Bailout = pocketed

[jerseyjay14]

taxpayers = pwned

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/business/15AIG.html?_r=1&hp

WASHINGTON — The American International Group, which has received more than $170 billion in taxpayer bailout money from the Treasury and Federal Reserve, plans to pay about $165 million in bonuses by Sunday to executives in the same business unit that brought the company to the brink of collapse last year.

[Paydirt404]

taxpayers = pwned

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/business/15AIG.html?_r=1&hp

I think they rescinded the bonuses....saw it flash across CNN this morning.

[nothasoul]

taxpayers = pwned

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/15/business/15AIG.html?_r=1&hp

This will only justify pure socialism with big brother controlling everything. This is the stuff we don't need and if the bailout was about this then it may have been a bad idea from the beginning. On the other hand this is the kind of stuff that brought the us economy to it's knees with the corruption on wall street. Somebody has to police this stuff so we don't go back to this kind of lies and deceit and greed. Burny Madolph any one.

[Gtrght77]

The Money keeps going up and up and never comes back to us normal people.

[resnor]

Do you guys know what a retaining bonus is? Thes bonuses were given to people are gonna be laid off so that they will stay WITHTHE COMPANY while they restructure, instead of going out immediately and getting a new job. The point of the bailout was to keep these companies running, and now you want the people who are necessary to keep the company running to just leave?

The bonuses have not been recinded...rather, Chuck Schumer came out and said that if the employees don't voluntarily give them back, the government is going to take it away. Socialism anyone?

[Nevada_Ballin]

Do you guys know what a retaining bonus is? Thes bonuses were given to people are gonna be laid off so that they will stay WITHTHE COMPANY while they restructure, instead of going out immediately and getting a new job. The point of the bailout was to keep these companies running, and now you want the people who are necessary to keep the company running to just leave?

The bonuses have not been recinded...rather, Chuck Schumer came out and said that if the employees don't voluntarily give them back, the government is going to take it away. Socialism anyone?

Then why are 11 of them no longer with the company?

Bonuses are all fine and good if they are paid from that company's earnings. AIG has no earnings - they have nothing but our tax money to help them right their ship. That money should not be used for personal monetary gain. If AIG wants to give out bonuses that's fine, let them do it with their own money, not ours.

The government, who presently owns 80% of AIG, needs to rescind those bonuses asap. Legal action? Go ahead, take it to court, find a judge who will find in favor of AIG when his own tax money also went to that bailout. Good luck with that... lol.

Harry Reid, "Give that bonus money back or we'll tax it back" ..... lol


.

[TheSphinx 2.0]

I think this sums it up nicely...

The nasty little secret at the center of all the outrage is that the Obama administration could have stopped the bonuses by simply stopping the bailout. They could have forced AIG into bankruptcy, which would have voided the company’s contractual compensation obligations. Instead, the Obama administration chose to inject liquidity into AIG, following the lead of the Bush administration, which had done the same thing. That kept AIG’s doors open, and therefore kept its contractual obligations to its employees intact.

Now Obama is outrageously outraged, but over what? A company complying with its contractual obligations? AIG has no more right to abrogate those contracts than any other employer would with its union contracts. Whether or not the compensation agreements reflect wisdom and managerial brilliance, they exist — and as a matter of law, AIG has to honor the commitments. Screeching about the bonuses now is not just futile, but a demonstration of the arrogance involved in these bailouts. If the government wants to tear up all the contracts, it will have to nationalize AIG and get Congress to approve it.

In the future, we can avoid having taxpayer dollars go to Wall Street bonuses by not bailing out private companies with taxpayer dollars.

[TheSphinx 2.0]

Then why are 11 of them no longer with the company?

Bonuses are all fine and good if they are paid from that company's earnings. AIG has no earnings - they have nothing but our tax money to help them right their ship. That money should not be used for personal monetary gain. If AIG wants to give out bonuses that's fine, let them do it with their own money, not ours.

The government, who presently owns 80% of AIG, needs to rescind those bonuses asap. Legal action? Go ahead, take it to court, find a judge who will find in favor of AIG when his own tax money also went to that bailout. Good luck with that... lol.

Harry Reid, "Give that bonus money back or we'll tax it back" ..... lol


.


What I find funny is the "outrage" all of a sudden. We gave the company north of $100b to do who knows what with and now a couple of hundred million gets everybody's panties in a bunch. People are more freaked out about the millions then they are about the billions. At least I know where this money is going. The $100b has been thrown down a black hole and nobody seems to care...

This is what happens when you get involved with private companies. I think they should keep the bonuses. The money didn't have a no-bonus clause so they can do with it as they see fit. Maybe next time we won't give them the money or at least be smart enough to put some stips on it...

-TS

[bk1998]

What I find funny is the "outrage" all of a sudden. We gave the company north of $100b to do who knows what with and now a couple of hundred million gets everybody's panties in a bunch.

It's amazing how many people (read: the major media outlets) lose sight of the grand total in an effort to nitpick (read: generate a story that will generate the major media outlets some revenue).

100M is .001 of 100B.

One thousandth.

No one (read: the major media outlets) seems to care about the other $99,900,000,000 given to AIG (read: because it doesn't make a story that the masses will run with, thus generating them less revenue).

[TheRealist]

The Real AIG Outrage

President Obama joined yesterday in the clamor of outrage at AIG for paying some $165 million in contractually obligated employee bonuses. He and the rest of the political class thus neatly deflected attention from the larger outrage, which is the five-month Beltway cover-up over who benefited most from the AIG bailout.

Taxpayers have already put up $173 billion, or more than a thousand times the amount of those bonuses, to fund the government's AIG "rescue." This federal takeover, never approved by AIG shareholders, uses the firm as a conduit to bail out other institutions. After months of government stonewalling, on Sunday night AIG officially acknowledged where most of the taxpayer funds have been going.

Since September 16, AIG has sent $120 billion in cash, collateral and other payouts to banks, municipal governments and other derivative counterparties around the world. This includes at least $20 billion to European banks. The list also includes American charity cases like Goldman Sachs, which received at least $13 billion. This comes after months of claims by Goldman that all of its AIG bets were adequately hedged and that it needed no "bailout." Why take $13 billion then? This needless cover-up is one reason Americans are getting angrier as they wonder if Washington is lying to them about these bailouts.

* * *
Given that the government has never defined "systemic risk," we're also starting to wonder exactly which system American taxpayers are paying to protect. It's not capitalism, in which risk-takers suffer the consequences of bad decisions. And in some cases it's not even American. The U.S. government is now in the business of distributing foreign aid to offshore financiers, laundered through a once-great American company.

The politicians also prefer to talk about AIG's latest bonus payments because they deflect attention from Washington's failure to supervise AIG. The Beltway crowd has been selling the story that AIG failed because it operated in a shadowy unregulated world and cleverly exploited gaps among Washington overseers. Said President Obama yesterday, "This is a corporation that finds itself in financial distress due to recklessness and greed." That's true, but Washington doesn't want you to know that various arms of government approved, enabled and encouraged AIG's disastrous bet on the U.S. housing market.

Scott Polakoff, acting director of the Office of Thrift Supervision, told the Senate Banking Committee this month that, contrary to media myth, AIG's infamous Financial Products unit did not slip through the regulatory cracks. Mr. Polakoff said that the whole of AIG, including this unit, was regulated by his agency and by a "college" of global bureaucrats.

But what about that supposedly rogue AIG operation in London? Wasn't that outside the reach of federal regulators? Mr. Polakoff called it "a false statement" to say that his agency couldn't regulate the London office.

And his agency wasn't the only federal regulator. AIG's Financial Products unit has been overseen for years by an SEC-approved monitor. And AIG didn't just make disastrous bets on housing using those infamous credit default swaps. AIG made the same stupid bets on housing using money in its securities lending program, which was heavily regulated at the state level. State, foreign and various U.S. federal regulators were all looking over AIG's shoulder and approving the bad housing bets. Americans always pay their mortgages, right? Mr. Polakoff said his agency "should have taken an entirely different approach" in regulating the contracts written by AIG's Financial Products unit.

That's for sure, especially after March of 2005. The housing trouble began -- as most of AIG's troubles did -- when the company's board buckled under pressure from then New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer when it fired longtime CEO Hank Greenberg. Almost immediately, Fitch took away the company's triple-A credit rating, which allowed it to borrow at cheaper rates. AIG subsequently announced an earnings restatement. The restatement addressed alleged accounting sins that Mr. Spitzer trumpeted initially but later dropped from his civil complaint.

Other elements of the restatement were later reversed by AIG itself. But the damage had been done. The restatement triggered more credit ratings downgrades. Mr. Greenberg's successors seemed to understand that the game had changed, warning in a 2005 SEC filing that a lower credit rating meant the firm would likely have to post more collateral to trading counterparties. But rather than managing risks even more carefully, they went in the opposite direction. Tragically, they did what Mr. Greenberg's AIG never did -- bet big on housing.

Current AIG CEO Ed Liddy was picked by the government in 2008 and didn't create the mess, and he shouldn't be blamed for honoring the firm's lawful bonus contracts. However, it is on Mr. Liddy's watch that AIG has lately been conducting a campaign to stoke fears of "systemic risk." To mute Congressional objections to taxpayer cash infusions, AIG's lobbying materials suggest that taxpayers need to continue subsidizing the insurance giant to avoid economic ruin.

Among the more dubious claims is that AIG policyholders won't be able to purchase the coverage they need. The sweeteners AIG has been offering to retain customers tell a different story. Moreover, getting back to those infamous bonuses, AIG can argue that it needs to pay top dollar to survive in an ultra-competitive business, or it can argue that it offers services not otherwise available in the market, but not both.

* * *
The Washington crowd wants to focus on bonuses because it aims public anger on private actors, not the political class. But our politicians and regulators should direct some of their anger back on themselves -- for kicking off AIG's demise by ousting Mr. Greenberg, for failing to supervise its bets, and then for blowing a mountain of taxpayer cash on their AIG nationalization.

Whether or not these funds ever come back to the Treasury, regulators should now focus on getting AIG back into private hands as soon as possible. And if Treasury and the Fed want to continue bailing out foreign banks, let them make that case, honestly and directly, to American taxpayers.



Interesante...

[FootballMecca]

You can add this to W's portfolio of guiding explosive,styrofoam aircraft into the WTC.

Releasing 2 million butterflies which in turn caused Hurricane Katrina.

Ordering Orson Wells to create panic with his infamous alien attack over the radio.

Holding up the sign of the devil instead of the hook' em horns sign.

[Nevada_Ballin]

What I find funny is the "outrage" all of a sudden. We gave the company north of $100b to do who knows what with and now a couple of hundred million gets everybody's panties in a bunch. People are more freaked out about the millions then they are about the billions. At least I know where this money is going. The $100b has been thrown down a black hole and nobody seems to care...

This is what happens when you get involved with private companies. I think they should keep the bonuses. The money didn't have a no-bonus clause so they can do with it as they see fit. Maybe next time we won't give them the money or at least be smart enough to put some stips on it...

-TS

yea, "outrage" seems to be the word of the day for this. I'm not outraged though, i'm not even surprised... lol

[Nevada_Ballin]

What actually happens if AIG goes out of business? I mean on the ground of Main St. America? If they had to close their doors tomorrow, what's the fallout?

[Milwaukee]

You can add this to W's portfolio of guiding explosive,styrofoam aircraft into the WTC.



Im feeling a little kooky today. People tend to believe that an aluminum plane(aka "giant beer can" as some pilots have said) can go completely through a concrete and steel building, simply b/c of the speed that it was travelling.

Flip it around.

If you drive a car into a wall at 50 mph, you can achieve the same effect by keeping the car stationary, and running the wall into the car at 50mph.

All of the official stories have those planes going into the WTC at over 500mph (which the public accepts without question, even though pilots and engineers say this isn't even possible near sea level).

If you locked a plane into place (stationary) and were able to pick up the WTC and slam it into the plane at over 500mph, would the plane go through the WTC? I mean completely into it without any parts falling off or anything?

[Jake-JML]

I honestly think that it WAS NOT a conspiracy. I cannot believe we haven't found any evidence that CLEARLY says bombs (etc.) caused the Twoers to collapse. Don't buy it for a second.

Has a plane ever crashed into a tower before 2001? NO. So how do we EXACTLY know the results of what would happen if a plane really hit a tower.

[resnor]

Ummm...planes DO go into buildings...back in the 40's or 50's a plane went into the Empire state Building... It was a big propellor driven plane.

[Milwaukee]

Ummm...planes DO go into buildings...back in the 40's or 50's a plane went into the Empire state Building... It was a big propellor driven plane.

THROUGH the building? Photos? Im almost positive I saw a pic of that event, and the plane was a freaking mess.

Google search turned this up....
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_aJeegFsC3nY/Rk3xNOHlsDI/AAAAAAAAAPk/dj37UhS_bL8/s1600-h/empirestatebldgcrash.jpg

[resnor]

Why would it have to go THROUGH the building? It went INTO the building...and that plane in the Empire State building didn't go as fast as a modern jetliner. A fully loaded Boeing 747 weighs almost 1,000,000 lbs. ONE FREAKING MILLION POUNDS!!! And you are going to tell me that a ONE MILLION POUND aircraft, going upwards of 500 mph, can't go through some steel beams? LOL. RIIIIIIGHT. I mean, seriously, dude, I remember WATCHING the second plane fly into the tower, and it went into it. It didn't all explode, and fall to the ground. I don't recall anyone saying that the planes went completely through the towers. They say that the planes crashed into the towers, penetrated into them, and burned, and the burning jet fuel weakened the steel, and the weakened steel gave way to the weight of the floors above, and collapsed. With each successive floor collapsing, the weight crashing onto the next floor was greater than it could withstand, and so the buildings went down.

[Milwaukee]

A Boeing 767 is more like 200-450,000 lbs. I wonder how much the WTC weighs..... Didn't a bird bring down a plane some months ago?

Propaganda is powerful. The word "collapse" has been used so much to describe the towers that people don't actually look at what happened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWYxoIHbbZI&feature=related

Where's the 'collapse'? The building is turning to dust. How do fire and weakened steel turn a building to dust? Please explain. If the media would say "the Twin Towers turning to dust" instead of "the WTC collapse" maybe people would notice. The top part-maybe 10 to 20% of the building?-is falling straight down with almost no resistance....almost like there's nothing under it. You mean the bottom 80-90% couldn't support anything?

Im sure you've seen this clip (not necessarily from Hist Chan but somewhere)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQGyj8scF_U

But is that reality?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKDzdl9LfLE

Really? This really looks real to you?

[Nevada_Ballin]

A Boeing 767 is more like 200-450,000 lbs. I wonder how much the WTC weighs..... Didn't a bird bring down a plane some months ago?

Propaganda is powerful. The word "collapse" has been used so much to describe the towers that people don't actually look at what happened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWYxoIHbbZI&feature=related

Where's the 'collapse'? The building is turning to dust. How do fire and weakened steel turn a building to dust? Please explain. If the media would say "the Twin Towers turning to dust" instead of "the WTC collapse" maybe people would notice. The top part-maybe 10 to 20% of the building?-is falling straight down with almost no resistance....almost like there's nothing under it. You mean the bottom 80-90% couldn't support anything?

Im sure you've seen this clip (not necessarily from Hist Chan but somewhere)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQGyj8scF_U

But is that reality?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKDzdl9LfLE

Really? This really looks real to you?

Dude, come on now..... my g/f was in the streets when the WTC got hit by those planes. She heard the first one hit and saw the second one hit (like hundreds of others who were also in the streets and millions of us watching TV live when the second one hit).

When the towers came down, they came down - call it a collapse, a disintegration, whatever... why is that even a point here? The building came down period. (btw, that's not simply "dust" blocking your view of the building collapsing, that's great deal of smoke from the fire - or are you going to say there wasn't really a fire either?)

As for your second youtube video there, the Evan Fairbanks one, THAT IS FAKE, i thought eveyrone knew that by now .....you got suckered, "Evan Rolled" even .....lol


.


.

[Milwaukee]

1) Dude, come on now..... my g/f was in the streets when the WTC got hit by those planes. She heard the first one hit and saw the second one hit (like hundreds of others who were also in the streets and millions of us watching TV live when the second one hit).

2)When the towers came down, they came down - call it a collapse, a disintegration, whatever... why is that even a point here? The building came down period. (btw, that's not simply "dust" blocking your view of the building collapsing, that's great deal of smoke from the fire - or are you going to say there wasn't really a fire either?)

3)As for your second youtube video there, the Evan Fairbanks one, THAT IS FAKE, i thought eveyrone knew that by now .....you got suckered, "Evan Rolled" even .....lol


.


.


1) I think if you went back and looked at the footage from that morning, you'd be surprised at how many people within viewing distance of the event don't mention a plane. (I can provide some examples later this evening after work). There were several occasions where network correspondents ON SITE only said they heard an explosion, or even that they saw a missile...only to have the anchorman back at their studio say "no no we got confirmation that a plane hit". The studio anchors were basically telling some of the eyewitnesses what the eyewitnesses themselves saw. About what millions of us saw "live", I'll have to touch on that this evening too-I just don't have the time at work to dig through different clips.

2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhNd48qx684&feature=related

I think you are overestimating how much of this is smoke. Smoke drifts up...this stuff (building material) is falling to the ground. The building is being pulverized....you don't think thats odd? You/the gov't say fire weakened the steel, causing a pancake effect. Where is the pancaking? Why can't the 80% of the building at the bottom support the 20% on the top that begins to come down...at all? I mean it doesn't stop anything-no resistance lol. THAT'S not odd to you? What force between the fire and the weakened steel is causing THAT effect?

3) TBH I don't watch the news anymore...its been a long while lol. Who exactly came out and said this is a fake? The major media and the History Channel paraded this vid around for a long time....have they said anything about it being confirmed fake?
And regardless there are more vids showing extremely cartoonish physics from the 'plane'. I can provide more if you would like.

[Nevada_Ballin]

1) I think if you went back and looked at the footage from that morning, you'd be surprised at how many people within viewing distance of the event don't mention a plane. (I can provide some examples later this evening after work). There were several occasions where network correspondents ON SITE only said they heard an explosion, or even that they saw a missile...only to have the anchorman back at their studio say "no no we got confirmation that a plane hit". The studio anchors were basically telling some of the eyewitnesses what the eyewitnesses themselves saw. About what millions of us saw "live", I'll have to touch on that this evening too-I just don't have the time at work to dig through different clips.

2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhNd48qx684&feature=related

I think you are overestimating how much of this is smoke. Smoke drifts up...this stuff (building material) is falling to the ground. The building is being pulverized....you don't think thats odd? You/the gov't say fire weakened the steel, causing a pancake effect. Where is the pancaking? Why can't the 80% of the building at the bottom support the 20% on the top that begins to come down...at all? I mean it doesn't stop anything-no resistance lol. THAT'S not odd to you? What force between the fire and the weakened steel is causing THAT effect?

3) TBH I don't watch the news anymore...its been a long while lol. Who exactly came out and said this is a fake? The major media and the History Channel paraded this vid around for a long time....have they said anything about it being confirmed fake?
And regardless there are more vids showing extremely cartoonish physics from the 'plane'. I can provide more if you would like.


i don't have to see news footage, i know people who saw it happen, people i know & trust far and above anything/one i can be led to here.

Building collapse - you have no idea what you are saying on this so it's not worth the time to go back and forth on. Let me suggest that you lookup some implosion videos to see how it looks when a large is internally collapsed. All you are commenting on is what you see from the outside - you have no idea how that building was burning on the inside due to the jet fuel & items inside that went up in flames (furniture etc) ... no idea whatsoever....

Just because the video was on TV does not make it "truth". I suggest you google it to find out for yourself since you don't already know about the Evan Fairbanks stuff. Provide all you want... if it's showing strange physics then it has probably been edited/doctored/made up like the Fairbanks video. You don't watch news anymore but you believe everything you see on youtube?

[Milwaukee]

i don't have to see news footage, i know people who saw it happen, people i know & trust far and above anything/one i can be led to here.

Building collapse - you have no idea what you are saying on this so it's not worth the time to go back and forth on. Let me suggest that you lookup some implosion videos to see how it looks when a large is internally collapsed. All you are commenting on is what you see from teh outside - you have no idea how that building was burning on the inside due to the jet fuel & items inside that went up in flames (furniture etc) ... no idea whatsoever....

Just because the video was on TV does not make it "truth". I suggest you google it to find out for yourself since you don't already know about the Evan Fairbanks stuff. Provide all you want... if it's showing strange physics then it has probably been edited/doctored/made up like the Fairbanks video

Those people you know and trust could not be fooled as well? Do you think that its impossible to make some sort of remote control device look like an airplane? Or better yet, can you make a remote control airplane? The answer to both is yes.......Im not trying to speculate on what it was, but I can sure as hell see what it wasnt.

Once again Im not gonna speculate on how the towers came down....but I can look and see that what we were told is bs. Im asking you, where do you see pancaking due to structural failure? What you see is a building being pulverized-turned to dust. How is that not strange? Im pretty positive that if you could explain it, you would, instead of referring me to implosion vids like those have anything to do with this.

I'll look up the Fairbanks stuff to verify that the MSM says its fake. Im pretty positive its fake (I don't like to say "I know" b/c we don't really "know" that much), but I wasn't aware they admitted it. Why were they using it in History Channel documentaries lol....the same channel that "debunked" a bunch of stuff? But the most ironic thing you said is Just because the video was on TV does not make it "truth". I agree 100%. I just apply that line of thought to the ENTIRE day of 9-11, and not just to individual pieces of footage that go against my opinion. That includes the network footage.

[Nevada_Ballin]

Those people you know and trust could not be fooled as well? Do you think that its impossible to make some sort of remote control device look like an airplane? Or better yet, can you make a remote control airplane? The answer to both is yes.......Im not trying to speculate on what it was, but I can sure as hell see what it wasnt.

Once again Im not gonna speculate on how the towers came down....but I can look and see that what we were told is bs. Im asking you, where do you see pancaking due to structural failure? What you see is a building being pulverized-turned to dust. How is that not strange? Im pretty positive that if you could explain it, you would, instead of referring me to implosion vids like those have anything to do with this.

I'll look up the Fairbanks stuff to verify that the MSM says its fake. Im pretty positive its fake (I don't like to say "I know" b/c we don't really "know" that much), but I wasn't aware they admitted it. Why were they using it in History Channel documentaries lol....the same channel that "debunked" a bunch of stuff? But the most ironic thing you said is Just because the video was on TV does not make it "truth". I agree 100%. I just apply that line of thought to the ENTIRE day of 9-11, and not just to individual pieces of footage that go against my opinion. That includes the network footage.


You are basing your account on youtube videos, mine comes form people who were on the ground when it happened. The History Channel is loaded with programs that explore various conspiracy theories, including the existence of God as an example. Does that mean there is no God since it was on the History Channel?

It's pretty hard to fake "live" TV. I mean you are talking about a co-ordinated effort by every major cable news channel and every single local news channel in NYC and northern New Jersey to also be in on this "conspiracy". Think about that for minute.....

[Milwaukee]

You are basing your account on youtube videos, mine comes form people who were on the ground when it happened. The History Channel is loaded with programs that explore various conspiracy theories, including the existence of God as an example. Does that mean there is no God since it was on the History Channel?

It's pretty hard to fake "live" TV. I mean you are talking about a co-ordinated effort by every major cable news channel and every single local news channel in NYC and northern New Jersey to also be in on this "conspiracy". Think about that for minute.....

There is one and only one reason why Im using YouTube vids to show the planes enter the building. B/c, mysteriously, even after the first 'plane' hit, no MSM outlet has a clear shot of the 2nd plane. Every news outlet in the world knows about this event before the 2nd strike, but "by coincidence" or maybe by a collective "oops" on the part of every media outlet, none are filming that side of the building to clearly show the strike :rolleyes:.

Matt Lauer (Today Show) says something to the effect of "I know this may look like a strange angle (b/c the towers and a really fake looking shot of the Empire State Building were tilted on TV) but the towers are not leaning. Wait....Im....I just got confirmation that the towers ARE leaning? The damage must have been immense to cause the towers to lean but we have confirmation" and blah blah yadda yadda. HE didn't even seem to believe what was being shouted in his little earpiece. These people are puppets. If they are told to say something, they say it, no matter how ridiculous. You don't need a coordinated effort by the entire media as long as the right people are in on it (ie the people that actually decide what shots get aired, and what gets said).

[resnor]

Milwaukee...you are crazy. Those towers, like ALL skyscrapers, are built to very exact specifications. Each floor was designed to support a certain amount of weight. Let's say on one of the towers, the plane hit near the top with say, 20 floors above it. Once the steel beams of the walls of that floor were weakened, they could no longer support the weight of the 20 floors...and the beams gave weigh. Then, you have 21 floors weighing on the walls of the floor below, and that floor was not designed to hold that weight. So they collapse. And on, and on, and on.

I don't need to watch crappy quality Youtuve videos. I've numerous things on the History Channel about this, and on other stations, where I've seen good quality video. I also remember watching the second plane hit the tower live.

Also, Milwaukee, eye witness accounts are not always good...what I mean is, people will see an event, and you very rarely get the same story from everybody. Anyway, if you're arguing that there were NO PLANES that hit those buildings, then where are the passengers who were on those planes?

Here is a good site to debunk all your conspiracy theories:

http://911research.com/

[Milwaukee]

Milwaukee...you are crazy. Those towers, like ALL skyscrapers, are built to very exact specifications. Each floor was designed to support a certain amount of weight. Let's say on one of the towers, the plane hit near the top with say, 20 floors above it. Once the steel beams of the walls of that floor were weakened, they could no longer support the weight of the 20 floors...and the beams gave weigh. Then, you have 21 floors weighing on the walls of the floor below, and that floor was not designed to hold that weight. So they collapse. And on, and on, and on.

I don't need to watch crappy quality Youtuve videos. I've numerous things on the History Channel about this, and on other stations, where I've seen good quality video. I also remember watching the second plane hit the tower live.

Also, Milwaukee, eye witness accounts are not always good...what I mean is, people will see an event, and you very rarely get the same story from everybody. Anyway, if you're arguing that there were NO PLANES that hit those buildings, then where are the passengers who were on those planes?

Here is a good site to debunk all your conspiracy theories:

http://911research.com/

Im familiar with the pancake theory. I've discussed that while responding to NB. You can re read it.

I will bring up what you saw "live" later this evening. I can't get into it right now.

And yes Resnor, where are the passengers? How many of them actually even exist? That's one area that I haven't gotten into b/c frankly, its irrelevant. If everything else about 9-11 is (to me at least) fake, that means the people responsible could really give less than a dam about people. So killing a bunch of passengers by some other means wouldn't be that hard at all. But I ask you, what proof do you have of the hundreds of passengers from that day?

[Milwaukee]

Also thanks for bringing up the debunking site. I'll look over it more later, but it reminded me of the Pentagon. Interesting vid here-and this is not a 'Youtube' vid, its MSM coverage from the day that is on Youtube lol.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0eC3uns3pA

[resnor]

Here is the problem with disproving conspiracy theories...you are asking ME for proof, concerning something that I could not possibly have any proof for. Then, when I say that I have no proof, you say that it proves your point. There is plenty of proof out there, from many different outlets, that debunks the idea that 9/11 was an inside job.

[Milwaukee]

Here is the problem with disproving conspiracy theories...you are asking ME for proof, concerning something that I could not possibly have any proof for. Then, when I say that I have no proof, you say that it proves your point. There is plenty of proof out there, from many different outlets, that debunks the idea that 9/11 was an inside job.

Yet you don't seem to have any answers to my direct questions? Only a generalization that "different outlets debunk the idea that 9-11 was an inside job".

Are we to believe that hundreds of passengers died that day simply b/c we're told to believe it?

[resnor]

You can go find their families, if you wish. The burden is on you to prove that they didn't exist, or that those planes didn't hit, since you are the one saying that it was an inside job using missiles, and not planes. Me personally, I don't have the time, nor the resources, to investigate 9/11. People who do have the time and resources have, and have debunked the idea that it was an inside job. But, you're right, I should take the word of some random dude on a Madden site...

[resnor]

Here's another debunking site...

http://www.debunking911.com/

[TheRealist]

Well...if anything...

This thread just got "hijacked" pretty hard.

The last legit question was from Nevada. What would be the fallout from AIG actually going under? That's a good question...I personally don't know. Anyone? Let the research begin.

[jerseyjay14]

Do you guys know what a retaining bonus is? Thes bonuses were given to people are gonna be laid off so that they will stay WITHTHE COMPANY while they restructure, instead of going out immediately and getting a new job. The point of the bailout was to keep these companies running, and now you want the people who are necessary to keep the company running to just leave?

The bonuses have not been recinded...rather, Chuck Schumer came out and said that if the employees don't voluntarily give them back, the government is going to take it away. Socialism anyone?

it was socialism when the government bailed them out in the first place...

[jerseyjay14]

What I find funny is the "outrage" all of a sudden. We gave the company north of $100b to do who knows what with and now a couple of hundred million gets everybody's panties in a bunch. People are more freaked out about the millions then they are about the billions. At least I know where this money is going. The $100b has been thrown down a black hole and nobody seems to care...


did you miss the tons of posts blasting the government for the bailout? there was plenty of outcry for that as well

[resnor]

I know the bailout was socialism. I don't recall me posting on here in favor of that, either...

[sanantonio]

Ha ha ha I thought this was so funny and at the same time scary :D:(

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_djgssszshgM/SYXCzpR0MbI/AAAAAAAAAyY/VYle3udsueo/s1600-h/CalvinHobbs.BM

[Wild Bunch]

Ha ha ha I thought this was so funny and at the same time scary :D:(

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_djgssszshgM/SYXCzpR0MbI/AAAAAAAAAyY/VYle3udsueo/s1600-h/CalvinHobbs.BM

That's freakin hilarious!

[Nevada_Ballin]

That's freakin hilarious!

yea it is.............

[Nevada_Ballin]

Well...if anything...

This thread just got "hijacked" pretty hard.

The last legit question was from Nevada. What would be the fallout from AIG actually going under? That's a good question...I personally don't know. Anyone? Let the research begin.

All of the sudden, the resident financial experts went into hiding...lol

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Justin Fox wonders whether we should have just let AIG fail -- or at least the holdco and the AIGFP subsidiary. They certainly deserved to fail. So why did we bail them out? Because of the systemic fragility of the CDS market, is the answer -- it's basically the same reason why the government stepped in to prevent Bear Stearns from being forced into liquidation. It feared a cascade of counterparty failures which could kill the entire financial system.

Here's the fear: AIG goes bust, and can no longer make good on the promises it made when it said that it would pay out on a CDS contract in the event that a certain credit defaults. Default protection sold by AIG, in other words, becomes worthless. Now let's say you're a CDS desk at, say, JP Morgan. You're buying and selling default protection all the time, and so long as the amount you've bought, on any given credit, is equal to the amount you've sold, you reckon that you have no net exposure.

The minute that AIG fails, everybody else's net position alters substantially, and in a very unpredictable way. The protection that JP Morgan bought from AIG is worthless, while the offsetting protection that JP Morgan sold to some hedge fund remains outstanding. So JP Morgan now has a large position it never wanted.

Now there's a good chance that JP Morgan will have hedged its counterparty risk to AIG -- but that doesn't make the risk go away, it just shunts it elsewhere in the financial system. And the web of connections between the thousands of counterparties in the CDS market is so complex that no one really has a clue who would have ended up holding the multi-billion-dollar bag. All those AIG losses which are currently being borne by the government wouldn't have disappeared if AIG had failed: they would simply have turned up somewhere else in the financial system.

But no one would have had a clue where in the financial system, exactly, those losses would have ultimately come to rest. And given the magnitude of the losses, you can be sure that no one would have wanted to have any kind of dealings with the poor schmucks who ended up on the hook for all those billions of dollars. And since those poor schmucks could be pretty much anybody, no one would do any kind of business with anybody else: you'd get settlement risk run amok. The entire global financial system could grind to a halt overnight, due to the inability of any given institution to persuade any other institution that it was actually solvent.

We don't know for sure that this kind of worst-case scenario would have happened if AIG had been allowed to fail. But we don't know that it wouldn't have happened -- and the US government felt that it simply couldn't take that kind of risk.

What's more, bailing out AIG had the pleasant side-effect of putting the entire global CDS market on a much stronger footing. Remember that CDS, like all derivatives, are a zero-sum game: for every loser, there's an equal and opposite winner. Very few institutions were net sellers of protection; AIG was by far the largest. So what that means is that the rest of the CDS market, ex AIG, is now a net winner to the exact extent that AIG is a loser: a hundred billion dollars or more. Given worries about the fragility of the CDS market and the systemic risks that it posed, bailing out the single largest net seller of protection essentially meant injecting a large amount of government cash into the part of the market that regulators were most worried about. It was quite an elegant solution, in its way: rather than trying to unpick the CDS knot institution by institution, you could just bail them all out at once by backstopping AIG.

Remember that what regulators were most worried about at the time was systemic risk. Whether or not AIG deserved the money was pretty much beside the point: the key thing was that if it didn't get the money, the entire global financial system would be put at risk of collapse. In which light, the cost of the AIG bailout looks positively modest, compared to its benefit.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/126447-why-aig-wasn-t-allowed-to-fail

[sanantonio]

ROTHFLMAO!!!! Now you know this is funny ha ha ha!

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=220592&title=the-new-white-face-of-crime

[GAV]

Top-to-bottom economics just simply doesn't work.

I don't know about bottom-up economics, but I know top-down doesn't work.

[JoeJGibbs]

Here is the problem with disproving conspiracy theories...you are asking ME for proof, concerning something that I could not possibly have any proof for. Then, when I say that I have no proof, you say that it proves your point. There is plenty of proof out there, from many different outlets, that debunks the idea that 9/11 was an inside job.

That's called "appeal to ignorance".

Ex: There are invisible pink elephants in the room.
You say: No there aren't.
I say: Yes there are, prove that they arent here.
You say: I can't
I say: There you go then, that proves they exist!
:p

Anyway, did I just read how an airplane wouldn't be able to bring down a building?

:p, seriously?
They aren't magic buildings. It's not like Wile E Coyote slamming into the side of a mountain as he uses his Batman costume.

Force = Mass x Acceleration

Not to mention the plane was full of fuel. The WTC was so hot, that people were jumping to escape from burning.

[Milwaukee]

If that is all you gathered from my posts JJG, you didn't really read them. I chose to leave the topic alone, but if you have any specific questions feel free to ask.

[sanantonio]

Eventually people will have to listen to this crazy man one way or the other and something tells me by then it will be too late for all of us!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MshgrVIJF28

[theanalogkid]

Eventually people will have to listen to this crazy man one way or the other and something tells me by then it will be too late for all of us!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MshgrVIJF28

Sad fact is, voters don't care. It's not "their Congressman" screwing up, it's everyone else's Congressman. There really needs to be a reform of Congress, before anything meaningful can be accomplished, but by the time that happens though, it might be too late.

Remember that CDS, like all derivatives, are a zero-sum game

Unfortunately, this time it wasn't a zero-sum game, with the global impact that happened when the underlying asset of the derivatives declined. It affected more than just the buyer or seller.

Derivatives weren't the problem though, it's the people that were using them, were.

[JoeJGibbs]

If that is all you gathered from my posts JJG, you didn't really read them. I chose to leave the topic alone, but if you have any specific questions feel free to ask.


Well, this was your 1st post. I took it as skepticism that a plane could "go completely through" a concrete and steel building...

* I don't think the plane went through the building, so I'm not sure where the skepticism comes from. "People tend to believe..." But that's not what happened so I'm not sure what you meant.

Then you tried to use an analogy of car driving into a wall @ 50mph - which completely baffled me because I wasn't sure the point you were making.

You were trying to say something about slamming the WTC into the plane, instead of the other way around, but thats faulty for obvious reasons.
Friction? Wind Resistence? Point of contact?


Im feeling a little kooky today. People tend to believe that an aluminum plane(aka "giant beer can" as some pilots have said) can go completely through a concrete and steel building, simply b/c of the speed that it was travelling.

Flip it around.

If you drive a car into a wall at 50 mph, you can achieve the same effect by keeping the car stationary, and running the wall into the car at 50mph.

All of the official stories have those planes going into the WTC at over 500mph (which the public accepts without question, even though pilots and engineers say this isn't even possible near sea level).

If you locked a plane into place (stationary) and were able to pick up the WTC and slam it into the plane at over 500mph, would the plane go through the WTC? I mean completely into it without any parts falling off or anything?

[Milwaukee]

Well, this was your 1st post. I took it as skepticism that a plane could "go completely through" a concrete and steel building...

* I don't think the plane went through the building, so I'm not sure where the skepticism comes from. "People tend to believe..." But that's not what happened so I'm not sure what you meant.

Then you tried to use an analogy of car driving into a wall @ 50mph - which completely baffled me because I wasn't sure the point you were making.

You were trying to say something about slamming the WTC into the plane, instead of the other way around, but thats faulty for obvious reasons.
Friction? Wind Resistence? Point of contact?

The official gov't backed story says the plane completely penetrated the outside of the WTC like a bullet going through tissue paper, which imo (and many engineers/pilots/architect's opinions) is ridiculous. I say 'people tend to believe' b/c that is what people do tend to believe lol.....since they believe the official story, they have to believe that part of it.

The analogy I used was just to point out how silly this sounds. Its been almost a decade since I took college physics so I forget all the units and terms..... But basically if you throw a punch at 10 MPH and hit someone's face, if you keep all wind resistance, friction, point of contact, etc the same, its exactly the same as someone's face being accelerated at 10MPH into a fist. W/e would happen by the thrown punch (broken jaw, black eye, or maybe no effect at all) would happen from the face accelerating into the stationary fist.

So this means the WTC being accelerated at 500 MPH into a stationary plane thats locked to the ground would have the plane go through the outside of the building with no wreckage falling off if you believe the official story. Im pretty sure the plane would be a mangled mess like the pic I posted of the one that hit the Empire state building. And nevermind the fact that all kinds of pilots say you can't fly over 500 mph that close to sea level due to exactly what you pointed out....friction (the air is too dense) and wind resistance.

[JoeJGibbs]

The official gov't backed story says the plane completely penetrated the outside of the WTC like a bullet going through tissue paper, which imo (and many engineers/pilots/architect's opinions) is ridiculous. I say 'people tend to believe' b/c that is what people do tend to believe lol.....since they believe the official story, they have to believe that part of it.

The analogy I used was just to point out how silly this sounds. Its been almost a decade since I took college physics so I forget all the units and terms..... But basically if you throw a punch at 10 MPH and hit someone's face, if you keep all wind resistance, friction, point of contact, etc the same, its exactly the same as someone's face being accelerated at 10MPH into a fist. W/e would happen by the thrown punch (broken jaw, black eye, or maybe no effect at all) would happen from the face accelerating into the stationary fist.

So this means the WTC being accelerated at 500 MPH into a stationary plane thats locked to the ground would have the plane go through the outside of the building with no wreckage falling off if you believe the official story. Im pretty sure the plane would be a mangled mess like the pic I posted of the one that hit the Empire state building. And nevermind the fact that all kinds of pilots say you can't fly over 500 mph that close to sea level due to exactly what you pointed out....friction (the air is too dense) and wind resistance.

I think you're overthinking this.
"The plane pentrated the building like a bullet going through tissue paper."

This statement does not mean it went in, and came out the other side. It means that tissue paper is thin and weak, a bullet is strong, and the plane went into the building like a bullet would if it were shot into tissue paper --- very easily.

lol Of course it would go completely through tissue paper because tissue paper is extremely thin..

Penetration of tissue paper guarantees going through to the other side.

Penetration of a building does not guarantee that you are coming out of the other side.

lol penetration! There I said it again. :p

As speed increases, molecules of matter begin to move faster. The faster the molecules go, the easier they can penetrate other forms of matter.

Like a karate guy breaking a board with his fist.
It's believed that if it were possible to move your molecules fast enough, you could pass directly through something.
Of course we'll never see that experiment, but its based on science--Not opinion, or what you think would happen.

As opposed to saying "All kinds of pilots say..."

Can you point me to a quote or something where a pilot says its not possible to fly at that speed at the height they were?

[Milwaukee]

I think you're overthinking this.
"The plane pentrated the building like a bullet going through tissue paper."

This statement does not mean it went in, and came out the other side. It means that tissue paper is thin and weak, a bullet is strong, and the plane went into the building like a bullet would if it were shot into tissue paper --- very easily.

lol Of course it would go completely through tissue paper because tissue paper is extremely thin..

Penetration of tissue paper guarantees going through to the other side.

Penetration of a building does not guarantee that you are coming out of the other side.

lol penetration! There I said it again. :p

As speed increases, molecules of matter begin to move faster. The faster the molecules go, the easier they can penetrate other forms of matter.

Like a karate guy breaking a board with his fist.
It's believed that if it were possible to move your molecules fast enough, you could pass directly through something.
Of course we'll never see that experiment, but its based on science--Not opinion, or what you think would happen.

As opposed to saying "All kinds of pilots say..."

Can you point me to a quote or something where a pilot says its not possible to fly at that speed at the height they were?


What I mean by "a bullet through tissue" is the plane went straight through the outer wall of the building with nothing breaking off...kinda like a Wile E Coyote cartoon where he falls through a boulder and leaves his outline in the boulder. It just cut through the outer wall of the WTC like....nothing. The bullet/tissue might not have been the best analogy but it was the first thing that came to mind when I envisioned the impact (or lack of). To clarify Im not saying the plane went in one side and completely out the other....it went completely inside and partially out the other. Thats some strong aluminum.

I'll get you some good quotes when I get home this evening. I have some links there that I don't want to search for on my work comp.

[JoeJGibbs]

What I mean by "a bullet through tissue" is the plane went straight through the outer wall of the building with nothing breaking off...kinda like a Wile E Coyote cartoon where he falls through a boulder and leaves his outline in the boulder. It just cut through the outer wall of the WTC like....nothing. The bullet/tissue might not have been the best analogy but it was the first thing that came to mind when I envisioned the impact (or lack of). To clarify Im not saying the plane went in one side and completely out the other....it went completely inside and partially out the other. Thats some strong aluminum.

I'll get you some good quotes when I get home this evening. I have some links there that I don't want to search for on my work comp.

See I never thought that any part of the plane went through the building from its momentum. It exploded inside the building so I assumed that the explosion is what came out the other side along with plane parts and pieces of the building.

[bucsrock18]

why the hell u wanna tlk bout politics