4/16/17
This is Bistek al la Mexicana a common dish found many places. There are several places I get this some better than others but all real decent! Kind of a tomato based sauce with generally pretty tender pieces of beef and a fair amount of it. The rice is pretty generic but the frijoles can be something else. This also includes as many fresh made in front of you tortillas you want and brought to you with a smile. Something like this costs around 50-60 pesos or $3. The squeezed as you watch orange juice is 20 and brings the price up a bit but worth it. Nothing in the States I've ever had compares to this not even close plus it'll cost 7-10 smacks. I don't know what I'm going to eat when I return. It will be an adjustment as I do this so much that is go into Puerto Vallarta on the south side and have me a excellent lunch with "real" Mexican food not the slop I get back there. I do not plan on eating out much at all only at maybe three select places. Pricey yes but worth it because it's so good. I threw away so much money last summer eating way overpriced shitty food. Several times the food got thrown away as well. The whole of Mexico is an eating machine I tell you. I'm gonna miss this.

I feel good and and think the higher temps and humidity contributes to that. It's the same every time. After a month or two you realize and say " Hey I feel pretty damn good!"

Just as important I believe the food made fresh with wholesome fresh ingredients as well contributes to that. Get off the bus in town the food smells everywhere make me hungry just like that.

5/3/09

I Never Believed This

Looking around this morning saw a short video from another angle when the Pentagon was hit. It's the one at the bottom. The official one released is the top one and the middle shows the dimensions of a 757 and the damage to the building in respect to that.

Never gone anywhere with the conspiracy theory's and 911 because if a country can't get pissed when we invade for lies how can these small minds who believe that Saddam was responsible for it even comprehend intelligently the possibility's?

All that I'm saying here is the videos of the Pentagon show a white streak/flash that was not a plane and the one that hit it had 8000 gallons of fuel on board. It doesn't make sense and it doesn't add up.

There is more going on with the most powerful in this country than what we see. They are in control and that is why our government continues to make decisions that favor them

We are so screwed and don't even know it.





12 comments:

  1. Plane crash, phooey! Your right about powerful people pulling the strings. Goldman/Sachs has the reins of our economy in their hands. You know what they say about a bankers heart, never been used.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ole Ike was right when he said to beware the powers gathering force against the common people.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Met with 7 buddies last Thursday nite and, of course, swine flu came up. This strain was made in a lab according to the scientist in the bunch. I've heard that from Tom Hartman as well. Anyway, Black Planet came up and the group segued into the 9/11 and this very topic and picture. (Funny how that works.) There was no consensus reached but to sum up: our resident cynic said "even if its true try to prove it or do something about it and get back to me on your progress". More than a little bit accurate on his part I'd say. So it goes.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Woe... the bottom video does not show a plane hitting the building but something more akin to a missile. I never trust the government to tell me the truth about "national disasters" unless the disaster is created by nature such as Hurricane Katrina.

    There is some truth to what happened on 9/11 and there are also lies that were fed to us. Why did Bush, who was supposed to protect us, go into hiding? Where the f**k was Cheney?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Assume, for the sake of argument, that the Pentagon was not hit by an airliner.

    Then you have to answer this:

    Four airliners were hijacked that day: AA11, AA77, UA93 and UA175. AA11 and UA175 were flown into the World Trade Center. UA93 crashed in Shanksville, PA. So if AA77 did not crash into the Pentagon, where did it go?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Of course I don't have the answer to that Misfit and anything else is speculation.

    It is fair to say there is no plane in these videos. It is also fair to say given the parameters of a 757 that if a reenactment were done the results would be different than seen on the ground that day just because of the amount of fuel carried alone.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The Evidence For Things Not Seen- The requirements for a murder conviction based on circumstantial evidence almost always demand DNA or other overwhelming proof putting the killer at the scene of the crime, without a plausible alibi and a believable storyline presented by the prosecutors. In this instance we are asked to believe that a boomerang-shaped object 15"s wide was shoved thru a 6" opening in a concrete block with such force none its parts broke off but merely collapsed into themselves to form an arrow-like projectile. Additionally, this projectile, though filled with an unstable, highly flammable material didn't ignite paper products 3' from the opening. Now I know the difference from being "burned up" as opposed to being "burned out", so to speak. Comrade, people I don't know die everyday. Do you really believe they are all accounted for? What happens when a mass grave is discovered in Armenia with 600 bodies in it 95 years later. Are the survivors capable of identifying all the missing people in the grave 5 days later; 5 yrs later? Ever? Did they even exist in any contextual way in the communities they were taken from?

    ReplyDelete
  8. The bottom youtube doesn't work. Where did this video come from? Where is the chain of custody of it documented? You can make a video out of a set of pictures. All you need is time and motivation. Here is one example of such software.

    The one in the middle is other nonsense. Who cares how big the airplane is relative to the size of the damaged section? The building was on fire, and part of it collapsed. A few bolts shearing off created this hole, which you may have noticed is bigger than a bolt by a far larger margin.

    Later, they mention that the damage looks different in the WTC compared to the Pentagon. Of course it is! They're buildings constructed of different materials in different ways. What would have been suspicious is if they looked the same.

    These people are frauds or idiots. Either way, don't waste your time.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Cujo- Try shooting a .30 caliber hollow point bullet into reinforced concrete block and make a smaller hole than a .17 caliber hollow point bullet would make under the same conditions, velocity of both bullets being equal. That is what this plane supposedly did. Pictures tell only a part of the story but math is the key here. Massive explosins are created by compressing the explosive material beforehand not after. The building would compress the plane and increase the detonated area and thus the site. The opposite happened in this case so curiosity is heightened and expectations for getting at the truth lowered.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The video plays for me and if one double clicks on it goes to You Tube.

    Kat's correct-it looks like a missile and appears to be close to what went past the camera in the first one. And yes it could have been manipulated. That's a given that you take into consideration.

    One thing is fairly certain and that is these people on this plane are more than likely dead.

    What isn't so certain to me and others but not you Cujo is the first video. This is the one released to the public by the government the teeming masses viewed on our media as the object that crashed into the Pentagon.

    It sure as hell don't look like a 757 to me. That's all I'm saying. Didn't look like one back then and doesn't now. You got a pimple on your ass Cujo or what! Lighten the fuck up.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous, you're completely at sea. An aluminum airplane isn't a bullet. It has far more mass relative to any of the components of that wall and far more momentum. It collapsed part of the building when it hit. That's pretty damned obvious just from the photos they showed in that second video.

    One Fly, that's precious. You guys are nattering on about boogeymen like a bunch of old ladies and I've got a pimple on my ass?

    ReplyDelete
  12. To whom it may concern- I am not an explosives expert but the person I discussed this with was is a U.S. Army trained explosive tech. I made 2 errors in typing his insight into this discussion: 1- he said .38 caliber not .30 and 2-the fuel load being compressed at that velocity would have caused greater damage inside the building to the immediate area or the plane did't have nearly as much fuel in it as was reported. The explosin was more consistent with a missle which carries less fuel relative to the plane's carrying capacity.I don't want to beat a dead horse but his overall experience tells him something smaller than a plane with less fuel on board and with a certain type of material could have easily caused these results. Cujo- As for being out to sea I do live by the ocean. I've fished on it many times and if you doubt my veracity I suggest you call Sen. Specter and find out who really killed Kennedy. I'm sure our opinions and facts will be quite different on that as well. Peace out.

    ReplyDelete