What has the GOP got against 9-11 Victims?

We saw how the GOP laughed off the promises of aid for New York City, how millions in port-security dollars were funnelled into places like Montana, Kansas and other places unlikely to have visiting ships, and how the Bushies used 9-11 as an excuse to pursue a highly personal agenda to start up a war in Iraq. We even got to hear Bush use the phrase “9-11” in every possible campaign speech and watch the campaign advertisements showing him at ground zero in New York.

Now, we get a Republican congressman crapping on the Flight 93 family members by doing everything he can to block even the simplest of memorials. Nice.

article here

For all their disdain for “Hollywood”, the movie studios are doing more than Taylor to recognize the contribution of the men and women who fought their way into the cockpit to stop the plane from ramming yet another target.

It seems you forgot to quote this part of the article that you linked to.

I realize this doesn’t fit with your premise that the GOP is against this memorial. To me it looks like it’s one man. Hence the title of the article - “Lone Lawmaker Blocks Flight 93 Monument in Pa.”

10 million for a field sounds like a rip off to me.

GOP is cult. and evil.

Oops! I forgot. Sorry :blush:

A racist one at that. I bet I can’t even be apart of it in the afterlife. :raspberry:

I don’t buy the notion that one lawmaker is enough within a GOP-dominated Congress and Executive to do it. He might be the most vocal one, but what’s the excuse?

We don’t have money? Oh, I guess not after the GOP gave tax breaks to the rich.

It’s too much land? Those acres amount to basically a small-mid-sized farm. Gimme a break.

Their contribution wasn’t heroic enough?

The GOP could make it happen, but they won’t. I guess a big field doesn’t look quite as good as a “Mission Accomplished” banner or any of their usual props.

Maybe the land hides clues as to what really happened to flight 93.

Did you even read the article that you linked to? Rep. Charles H. Taylor is the chairman of the House Interior Appropriations subcommittee. I think he would have the power to stop this if he felt strong enough about it.

[quote=“mofangongren”]

It’s too much land? Those acres amount to basically a small-mid-sized farm. Gimme a break. .[/quote]

In that case, they should be willing to buy it because the government actively or last i knew subsidizes farms/ers.

What really happened to flight 93. My guess from looking at the pictures is that they shot the plane down. In all the airplane crash pictures I’ve looked at, there is usually parts that are still in tact. If you look at the crash pictures of 93, it looks like ticker tape strewn all over the place…

[quote=“Namahottie”][quote=“mofangongren”]

It’s too much land? Those acres amount to basically a small-mid-sized farm. Gimme a break. .[/quote]

In that case, they should be willing to buy it because the government actively or last i knew subsidizes farms/ers.

What really happened to flight 93. My guess from looking at the pictures is that they shot the plane down. In all the airplane crash pictures I’ve looked at, there is usually parts that are still in tact. If you look at the crash pictures of 93, it looks like ticker tape strewn all over the place…[/quote]

And every picture I’ve seen of an airliner that hits the ground, bodies are strewn for miles around.

[quote=“Stray Dog”][quote=“Namahottie”][quote=“mofangongren”]

It’s too much land? Those acres amount to basically a small-mid-sized farm. Gimme a break. .[/quote]

In that case, they should be willing to buy it because the government actively or last i knew subsidizes farms/ers.

What really happened to flight 93. My guess from looking at the pictures is that they shot the plane down. In all the airplane crash pictures I’ve looked at, there is usually parts that are still in tact. If you look at the crash pictures of 93, it looks like ticker tape strewn all over the place…[/quote]

And every picture I’ve seen of an airliner that hits the ground, bodies are strewn for miles around.[/quote]

Agreed, but then most of those are not where the aircraft has hit the ground in an almost vertical position. If the aircraft hits the ground at a small angle then you will get debris strewn everywhere, hit at a highly acute angle, and the debris basically remains in one place. The resulting fire would be more than sufficinet to completely burn the bodies etc.

Hence there might be some merit that the aircraft was shot down, where are the pieces, a missile does not normally totally destroy an aircraft. Even when the CI flight exploded on its way to HK at it cruising altitude of over 30,000 feet, they still found wreckage floating in the sea.

If you look at the pictures just after the planes hit the WTC, the initial damage in itself does not look that bad, it was the extreme heat generated by the burning fuel that brought down the building.

There was a USAir crash just outside of Pittsburgh a few years ago where not a single body was recovered.

The plane crashed into a mud swamp or something.

I think it much depends upon the angle of impact.

EDIT: :blush:

Seems my recollection is wrong. I just did a search and there were in fact bodies present at the site.

Traveller -
Kudos to you for injecting a bit of fact and logic into this thread.
All of the planes involved were recently fueled and loaded with jet fuel prior to the crashes.
Something overlooked by the wacko conspiracy nutz.

Pity they allow their minds to be clouded with their hatred of " All Things Bush."

But …such is life… :idunno:

Who sent you? Who do you work for?

[quote=“Stray Dog”]Who sent you? Who do you work for?[/quote]heh…heh…heh… :sunglasses:

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]Traveller -
Kudos to you for injecting a bit of fact and logic into this thread.
All of the planes involved were recently fueled and loaded with jet fuel prior to the crashes.
Something overlooked by the wacko conspiracy nutz.

Pity they allow their minds to be clouded with their hatred of " All Things Bush."

But …such is life… :idunno:[/quote]
I don’t know why people speculating and expressing doubt are automatically Bush-haters, but as you said it was Traveller that injected some logic and fact into this thread.

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]Traveller -
Kudos to you for injecting a bit of fact and logic into this thread.
All of the planes involved were recently fueled and loaded with jet fuel prior to the crashes.
Something overlooked by the wacko conspiracy nutz.

Pity they allow their minds to be clouded with their hatred of " All Things Bush."

But …such is life… :idunno:[/quote]

TC, why thank you, not all of us that argue against Bush in some areas are haters of all things Bush, some of us actually live well balanced lives with an open view of the world. :sunglasses:

I’m normally not one to oppose a good conspiracy theory, but I find it hard to believe the government would have managed to pay off all the people who recieved phone calls from reletives on the plane and gotten them to lie about what went on. Forging the “black box” recording heard during the Moussaui trial could be done I suppose, but I’m not going to believe for anything that they managed to get people to lie about their family members’ deaths.

Just as importantly, I don’t think we should let conspiracy theories get in the way of recognizing the passengers on that flight as the heroes they are. By acting, they saved possibly thousands of lives and kept one of our great monuments (either the Capitol or the White house) intact. They also showed future terrorists that the people of the United States will not allow hijacked planes to be used as bombs. You want to know why we haven’t seen many hijackings since 9-11, look no further than that field in Pennsylvania.

You just don’t understand conspiracy-nut culture.

Some interesting points from the linked article:

[quote]“We need to build a memorial for these people,” said Rep. William Shuster. “These 40 people were the first counterattack of the war on terror, and they were victorious. We owe them a great debt of gratitude.”

“We’re going to have to prevail on our member from North Carolina to come to the right position on this,” said one senior House Republican aide[/quote]

Bad, bad, Republicans!

The number of tourists shouldn’t enter into it, it is afterall a memorial, not Disney World. However, I would definitely agree that 1200 acres is excessive. Bigger doesn’t necessarily mean better. Small memorials can evoke big emotions.

Obviously, he thinks something should be done to honour the deceased.