being the most fiscally conservative president in recent memory. Reagan jumps to second place. Clinton is in third place, which won’t surprise people who watched this video, while W and LBJ again are in last place. - Mitchell

So does that mean Obama deserves re-election? Well, before you answer, I want to make one final calculation. Just as there are good reasons to exclude interest payments because they’re not something a president can control, we also should take a look at what spending would be if we don’t count the cost of bailouts.

To be sure, these types of expenditures can be controlled, but if we go with the assumption that the federal government was going to re-capitalize the banking system (whether using the good FDIC-resolution approach or the corrupt TARP approach), then it seems that Presidents shouldn’t get arbitrary blame or credit simply because some financial institutions failed during their tenure.

So let’s take the preceding set of numbers and subtract out the long-run numbers for deposit insurance, as well as the TARP outlays since 2009. And keep in mind that repayments of TARP monies (as well as deposit insurance premiums) show up in the budget as “negative spending.” - Mitchell

As you can see, this produces a remarkable result. All of a sudden, Obama drops from second to second-to-last. - Mitchell

So, Mitchelle, being tortured by Republicans (no doubt) over his reasonable analysis using standards and practices that most sane economists use, all of a sudden flips 180-degrees and comes up with the most contorted analysis that I have ever read about the spending of any President, in my entire life. He's torturing the data, just to find a clever way to cause Obama's good spending habits, to be bad spending habits, or at least just as bad as Bush.

LOL! Hilarious. And, you thought you would slide that one right by me, no?

Mitchell, was correct in his first analysis and dead wrong in his second. He's making the same mistake that clever Republicans have been making for a long time now - he dishonestly assume that Obama, had a choice in trying to Stimulate the economy and that is simply NOT TRUE. If he did not attempt to stimulate the economy, bail out the banks, bail out the auto industry, etc., we would be in far worse shape than we are today.

And, Mitchell, got blasted for having the temerity to conclude that somehow the Military spending under Obama, was somehow, Obama's doing. There is no way in the world, that you can take the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War, and conclude that somehow, Bush 43's initiation of War Spending was something that Obama, had input on from the start. Obama, has had the role of Janitor In Chief, ever since he took office, cleaning up the crap left behind by Bush 43.

Once you start a War, you have to finish the job. Obama, campaigned in 2008, on taking the fight to Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, because that was the War the Bush 43, started and there was unfinished business left on the table. You cannot take Bush policies and dump the outcomes into Obama's lap. So, Mitchell, was right the first time and you should have done a much better job of actually READING what his analysis wall about.

Didn't I already point out you aren't nearly as smart as you think you are? Me, a guy that admits up front he only dabbles in economics, just trashed the world renowned expert on economies and trading that is richer than Romney.

Are you tone deaf? Mitchell, tortured the data and incorrectly infused the notion that War Spending was somehow some exclusion that Obama, had a choice about, that TARP I and TARP II were things that did not need to be done, that the auto and bank bailouts were things that Obama, could have said no to. His entire secondary analysis, is a bunch of tortured bull.

Now, you can sit here and pretend that its OK to conduct spending analysis by picking and choosing the metrics that you will use, until you tweak the data to come up with the answer that fits your spin, but that in no way will score any points with independent economists.

The fact that you don't understand this is glaringly apparent. Your understanding of economics is weak, and it causes your judgments to be even weaker.

Gotta love it.

The fact that you clearly don't know what you are talking about? Yes - you just gotta love that.

Didn't I say that?

No. You most certainly did not say that. Go re-read your own words for goodness sakes.

My conclusion is that Obama is not going to hit the middle class and working poor with a $2 billion dollar a year tax increase. Do you have anything other than blather that proves he intends to raise taxes on everyone? Especially since he has consistently argued he wouldn't?

I think you are total confused. Go back and read the record and stop trying to put words in my mouth. My post is clear and nobody reading with half a brain can conclude that I believe that Obama, is intending to raise taxes on everyone. My post clearly says otherwise.

Stop pretending.

Yes, I know. He lied.

Oh, give it a break will you. That's just classic. You talk about posting "links" as though you are on some kind of Holy Link Crusade against Those who Don't Post Links to Back-Up their Claim. Yet, what do you do? Do you post something straight from the horses mouth? No. Do you post something from an independent source? No. You go out and post something from Neocon Bog Woodward, and that's not the worst part. Your link, is to a Book written by Bob Woodward.

So, buried deep inside Neocon Bob's Book for SALE, he claims that Obama, wants sequestration.

Could you have posted anything weaker than that as proof of your claim? A Book for sale? Hilarious!

Funny, that is exactly what I said he said. Yet you say I don't use facts, I just use right wing talking points. Do they stop being right wing talking points when you repeat them?

Go read and re-post your own words, or I will. Stop adopting my corrections of your nonsense, after you have been exposed as not knowing what you are talking about.

I see, you call me a liar, then go out and find proof that what I said is true, and then declare yourself the winner of the debate.

That's because in your original statement, you provided NO analysis. I had to come in here, and itemize the actual expenditures that were created by Obama, for the year 2009, which you DID NOT DO. You are becoming a bit repetitive. You had better step-up your game, else my interest in reading your drivel will perish.

I have to admit I have never seen that technique used before. Not quite sure how to refute myself here. so I will stick to saying the same thing I did before, you are wrong.

You are pulling yet another Mitt Romney. I've demonstrated and explained on several points of order where you are dead wrong on your numbers and your logic, across several issues relative to economics. Yet, you somehow think that you can simply get caught and then adopt my correction of you, as your own initial premise.

Who do you think you are kidding with this nonsense? It is clear that my statement is correct and not you want to adopt it and pretend as if you typed the same originally?

I told you that were were intellectually dishonest from the start and now you are simply proving my assessment of you to be correct.

Since I already debunked everything you just blathered in this post I will simply allow you to blather.

More hyperbole BS. How can you have debunked anything, when you have said nothing at all that counters the truth. You just said that you debunked my original statement which was:

The facts are that the biggest spike in the history of our Republic for Federal Spending as a percentage of our GDP, came exactly as I stated above, under Bush 43. A huge portion of that spending spilled over into the Obama 44 presidency, and from that point forward, this President has had no choice but to spend money on trying to stimulate our economy AND save critical and structural components of our economy, namely our financial institutions and our auto industry. - 336thF15E

So, yes - you lied. According to the official government statistics:

Fact:

• In the 2009 fiscal year — the last of George W. Bush’s presidency — federal spending rose by 17.9% from $2.98 trillion to $3.52 trillion. Check the official numbers at the Office of Management and Budget.


Fact:

• In fiscal 2010 — the first budget under Obama — spending fell 1.8% to $3.46 trillion.


Fact:

• In fiscal 2011, spending rose 4.3% to $3.60 trillion.


Fact:

• In fiscal 2012, spending is set to rise 0.7% to $3.63 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the budget that was agreed to last August.


Fact:

• Finally in fiscal 2013 — the final budget of Obama’s term — spending is scheduled to fall 1.3% to $3.58 trillion.

Source: Read the CBO’s latest budget outlook and EDUCATE yourself, WindBag.

Let me sum it up for you, I don't care.

It is your country, too. I suspect that you are a Citizen of the United States of America, as well as a Citizen of the City and County of San Francisco. You had better care about what your government is doing. More importantly, you had better learn how to figure out what they are doing.

You have a Boeing 757 rating that says that aliens implant mind control devices using anal probes?

The Type Rating means that I know who is capable of operating such an airframe and who is not. Hani Hanjour, was just as capable of operating that airframe as YOU are today. That means is could not have possibly flown the strike profile as detailed in the FDR data released and vouched for by the NTSB via FOIA, and as analyzed by Calum Douglas.

That's the relevance to having a 75 Type Rating.


I already told you, I don't waste my intellect on conspiracies, i leave that for the crazy people.[/QUOTE]

Is that how you escape? You simply decide that its conspiracy theory and wipe your hands of the matter?

This goes to show just how belligerent you are and why your belligerence is cause for your ignorance, and why your ignorance is cause for your blindness. Those technical issues are part of September 11th, 2001, whether you are smart enough to realize it or not. Each one of those issues has one or more questions that have never been answered by the official storytellers - not one of them.

You've basically said to yourself that since you don't understand the issues, the relationship to each other and their relationship to the voracity of the Official Story, then you are simply not interested in such conspiracy theories.

That is a blindly ignorant approach to take with your own Freedom. When you educate yourself enough, or when you are able to drop your ego long enough, I will be more than happy to help bring you up to speed on these issues, there importance to 911 and by definition, their importance to the continuation of our Republic. Because the truth of the matter is that unless we got to the bottom of what really happened on that day, we will forever find ourselves on the road to tyranny.

"Shock and Awe" was not meant for the Iraqis. It was meant for YOU. And, ever since that day, you have been a living testament to the massive success of the most potent PSYOP that I have ever personally witnessed being executed.

Here they are again. Whenever you develop enough courage to deal with them head-on:

- NTSB protocols for Crash Site Investigation.
- NTSB protocols for the release of FDR data.
- CONUS Air Defense Protocols. NORAD/ACC/NOCC integration.
- ARTCC active coverage for New Hampshire, New York and Virginia.
- ZNY & ZDC Sector Control active coverage (I want archived data).
- Boeing 757/767 flight performance envelope data (flight physics)
- Boeing 757/767 flight handling characteristics (throttle-thrust response in specific)
- Boeing 757/767 EFIS, FMC, IRU/ADC & LRU logs
- Barometric Pressure for KDCA between 0800 - 1000 local (history data)
- Cessna 172 flight performance data
- Cessna 172 flight handling characteristics
- FAA PTS requirements for PPL (Oral, Written, Flight)
- Commercial Airliner measured crash site geometry - Pentagon.
- Commercial Airliner measured crash site geometry - Shanksville.
- Commercial Airliner sampled crash site chemistry - Pentagon.
- Commercial Airliner sampled crash site chemistry - Shanksville.
- NTSB/OEM parts identification protocols & procedures - Pentagon.
- NTSB/OEM parts identification protocols & procedures - Shanksville.
- Human remains DNA collection, chain of custody and documented protocols/procedures. (all sites)
- Human remains DNA lab analysis testing: RFLP/PCR/ETC typing and amplification data. (all sites)
- All FBI confiscated exterior video with focal points +/- 45-degrees L/R of Pentagon West between 0800 - 1000 local
- Names of all Non-Government employee First Responders: Pentagon and Shanksville
- Current location and access to ALL crash site debris recovery: New York, Pentagon and Shanksville.
- Names of all crash site debris recovery personnel (Official and Non-Official): New York, Pentagon and Shanksville.

 

[tinydancer]

OMG

you are allowed to post here?

 

[tinydancer]

Oh my it's like the worst torment ever. Worse than abu graib. oh god no no. don't let this person post here.

 

[syrenn]

so who do you think it is?