I haven't done a blog in forever and I'm only kidding myself to think that my schedule is going to change anytime soon. I am working 2 Jobs and I am a full time student in school trying to finish up my fire science degree. There is however something that I just CAN NOT let go. The International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF), our union, has thrown it's support behind Obama. I expected this as organized labor is always in support of the most liberal candidates. As we near the election you will see posters and banners stating "Firefighters support Obama". I am writing this for one reason. I want people to know that though the IAFF supports Obama, many actual fire fighters do not. During the last meeting for the local chapter of the IAFF, the Internationl's support of Obama was a topic of major contention. Were I to guess, I would say that more HFD firemen oppose Obama than support him. This is an estimate and is in no way based on a survey or scientific proof. But I rarely find Obama suppoerters at any station I've been to. So in short, weather my assumption is right or wrong about the make-up of HFD Obama supporters or opposers, when you see those banners claiming that firemen support Obama please remember; it is the union that supports him.
On a personal note, Obama would likely mean more money for me and maybe I wouldn't have to work so much. I am willing to work twice as much as I do for the betterment of this nation. We have lost the idea of the greater good. Many people are so selfish they just don't care who has to pay their handout. I'll take one for the team and support someone who will be better for the country as a whole instead of better for certain groups.
Just to clarify, Though the union states its support for Obama there are no union dues going to his campaign. The only money going to the Obama Campaign from the IAFF is if the union member is a part of the "Fire PAC". PAC is short for Political Action Commitee. members may donate extra money above their union dues to the Fire PAC. Like Robert my complaint is that I do not appreciate that the status and the love that people have for firemen is being exploited to put a man in office that I believe falls well short of what I would be comfortable with as the leader of a PTA much less the Commander-in-Chief. It is immoral for the union to imply that the union supports Obama. The union does not support Obama because in reality the union is literally its members. The union's board supports Obama and that makes a HUGE difference.
After seeing this, I think Christian just might be an actor (between his presidential duties and curing cancer during halftime of his 3rd Superbowl appearance as quarterback and wide receiver!!!).
The video can be accessed through my "Myspace videos".
I believe in God. I believe in Jesus Christ. I believe in the Bible. I do not believe that someone who does not repost a bulletin that says "I love Jesus" has turned their back on the lord. I don't believe that God needs emails sent "to everyone on your email list or you hate Jesus" in order to know your heart. As such, I have chosen to use this medium to showcase a video that carries more substance than these other types of correspondence. I have discussed biblical principal here in my blogs before on a number of occasions regarding different topics and during various debates, but this will be the first time that I directly post an illustration of the love of God and the sacrifice that the Lord Jesus made. This is a wonderful illustration of that sacrifice that was made for me! Whether you believe in God and Jesus Christ or if you believe that Bugs Bunny was the chosen messiah; either way it CAN NOT change the sacrifice that Jesus Christ made for you and I.
This video was part of a youth Christian event they do every year called Winterfest. Here is a link to their homepage… http://www.winterfest.org
As you may notice the "Demons" depicted here played by persons of different races. The aim of the symbolism in this video is the spiritual attacks each of us endure; not racial stereotypes. I suspect that is why there are demons from numerous races; to try to avoid having people loose sight of the meaning in exchange for an opportunity to attack the messengers. These young people did a great job and I am thankful that I got to see this.
p.s. I usually welcome debate on anything that I post. This is not the case here. I am not posting this video to ignite a debate on whether God exists, whether these kids think all black people are pimps and models, whether all white girls are drunks, or anything else. If you would like to comment feel free, but abusive comments will be deleted.
…But Some Are More Equal Than Others
Category: Life
George Orwell wrote "All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others." This phrase was taken from the book Animal Farm, which was written as a satire regarding the replacement of one type of tyranny for another, masking itself as freedom.Thomas Jefferson wrote in The Declaration of Independence "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…"Equal? It is interesting that our country was born through the bravery of men who were willing to sign The Declaration of Independence.A document that we keep protected with the most elaborate security systems imaginable.Yet there are those who would call themselves patriots while they ignore what is likely the most recognizable quote from the Declaration of Independence.
Why is this important?Hate crimes, sometimes called "Bias Crimes" impart a stiffer penalty for a crime and increase the available resources, including financial, to the agency investigating a crime that may have been motivated by demographic differences.In other words, if a crime is committed and the victim is different in some way from the perpetrator then extra money and effort may be used or provided by the federal government.Conversely if the victim and the attacker are similar then those extra resources WILL NOT be available.Differences that could potentially influence whether special treatment is given to a case include race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, and disability.This means that some men are more equal than others when viewed through hate crime legislation.Chief Justice Rehnquist stated "Bias-motivated crimes are more likely to…. inflict distinct emotional harms on their victims."I suspect that the widowed husband of a randomly murdered woman would disagree.I am certain that the loss of a loved one for nothing more than entertainment is not likely to provide much comfort.
The reality is, terms like "Hate Crime" and "Bias-Crime" are quite foolish.When was the last time that a person was chained to the bumper of a pickup truck and drug 10 miles to their death because of love for the victim?NEVER!Such a heinous act clearly is an indication of a hatred for, or a bias against, the victim whether different from their attacker or not.If the assailant's political views are those of inclusion and acceptance toward persons of a different demographic; is the crime of lesser consequence?Is the victim less dead?Does the family of the victim get a warm fuzzy feeling because the assailant embraces cultural diversity?Absolutely not!It is interesting to note that while these are sometimes referred to as "Bias-Crimes", the government's stance on this issue equates to a bias in favor of criminals who bring injury to a person of a similar demographic to their own.So who then is committing the "bias-crime"?Who then is permitting and participating in discrimination against crime victims?The answer is our own legislative branch.
One statute that is currently under consideration is called the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 (LLEHCPA). This statute includes numerous provisions that I oppose, however there is one provision that I do support.On the upside of this statute there is a provision requires research and tracking of all crimes that are found to meet the criteria explained above.The benefit to this is that dangerous areas can be recognized and avoided by those who may be at risk if they so choose and prevailing attitudes can be studied to determine the underlying causes of such acts.This data could go a long way toward educating the populous of a region so that these kind of acts can be combated before they occur.On the downside this statute provides 10 million dollars annually, in additional funding for the sole purpose of investigating possible "hate crimes".Is a little grandma robbed and raped on the street at night not worthy of the same resources as a person leaving a gay bar?Why not?Is she less valuable?
We send the message that if you are going to commit a crime it is best to do so against people of a similar demographic to your own.Is black on black crime more acceptable than black on white crime?Of course not!While you read the next paragraph be sure to recognize the jury's ability and responsibility to weigh the facts of the crime, the facts about the victim, and the facts regarding the criminal.This is key to understanding the need to remove legislative biases.
If we are to continue drawing this line in the sand, then tell me how different is a murder committed against a woman because of her gender and one committed against a woman because of simple opportunity? The fact is, regardless of demographic, wrong is wrong. There should not be a standard set forth for one to be investigated, tried and punished at a different standard because of their beliefs. Currently, a college student is facing felony "Hate Crime" charges for placing a Koran in a commode!Yet only a few years ago an "artist" placed a crucifix in a jar and then filled the jar with his own urine calling it art.A heinous crime is a heinous crime; a foolish act of vandalism is a foolish act of vandalism.There should be a trial and a punishment, indiscriminant of race, color, creed, gender, sexual orientation, or religion. That is why we have jury trials and not punishment without due process. These situations should be handled on a case by case basis rather than on a cookie cutter approach. It is up to the jury to determine what the punishment should be. It is not for us to determine that a criminal's punishment should be less severe after a trial because of his/her social views, when the jury knows the details of the case. If the minimum is 1 year and the maximum is 100 years, the jury has the option to decide if the perpetrator deserves the minimum, the maximum, or somewhere in-between.It is the jury's option because they have the facts and we do not.
A co-worker and friend of mine put it this way, does the fine for speeding differ if you are ticketed while running late for work, or if you are speeding because you have to use the restroom?What about if your favorite TV show is on?No, it does not differ, and it shouldn't.
As a side note, while I don't view this as the most important aspect of this issue, freedom of speech and the constitutionality of these laws is worth giving some attention to.These laws equate to statutes that punish a person beyond established standards based on their personal political and social views.Is this an infringement on one's freedom of speech?According to these types of legislation; if I hurt someone who is Jewish and I have never openly carried any anti-Semitic views, my crime carries less consequence.If I hurt someone who is Jewish in a similar manner and I have made anti-Semitic comments then my personal opinions may result in stiffer penalties.Again, let this sink in, my personal opinions may result in stiffer penalties.Every additional moment, beyond the established standard sentence for my crime that I am required to serve in prison is then time that I am serving, not for my crime, but for my beliefs.Every dollar, beyond the established standard fine for my crime that I am required to pay is then a fine, not for my crime, but again for my beliefs.The ACLU supports this type of legislation.Evidently, the ACLU finds no fault in punishing a person based on their opinions and beliefs. While I find racism and many forms of discrimination to be sickening, I do recognize the rights of American's to have and to express those views.
Before I conclude, I want to address an opinion of mine that may appear to be in conflict with what I have tried to explain above.I do believe in stiffer penalties for those who would prey specifically on the young and the developmentally disabled!This regards those who are not old enough, or mentally competent enough to defend themselves against an assailant.This is not based on a demographic differential.This is based on the inability of a child i.e. a six month old to defend itself or to personally pursue and aid in a criminal investigation.
Presently the government is using the tyranny of ignorant criminals to convince the public that stiffer punishments on certain people will bring about a freedom from discriminatory violence.This is not the case and in truth; these laws will only further segregate groups from one another.I am all for stiffer punishments across the board, but not for select victims that the government wants to offer extra protection to in an effort to pander for votes.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN... I'M BACK! I have spent the better part of the last 4 months studying for a promotional test for work. Well, thankfully, I'm done. I tested rather well and expect to be getting promoted as a result. There were 1046 people who signed up for the test and I finished ahead of 932 of them! So those of you that had grown accustomed to my blogs don't need to wait any longer. If anyone has any suggestions as to what I should write about please feel free to message me and let me know!
Here's the Plan... Only buy gas when you want to drive!
Category: News and Politics
I recently received an email that showed photos of an immensely decadent home in the United Arab Emirates.This home belonged to Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, the former president of the UAE and ruler of Abu-Dhabi.The closing statements of this email were as follows "This guy is in cahoots with both Bush's!! No wonder we are where we are!!" This is typical of the ignorance and apathy of the general populous of America. In general we choose not to educate ourselves and instead we throw around accusations and accept the one sided views of our deceitful media. First off I can assure you that oil has been a major commodity since far before the Bush family was in the White House. Secondly, let's use a little thought and consider that Sheikh Al Nahyan was the political leader of a nation whose main export we rely on! America imports 12.2 million barrels of oil and produce 5.4 million barrels of oil totaling 17.6 million barrels of oil A DAY!We use the same amount of oil as China, Russia, The United Kingdom, India, and CanadaCOMBINED.Yet these nations combined population is 8.46 times larger than our population.Meaning, per American we use over 840% more oil everyday!America would have to elect Donald Duck with Goofy as his vice president, in order for us to have a president who was unable to recognize the need to be intimately involved with OPEC etc.
As a side note we also consume more oil than the following THIRTY-SIX nations combined:
India, Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Indonesia, Australia, Venezuela, Egypt, Iraq, Malaysia, United Arab Emirates, Norway, Kuwait, Colombia, Viet Nam, Nigeria, Algeria, Libya, Kazakhstan, Denmark, Ecuador, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Argentina, Angola, Turkmenistan, Sudan, Yemen, Oman, Qatar, Equatorial Guinea, Brunei, Chad, Congo (Brazzaville), and Gabon
The conclusive statement of this email was "Kinda makes you want to go along with the DON'T BUY GAS ON MAY 15th .doesn't it?"This is an example of a person jumping on an empty bandwagon.We all have likely received 500 of these "Don't buy any gas on the 15th of May", "Don't buy gas from Exxon" or "Only buy the gas you need for the day and don't fill your tank" emails.While some of the principles of supply and demand used to come up with these ideas are sound when applied to regular products, they do not apply to petrochemicals in the same manner.
"Don't buy any gas on the 15th of March"
First off, gas doesn't go bad after a few days. Fuel can be stored for a long time and there are chemical additives called fuel stabilizers that will actually extend how long fuel can sit and remain usable. This can easily exceed a year. As such, ideas about not purchasing any gas on a given day to overflow reserves will not work because the plants can simply lower their output and they will not overflow their reserves.
"Don't buy gas from Exxon"
Second, gas is what is called a fungible commodity. This means that if Exxon has extra fuel then they can sell it to Chevron and vise versa. So in order for this to possibly work there would have to be a plan to ensure that fuel was being purchased in such a manner as to keep each gas company's fuel tanks equally full to ensure that Coastal didn't have the space in their reserves to purchase the extra fuel from Exxon or Chevron for example. This means that we would have to find out and, as a nation, determine how much fuel to buy from Exxon to keep it at a specific level, and how much to buy from Coastal who has fewer facilities so it would require less purchased fuel to lower their reserves to the same percentage. This would be impossible.
"Only buy the gas you need for the day and don't fill your tank"
Third, even if you buy your gas one gallon at a time, if you do not change your fuel consumption there will be ABSOLUTELY no change in the amount of fuel being purchased and thus no change in the amount of fuel in the oil company's reserves. (I.e. If you buy one gallon of gas every day or seven gallons of gas every Sunday, there will be no effect whatsoever on oil or processed fuel reserves.)The only thing that you are likely to do here is to require more trips to the fuel stations; thereby increasing your fuel consumption.Consider also that the topic of this discussion is the increase in fuel prices. Fuel is presently on an uptrend. As such if the price is 2.75$ today it is far more likely that it will be 2.80$ tomorrow and 2.85$ the next day. So now you have to pay even more for your fuel because you didn't take advantage of the lower price, knowing that the price is likely to be higher future days.
Finally, and this is HUGE. Most of the fuel stations are franchised. That means that the oil companies don't own them. The products inside the store are not for the oil company's profit but instead for the store owner's profit. So to boycott those items is to attack the pocket book of a small business owner because he sells Shell gas or Citgo fuels. That would be like not shopping at Kroger's because they sell Pepsi products.
The truth of the matter is that the ONLY way for us to have an effect on the price of fuel is to stop using so much of it. For me to sell my V-8 Camaro and everyone else to sell their big trucks and SUV's and buy Honda Civics, and hybrid cars, or even just stop traveling as often. The problem here is that Americans will not give up the luxuries that we have. As such if I want to go to visit my in-laws in Dallas then I am going to go. If I want to drive a big V-8 with 325 horse power that drinks gas like a frat boy drinks beer then that's what I am going to do. As a nation if we don't change our ways we have NO business being angry with the oil companies as we have decided that our luxuries are more important than the price of gas. That is the decision we, as a nation, have made to date.
Well...It has been a LONG TIME! I am afraid to say that it will still be a couple more months before I can devote the time to writing a new blog. I miss the mental workouts but, I have been studying for a test to get promoted at work. There are esentially 6 text books from which a single 100 question test will be derived and I have been burried in those books for the past few months and will continue to be until mid July. If you pray... PRAY! I need it. There are 1012 people taking this test and there are currently 18 openings for the promotion. In the mean time I seem to find topics to write on daily but not the time to do it! lol. For those of you who have sent me messages asking me where I'm at or to the kind individual who indicated that the cold sweats and various other withdrawl symptoms have yet to subside (lol), I promise to get back at it as soon as I have completed this test.
Until then I have set up a guestbook on my Myspace page. It shows who signed it and if you choose to, it will show what part of the country you are from. I'd love to get to see where all of my readers come from.
Can you hear Saddam? "This new rope is scratchy"
Category: News and Politics
The following is a reposted blog that I feel carries a new importance given recent events; specifically the execution of justice in Iraq, resulting in the judicial hanging of former dictator, former tyrant, former despot, and former murderer, Saddam Hussein.
A close friend recently opened my eyes to a new simplicity, regarding the war in Iraq.He is a former Marine, who fought in Iraq, and he is now a public servant, working as a firefighter.He said simply, "We're the good guys.It's our job to help the little guys who can't help themselves.Saddam is out of power.One less bad guy, how can that be wrong?"This simple truth burned in my mind with an intense fervor.Most of us who are stateside, most of us who haven't served in Iraq, most of us who didn't carry an M-16 and didn't see their brothers die to depose this despot, this murderer, have over complicated the issue to support their own theories and points.Don't get me wrong, the details have their place and are indeed important, but a sand packing grunt knows the real score.The fact is our forefathers did to.They saw it in the same simple way, when they said the following.
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Original Declaration of Independence / dated 4th July 1776
In essence this states that it is the right and duty of those who have the means to depose a tyrant leader who abuses his people.A man who usurps the authority of civility and morality by using weapons of mass destruction on the people whose lives he has been entrusted to protect.Saddam was an example of such a tyrant.Saddam was an example of such a murderer.Saddam was deposed as a direct result of the United States of America, United Kingdom and other coalition forces being willing to sacrifice in order to fulfill the rights of the Iraqi people and to fulfill their own duties, the proud duties of the Good guys.
***Definitions***
Usurpations - 1. To seize without right
Despotism - 1. Rule by a despot or tyrant2. Abuse of power
Evince - 1. To show clearly or reveal
You can like Bush, you can hate Bush, you can take whatever opinion you choose but the fact is he has removed a man that began his murderous ways twenty years before coming to power in 1979. He was sentenced to death in 1959 by Iraqi courts for attempting to assassinate the Iraqi president. He escaped to Syria and then to Egypt. This man was the bad guy during the presidential administrations of Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johson, Nixon, and Ford before becoming Iraqi President and then during Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton's administrations. Throughout this entire time only GW Bush was able to depose him. As in the above post "We're the good guys.Its our job to help the little guys who cant help themselves.Saddam is out of power.One less bad guy, how can that be wrong?"
Thank you, to our troops who are willing to risk and sacrifice everything for the greater good. You are all in my prayers and I am thankful that you pay no heed to Hollywood's elite. Their ability to read a script in no way qualifies them to speak for this nation any more then their ability to carry a plastic M-16 in front of a camera thirteen-thousand miles from danger, qualifies them to speak for our military.
For the Marine who helped me to understand a little clearer... Semper Fi Brother!
This video demonstrates the how quickly the fire can develop when a DRY tree is exposed to an open flame.
Wet trees tell a different story. For comparative purposes, the NIST researchers selected a green Scotch pine, had it cut in their presence, had an additional two inches cut from the trunk's bottom, and placed the tree in a stand with at least a 7.6 liter water capacity. The researchers maintained the Scotch pine's water on a daily basis. A single match could not ignite the tree. A second attempt in which an electric current ignited an entire matchbook failed to fire the tree. Finally they applied an open flame to the tree using a propane torch. The branches ignited briefly, but self-extinguished when the researchers removed the torch from the branches. Trees that have been watered properly, and maintain pliable, green needles are harder to ignite than dry trees with needles that break easily when bent and fall from the tree when the branches are shaken.
Immigration Gumballs, It's Not Just About Terrorism
Category: News and Politics
16 minutes that might help us all understand why tighter borders and stricter immigration controls are imparative to this nation. It's not just about terrorism.
What are your thoughts? Is there a better answer then to restrict the flow of both legal and illegal immigrants? If so what?
Napoleon Dynamite Has Got Nothing On Me…
Category: Life
When I graduated from high school I had a fair number of friends and was relatively popular.My high school career didn't start out that way though.My freshman year I was less then 'A' list material.So I did everything I could think of, to convince the few friends I had that I was cool.I wasn't much of an artist, so drawing a "Liger" wasn't going to get me a lot of chicks.I resorted to lying about who I was.I pretended to be a ladies man.I acted as though I had a lot of experience in the sac.I just lied about the fact that the only experience I had in the sac up to that time was solo experience.I didn't have any good skills, but I didn't let that keep me from being a sought after gangster.Of course I was only sought after in the pseudo world I had created.In reality, as a freshman I was still a virgin (I don't see that as being such a bad thing now), I couldn't fight to save my life, I wasn't any good with a bow staff, and I had never hunted wolverines in Alaska with a 12 gauge either.I thought that I was a loser because of these things.The fact is I became the loser when I decided to start lying.
Last night I went out with my new neighbor and did a little bar hopping.As is typical my partner in crime for the evening was better able to hold his liquor then I was (I rarely drink). All was fine and dandy at the first bar, a little eye candy here and there, and two Budweisers.The second bar had less to gawk at but there were a couple of gentlemen there that engaged me and my buddy in some rousing political conversation.I think I held my own pretty well. Oh yeah, and two more Budweisers.Then we went to the third bar. I ordered my last drink of the night (and probably my third to many), and as the waitress departed my table I heard her call out to the bartender, "Hey, Shailie, one Bud and one Bud Light."WHAT?Did I hear her right?Shailie?No way!I turned around to look and as sure as the day is long it was her.She didn't look the same, after all it had been nearly fifteen years, but the way she moved… it was definitely her.
Shailie was my first.By the time I graduated I had become a bit overly cavalier in my love life and I probably couldn't name all of my sexual exploits throughout my life, but Shailie… well that is one that I will never forget.Anyone who has been intimate with someone remembers their first.We were both young and each others first.Sadly I had given her the same story of my life that I had grown accustomed to giving.Shailie was my first but she didn't know it.I had never 'French' kissed anyone to that time and I was so scared that she would be able to tell that I was a rookie, that I never kissed her, not even when we made love.What a classy guy, huh?As I sat there trying not to make it obvious that I was staring I began to study her face.It wasn't warm anymore, and it seemed to me that a hard life had left its mark.Her eyes didn't carry the same glow.I walked up to the bar and as she looked up she got as far as "what can I get…" before I saw the look of recognition in her face and she started laughing.It was kind of a nervous laugh.I said "I assume that your reaction means that you recognize me."She nodded to the affirmative.I spoke with her for only a couple of minutes.I told her that I thought of her often and am glad to see that she is doing ok.In my line of work I find myself asking "What if" quite often.I wasn't asking if we could have worked out.I wouldn't want that.I am glad that my life went the way it did and I wouldn't trade anything for my wife or my son.I was asking myself "what if I had been honest with her?"What if I had told her "hey this is my first time and I am just as nervous as you are?"Maybe her first experience would have been better.Maybe I wouldn't have been scared to kiss her.I know that my life was very strongly affected by my first sexual experience.Maybe, she would have had a completely different life. The flap of a butterfly's wing can change the world.
In the end she lived the life that she chose and I lived the life that I chose.I only wish I had known then what I know now.I suspect that I wouldn't have thought it so cool to be all of the things I pretended to be.Had I not pretended to be those things, I might not have made my pseudo world into reality later in my high school years.Heck, I might have even graduated in four years like everyone else.If I had spent more time studying or practicing and less time trying to make things up, I might have cultivated some good skills… "You know, like… num-chuck skills, bow-hunting skills, computer hacking skills. Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills!"
What about you?Did you have a fake world that you created around yourself?What was your pseudo world?
Most people won't take the 40 minutes to watch this video. Most people don't have time for this. Most people will regret the ignorance of the American people, when the warnings here culminate into 9-11, the sequel. The following video carries a great deal of information regarding those who would seek to harm America. If you don't know your enemy you can not defend yourself against him. Maybe you don't have the time right now, but you should find the time. Return later if need be but there are some huge points made here that Americans and others NEED to recognize.
Political correctness is the enemy of our safety! Political correctness allows the enemy to use subversive means right in front of our noses. For this we will either change or regret having not changed. Christopher
Take five minutes, look at these faces, remember their ultimate sacrafice
Category: Life
Have you ever looked into the eyes of someone who would die for you? Someone who would die for you yet doesn't even know you? Nearly 2000 years ago a man did just such a thing for the whole of humanity, and many forsake him and take his actions for granted. Sadly to this day the majority of people, the world over, are so self absorbed that they have all too quickly forgotten the sacrafices of men and women they have never met. Below are photos of the 343 FDNY firefighters who gave their lives to save the lives of thousands of people they have never met, and will never meet. Take five minutes to look at these faces. To think of the sacrafice that each of them made and the sacrafices that were made by the families of each of these men. Think of those who aren't pictured here... The firemen across this nation who will die for you! The firemen across this nation who already have... The US servicemen who already have half a world away... and the one man who did for us all... How fortunate we should consider ourselves for the heart behind a man who will give everything in exchange for no personal benefit...
The pictures at the bottom are Houston Firefighters who have paid the ultimate sacrafice for this city.
These pictures are Houston Firefighters who have paid the ultimate sacrafice for this city. If you live in Houston you owe a debt of gratitude to these men and women.
From left to right FF Kim Smith, FF Lewis Mayo, Capt. Jay P. Jahnke, FF Kevin W. Kulow, Capt. Grady Burke.
Kim Smith and Lewis Mayo gave their lives on February14th, 1999.
Capt. Jay P. Jahnke gave his life on October 13th, 2001.
Kevin Wayne Kulow gave his life on April 4th, 2004.
Capt. Grady Burke gave his life on February 19th, 2005
I have seen numerous persons buying into the Conspiracy theory that states that the 9-11 attacks were the result of a massive conspiracy set into motion by the Bush administration.As such I am going to take some of the most prevalent questions and endeavor to answer them using logic and A LOT of research.The questions will be listed in RED.There are two main lines of thought regarding 9-11 conspiracies.The first I will address is the idea that 9-11 occurred by permission or government allowance.The second ideology being that the US government actively participated in an attack on US interests culminating in the resulting chaos at the WTC, Pentagon, and Shanksville, PA
1. 9/11 could have been prevented but the leaders of America decided to let it happen.
There is no question that 9/11 could have been prevented.That doesn't mean that it was allowed to happen.If your car were to be stolen while you are sitting at your PC reading this, should your insurance company assume that you intended to allow it to be stolen?You could have prevented it by sitting guard at your car 24 hours a day.The problem with this plan is that while you are standing guard over your car your house is now not protected.There is more to this huge country then just 4 planes, and 3 buildings.We could set up all kinds of protection for one building but that leaves the rest of the nation open for attack.The government failed to protect it citizens in the WTC, but that doesn't mean that a choice was made to allow such an attack to occur. Something to bear in mind, between the FBI, the CIA, and the NSA; the US government receives THOUSANDS of tips regarding terrorist activity and threats per day! The fact is just before 9-11 every major terrorist organization was asked to flood the agencies I listed with even more false threats. Why? To put it simply, it would increase the volume and there by reduce the amount of time available to investigate each threat.
2. Air traffic control had to know that these planes were going the wrong way, yet no military planes intercepted them.
Part of my training to become a firefighter included learning about how to address ARFF fires.ARFF (Aircraft Rescue Fire Fighting) is a science all on its own.Part of that training included going into an air traffic control tower.There are so many planes being tracked it is hard to believe it is even possible.(To give you an idea of how close these planes land and take-off see the picture below, courtesy of Google Earth)Anyhow due to the volume of air traffic it would be difficult to recognize a change in direction on one plane for some time.Secondly, the hijackers intentionally waited till they were clear of any major airports.This was so that their altered flight plan would not be immediately recognized.As far as military planes escorting these guys it takes time to scramble these military aircraft and then it takes time to get them to the area.Finally, hindsight is 20/20; if we knew then what we know now we would have planes sitting on the tarmac 24 hours a day 365 days a year.But we didn't know then what we know now.Additionally, the terrorists had deactivated the transponders on the planes.This caused them to literally disappear from the screens of the air traffic controllers.
Note the small amount of space between these two landing planes.
3. 9/11 was allowed to happen to instill fear in the American population, resulting in them being easily controlled.
This statement is lacking something quite important, benefit.The benefit of being able to control a nation is not gained in such a manner.If you were to control a nation and get the populous to agree to relinquish more of their income to taxes, then maybe.That hasn't happened, nor has it been attempted; at least not by the Bush administration.It is the Democrats who have pushed the most for increased taxation.
4. 9/11 was allowed to happen so the US government could justify war in the Middle East.
The war in the Middle East has been a massive burden on the US economy and has not proved to be of any fiscal benefit.The non-fiscal benefits include the reduced number of Iraqi civilian deaths, the fact that there has not been another successful attack on US soil, and the reality is that numerous nations who once sponsored terrorism, i.e. Libya, openly denounced terrorism and ceased all support of these cowardly organizations.To those who point to oil as the reason we went to war you should look at the following.America went to war in Iraq, for failure to abide by UN Resolution 1441.UN Resolution 1441 includes the following resolutions which were not adhered to by Iraq.
UN Resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990,
UN Resolution 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990,
UN Resolution 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990,
UN Resolution 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991,
UN Resolution 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991,
UN Resolution 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991,
UN Resolution 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991,
UN Resolution 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991,
UN Resolution 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995,
UN Resolution 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999,
and UN Resolution 1441 (2002) of 8 November 2002
Other UN Resolutions that Iraq failed to adhere to include
UN Resolution 1373 (2001) of 28 September 2001,
UN Resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001,
Three others were also not adhered to by Iraq; I was however, unable to find their reference numbers prior to releasing this article.
In order for the US government to have allowed this to happen in an effort to justify war in the Middle East, this plan would have had to have been implemented back in 1990.The US was already in Iraq in 1990 after Hussein invaded Kuwait.Why set this plan in motion when you are already there.Additionally a lot of faces moved through the White House throughout this time, do you believe that this conspiracy spanned all of this time and it never leaked out? Of course not, that would be absurd.
The UN Security Council approved the use of force in Iraq on eleven separate occasions culminating in sixteen different UN Resolutions.If you draft and ratify a resolution that is to be viewed as the stance of the UN Security Council and all fifteen members have stated that they support action, you can hardly refer to any action explicitly defined in said resolution as "unilateral".The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) is the branch of the United Nations charged with maintaining peace and security among nations. While other branches of the United Nations only make recommendations to member governments, the Security Council has the power to make decisions which member governments MUST carry out under the United Nations Charter.The UNSC is pretty much a useless entity if it passes laws that are not intended to be enforced.For the record the UNSC is made up of fifteen countries, consisting of five permanent seats and ten temporary seats. The permanent five are France, Russia, China, the United States and the United Kingdom. These five permanent members hold veto power. The ten temporary seats are held for two-year terms.This means that on at least eleven occasions all five of the permanent members of the UNSC, even France, elected to ratify rather then veto resolutions that supported forcibly addressing the failure of Saddam Hussein to comply. This includes UN Resolution 1441, the final resolution agreed upon before the US went to war with Iraq which stated that this was "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations."
Finally the general public is misinformed as to what a WMD is, and the presence of terrorists in America.First, regarding WMDs, the general populous thinks WMDs are anthrax, and nukes.While it is true that these do constitute WMDs, so do salmonella* and influenza**.WMDs have been found in weaponized form in Iraq since the beginning of the war.Just not the big three everyone was expecting, Nuclear, Anthrax or Smallpox, and VX gas.As a side note, in June of 2006, the national GroundIntelligenceCenter, released a report detailing the weapons of mass destruction that had been found in Iraq, including pre-1991 sarin gas*** and mustard agent****. The report stated that, "While agents degrade over time, chemical warfare agents remain hazardous and potentially lethal.
*Salmonella typhimurium (Used by the terrorist organization "Rajneeshee" in Oregon in 1984, resulting 751 casualties)
**Influenza (claimed 21 million lives, over 20% of the world's population, from 1918 to 1919)
***Sarin (Used by the terrorist organization "Aum Shinrikyo" in Japan in 1995, resulting 7deaths and over 200 casualties)
****Mustard Agent (Used in multiple wars by and against multiple nations.This classification of chemical agent is in the highest risk class set forth by the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993.The effects can be seen in the photo below, courtesy of Wikipedia)
Mustard agent burns on a soldier during World War I.
The remaining questions are posed by those who believe that the US government actively participated in the 9-11 attacks on the WTC, Pentagon, and Shanksville, PA.
5. The twin towers and other neighboring buildings were detonated and did not fall due to the impact of the "flying objects".
Those persons who make this "Conspiracy theory" statement are not considering, physics, engineering, and especially the effects of fire on a structure's integrity.I am a firefighter; I study the effects of fire and heat on structural members in order to stay alive at my job.I take this subject quite seriously.I watched 343 of my brothers die in those buildings and I know that I would have done same.I also know that a building struck by an airplane weighing 833,000 lbs is being shock loaded with a massive amount of weight.This shock loading will invariably destroy a great number of the structural members that are load bearing and required in order for the structure to have a chance to remain standing.I also work as a pyro-technician and can tell you from the videos of the buildings collapsing that they begin to collapse in what is called a "pancake" collapse at the fire floors.First, the fire floors are where it would be logical for a damaged building to collapse.It would have been impossible for any person to have been able to plant explosives at these locations prior to the planes striking the towers without the explosives being destroyed in the impact, and it would have been equally impossible to plant explosives afterwards.The people jumping out of the building were jumping for a reason; do you think someone could have gone into those areas?No, they couldn't.Even with full fire gear, a person would not be able to survive planting explosives with synchronized timing devices or wiring back to a remote location because of the extreme temperatures.
6. Why is it that Madrid's Burning Building Stands and yet the World Trade Center Falls?
Reference the following site for more information regarding this theory.
The above link is no longer any good. The author of the story sent me hate mail for having sent informed people to compare facts to his fiction. I asked the author if he was interested in comparing our perspectives on the matter and offered to share any facts and any data I had been able to obtain. Following this he promptly removed the article and discontinued his Blogspot page alltogether.
First, the Madrid building was not struck by a 747.That alone says enough, but I will continue.The Madrid fire was a simple fire that gutted the entire building.A fire that was fueled by normal office things that are designed to be fire resistant and thus do not evolve into complete combustion.The less complete the combustion is, the less heat is released.Liquid fuels combust better.Why, because solids do not burn.Believe it or not wood does not burn.Wood and all other solids go through a process called pyrolosis.Pyrolosis is the decomposition of a solid material when heat is applied to that material.That decomposition gives off gasses that are flammable.Liquids go through a similar process called vaporization.Less energy is required to cause vaporization then is required for pyrolosis.As such, more energy is expended to pyrolize a solid.This expended energy would have been turned into heat energy had it been a liquid fuel rather then the typical office materials that burned in Madrid.Jet fuels are not just liquid fuels but they are fuels that are chemically engineered to burn completely and cleanly evolving into more heat then other fuels.The more completely something burns the less smoke it produces.As a result the less smoke there is, the more oxygen is available to feed the fire, and thus combustion reaches even hotter temperatures.The web site above does not give the whole story about the Madrid fire.That building was only 32 stories tall.The weight of 32 stories, sitting on supports that had not been impacted by an 833,000 lb jet, and had not been exposed to a primarily liquid fuel source, is very different from the weight of 110 stories that HAD been impacted by an 833,000 lb jet, after which it was exposed to liquid fuel sources!
For the record the WTC was designed to withstand the impact of a 707.Many people think of this and surmise that the 747 is only a little bigger then a 707.This is absolutely wrong.A 707 weighs 673,000 lbs less.Meaning one 747 impact is equivalent to more than FOUR 707 impacts simultaneously.
I made a mistake and I want to ensure that all information given is as accurate as possible.The WTC buildings were not hit by a 747, they were struck by a Boeing 767, whose weight is 450,000 lbs.This makes the 767 only about 3 times as big as a 707's 160,000 lbs.This is still well beyond the design specifications for the WTC towers.
7. The first tower was not hit by a hijacked commercial jet but some sort of missile.
There is no evidence of this whatsoever.The fact is there are hundreds of witnesses who have always stated that they witnessed a plane and not a missile of any kind strike the WTC.Additionally, video footage of the first plane striking the first tower refutes this idea. There is also the matter of a plane and it's occupants who had to disappear from the face of the earth, and all of the radio traffic and cellular calls that emanated from the first plane to strike the WTC.
8. The second tower was not hit by a hijacked commercial jet but a jet resembling one.
There is no evidence of this whatsoever.Again, there are hundreds of witnesses who have always stated that they witnessed a plane and not a missile of any kind strike the WTC.Additionally there are a host of videos who show this to be an inaccurate statement.There is still the matter of a plane and it's occupants who had to disappear from the face of the earth, and all of the radio traffic and cellular calls that emanated from the second plane to strike the WTC.
9. The Pentagon was not hit by a hijacked commercial jet but a bomb or was detonated internally.
Again eye witness reports and video footage show this statement to be made in error, and to be not just flawed but undeniably inaccurate.There is still the matter of a plane and its occupants.
10. The people who are said to have perished on those planes aren't real people and were never on any planes.
The following is a link to a site that lists all of the victims of 9-11.It includes names, pictures, home cities, employers, ages, and can be listed in order by each of these categories.If you select to list by location you can pull up information on each person on each of the planes.
11. The destruction of the WorldTradeCenter and surrounding buildings was planned internally within the US government.
The answer to this is laid out in my responses to numbers 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10.Also the number of people who would have had to be involved in this kind of an operation and the ensuing cover-up would have been so vast and massive that it would have been impossible to even consider this plausible.Consider the baggage handlers who recall loading the planes.Now open this up onto a grand scale.How many people would have had to be in on this?How could the government find people willing to participate without anyone saying they wouldn't?The number of sadistic people it would take to carry out something of this nature would preclude it from being possible to cover up.
tired
