• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Shot Fired Into Obama Denver Headquarters[W:89]

Re: Shot Fired Into Obama Denver Headquarters

Fiddytree said:
Is it really that hard to resist the urge of bringing up Trutherism in a completely unrelated thread?
Click to expand...


That's bizarre and very telling of your bias.

You don't claim that bringing up the theory that an Obama Operative was behind the shooting, in order to shed bad light on supporters of Romney, as being completely unrelated to the thread. Yet, off the other side of your keyboard, you view a parallel counter-theory about embarrassing the Obama Administration, to make the Romney candidacy seem more plausible, as being unrelated to the thread.

That's might be called a double standard for the acceptance of what's unrelated and what's not unrelated from where I sit.
 
Re: Shot Fired Into Obama Denver Headquarters

Surtr said:
Totally, since not once have I ever supported Obama's presidency.


Not even close to the same thing.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, I knew "but...but...but...that's different" was right around the corner.
 
Re: Shot Fired Into Obama Denver Headquarters

apdst said:
Oh yeah, I knew "but...but...but...that's different" was right around the corner.
Click to expand...

So, to you burning an effigy, and shooting into a building full of people is the same thing. Got it.
 
Re: Shot Fired Into Obama Denver Headquarters

PW4000 said:
That's bizarre and very telling of your bias.

You don't claim that bringing up the theory that an Obama Operative was behind the shooting, in order to shed bad light on supporters of Romney, as being completely unrelated to the thread. Yet, off the other side of your keyboard, you view a parallel counter-theory about embarrassing the Obama Administration, to make the Romney candidacy seem more plausible, as being unrelated to the thread.

That's might be called a double standard for the acceptance of what's unrelated and what's not unrelated from where I sit.
Click to expand...

Considering the "theory" was brought up an Obama supporter, and had everything to do with the topic, and is ridiculously more plausible than your Benghazi theory, it's you who are out on the "bias" limb here.
 
Re: Shot Fired Into Obama Denver Headquarters

Surtr said:
So, to you burning an effigy, and shooting into a building full of people is the same thing. Got it.
Click to expand...

You claimed that this equaited to an attack on the president.
 
Re: Shot Fired Into Obama Denver Headquarters

apdst said:
You claimed that this equaited to an attack on the president.
Click to expand...
Somebody fires a shot into the Presidential campaign office in Denver, no big deal. It was only a bullet that could have killed an employee of our Chief Executive.
 
Re: Shot Fired Into Obama Denver Headquarters

Hatuey said:
This, this is highly unrealistic.
Click to expand...

My 75/76 type rating ratings tell me otherwise.

Further, it is no more unrealistic than the NTSB flight data presented through an FOIA request, demonstrating that the alleged Flight 77 could not have possibly struck the Pentagon. It is also no more unrealistic than that same flight data proving that Flight 77 was flown beyond its physical flight envelope without breaking apart in mid-air. It is also no more unrealistic than the bizarre claim that a total neophyte who failed a simple C-172 check-ride, would magically acquire the skills, knowledge, cockpit awareness, systems expertise and tactile sense, to have flown a complex, heavy, commercial, multi-engine turbine aircraft through a flight profile that physically exceeds the structural limits of the airframe itself, before slamming the aircraft into the ground long before getting both the wings and nose virtually at par with the horizon (impossible for Hani and the airframe).

The calculated positive g-loads taken from the FDR data released by the NTSB, shows that the airframe was at one point experiencing in excess of 9 g's during its pull-out from the dive just after completing a 330-degree right bank turn. The max structural positive g-load limit of the Boeing 757, happens to be no more than +6 g's (those are maximum physical structural limits).

Any Commercial Airframe designed in the United States, for use in the Transport Category under FAR Part 121, must be designed according to the Federal Aviation Regulations. Those regulations stipulate the maximum limit load factors shall be when designing an aircraft. The regulations call for +2.5g's as the max limit load factor for Transport Category aircraft. So, Boeing is forced to design the airframe a certain way - not merely because some "truther" said so. No doubt, Boeing designs its airframes to exceed the FAR Certification requirements. However, the FDR released by the NTSB, once analyzed demonstrated that the aircraft the data allegedly came from, went well beyond the structural limits that even Boeing itself was prepared to support. And, that is why you have zero OEM press conferences dealing with this issue.

Unrealistic, in my experience, is a term that tends to come from those who really don't know what realistic actually looks like relative to 911. If the aircraft represented in the FDR released by the NTSB could not have physically flown the strike profile, then it can't possibly have been a Boeing 757-223ER. Which by definition means that it could not have possibly been Flight 77.

The biggest "conspiracy theory" going, is the Official Story.
 
Re: Shot Fired Into Obama Denver Headquarters

Harshaw said:
Do you think Hatuey is either a right-winger or a Romney supporter?
Click to expand...


I've got a better question: Does it really matter?
 
Re: Shot Fired Into Obama Denver Headquarters

PW4000 said:
I've got a better question: Does it really matter?
Click to expand...

Considering your reply to him, indeed it does.
 
Re: Shot Fired Into Obama Denver Headquarters

PW4000 said:
My 75/76 type rating ratings tell me otherwise.

Further, it is no more unrealistic than the NTSB flight data presented through an FOIA request, demonstrating that the alleged Flight 77 could not have possibly struck the Pentagon. It is also no more unrealistic than that same flight data proving that Flight 77 was flown beyond its physical flight envelope without breaking apart in mid-air. It is also no more unrealistic than the bizarre claim that a total neophyte who failed a simple C-172 check-ride, would magically acquire the skills, knowledge, cockpit awareness, systems expertise and tactile sense, to have flown a complex, heavy, commercial, multi-engine turbine aircraft through a flight profile that physically exceeds the structural limits of the airframe itself, before slamming the aircraft into the ground long before getting both the wings and nose virtually at par with the horizon (impossible for Hani and the airframe).

The calculated positive g-loads taken from the FDR data released by the NTSB, shows that the airframe was at one point experiencing in excess of 9 g's during its pull-out from the dive just after completing a 330-degree right bank turn. The max structural positive g-load limit of the Boeing 757, happens to be no more than +6 g's (those are maximum physical structural limits).

Any Commercial Airframe designed in the United States, for use in the Transport Category under FAR Part 121, must be designed according to the Federal Aviation Regulations. Those regulations stipulate the maximum limit load factors shall be when designing an aircraft. The regulations call for +2.5g's as the max limit load factor for Transport Category aircraft. So, Boeing is forced to design the airframe a certain way - not merely because some "truther" said so. No doubt, Boeing designs its airframes to exceed the FAR Certification requirements. However, the FDR released by the NTSB, once analyzed demonstrated that the aircraft the data allegedly came from, went well beyond the structural limits that even Boeing itself was prepared to support. And, that is why you have zero OEM press conferences dealing with this issue.

Unrealistic, in my experience, is a term that tends to come from those who really don't know what realistic actually looks like relative to 911. If the aircraft represented in the FDR released by the NTSB could not have physically flown the strike profile, then it can't possibly have been a Boeing 757-223ER. Which by definition means that it could not have possibly been Flight 77.

The biggest "conspiracy theory" going, is the Official Story.
Click to expand...

Again, do you see how a conspiracy theory about a wholly different subject has been interjected into this thread by you rather than an actual discussion about the identity of the shooter in Denver?
 
Re: Shot Fired Into Obama Denver Headquarters

PW4000 said:
My 75/76 type rating ratings tell me otherwise.

Further, it is no more unrealistic than the NTSB flight data presented through an FOIA request, demonstrating that the alleged Flight 77 could not have possibly struck the Pentagon. It is also no more unrealistic than that same flight data proving that Flight 77 was flown beyond its physical flight envelope without breaking apart in mid-air. It is also no more unrealistic than the bizarre claim that a total neophyte who failed a simple C-172 check-ride, would magically acquire the skills, knowledge, cockpit awareness, systems expertise and tactile sense, to have flown a complex, heavy, commercial, multi-engine turbine aircraft through a flight profile that physically exceeds the structural limits of the airframe itself, before slamming the aircraft into the ground long before getting both the wings and nose virtually at par with the horizon (impossible for Hani and the airframe).

The calculated positive g-loads taken from the FDR data released by the NTSB, shows that the airframe was at one point experiencing in excess of 9 g's during its pull-out from the dive just after completing a 330-degree right bank turn. The max structural positive g-load limit of the Boeing 757, happens to be no more than +6 g's (those are maximum physical structural limits).

Any Commercial Airframe designed in the United States, for use in the Transport Category under FAR Part 121, must be designed according to the Federal Aviation Regulations. Those regulations stipulate the maximum limit load factors shall be when designing an aircraft. The regulations call for +2.5g's as the max limit load factor for Transport Category aircraft. So, Boeing is forced to design the airframe a certain way - not merely because some "truther" said so. No doubt, Boeing designs its airframes to exceed the FAR Certification requirements. However, the FDR released by the NTSB, once analyzed demonstrated that the aircraft the data allegedly came from, went well beyond the structural limits that even Boeing itself was prepared to support. And, that is why you have zero OEM press conferences dealing with this issue.

Unrealistic, in my experience, is a term that tends to come from those who really don't know what realistic actually looks like relative to 911. If the aircraft represented in the FDR released by the NTSB could not have physically flown the strike profile, then it can't possibly have been a Boeing 757-223ER. Which by definition means that it could not have possibly been Flight 77.

The biggest "conspiracy theory" going, is the Official Story.
Click to expand...

What the **** does this have to do with some asshole shooting at the Denver Presidential Campaign Office?
 
Re: Shot Fired Into Obama Denver Headquarters

Fiddytree said:
Again, do you see how a conspiracy theory about a wholly different subject has been interjected into this thread by you rather than an actual discussion about the identity of the shooter in Denver?
Click to expand...

No. No he does not.
 
Re: Shot Fired Into Obama Denver Headquarters

PW4000 said:
My 75/76 type rating ratings tell me otherwise.

Further, it is no more unrealistic than the NTSB flight data presented through an FOIA request, demonstrating that the alleged Flight 77 could not have possibly struck the Pentagon. It is also no more unrealistic than that same flight data proving that Flight 77 was flown beyond its physical flight envelope without breaking apart in mid-air. It is also no more unrealistic than the bizarre claim that a total neophyte who failed a simple C-172 check-ride, would magically acquire the skills, knowledge, cockpit awareness, systems expertise and tactile sense, to have flown a complex, heavy, commercial, multi-engine turbine aircraft through a flight profile that physically exceeds the structural limits of the airframe itself, before slamming the aircraft into the ground long before getting both the wings and nose virtually at par with the horizon (impossible for Hani and the airframe).

The calculated positive g-loads taken from the FDR data released by the NTSB, shows that the airframe was at one point experiencing in excess of 9 g's during its pull-out from the dive just after completing a 330-degree right bank turn. The max structural positive g-load limit of the Boeing 757, happens to be no more than +6 g's (those are maximum physical structural limits).

Any Commercial Airframe designed in the United States, for use in the Transport Category under FAR Part 121, must be designed according to the Federal Aviation Regulations. Those regulations stipulate the maximum limit load factors shall be when designing an aircraft. The regulations call for +2.5g's as the max limit load factor for Transport Category aircraft. So, Boeing is forced to design the airframe a certain way - not merely because some "truther" said so. No doubt, Boeing designs its airframes to exceed the FAR Certification requirements. However, the FDR released by the NTSB, once analyzed demonstrated that the aircraft the data allegedly came from, went well beyond the structural limits that even Boeing itself was prepared to support. And, that is why you have zero OEM press conferences dealing with this issue.

Unrealistic, in my experience, is a term that tends to come from those who really don't know what realistic actually looks like relative to 911. If the aircraft represented in the FDR released by the NTSB could not have physically flown the strike profile, then it can't possibly have been a Boeing 757-223ER. Which by definition means that it could not have possibly been Flight 77.

The biggest "conspiracy theory" going, is the Official Story.
Click to expand...

Title 14; Part 121? You're saying those a maximum limit loads?
 
Re: Shot Fired Into Obama Denver Headquarters

Moderator's Warning:
please stick to the topic if the thread, not truther stuff nor replies to truther stuff
 
Re: Shot Fired Into Obama Denver Headquarters

Redress said:
Moderator's Warning:
please stick to the topic if the thread, not truther stuff nor replies to truther stuff
Click to expand...

LOL, sorry just got curious.
 
Re: Shot Fired Into Obama Denver Headquarters

Like Hunter says, cons arent interested in democracy, and if shootings is what they want to do, shootings is what they will do

576259_477713455592456_1535518191_n.jpg
 
Re: Shot Fired Into Obama Denver Headquarters

Surtr said:
Somebody fires a shot into the Presidential campaign office in Denver, no big deal. It was only a bullet that could have killed an employee of our Chief Executive.
Click to expand...

Why do you keep saying this?

It wasn't a Presidential office. It was a campaign office. The campaign is entirely separate from the Office of the President.

So, if it hit someone, it would have been an employee of the campaign, not an employee of the "Chief Executive."

And no, it wouldn't have made it "OK," as you asked before (childishly). It just wouldn't have the import you're attempting to ascribe to it by calling it a "Presidential office" of the "Chief Executive." It isn't.
 
Re: Shot Fired Into Obama Denver Headquarters

Harshaw said:
Why do you keep saying this?

It wasn't a Presidential office. It was a campaign office. The campaign is entirely separate from the Office of the President.

So, if it hit someone, it would have been an employee of the campaign, not an employee of the "Chief Executive."

And no, it wouldn't have made it "OK," as you asked before (childishly). It just wouldn't have the import you're attempting to ascribe to it by calling it a "Presidential office" of the "Chief Executive." It isn't.
Click to expand...
You people seem to think it's no big deal by minimizing how serious this is. That's your problem, not mine.
 
Re: Shot Fired Into Obama Denver Headquarters

Surtr said:
You people seem to think it's no big deal by minimizing how serious this is. That's your problem, not mine.
Click to expand...

And you keep childishly claiming I'm saying it's "no big deal." It's a big deal. What it's NOT is an attack on the Office of the President. It is 100% identical to an attack on a Romney campaign office. You keep needing to make it into something it isn't. Again, why?
 
Re: Shot Fired Into Obama Denver Headquarters

Liberals love to plant themselves in Tea Party rallies and act like fools to make them look bad.

Likewise, this could have very well been a publicity stunt to turn sentiment against the GOP.

It's not even far-fetched anymore. I'd call it 50/50 as to the party affliation of the shooter.
 
Re: Shot Fired Into Obama Denver Headquarters

Chickenhawks said:
Like Hunter says, cons arent interested in democracy, and if shootings is what they want to do, shootings is what they will do

576259_477713455592456_1535518191_n.jpg
Click to expand...

On the contrary, they are very much interested in democracy. It would be hard to explain the Tea Party's existence and toleration of it by the GOP establishment otherwise.
 
Re: Shot Fired Into Obama Denver Headquarters

tessaesque said:
Staged like the girl who claimed Obama supporters carved an "O" into her face when she was canvasing for McCain? Why the hell do people do stuff like that?
Click to expand...

I think it was a B and the B was backwards because she did it in a mirror.
 
Re: Shot Fired Into Obama Denver Headquarters

I'm not surprised by anything the right is willing to do to force people to vote for Romney. I'm not surprised.
 
Re: Shot Fired Into Obama Denver Headquarters

poweRob said:
I think it was a B and the B was backwards because she did it in a mirror.
Click to expand...

what ever it was, it was sad
 
Re: Shot Fired Into Obama Denver Headquarters

Vallista said:
I'm not surprised by anything the right is willing to do to force people to vote for Romney. I'm not surprised.
Click to expand...

I'm not surprised that someone would try to make this right vs. left in bad behavior. I am surprised it took this long.

Perhaps, then, you have an explanation for when:

A shot was fired into the Republican Party Headquarters in Huntington, WV on September 2, 2004?

Shots were fired into the Bush/Cheney headquarters in Knoxville, TN on October 5, 2004?

A shot was fired at the McCain Palin bus in New Mexico, and the home of the manager of a Republican headquarters in Florida was shot up, both in October, 2008?

Should we not be "surprised at anything the left is willing to do"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom