This article on Venezuela's leader Chavez states that he is offering reduced heating oil costs to help poor communities in the U.S.
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/08/30/MTFH75938_2005-08-30_02-47-24_HO010025.html
Wow. Now, who is more compassionate? Pat Robertson, George W. Bush, or this evil Chavez?
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
Bush Best With Planned Public Appearances
This usually pro-Republican paper questions Bush's priorities in an editorial today:
http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=59785
As we continue to remember the tragedy of 9/11, this article also brings up 9/11 and how suave Bush was in handling that disaster. They then ask why Bush did not quickly respond to the natural disaster in Mississippi and Louisiana.
The answer: Bush always performs his best with planned public appearances. That is why he took the opportunity to speak at the 60th Anniversary VJ Day Commemoration over a quick response to the natural disaster in the southern gulf states. He was well prepared for the public appearance in San Diego and likely rehearsed and polished that public appearance ahead of time. He likely just didn't have enough time to rehearse his response to the crises (plural of crisis, which the aftermath of Katrina is) in Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. I can see it now... George sitting there, thinking.... "now, Miss-iss-iss? No, Miss-ipp, oh, no... ok, so it's not naahwlins?" That is difficult work there.
The question then comes up, then why did Bush perform so well after 9/11? If he is a literally a literary script kitty, then why was Bush so polished in response to the 9/11 attacks? Planning? Hmmmm....
http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=59785
As we continue to remember the tragedy of 9/11, this article also brings up 9/11 and how suave Bush was in handling that disaster. They then ask why Bush did not quickly respond to the natural disaster in Mississippi and Louisiana.
The answer: Bush always performs his best with planned public appearances. That is why he took the opportunity to speak at the 60th Anniversary VJ Day Commemoration over a quick response to the natural disaster in the southern gulf states. He was well prepared for the public appearance in San Diego and likely rehearsed and polished that public appearance ahead of time. He likely just didn't have enough time to rehearse his response to the crises (plural of crisis, which the aftermath of Katrina is) in Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. I can see it now... George sitting there, thinking.... "now, Miss-iss-iss? No, Miss-ipp, oh, no... ok, so it's not naahwlins?" That is difficult work there.
The question then comes up, then why did Bush perform so well after 9/11? If he is a literally a literary script kitty, then why was Bush so polished in response to the 9/11 attacks? Planning? Hmmmm....
Rare Gauguin Bust Found in Danish Family's Christmas Decor
A rare bust by Paul Gauguin of his son was found in amongst the Christmas decor of a Danish family on the Seeland Island. Gauguin and his Danish wife lived on Seeland Island in Denmark with their children.
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=29&art_id=qw1125380880575A153&set_id=1
What do you have in your heirloom chest that might just be more than a family treasure?
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?click_id=29&art_id=qw1125380880575A153&set_id=1
What do you have in your heirloom chest that might just be more than a family treasure?
9/11: What's Remodeling Got to Do With It?
So, what’s with all the remodeling? All buildings that were targeted on 9/11 were remodeled in the last 10 years or in the state of being remodeled when they were hit. Even the Capitol building in Washington D. C. had extensive remodeling done before 9/11, and has since had more remodeling done. Were the Buildings in the 9/11 Attacks Prepared?
Ironically, that wing of the Pentagon had just been remodeled, according to television reports, so there were not many people in that wing at the time.
Remodeled recently? Hmmmm…. The WTC towers were both “remodeled” if you will, after the 1993 bombing, and apparently “reinforced” the structure in case such an incident were to happen again.
I remember a Discovery Channel documentary about the WTC before the 2001 attacks, and they mentioned that after the 1993 bombing, both WTC towers were reinforced, apparently to make them sturdier and stronger.
You know, if you think about it, and put yourself in the shoes of those who planned the 9/11 attacks, wouldn’t you plan ahead to make sure your mission was a success?
It is interesting that both WTC, and WTC7 towers imploded so perfectly, don’t you think? It was dramatic, but definitely not the way I would image they would have fallen from two large aircraft crashes. I could see them falling over from the crash site upwards, like a tree falling down. But no, they did not topple down like that at all.
Now, back into the shoes of those 9/11 planners. If you had a means to rig a building to fall down in a sinister fashion, and had a way to do it without anyone thinking twice, would you take advantage of that? Could the 1993 bombing of WTC be a set up, not necessarily as a terrorist attack, but as a way to set up for a later attack? You follow me? Could it be possible to tell the public that the WTC tower was repaired, and both towers were modified and reinforced to withstand another bombing, yet those reinforcement efforts were actually done by professional building imploders covertly working to make sure the WTC towers successfully fell down for the next attack?
Now, going back to the irony at the Pentagon. So, what kind of remodeling was going on there before the 9/11 attacks? Anything to do with pyrotechnics?
Additional thoughts and links to ponder. Things that make you go hmmmm...
Provisions to Exclude Roof Rescues
http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/01/10/WTC_Helicopters.html
Evacuation Preparedness
http://www.infolink.com.au/articles/f0/0c0120f0.asp
Ironically, that wing of the Pentagon had just been remodeled, according to television reports, so there were not many people in that wing at the time.
Remodeled recently? Hmmmm…. The WTC towers were both “remodeled” if you will, after the 1993 bombing, and apparently “reinforced” the structure in case such an incident were to happen again.
I remember a Discovery Channel documentary about the WTC before the 2001 attacks, and they mentioned that after the 1993 bombing, both WTC towers were reinforced, apparently to make them sturdier and stronger.
You know, if you think about it, and put yourself in the shoes of those who planned the 9/11 attacks, wouldn’t you plan ahead to make sure your mission was a success?
It is interesting that both WTC, and WTC7 towers imploded so perfectly, don’t you think? It was dramatic, but definitely not the way I would image they would have fallen from two large aircraft crashes. I could see them falling over from the crash site upwards, like a tree falling down. But no, they did not topple down like that at all.
Now, back into the shoes of those 9/11 planners. If you had a means to rig a building to fall down in a sinister fashion, and had a way to do it without anyone thinking twice, would you take advantage of that? Could the 1993 bombing of WTC be a set up, not necessarily as a terrorist attack, but as a way to set up for a later attack? You follow me? Could it be possible to tell the public that the WTC tower was repaired, and both towers were modified and reinforced to withstand another bombing, yet those reinforcement efforts were actually done by professional building imploders covertly working to make sure the WTC towers successfully fell down for the next attack?
Now, going back to the irony at the Pentagon. So, what kind of remodeling was going on there before the 9/11 attacks? Anything to do with pyrotechnics?
Additional thoughts and links to ponder. Things that make you go hmmmm...
Provisions to Exclude Roof Rescues
http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/01/10/WTC_Helicopters.html
Evacuation Preparedness
http://www.infolink.com.au/articles/f0/0c0120f0.asp
9/11: What Did Witnesses See?
Since I ran out of time yesterday to post 9/11 thoughts, I will post two today for you to ponder.
So, what did witnesses see on that fateful September morning? Anything odd about their views and impressions of what happened on September 11th? It seems the more I read about the eye witness accounts and remember the news reports from CNN, Fox News and MSNBC (I was a news flipper checking out all the 24 hour news sources), the accounts seem to favor the thought that there's more to the story than what the official government story claims.
This link give a good series of eye witness accounts, along with media clips from that day.
http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/lofiversion/index.php/t57489.html
So, what did witnesses see on that fateful September morning? Anything odd about their views and impressions of what happened on September 11th? It seems the more I read about the eye witness accounts and remember the news reports from CNN, Fox News and MSNBC (I was a news flipper checking out all the 24 hour news sources), the accounts seem to favor the thought that there's more to the story than what the official government story claims.
This link give a good series of eye witness accounts, along with media clips from that day.
http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/lofiversion/index.php/t57489.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

