When Gas hits $4 a Gallon ill bet you the media wouldnt criticize Obama

Status
Not open for further replies.
Considering I have to pay what converts to $7.20 a gallon here you americans should be very thankful its soo cheap, i dream of having such cheap fuel
 
rolling7 said:
Ok, you want to stay on the planes? Tell us why MM is not going after Clinton. After all it is you who is saying there is evidence of the plan of attack on WTC, which all was being done under Clinton's watch. So why is not MM putting Clinton on the spot to explain how he and HIS team missed the boat? Play fair here or your posts will be label rubbish.
Click to expand...

Well, if you want to play the game of blaming former Presidents, might as well ask why Reagan financed and supported the Al-Qaeda.
 
DeafCaroline said:
Well, if you want to play the game of blaming former Presidents, might as well ask why Reagan financed and supported the Al-Qaeda.
Click to expand...
So it was Al-Qaeda that planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks. :hmm:
 
TheWriteAlex said:
The crash had an 8 mile debris field. That's not consistent with any other "normal" plane crash. Multiple government officials, including Rumsfeld, had been caught in slipups where they actually stated that the plane was shot down. Who really knows what happened? :dunno:
Click to expand...
That has been disputed.

Some points:

* the debris was lightweight papers and insulation

* the eight miles was measured by the road distance, not as the crow flies

* other large plane crashes have left very large debris fields

* the black box readings showed that all systems functioned perfectly until ground impact

About Rumsfelds slip up, his slip up was in saying the the plane was shot down when it wasn't. It wasn't some Freudian revelation.

The context of his statement was a listing of the things that the terrorists did, not anything that Americans did. That wouldn't be in the pattern that he was using.

"I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if
the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul,
or the people who did the bombing in Spain,
or the people who attacked the United States in New York,
[the people who] shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon,
the people who cut off peoples’ heads on television
to intimidate, to frighten – indeed the word ‘terrorized’ is just that.

Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be.”

He was describing the people who do this, this, and this, with the purpose of terrorizing.

Even if you believed America shot down the plane, they wouldn't be included in the list of terrorist actions. It makes no sense.

I really don't see that as some "smoking gun" revelation.

In the past, there have been tragic "friendly fire" mass casualties, and the military has admitted to them. If something like that had happened during 9/11, why wouldn't it be revealed? It wouldn't change the Americans view of the situation. We would still blame the terrorists for initiating the attack.

Witnesses who claim to have seen a small white, unmarked plane in the vicinity do not claim to have seen it actually shoot a missile. If it was an unarmed plane that had to knock down the airliner in flight, it would have been destroyed too, yet they said they saw the plane circling around after. That doesn't seem like a fighter plane behavior.
 
Reba said:
That has been disputed.

Some points:

* the debris was lightweight papers and insulation

* the eight miles was measured by the road distance, not as the crow flies

* other large plane crashes have left very large debris fields

* the black box readings showed that all systems functioned perfectly until ground impact

About Rumsfelds slip up, his slip up was in saying the the plane was shot down when it wasn't. It wasn't some Freudian revelation.

The context of his statement was a listing of the things that the terrorists did, not anything that Americans did. That wouldn't be in the pattern that he was using.

"I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if
the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul,
or the people who did the bombing in Spain,
or the people who attacked the United States in New York,
[the people who] shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon,
the people who cut off peoples’ heads on television
to intimidate, to frighten – indeed the word ‘terrorized’ is just that.

Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be.”

He was describing the people who do this, this, and this, with the purpose of terrorizing.

Even if you believed America shot down the plane, they wouldn't be included in the list of terrorist actions. It makes no sense.

I really don't see that as some "smoking gun" revelation.

In the past, there have been tragic "friendly fire" mass casualties, and the military has admitted to them. If something like that had happened during 9/11, why wouldn't it be revealed? It wouldn't change the Americans view of the situation. We would still blame the terrorists for initiating the attack.

Witnesses who claim to have seen a small white, unmarked plane in the vicinity do not claim to have seen it actually shoot a missile. If it was an unarmed plane that had to knock down the airliner in flight, it would have been destroyed too, yet they said they saw the plane circling around after. That doesn't seem like a fighter plane behavior.
Click to expand...

And another version: 9-11 Research: The Crash of Flight 93

:dunno:
 
Beowulf said:
And another version: 9-11 Research: The Crash of Flight 93

:dunno:
Click to expand...
Even within that report, it didn't say that any witnesses observed a missile attack from the small white plane, or hitting the airliner. In fact, no mention of a missile at all.

Even though the debris field was described as unusual or atypical, there was nothing to say that it was impossible.

It didn't address the report that the black box indicated all systems were functioning until impact on the ground.

Rumsfeld's slip of the tongue is very lame "evidence," as I explained.

Even this report didn't deny that the passengers and the hijackers were in a struggle for control of the plane.

This report didn't give any suggestion as to what kind of plane this small white plane was supposed to be or where it could have come from.
 
Reba said:
Even within that report, it didn't say that any witnesses observed a missile attack from the small white plane, or hitting the airliner. In fact, no mention of a missile at all.

Even though the debris field was described as unusual or atypical, there was nothing to say that it was impossible.

It didn't address the report that the black box indicated all systems were functioning until impact on the ground.

Rumsfeld's slip of the tongue is very lame "evidence," as I explained.

Even this report didn't deny that the passengers and the hijackers were in a struggle for control of the plane.

This report didn't give any suggestion as to what kind of plane this small white plane was supposed to be or where it could have come from.
Click to expand...

Believe what you want. We'll probably never know the real truth anyway.
 
Are you alright? And you said never? Are you still sleeping?

I'm seeing $4/gal already.

PowerON said:
Stop say that there would be $4/gal. It NEVER happen. It been repeat for half decade by the panic people.

Shut up. Shut up.... SHUT UP!
Click to expand...
 
diehardbiker said:
Are you alright? And you said never? Are you still sleeping?

I'm seeing $4/gal already.
Click to expand...

It is under $3.50 per gal in here.

It will be true if it is in DC and northern states.
 
Do I smell the convergence of birthers and truthers? Which group can make themselves look more crazed first?
 
saywhatkid said:
IF??? I guarantee it will hit $4 by summer. My guess: $4 by May, and perhaps $4.50 by mid-summer.
Click to expand...

I am an investor so I read the news every day vis a vis the world markets - they predicted oil will be over $4 by Easter. Have a feeling this prediction will come true - where I live, it's now already between 132-136 cents a litre. What's also interesting to note is that in correspondence with this rising price of oil is increasing investments in natural gas, liquified gas, shale gas and most significantly heavy investment in companies that specialize in converting regular engines to run on natural gas as well as investments in companies that offer services to natural gas mining companies i.e. transport and equipment.
 
Last edited:
DeafCaroline said:
I am an investor so I read the news every day vis a vis the world markets - they predicted oil will be over $4 by Easter. Have a feeling this prediction will come true - where I live, it's now already between $3.65 to $3.80. What's also interesting to note is that in correspondence with this rising price of oil is increasing investments in natural gas, liquified gas, shale gas and most significantly heavy investment in companies that specialize in converting regular engines to run on natural gas as well as investments in companies that offer services to natural gas mining companies i.e. transport and equipment.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I could imagine this. It has been rising about 8¢ a week here for the last month. Currently around $3.62 - $3.69 per gallon. Those petroleum companies are always ready for the next thing. And, no surprise that oil companies are investing in more research. I mean, duh, you know?
 
Rising gas prices, we know who this will benefit this election year.
 
saywhatkid said:
Yeah, I could imagine this. It has been rising about 8¢ a week here for the last month. Currently around $3.62 - $3.69 per gallon. Those petroleum companies are always ready for the next thing. And, no surprise that oil companies are investing in more research. I mean, duh, you know?
Click to expand...

Not just more research, they are now getting into mergers and acquisitions of smaller natural gas companies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top