Your Questions About Event Planning

Can You Say BIG Scam 911?

THE 9/11 ATTACKS – WHAT WE KNOW:
The Bush administration was comprised of a group of people who had published a radical foreign policy. Elements of this policy include what is now known as the Bush preemptive doctrine. When Paul Wolfowitz first created this policy for the George H. W Bush administration it was dismissed as insane. This group of people created an agenda and a strategy to advance it. This group openly stated ”Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions.“ The Bush administration was comprised of people who had a clear and public MOTIVE for creating or enabling the attacks of 9/11. This is a issue that should be addressed by our media, our lawmakers, our citizens and the rest of the world.
Every procedure that was in place to deal with domestic hijackings was ignored on the day of the attacks.
Why did the Secret Service feel that there was no need to protect George W. Bush?
George Bush resisted an official inquiry into the worst national disaster since Pearl Harbor for 18 months. Any reasonable person would want to know what happened and they would want to make sure that there were no traitors in our mists. It was reasonable to consider the possibilities that the people who planned an attack like this had inside help. A president would want this checked out. George W. Bush wanted no investigation. He already had an official story and was quickly passed on to the press.
Every bit of evidence at Ground Zero and the Pentagon was confiscated and destroyed, and not preserved as crime scene evidence. This in itself is a crime. No need to look further. This is not in dispute. The George W. Bush is responsible for ordering or allowing the destruction of crime scene evidence.
There is not a shred of evidence that a 757 hit the Pentagon. All films from security cameras at the scene were confiscated and never seen again. The few frames of video from the Pentagon security camera were leaked to the public from an anonymous source in the Pentagon. When information is leaked from the Pentagon during a heightened state of emergency it is cause for concern. Neither the administration or the press question this breech of security. This is a clear indication of an intentional leak designed to sell the official story. If a 757 had hit the Pentagon they would have released the videos that were confiscated.
The hole made in the Pentagon crash is far too small for a 757 to have made.
Dozens of bin Laden family members were hurried out of the country without FBI interrogation immediately after the attacks.
None of the alleged hijackers was on any passenger list of the hijacked planes.
Eyewitness accounts describe a windowless, blue plane hitting the WTC.
Someone placed ‘put’ orders on the two hijacked airlines before the attacks, and stood to net huge stock market profits.
The Twin Towers both collapsed at free fall speed in the manner of a planned demolition, with visible explosions occurring in sequence on floors never hit by the planes.
The owner of the WTC admitted that Tower 7 was ‘taken down’ (intentionally demolished) by the Fire Department. THIS IS A CONFESSION! DO WE NEED MORE EVIDENCE?
Condoleezza Rice lied under oath to the Kean Commission about the warning memo that stated bin Laden was targeting the US.
Condoleezza Rice lied when she claimed that no one could have imagined an attack using airliners as weapons. NORAD had drilled for such events 2 years before the Bush White House claimed that they never could have imagined it.
George Bush claimed he saw the first plane hit Tower One, when no photos of the crash had been shown on any television screen.
George Bush sat silently in a classroom for seven full minutes after being informed that a second plane had hit the WTC. Why did George W. Bush react to the attacks differently than every other person in the nation? While every American jumped into emergency mode, George W. Bush did not flinch. He was not worried about his own safety or about the security of the nation. Why not?
NORAD did not send up a single interceptor jet despite knowing that four hijackings were taking place.
FBI agents and bomb sniffer dogs went through trash bins in both WTC Towers for weeks prior to the attacks. They were suddenly removed prior to the attack. Some people in our government were trying to do their job, others might have been trying to prevent the job from being done.
Dick Cheney was in charge of a series of drills held on the morning of September 11th, simulating attacks by hijacked airliners on the WTC.
No one in the US government is willing to investigate any of these and hundreds more concerns about this terrible event.
THE WARS AGAINST AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ – WHAT WE KNOW:
Members of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) occupy or had occupied many important positions in the present Bush administration.
PNAC explained the need for wars against Iraq and Afghanistan in papers published in the late 1990’s.
PNAC urged President Bill Clinton to invade Iraq, but was turned down.
PNAC member, Paul Wolfowitz, ADMITS that it was about OIL! HE ADMITTED IT! THE PRESS IGNORED THIS!!! ARE YOU LISTENING! DO YOU NEED MORE PROOF THAN A CONFESSION FROM ONE OF THE ARCHITECTS OF THE WAR??? ARE YOU LISTENING???
The PNAC thesis “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” stated that Americans would not accept pre-emptive wars against Iraq or Afghanistan unless there was a ‘catastrophic event like a New Pearl Harbor’ inside the country. Again we establish motive for complicity in the events of 9/11.
The Bush administration was trying to negotiate an oil pipeline deal with the Taliban before 9/11. They promised the leaders of Afghanistan a ‘carpet of bombs’ should the deal fall through. The deal fell through.
Deputy Director of the FBI, John O’Neill, quit his job in protest over this threat. O’Neill died in the attacks on the WTC on September 11th.
The attack on Afghanistan was explained as retaliation against the Taliban for not turning Osama bin Laden over to American authorities.
Both Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powel stated prior to 9/11 that Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction and that he was unable to pose a threat to his neighbors or the US.
George W. Bush came into the White House intent upon removing Saddam Hussein from power.
Donald Rumsfeld stated that the response to 9/11 should be an attack on Iraq because that’s where the targets were.
The UN inspectors were given unfettered access to sites Iraq, and requested more time to complete their task.
Everyone in the Bush administration with access to the media stressed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction capable of killing millions of Americans.
A totally false connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein was fabricated and repeated at every possible opportunity.
In October, 2002, George W. Bush lied to the Congress of the United States about the imminent threat posed by Saddam Hussein. In a brazen and impeachable act, he manipulated intelligence information in order to procure Congressional approval for his war against Iraq.
Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld spent months assuring the American public that their lives were in great danger unless the US waged a preventive war against Iraq. There was no doubt about the accuracy of their information, they said. No doubt at all. Mushroom clouds were on the horizon.
In January, 2003, George W. Bush lied to the nation in his SOTU speech about nuclear material obtained by Saddam. His unrelenting terror tactics and repeated references to Iraq’s WMD’s paved the way for public acceptance for a war he had planned for years.
In February, 2003, Colin Powell lied to the UN on two separate occasions in a futile attempt to convince the Security Council of the immediate threat presented by Iraq.
Despite UN inspectors’ statements to the contrary, George Bush told the nation that Saddam Hussein was not in compliance with the UN resolution requiring open inspections.
In March, 2003, boasting of a bombing strategy named ‘shock and awe,’ George Bush invaded Iraq.
More than 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died in George Bush’s war. Nearly 1700 American troops have lost their lives. Nearly 200 coalition forces are dead. Untold thousands are maimed. The carnage continues and civil war is imminent.
The minutes of the Downing Street meeting between George Bush and Tony Blair revealed an agreement to attack Iraq months before the invasion itself.
George W. Bush violated international law by waging a preventive war on a non-threatening, sovereign nation. That illegal war continues to this day.
THE ABUSE AND TORTURE OF PRISONERS – WHAT WE KNOW:
On May 7th, 2002, the US officially withdrew from the International Criminal Court (ICC). The US now has immunity from the court for US citizens suspected of atrocities. US soldiers serving overseas are immune from prosecution in the court, while politicians and US officials, including CIA operatives, can claim diplomatic immunity.
Shortly after 9/11, WH legal counsel, Alberto Gonzalez, drafted a memo in which he virtually changed the rules of prisoner treatment. The memo declared the war on terror to be conflict against a vast, outlaw, international enemy in which the rules of war, international treaties and even the Geneva Conventions did not apply. Alberto Gonzales was subsequently appointed US Attorney General.
In January, 2002, the WH legal department issued another memo concluding that neither the Geneva Conventions nor any of the laws of war applied to the conflict in Afghanistan.
In February of 2002, George Bush signed a secret order authorizing the CIA. To set up a series of secret detention facilities outside the United States, and to question those held in them with unprecedented harshness.
•The Bush administration then began to send terror suspects to other countries for interrogation, thereby absolving the US of blame for torture applied elsewhere.
In 2003, Abu Ghraib was formally handed over to tactical control of military-intelligence units for the expressed purpose of extracting information from detainees.
As an outcome of regular inspections, the International Commission of the Red Cross broke its rule of secrecy by publicly complaining of the systemic abuse of prisoners, in Iraq and Afghanistan, detailing methods of abuse that were in clear violation of international law.
In 2004, hundreds of photographs and video tapes were released that revealed shocking methods of abuse and torture of detainees in Abu Ghraib prison.
Despite many complaints about abuse, no investigation of prisoner treatment was held until it was clear these photographs were about to be leaked to the media.
Many civilian contractors were employed to carry out ‘interrogations’ of detainees.
Many of the detainees had committed no crimes, but had been arrested in huge sweeps of Iraqi men intended to secure information about insurgent attacks.
Interrogations were conducted and supervised by military intelligence operatives who ordered that prisoners be ‘softened up’ for questioning.
Abuses often were sexual in nature, preying upon the cultural sensitivities of Moslem men regarding nudity and public sexual acts.
Abuses were systemic throughout Iraq and Guantanamo Bay.
Hundreds of other photos and videos were kept secret by the Pentagon, and have recently been ordered released to the public.
The Bush administration attributed the abuse to the work of a few ‘bad apple’ underlings, and denied any knowledge or approval by anyone in the administration.
Reports of Koran desecration at Guantanamo were corroborated by the Pentagon.
To date, civilian aircraft continue to fly terror suspects to other countries for harsh and illegal interrogation methods.
To date, no one in the Pentagon or the White House has been held accountable for the widespread abuse and torture of prisoners. To date, only enlisted personnel have been charged with any abuses or torture. To date, further investigations have been dropped.
Instead we attack and Invade the wrong country and kill the wrong people , well atleast they have oil ….We will make due
Is there anyone still STUPID enough to belive it wasent a scam ?
We have no Time to READ the Truth , Lets just watch brain wash TV Fox News they will form an opinion for us .
You conspiracy nuts ? What are you STUPID ? or Blind ? This is called PROOF Moron !!

Help with 2 Math Problems?

1. The drama club plans to sell cans of orange soda and lemon-lime soda at its annual theater event. The club has enough money to buy a total of 288 cans of soda and has decided to buy twice as many cans of lemon-lime soda as orange soda.
Determine the number of cans of each flavor of soda the drama club will buy for the event.

2. At the close of the stock market on Monday, the value of a certain stock was 9 $12.00 per share. By the close on Tuesday, the value of the stock went up 50% per share. At close on Wednesday, the value of the stock was down 5% per share from Tuesday’s closing value.
-Part A
Determine the value of the stock at closing on Tuesday and Wednesday.

-Part B
Determine the total percent change in the value of the stock from Monday to Wednesday.

alternative PG plans for the knicks. your thoughts?

i know the PGs that new york would prefer to have are either chris paul, tony parker, or deron williams, but as i said in my last question, i think the concept of having a “big 3″ is overrated. i just think signing three all-stars to maximum contracts is a bad long term idea because eventually a team’s entire salary cap will devoted to only three players. to me, that type of salary restriction will make it very difficult to create a well rounded line-up because the role players will have to be willing to take huge pay cuts.

i said in my last question that i believe stat and melo is already a great foundation to build a team around. but making big 3s seem to be the popular thing among large market franchises, so i doubt that the knicks will agree with me. however, in the unlikely event that they change their mind, i do have some alternative proposals for the team to have a great PG without offering a max deal right away, and i would like to know your thoughts on them.

1.) bring back raymond felton
-raymond felton had great chemistry with amare, and was a great fit for the knicks system. but he’s struggled splitting minutes with ty lawson since being traded to denver.
-since the nuggets obviously like lawson better, and felton’s contract expires after next season, they can buy him out of his deal, or trade him to a team that will buy him out if they want something in return. felton will then be able to return to the knicks if he chooses to.
-he’s only 26 so it’s safe to sign him for multiple years, also he’s not an all-star so he won’t cost max money.

2.) trade for steve nash
-the suns have to admit they can’t win big with the current roster, and send steve nash to a place where he has a chance to go to the finals. phoenix can clear some serious cap room if they trade nash for chauncey billups, and use the team options on the contratcs of billups and vince carter.
-if the suns choose not to keep billups, he will be free-agent and be able to resign with the knicks for a short multi-year deal worth less money. chauncey is no longer worth max money, and the short multi-year deal will give him the security to play his last years in the nba. billups can either split time with nash or play SG since he has the skill set to do so.
-the knicks should also trade with the t’wolves for ricky rubio’s draft rights. minnesotta is already leaning towards drafting kyrie irving this year with a top three pick, and i think irving will be a better investment for them since he will play right away, and not go to spain for two years like rubio did. i’ve always heard the talk about how great he’ll fit in mike d’antoni’s run-and-shoot system, and learning behind two great PGs of the last decade will be an excellent rookie experience for him as the knicks should choose him moving forward to be the starter once nash and billups. rubio will be a rookie, so like felton, he will not command max money right away.

so which plan do you like better?
A. sign chris paul, tony parker, or deron williams to a max deal, and risk a clogged cap in the future.
B. bring back raymond felton, whether or not chauncey billups returns
C. trade for steve nash, resign chauncey billups for less money, then invest the future of their PG spot in ricky rubio.
i understand plan C will be the most difficult to pull off, but i think it has the greatest payoff in the future.

Another personal finance question….?

Marcia and Phil Helm, a couple in their thirties, have been married for several years. They have no children, and each has a professional career. Marcia is a trainee for a management position at a large department store, and Phil is an engineer at an electronics firm. Their careers have promising futures, but neither has exceptionally good income protection in the event of a layoff. The Helms have saved around $8000, and $7400 of it is in a 3.5% savings account at the credit union where Phil works. They have about $600 in a regular checking account (with Mid-City Bank) that doesn’t pay any interest. The Helms’ combined take home pay is about $5000/month, and Phil thinks they should take the $7400 out of their savings and invest in the stock market to earn a better return. He points out that, excluding their life insurance policies, they have no other investments. Marcia thinks this plan might be too risky, but she does agree that the 3.5% yield is not very good.

Recently, at a party, a friend suggested they take out certificates of deposit (CDs) with long maturities because the CDs were paying around 6% in interest. The Helms liked her advice and stopped at Phil’s credit union to get more information on the CDs. After talking with the office manager for a while, though, they became more confused. He didn’t favor CDs; although, the union had them available. He pointed out that interest rates on the new money market accounts were around 4% and didn’t require “freezing” your money for a year or more. He also indicated that the union could offer a super NOW account that would allow the Helms to close their current unproductive checking account with Mid-City. This account would give them unlimited check writing privileges with no service charges and would pay 3% interest; however, it would require a minimum balance of $2500. If their balance went below the minimum in a month, interest would be only 2%.

The Helms left the credit union without taking any action. They have asked you for advice on managing their liquid deposits.

In 3-4 paragraphs, answer the following questions.
Do you feel the Helms’ $8000 liquid balance is adequate? Explain.
Explain the relative risks and potential advantages of CDs. Explain under what condition(s) you would recommend them for the Helms.
Do you agree with Phil that some of their funds should be invested in the stock market? Explain.
What are your recommendations for a cash management plan for the Helms?

What Would You Have Done In 2001 If You Were President?

I keep seeing stuff about “the last 8yrs” but I ask you, if you were President would you not want justice after the events of 9/11 … and I mean pulling out the big guns called “war”?

How would you go about preventing the stock market upheaval and would your plan work? Not borrowing …. is that really an option on corporate America? Tell me would America be running any better if you were President of the U.S.?

Go check out your wallet/bank statement/loans before you give an answer; think long and hard. Then think about what the next President gets to deal with on a MUCH larger scale!

help!!!!!!!!!!! please?

Marcia and Phil Helm, a couple in their thirties, have been married for several years. They have no children, and each has a professional career. Marcia is a trainee for a management position at a large department store, and Phil is an engineer at an electronics firm. Their careers have promising futures, but neither has exceptionally good income protection in the event of a layoff. The Helms have saved around $8000, and $7400 of it is in a 3.5% savings account at the credit union where Phil works. They have about $600 in a regular checking account (with Mid-City Bank) that doesn’t pay any interest. The Helms’ combined take home pay is about $5000/month, and Phil thinks they should take the $7400 out of their savings and invest in the stock market to earn a better return. He points out that, excluding their life insurance policies, they have no other investments. Marcia thinks this plan might be too risky, but she does agree that the 3.5% yield is not very good.

Recently, at a party, a friend suggested they take out certificates of deposit (CDs) with long maturities because the CDs were paying around 6% in interest. The Helms liked her advice and stopped at Phil’s credit union to get more information on the CDs. After talking with the office manager for a while, though, they became more confused. He didn’t favor CDs; although, the union had them available. He pointed out that interest rates on the new money market accounts were around 4% and didn’t require “freezing” your money for a year or more. He also indicated that the union could offer a super NOW account that would allow the Helms to close their current unproductive checking account with Mid-City. This account would give them unlimited check writing privileges with no service charges and would pay 3% interest; however, it would require a minimum balance of $2500. If their balance went below the minimum in a month, interest would be only 2%.

The Helms left the credit union without taking any action. They have asked you for advice on managing their liquid deposits.

In 3-4 paragraphs, answer the following questions.
Do you feel the Helms’ $8000 liquid balance is adequate? Explain.
Explain the relative risks and potential advantages of CDs. Explain under what condition(s) you would recommend them for the Helms.
Do you agree with Phil that some of their funds should be invested in the stock market? Explain.
What are your recommendations for a cash management plan for the Helms?

I need equine legal advice…horse died after sale due to ‘pregnancy complications’?

I need some advice. In May of 2010 I bought a mare. I had her vet checked at the time of purchase. He checked her teeth, eyes, heart, feet, reproductive tract, legs, etc. The mare was in poor body condition but was fundamentally sound. I wormed her, put her in training, started feeding her and had her back on the market six months later.

I sold her in February of 2011. The woman who purchased her was from out of state. She called my vet and asked if the mare had any problems and his response was that he’d only ever seen her for a soundness check and to pull a coggins. Beyond that, there wasn’t much he could tell her. She drove up to pick her up and I had the vet come out for another matter but planned to get an out of state health cert in the event she wanted to take her home. She decided to purchase her. The vet completed the health certificate and the mare went to her new home. I had the buyer sign a bill of sale which included the purchase price of the animal. It also stated I had full power to sell the animal as well as that the buyer was agreeing to purchase the animal as is and the responsiblity of the animal shall transfer to the buyer at the time of signing. I received an email from the buyer a week or so later that stated she was settling into her new home perfectly.

Then in November I received a letter from an attorney that said the buyer was seeking compensation in excess of double the mare’s purchase price for both the purchase price of the horse, travel expenses and vet bills incurred when the mare died from pregnancy complications. To my knowledge, this mare was never exposed to a stallion while she was on my property. She was not checked for pregnancy at the time of purchase FROM me, though she was checked when I bought her. The buyer had a vet there and complete reign of anything she wanted done at the time.

A suit has now been filed with the civil court in our county. The buyer is seeking compensation and I have 20 days to respond or a summary judgement will be entered against me on her behalf. I don’t know what complications were suffered, nor does there exist any proof that the mare is actually deceased. If she IS, I have no idea if this woman bred her after she got her or if she’s trying to accuse me of having bred her and sold her. In the suit, it simply states that “plantiff bought a horse from the defendant that later died”. It seems ridiculous to me…Does anyone know how I should respond? With the bill of sale contract I have, should I still contact an attorney?

Thanks for any insight!
I’m not allowed to ‘like’ any answers but thank you ALL so much. Will contact our family attorney first thing Monday morning, I was just really hoping to avoid the fees. Now that I know what legwork needs to be done I can get started myself and definitely will not let it slide

Pam and Mike Helm, who have no Children and both have a professional career. ?

Their careers have promising futures, but neither has exceptionally good income protection in the event of a layoff. The Helms have saved around $8000, and $7400 of it is in a 3.5% savings account at the credit union where Mike works.

They have about $600 in a regular checking account (with Mid-City Bank) that doesn’t pay any interest. The Helms’ combined take home pay is about $5000/month, and Mike thinks they should take the $7400 out of their savings and invest in the stock market to earn a better return.

He points out that, excluding their life insurance policies, they have no other investments. Pam thinks this plan might be too risky, but she does agree that the 3.5% yield is not very good.

Recently, at a party, a friend suggested they take out certificates of deposit (CDs) with long maturities because the CDs were paying around 6% in interest. The Helms liked her advice and stopped at Mike’s credit union to get more information on the CDs. After talking with the office manager for a while, though, they became more confused. He didn’t favor CDs; although, the union had them available. He pointed out that interest rates on the new money market accounts were around 4% and didn’t require “freezing” your money for a year or more. He also indicated that the union could offer a super NOW account that would allow the Helms to close their current unproductive checking account with Mid-City. This account would give them unlimited check writing privileges with no service charges and would pay 3% interest; however, it would require a minimum balance of $2500. If their balance went below the minimum in a month, interest would be only 2%.

The Helms left the credit union without taking any action. They have asked you for advice on managing their liquid deposits.

1. Do you feel the Helms’ $8000 liquid balance is adequate? Explain.

2. Explain the relative risks and potential advantages of CDs. Explain under what condition(s) you would recommend them for the Helms.

3. Do you agree with Mike that some of their funds should be invested in the stock market? Explain.

4. What are your recommendations for a cash management plan for the Helms?

Mentmore Towers: tourists allowed?

Hi there. I was wondering if Mentmore Towers in Buckinghamshire is open to tourists. I plan on coming to Buckinghamshire, and would love to visit the Towers. I have been scouring the net for info, and haven’t seen any “tourist attraction” marketing for it though. Is it open to the public, or is it locked up for only certain events or special people? I thought maybe a local might know more. I would really appreciate the help. Thank you.