View Full Version : More WTC remains found
Tickler
10-21-2006, 05:15 PM
With the surprise discovery of human remains in a manhole at Ground Zero on Thursday, the city said they would start a new search for remains of September 11 victims.
http://www.gothamist.com/archives/2006/10/21/city_promises_t.php
Abnormalia
10-21-2006, 05:35 PM
Not surprised. Constant reminders, huh?
I read about that and it is so sad. Our government was so set on finding an enemy to hate that they never bothered to properly take care of the dead.
boortzland
10-21-2006, 05:58 PM
I read about that and it is so sad. Our government was so set on finding an enemy to hate that they never bothered to properly take care of the dead.
We didn't have to look for an enemy to hate. They slammed into two towers in New York, The Pentagon, and in a field in Pennsylvania. No need to look, Bin Laden came lookin for us.
How quickly we forget. Not me!
Keep spitting on those who had to clean up that mess. I do not think any of the thousands of volunteers, firefighters from all over, and police, and military, did anything but there best under the circumstances.
The only ones looking for someone to hate are the anti-war, anti-Bush, conspiracy nuts. Instead of looking for someone here to blame, we should be focusing on eliminating the threat, and oddly enough, we are, despite the efforts of the left.
Linkster
10-21-2006, 06:04 PM
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)
Something that's interesting about this, is that if they treat these sites and discoveries as forensic remains, they could produce a lot of interesting evidence and material for a tower collapse investigation.
It's like a sealed time capsule of the event.
But they probably just shoveled it all up, don't you think?
We didn't have to look for an enemy to hate. They slammed into two towers in New York, The Pentagon, and in a field in Pennsylvania. No need to look, Bin Laden came lookin for us.
How quickly we forget. Not me!
Boortz, we invaded Iraq. Saddam and Bin Laden were enemies not allies. Bin Laden is part of the Royal Family of Saudi Arabia not Iraq. Saddam had no ties with Al Qaeda.
We attacked the enemy of our enemies. We did not seriously go after anyone that had anything to do with 9/11. Bin Laden is still free.
How is removing one of Bin Laden's enemies from power a good thing? If we were really going after our enemy wouldn't we make Bin Laden's enemies our allies?
stefan segal
10-21-2006, 10:43 PM
They can't do DNA on the "remains", as they're all bone fragments that most fit into a test tube as found, but they are all charred and they've tested in the usual manner and got nothing, and checked in a more esoteric manner an found nothing...so they are still making attemps, but so far ...nothing.
Funny how the extreme weight and pressure of pancaking floors suceeded in blowing all these bone fragments onto a neighboring rooftop to collect in their air filter...sometimes thruth is stranger than government lies.
Stefan
I'm not personally interested in the dna testing, altho it might be interesting if we know the location of a person before the collapse, because then we could make an estimate of the trajectory of the remains' fall.
I'm thinking of a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the material.
I'm sure somebody is interested in identifying remains tho.
Abnormalia
10-21-2006, 11:18 PM
Boortz, we invaded Iraq. Saddam and Bin Laden were enemies not allies. Bin Laden is part of the Royal Family of Saudi Arabia not Iraq. Saddam had no ties with Al Qaeda.
We attacked the enemy of our enemies. We did not seriously go after anyone that had anything to do with 9/11. Bin Laden is still free.
How is removing one of Bin Laden's enemies from power a good thing? If we were really going after our enemy wouldn't we make Bin Laden's enemies our allies?
Where did you get that out of his comment? He never said that Iraq or its leaders were responsible, he never mentioned that Saddam had any ties to Al Qaeda. In fact, he was refering to Al Qaeda and Bin Laden as the enemies. You're attacking an argument that does not exist.
Where did you get that out of his comment? He never said that Iraq or its leaders were responsible, he never mentioned that Saddam had any ties to Al Qaeda. In fact, he was refering to Al Qaeda and Bin Laden as the enemies. You're attacking an argument that does not exist.
We never truly went after the enemies that attacked us. Instead we made up an enemy in Iraq and that's where we've focused our efforts.
We found a new enemy. One with a resource that powerful enough to control nations. We did this instead of taking care of the dead, properly analyzing the crime scene and going after the people that attacked us.
Now, isn't it time for you take your meds?
Abnormalia
10-22-2006, 01:18 AM
We never truly went after the enemies that attacked us. Instead we made up an enemy in Iraq and that's where we've focused our efforts.
We found a new enemy. One with a resource that powerful enough to control nations. We did this instead of taking care of the dead, properly analyzing the crime scene and going after the people that attacked us.
Now, isn't it time for you take your meds?
Right, see, that's exactly the point he and I are making- you still don't get it.
We KNOW that Bin Laden and company are responsible
We KNOW that we're fighting an invisible enemy, or much less we're fighting an idea or tactic called terrorism. Last time I checked, it's hard to win a war on a word.
If we had placed even 1/10 of the money in Iraq into overseas intelligence, we'd be magnitudes safer from terrorists, and we would never have had so much blood on our hands.
Now, stop attacking the air!
Right, see, that's exactly the point he and I are making- you still don't get it.
We KNOW that Bin Laden and company are responsible
We KNOW that we're fighting an invisible enemy, or much less we're fighting an idea or tactic called terrorism. Last time I checked, it's hard to win a war on a word.
If we had placed even 1/10 of the money in Iraq into overseas intelligence, we'd be magnitudes safer from terrorists, and we would never have had so much blood on our hands.
Now, stop attacking the air!
Maybe Boortz can explain his comments. I was responding to his statements about anti-war, hate and eliminating the threat in reply to my comments about our government trying to find someone to hate.
Maybe he's trying to say we're fighting the right war and maybe not.
He's a big boy that may have used two logins before. Is he doing it again or are you just becoming infatuated with me. I think that you need a better way to occupy your time.
Now let the adults chats.
Abnormalia
10-22-2006, 02:16 AM
Is he doing it again or are you just becoming infatuated with me.
Yes, it's me, Bortz, and I get hot just thinking about your towering intellect.*
*These statements have not been evaluated by a credible source, and may be false. Also: :lmao2:
stefan segal
10-22-2006, 12:39 PM
Moby copied this:
Right, see, that's exactly the point he and I are making- you still don't get it.
We KNOW that Bin Laden and company are responsible
We KNOW that we're fighting an invisible enemy, or much less we're fighting an idea or tactic called terrorism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first statement is opinion not very well supported by fact.
Some faction obviously did make the hits on the towers as the cover story for the demolition, and Bin Ladin did assume "credit" fot it...whether opportunistically or by agreement, we don't know at this time...and may never know for sure, as the man died three years ago.
Which plays very neatly into the second statement, which is abundantly true...to wit:
Find a word that is the opposite and antithetical to "patriotism"...such as "terrorism", then declare war against it.
The clever thing about stamping out an emotion, like "Terrorism"...which is a word ascribed to the feelings of "patriotism" demonstrated by a foe, now renamed by the oposing side, is the impossibility of the notion itself.
Patriotism/terrorism is a term describing a personal value...like one values life, and one values cleanliness...they can't be irradicated, but only displaced from they're hierarchail position, by circumstances of more imperative immediacy.
One doesn't attend to concerns of cleanliness when dragging their mud-mired child to safety. The normal order of where cleanliness is displaced temporarily through circumstance.
The value placement one puts upon patriotism (terrorism), by circumstances, can be bumped higher or lower in one's value structure, but will not remain so when conditions normalize, nor can they beaten out at Abu Grave.
So aside from making war on an emotion that cannot be won, one can arrange circumstances that so exacerbate conditions that patriots have no other options than to react with anger and destruction...ie...terrorism...which proves the need for a more expansive war, until the endgame becomes a possibility...which is martial law here in the States..ie...dictatorship.
No one who shows any opposition, doesn't fit. or can't be made to fit, the terrorist label.
It amazes me that this level of bushshit could get by a weeks' worth of commentary in our papers, much less become an accepted goal for which we inexorably thrust our children into the meatgrinder (and then deny their injuries so we don't have to pay for their medical care)...
But being on this list, has exposed me to those determined sonombolist and graduates of the ann coulter school of logic, exisiting in numbers heretofore unsuspected.
I dispair for my lost country.
Stefan
Right, see, that's exactly the point he and I are making- you still don't get it.
We KNOW that Bin Laden and company are responsible
We KNOW that we're fighting an invisible enemy, or much less we're fighting an idea or tactic called terrorism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first statement is opinion not very well supported by fact.
You make a good point.
The FBI has stated clearly and continues to maintain to this day that they don't have enough evidence to link Bin Laden to the 9/11 attacks. It's really the news and the administration stating he did it but the people investigating it say they don't know if he was involved or not.
Of course Dubya has stated many times that it's not important that we bring BL to justice.
Abnormalia
10-22-2006, 02:48 PM
Moby copied this:
Right, see, that's exactly the point he and I are making- you still don't get it.
We KNOW that Bin Laden and company are responsible
We KNOW that we're fighting an invisible enemy, or much less we're fighting an idea or tactic called terrorism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first statement is opinion not very well supported by fact. That makes no sense
Some faction obviously did make the hits on the towers as the cover story for the demolition, and Bin Ladin did assume "credit" fot it...whether opportunistically or by agreement, we don't know at this time...and may never know for sure, as the man died three years ago. all assumptions, no proof
Which plays very neatly into the second statement, which is abundantly true...to wit:
Find a word that is the opposite and antithetical to "patriotism"...such as "terrorism", then declare war against it.
The clever thing about stamping out an emotion, like "Terrorism"...which is a word ascribed to the feelings of "patriotism" demonstrated by a foe, now renamed by the oposing side, is the impossibility of the notion itself. Word Soup
Patriotism/terrorism is a term describing a personal value...like one values life, and one values cleanliness...they can't be irradicated, but only displaced from they're hierarchail position, by circumstances of more imperative immediacy.
One doesn't attend to concerns of cleanliness when dragging their mud-mired child to safety. The normal order of where cleanliness is displaced temporarily through circumstance. This is going on for a while, is there a point you're trying to make?
The value placement one puts upon patriotism (terrorism), by circumstances, can be bumped higher or lower in one's value structure, but will not remain so when conditions normalize, nor can they beaten out at Abu Grave.
So aside from making war on an emotion that cannot be won, one can arrange circumstances that so exacerbate conditions that patriots have no other options than to react with anger and destruction...ie...terrorism...which proves the need for a more expansive war, until the endgame becomes a possibility...which is martial law here in the States..ie...dictatorship. I agree that terrorism is being used as a fear tactic by our administration, but your last statement, again, is a paranoid assumption.
No one who shows any opposition, doesn't fit. or can't be made to fit, the terrorist label. Um, wanting to murder us in cold blood is a pretty standard label.
It amazes me that this level of bushshit could get by a weeks' worth of commentary in our papers, much less become an accepted goal for which we inexorably thrust our children into the meatgrinder (and then deny their injuries so we don't have to pay for their medical care)... ???
But being on this list, has exposed me to those determined sonombolist and graduates of the ann coulter school of logic, exisiting in numbers heretofore unsuspected.
I dispair for my lost country. I dispair for your lost mind
Stefan
Help! Heeeelp! Heeeelp!
No, I don't need help, but you do.
Abnormalia
10-22-2006, 02:50 PM
You make a good point.
The FBI has stated clearly and continues to maintain to this day that they don't have enough evidence to link Bin Laden to the 9/11 attacks. It's really the news and the administration stating he did it but the people investigating it say they don't know if he was involved or not.
Of course Dubya has stated many times that it's not important that we bring BL to justice.
Do you have any (God, why don't I just macro a button on my keyboard that says 'proof'?) proof to back up these claims?
I'm not sure I have proof, but I have a strong feeling that Georgy is a grade A moron.
Do you have any (God, why don't I just macro a button on my keyboard that says 'proof'?) proof to back up these claims?
I'm not sure I have proof, but I have a strong feeling that Georgy is a grade A moron.
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm
What does it say about 9/11?
Abnormalia
10-22-2006, 04:42 PM
Ahhh, yes, but see- The FBI has stated it hasn't enough information to indict Bin laden. Nowhere do they say they do not have evidence linking him to 9/11, and certainly you or I don't know how much evidence they have, do we? Below:
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm
Different address, same page. Notice the "IN ADDITION, BIN LADEN IS A SUSPECT IN OTHER TERRORIST ATTACKS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD."
And ALSO in the same link:
"An additional $2 million is being offered through a program developed and funded by the Airline Pilots Association and the Air Transport Association." Ooooo wonder why?
But that is just your link. If you had rooted around the same website, you would have found these links:
http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/fugitives.htm
(Future indictments may be handed down as various investigations proceed in connection to other terrorist incidents, for example, the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.)
What stands is this: Bin Laden is the most wanted terrorist in the world. There is plenty of evidence that he was involved with the 9/11 terror attacks- something about being the head of Al Qaeda or something. While he may not have masterminded the attacks, he was the leader of the organization that carried them out. The FBI cannot indict him much less find him right now. I'm not good at predicting the future, but if we do find him alive, i'm sure he'll be formally indicted.
Tickler
10-23-2006, 02:17 AM
Keep spitting on those who had to clean up that mess. I do not think any of the thousands of volunteers, firefighters from all over, and police, and military, did anything but there best under the circumstances.
And yet the government wants to deny medical claims by the responders for exposure, arguing it was pre-disposed(read gentics). Hell I could say the same thing about the smoking. Is it genetics or enviromental?
vBulletin v3.5.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.