SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: SARMAN who wrote (107897)6/9/2007 5:20:44 PM
From: SiouxPal  Respond to of 362411
 
Impeachment on a Roll
by Dave Lindorff

Down the shore yesterday, as we say in Philly, I was body surfing in the Atlantic and it got me to thinking.

On the East Coast, where the prevailing winds are offshore, the surf tends to be pretty tame, and Thursday was no exception, with the biggest waves cresting at perhaps three feet. Nonetheless, these little combers were able to send my prone body racing 100 feet toward the beach at a good clip.

There¹s a lot of energy packed in even a small wave.

Just so with impeachment, where a wave is slowly building for the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney.

Since Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) filed his impeachment bill against Cheney back April 24, five other members of the House have signed on as co-sponsors, most recently Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. She joins Reps. Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL and chief deputy whip of the House), William Lacy Clay
(D-IL) and Albert Wynn (D-MD) as co-sponsors of H. Res. 333.

Kucinich¹s bill is narrowly focused on Cheney¹s criminal role in lying the nation into an illegal invasion of Iraq, and on his illegal threat to launch an unprovoked attack on Iran.

The wave that is building in the House for impeachment of this criminal administration may seem small, but it is definitely building. As each new representative signs on to H. Res. 333 as a co-sponsor, others gain courage and find it easier to buck the ³leadership² of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi et al.

It seems likely that as the magnitude of that wave grows, some members will add to the list of Cheney¹s crimes with their own additional impeachment bills. After all, Cheney was clearly behind the illegal outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson, was involved in the politicization of the Justice Department, and is now known to have been involved in the illegal, warrantless wiretapping and internet monitoring of American citizens by the National Security Agency.

At some point, there will surely be a second wave, which will begin with a member impeachment bill against President Bush.

Evidence that Pelosi is losing her footing is coming in many forms.

There¹s the impeachment resolution passed late last month by the Detroit City Council. Now there have been nearly 100 such resolutions passed around the country, but this one stands out because it was introduced by Council President Monica Conyers, who happens to be the wife of Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, which would be where any impeachment hearing would be conducted. Conyers was once a leading advocate of the impeachment of Bush and Cheney, but buckled when Pelosi threatened to deny him the coveted chair of the Judiciary Committee. Clearly, his wife thinks he shouldn¹t have caved, and Conyers is showing signs of wanting action on impeachment. He has lately taken to encouraging the actions of impeachment activists.

There are also the many resolutions calling for impeachment of Bush and Cheney which have been passed, often overwhelmingly, by state Democratic Parties, including those in California, Massachusetts and North Carolina.

Finally, there are the statements from Democratic politicians, who are looking increasingly ridiculous in their efforts to avoid talking impeachment. Take Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY). Nadler, back in 2006, was a member of the group of 39 House members in the 109th Congress who signed on to Rep. Conyers¹ then bill calling for a select committee to investigate impeachable crimes by the administration (that bill died with the end of the 109th Congress). Recently, Nadler, who sat on the impeachment panel during the Clinton impeachment farce, and who chairs the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, declared in a recent radio interview that ³there¹s a prima facie case² that the president and the attorney general ³engaged in a criminal conspiracy.² He went on to say that when the executive branch is ³contemptuous of the power of Congress² and breaks or ignores the law, then ³you have to use whatever weapons the Constitution gives Congress.²

Now Nadler is no dummy. He knows that the main ³tool² that the Constitution gives to Congress to combat such presidential lawlessness and abuse of power is impeachment.

Nadler¹s constituency in Manhattan isn¹t stupid either. They know that the president has been committing impeachable crimes, and that the remedy is impeachment. The same is true of Rep. Conyers¹ constituents.

It seems only a matter of time before these leaders, and others like them, are going to have to take a stand and buck Pelosi and the sell-out Democratic leadership that is trying to adopt a do-nothing strategy ahead of the 2008 elections.

One thing you can say about waves–even small ones–and that is that they are pretty much unstoppable. Another thing you can say is that they wear down resistance–especially when the resistance is insubstantial. A third thing is that they are never alone. They keep on coming, one after another after another.

I¹m betting that we¹re going to see Pelosi and her anti-impeachment position swamped by the power of public pressure, and by the actions of those members of Congress who take the views of their constituents seriously.

Published on Saturday, June 9, 2007 by CommonDreams.org



To: SARMAN who wrote (107897)6/12/2007 9:33:43 AM
From: cirrus  Respond to of 362411
 
Not my theory. Here's a scientific explanation:

Once more than about a half of the columns in the critical floor that is heated most suffer
buckling (stage 3), the weight of the upper part of the structure above this floor can no
longer be supported, and so the upper part starts falling down onto the lower part below the
critical floor, gathering speed until it impacts the lower part. At that moment, the upper
part has acquired an enormous kinetic energy and a significant downward velocity. The
vertical impact of the mass of the upper part onto the lower part (stage 4) applies enormous
vertical dynamic load on the underlying structure, far exceeding its load capacity, even if it
is not heated. This causes failure of an underlying multi-floor segment of the tower (stage 4),
in which the failure of the connections of the floor-carrying trusses to the columns is either
accompanied or quickly followed by buckling of the core columns and overall buckling of the
framed tube, with the buckles probably spanning the height of many floors (stage 5, at right),
and the upper part possibly getting wedged inside an emptied lower part of the framed tube
(stage 5, at left). The buckling is initially plastic but quickly leads to fracture in the plastic
hinges. The part of building lying beneath is then impacted again by an even larger mass
falling with a greater velocity, and the series of impacts and failures then proceeds all the
way down (stage 5).


www-math.mit.edu

I am done with this topic. I will leave it with two thoughts:

First: If the WTC towers and building #7 were destroyed in a controlled demolition as conspiracy buffs claim, what was the motive? Remember... every crime has a motive.

Was the motive to spark war with Iraq and gain control of Iraqi oil fields?

If so, and the pretext was the WTC attacks and Saddam's WMD, why hasn't this organization... an organization that alledgedly had engineers plant sophisticated military-grade explosives at critical points in three heavily guarded buildings - why couldn't this brilliant group of government sabateurs arrange to have a few vials of anthrax or sarin show up in Iraq to justify the war? It certainly would have saved the Bush administration and the neocons a great deal of grief.

Second question:

What was to be gained by planting explosives and bringing the structures down? The effect was already dramatic and it only took a handful of suicide bombers to accomplish the task. Why risk the operation by adding highly trained explosives experts with detailed knowledge of the structures to the operation... folks who could be caught at any point by a janitor of a camera that was accidentally left on?

How many people in the world are capable of getting in undetected and placing charges to bring down structures like the twin towers and building #7? Actually, very few. Probably a handful. The controlled demolitions to raze old structures - dramatic events we see on television from time to time are difficult for experts in the field and require weeks of painstaking on-site work - they don't set the charges in the morning and set them off in the afternoon. And coordinating the demolition with Osama bin Laden?

Funny how folks will grasp a complex sequence of events so unlikely as to be absurd while ignoring explanations offered by simple basic science.