Slashdot Mirror

The most interesting thing about the Google Video top 100 has been Loose Change. For weeks it has been the only full length film that isn't short a very short titillation clip (eg Webcam Girls Go Wild) or dubious humour clips (eg funny clips baby fart) that has been in the top 20.

Loose Change is the most popular 9/11 "conspiracy theory" film, no doubt due to its slick graphics, soundtrack and editing -- for an amateur movie it is impressive. However it's not the most accurate movie of its type -- see the discussion on indybay and the detailed Sifting Through Loose Change The 9-11 Research Companion.

Read on for a brief guide to some better 9/11 videos that deserve more attention...

9/11 Revisited: Were explosives used to bring down the buildings? (2006)

This is currently, probably, the best 9/11 video that challenges the official conspiracy theory.

9/11 Revisited concentrates on the collapse of the three World Trade Center buildings and includes news reports from the day and interviews with experts including Steven E Jones, David Ray Griffin and Jeff King. It is available to view online and via Google Video and the Internet Archive.

9/11 Breaking the Laws of Physics (2006)

This is a lecture from 2006 by BYU Physics Professor Steven E Jones on the collapse of the WTC buildings on 9/11. It is available from the Internet Archive. The academic paper this presentation is based on is Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?.

The 9/11 Commission Report (2004)

This is a lecture by David Ray Griffin -- professor emeritus of philosophy of religion and theology, at the Claremont School of Theology in Claremont, California. He has written many books including The New Pearl Harbor and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions on the official 9/11 Report. This lecture is available from theInternet Archive.

9-11 Open Your Eyes the War on Terror is a Lie (2004)

Filmed at the 9/11 International Inquiry (Toronto, May 2004) Open Your Eyes is available on the Internet Archive.

Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime (2006)

This new film covers the links between the US adminstration, the Republician Party and drugs running and the 9/11 hijackers, it is available on Google Video and there are higher quality versions on 911 blogger, the official film site is http://www.crisisinamerica.org/

War and Globalization - The Truth Behind September 11 (2003)

Politically this is the best video on 9/11.

War and Globalization is a lecture, from 2003 by Michel Chossudovsky, a professor of econom

Pretty much the entire EU.

From the german constitution:

Article 18 (Forfeiture of basic rights).

Whoever abuses freedom of opinion, in particular freedom of the press (Article 5, paragraph 1) freedom of teaching (Article 5, paragraph 3), freedom of assembly (Article 8), freedom of association (Article 9), the secrecy of mail posts and telecommunications (Article 10),property (Article 14), or the right of asylum (Article 16, paragraph 2) in order to attack the free democratic basic order, forfeits these basic rights. The forfeiture and its extent are pronounced by the Federal Constitutional Court.

[...]

Article 26 (Ban on preparing a war of aggression)

(1) Activities tending and undertaken with the intent to disturb peaceful relations between nations, especially to prepare for aggressive war, are unconstitutional. They shall be made a punishable offense.

This is interpreted by the courts to apply to Nazi propaganda or other speech that is meant to raise aggression against a minority or majority. Preaching that it is just to kill infidels falls under this.

translation taken from http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/eurodocs/germ/ggeng.ht ml

DRM is a bastardization of copyright law. And I quote:

The primary purpose of copyright law is not so much to protect the interests of the authors/creators, but rather to promote the progress of science and the useful arts--that is--knowledge. To accomplish this purpose, copyright ownership encourages authors/creators in their efforts by granting them a temporary monopoly, or ownership of exclusive rights for a specified length of time.

You are perfectly correct, if those were indeed planted explosives they did not detonate as intended. Since they were only observed during the plane impact into WTC 2 and during the collapse a possible explanation was they were the cause by a volatile substance reacting to shockwaves in the building. Since I don't believe the hand of Allah protected the planes with stealth shields and dumbfounded NORAD, FEMA (on site the day before), and the CIA who all were running simulations of the terrorist attacks at the same time something must account for the explosions and white smoke. See Eyewitness 9/11 for more continuous video of the WTC collapses.

While with WTC 2 the collapse appeared to begin where the plane impacted see jones reason 9 with WTC 1 the collapse appeared to start at the top jones reason 6

Does the government's account of the 9/11 event fulfill the scientific method? How does it account for the observed phenomena witnessed in the videos? Does it eliminate plausible alternatives? Was government complicacy ever even investigated? As with any true scientific investigation it must focus on the facts. Since the 9/11 commission was formed over a year after the event due to pressure by the families and was originally to be headed by Henry Kissinger it would appear its purpose was more for political than scientific reasons.

As for the prize, who controls all the evidence? Why did they fiercly protect it? Five years after the event why won't they release all the photos,videos, and samples they have? Shouldn't we have a right to view the evidence for ourselves and make our own determination? Aren't we the people the in control of the government? Or, should we blindly trust the providential guidance of our government officials as the gospel truth to explain what occurred?

You are perfectly correct, if those were indeed planted explosives they did not detonate as intended. Since they were only observed during the plane impact into WTC 2 and during the collapse a possible explanation was they were the cause by a volatile substance reacting to shockwaves in the building. Since I don't believe the hand of Allah protected the planes with stealth shields and dumbfounded NORAD, FEMA (on site the day before), and the CIA who all were running simulations of the terrorist attacks at the same time something must account for the explosions and white smoke. See Eyewitness 9/11 for more continuous video of the WTC collapses.

While with WTC 2 the collapse appeared to begin where the plane impacted see jones reason 9 with WTC 1 the collapse appeared to start at the top jones reason 6

Does the government's account of the 9/11 event fulfill the scientific method? How does it account for the observed phenomena witnessed in the videos? Does it eliminate plausible alternatives? Was government complicacy ever even investigated? As with any true scientific investigation it must focus on the facts. Since the 9/11 commission was formed over a year after the event due to pressure by the families and was originally to be headed by Henry Kissinger it would appear its purpose was more for political than scientific reasons.

As for the prize, who controls all the evidence? Why did they fiercly protect it? Five years after the event why won't they release all the photos,videos, and samples they have? Shouldn't we have a right to view the evidence for ourselves and make our own determination? Aren't we the people the in control of the government? Or, should we blindly trust the providential guidance of our government officials as the gospel truth to explain what occurred?

If you can't do the math, all you have is wild speculation.

Apparently, you didn't notice the link the parent provided. You'll find the math you're looking for there.

as each floor collapses onto the floor below it, some of the kinetic energy of it's fall is used to break the next floor off and crush it, and its momentum is shared between the two (or more) floors, so that both floors would end up at an almost identical slower velocity (this is assuming the official pancake explanation). if there was so much energy liberated at each floor that it completely crushed to dust the floor below it, and enough energy (and heat) released to create the pyroclastic flows seen in the videos, then shouldnt the building have fallen slower than near freefall speed? where did this (massive) extra amount off energy come from? and if it was crushing itself to dust as it fell, why was there a sharp start to the seismic signal, trailing off, rather than a building up one, or not much of one at all as the dust fell to earth?

When a finite element analysis was done of the towers (ill try to find the link later) by an independant researcher, the only way to get the building to collapse was to lower the steel to a minute fraction of it's expected strength, and even then, the collapse takes 1 1/2 minutes! not 10 seconds. For a nice overview by Professor Steven E. Jones, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University; see this

as each floor collapses onto the floor below it, some of the kinetic energy of it's fall is used to break the next floor off and crush it, and its momentum is shared between the two (or more) floors, so that both floors would end up at an almost identical slower velocity (this is assuming the official pancake explanation). if there was so much energy liberated at each floor that it completely crushed to dust the floor below it, and enough energy (and heat) released to create the pyroclastic flows seen in the videos, then shouldnt the building have fallen slower than near freefall speed? where did this (massive) extra amount off energy come from? and if it was crushing itself to dust as it fell, why was there a sharp start to the seismic signal, trailing off, rather than a building up one, or not much of one at all as the dust fell to earth?

When a finite element analysis was done of the towers (ill try to find the link later) by an independant researcher, the only way to get the building to collapse was to lower the steel to a minute fraction of it's expected strength, and even then, the collapse takes 1 1/2 minutes! not 10 seconds. For a nice overview by Professor Steven E. Jones, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University; see this

as each floor collapses onto the floor below it, some of the kinetic energy of it's fall is used to break the next floor off and crush it, and its momentum is shared between the two (or more) floors, so that both floors would end up at an almost identical slower velocity (this is assuming the official pancake explanation). if there was so much energy liberated at each floor that it completely crushed to dust the floor below it, and enough energy (and heat) released to create the pyroclastic flows seen in the videos, then shouldnt the building have fallen slower than near freefall speed? where did this (massive) extra amount off energy come from? and if it was crushing itself to dust as it fell, why was there a sharp start to the seismic signal, trailing off, rather than a building up one, or not much of one at all as the dust fell to earth?

When a finite element analysis was done of the towers (ill try to find the link later) by an independant researcher, the only way to get the building to collapse was to lower the steel to a minute fraction of it's expected strength, and even then, the collapse takes 1 1/2 minutes! not 10 seconds. For a nice overview by Professor Steven E. Jones, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University; see this

Less, but this building was overengineered, or you might say, solidly built. Designed to take the impact of mulitple jets. So even at a estimate of the fire temps (650C), for this grade steel, it would still have carried a load 2-3 times what was necessary. NIST analyzed what few pieces of steel they could and none showed that the temps exceeded 600C.

I'm just telling you that they don't have to melt to make the building fall down, even neglecting the ballistic damage to the building

But did this building collapse like a building in which the steel melted? It collapsed in 10 seconds. Neatly, no bending, twisting, leaning, i.e. toppling over like you would expect. Check out some of the articles here, especially Prof. Jones of BYU, and the MIT prof.

I have now spent half an hour researching for a forum post when I should be doing related, but not related enough, research for my jobI won't even mention the amount of time frittered away on this stuff, totally unrelated to my job. Although I previously worked on something similar - researching engineering failures for court cases. Does this change my opinion either way of the Bush Admin? No I still consider them nefarious crooks, somewhat more sinister and dangerous than I originally did. Not the guy that caught the 7lb perch, the other guy, the paranoid one that sleeps in a bunker with an Italian made shotgun under his pillow. In the big scheme of things, will anyone be brought to justice for this? Doubtful. But from a, what was that course, "science, politics, ethics & technology" standpoint, it's quite fascinating.

There have been many other fires in predominately steel buildings, and none have collapsed, especially after one hour or even ten hours of fires.

How is it possible that every building that fell came straight down?

When the second tower was hit, the plane didn't hit close to the center as the first one did. Wouldn't the concentration of jet fuel cause one side of the building to collapse and then fall over?

How is it possible that all three buildings fell in nearly perfect symmetry?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHZEGutg1FM&search= pull%20building

I agree with most of your post, but let me state once and for all: the fire did not have to melt steel. It only had to weaken it. Steel gradually loses its tensile strength with temperature. It is a known fact and a pretty well researched one, since it is very important in warehouses containing flammable materials--they can easily collapse during a fire.

Agreed. And if the WTC towers had collapsed at a rate consistent with that idea, we'd basically be done.

But they didn't. They collapsed at, essentially, freefall speed.

There's NO WAY that could possibly happen unless almost all of the internal support (being provided by the large internal steel structural members) was completely removed immediately prior to the collapse. Simply weakening them isn't enough. The lower floors that were still being supported would have slowed the collapse considerably.

Because of that, the fact that the kerosene fires were relatively cool (fuel rich) as evidenced by the plethora of black smoke from them, the visual evidence of squibs (or something that looks like it) being set off in the lower parts of the building immediately prior to collapse, the still molten and/or yellow-hot steel in the basement rubble weeks after the collapse, the reports of multiple explosions within the buildings immediately prior to collapse, and on and on, I'm completely convinced that the trade center towers were demolished using some combination of thermite/thermate and high explosives.

I'm not a conspiracy nut by most measures. I believe whatever the evidence most strongly suggests. And in this case, it most strongly suggests a controlled demolition of the WTC towers.

See the paper and other supporing material here.

Bunker? Then that must be Cheney.

Tell you what. Do some research, especially Jeff King's critique of fellow MITer's "theory", and BYU's Prof. Steven Jones and then come back and tell us which "theory" is more plausible: (1) that the buildings were "pulled" (controlled demolition) (2) 19 losers who could barely fly somehow evaded NORAD, evaded a superpower's "Star Wars" defense system and supersonic jets, hit the towers, and the jet fuel (what was left of it) managed to start a fire that weakened that evaporated steel and "trusses" (whatever) and the building collapsed in under 10 seconds, thus defying basic scientific laws. And WTC 7 collapsed the same day even though no plane hit it, and other building closer to the twins didn't. And PNAC (project for a new american century) whose members include Cheney and Jeb Bush, wrote that Americans were slow to change, a Pearl Harbor incident was needed for faster paced changed (those Americans, always in a rush) - but of course, this is entirely beyond the capability of Cheney.

If the conspiracy whackos are wrong, why all the secrecy? Why did the 911 Commission not even review WTC 7?

The most compelling evidence to me that the official government account was incorrect was the videographic evidence of separate explosions in the WTC tower when the second plane hit the tower and visible explosions well below the demolition waves as the towers were collapsing. Also white smoke could be seen at the bottom of the tower before the first collapse and the lobby of the WTC was in shambles before the collapse far below the planes impact. According to the governments report jet fuel fell down the elevator shafts 60+ stories and ignited at the base causing all the visible destruction in the lobby. Building 7 is also an anomaly the government is still working on a report about.

Eyewitness 9/11 is a good video to watch [URL:http://universalseed.org/]
As well as Dr. Jones's research

Both explanations for the WTC collapses have serious consequences. On one hand If the collapses were due to the buildings infrastructure weakening due to fire and gravity did the rest then all future terrorists would have to do is take out a couple of upper floors on a skyscraper and watch the show. People working in 47+ buildings should be afraid that a few small fires in the building would cause a total destructive collapse as it did in the collapse of building 7. On the other hand if the government was complicit in the attacks in order to justify dramatic increased military spending then that presents its own set of ramifications.
Personally I would like to see a new completely independent investigation with full government access into the events of 9/11; everything the 9/11 commission was suppose to be but wasn't.

Do your own research and form your own independent opinions. If you take all the facts at face value and still believe the official 9/11 story then your views are justified. Just because Wolf Blitzer on CNN didn't spoon feed you all the facts of 9/11 doesn't mean they don't exist.
Here are a couple sites to start your research at.
http://www.pentagonresearch.com/
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.ht ml

I'm inclined to believe (hope), that the neo-cons are banished once and for all in 2008.

They won't be. They'll win in 2008. They'll win because they now have direct control over the voting results, thanks to the electronic voting machines that are far too common these days.

That's assuming they let the election happen at all, which is something I'm somewhat skeptical of.

I fully expect to see another "terrorist" attack before the 2008 elections. And like 9/11, it'll be mostly (if not completely) an inside job.

The genesis of the new cladestine governement began on 9/11/2001 with the horrific terrorist events that occured that fateful day. Summarily the US Congress gave the president carte blanche to basically use whatever means necessary to bring the terrorists to justice and protect the American people from future attacks.

Today there is a strong and growing 911 Truth movement trying to find answers to legitimate questions about the inconsistencies and omissions in the official NIST and 9/11 commisions reports. Our US government has been less then cooperative in providing images, videos, and audio tapes that could either confirm or deny their assertion that middle east terrorist without assistance were soley responsible for 9/11.

Do your own research and see the pictures and videos for yourself.

"Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government. Whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notice, they may be relied on to set them to rights." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Price, 1789. ME 7:253

Also, according to your simple theory, we would expect to see other buildings that have succumbed to fire damage, their steel softened, and thus fallen. But WC1 WC2 & WC7 are the only modern, steel-reinforced high-rises, to have ever collapsed because of an uncontrolled fire. Ever.

What about these? http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7_fi les/image008.jpg http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7_fi les/image010.jpg

Btw, I fail to see how these 3 buildings didn't fit into their footprints. WTC1 and WTC2 just look spilled all over the ground, but WTC7 fits.

What about these? http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7_fi les/image008.jpg http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7_fi les/image010.jpg

Btw, I fail to see how these 3 buildings didn't fit into their footprints. WTC1 and WTC2 just look spilled all over the ground, but WTC7 fits.

And with each floor pan falling onto the pan beneath it, a small amount of time is taken (that whole conservation of energy thing, you've prbly heard of it). Yet, when we observe footage of the towers falling, there is no delay. The falling is smooth and without hiccups, not to mention, completely symetrical (including WC7 which was not hit by a plane).

I used to be one of the people calling this line of thought rubbish. Until I started reading and looking at the evidence. It's compelling. Find out for yourself.

No steel framed buildings have EVER collapsed due to fire before 9/11 even though much fiercer and hotter fires have occurred within them.

Here's a link to respected scientist Dr Steven Jones paper on his doubts. http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.ht ml

Simple physics tells us the melting point of steel is 1100-1600C and a kerosene fire can go up to 600C with good oxygen flow. Why did the ( heat shielded) steel buckle? No warping of the buildings structure was observable before collapse.

> Since I'm trolling, explain to me how this is ANY DIFFERENT from what Suse is doing? They give away OpenSUSE, as well as sell retail boxed sets.

And they just started doing so, what, six or seven months ago? The opensuse.org domain was registered July of '05 versus fedoraproject.org which was registered in September of '03, FWIW. My take is that it's an attempt to gain them visibility and to grow a community around their product (much like Fedora) so that their enterprise products wouldn't be marginalized. I've certainly taken a harder look at the SUSE stuff now that I can get a copy of it for free versus some rather obtuse LiveCD that wouldn't install to a hard drive. So, to answer your question - there is very little difference except that SUSE has only very recently gotten in the game and hasn't had as long to suffer at the hands of the community. Recall the old adage about too many cooks and the broth ...

> Isn't what Fedora is doing with buggy releases the exact same thing that got Mandrake deemed as "crap" for years on end?

Perhaps, except Mandrake insisted that you PAY for their crap (or wait an additional period of time so that folks in the Mandrake Club would iron out many of the issues and then release a free version). Why anybody put up with that is beyond me.

> Instead of heated name calling, do clarify the differences.

I trust that clarifies the differences for you.

> That's because there aren't any, and you're just trying to divert attention from the issue by using the same old "troll" name calling tatic.

Actually, you were trolling. Had OpenSUSE existed for as long as Fedora, then you'd be correct in calling foul, but to compare a project with two and a half years of baggage to a six-month-old (and, arguably less popular so far) project smacks of revisionist history.

My amateur rig is a laptop running Traktor DJ Studio and a visualizer called G-Force. Traktor DJ is leaps and bounds ahead of any pro DJ software out there. It's a commercial package with anything a DJ or amateur could ever want. Beatmatching, streaming, looping, it's all there. It will even help you "work up" to a level of mastery until you go out and buy real turntables. G-Force is a great shareware app that will give a set-it-and-forget-it light show with nothing but an ordinary projector.

Finally, here's some advice from when I first started. Learning "how to DJ" involves three things you must master. First, learn the equipment, which isn't too tough if you're already an ubergeek. Second, get familiar with a whole spectrum of music, which can be hard if your tastes are polarized against genres like rap or country. Last, and most importantly, you must refine your skills to "work a crowd" and respond to your audience's tastes. Developing that charisma is by far the most challenging aspect of becoming a DJ.

[shameless plug] For more tips, I set up a pseudo-DJ tutorial at my website. [/shameless plug] Good luck.

The scholars for 9/11 truthbelieve this is no mere coincidence. Through analysis of the physics, it has been concluded that WTC7 fell in a manner not consistent with a "pancake" theory. They are asking for full access to the evidence (photos, video, etc) that NIST used in their report to either support or rebut these claims. So even if you think they are "conspiracy nuts", the release of these documents would prove them wrong... so do it. Sign the petition :) Yes, I expect to be vehemently attacked. But whatever. What good is karma if you can't speak your true beliefs!

You might be interested in some FARMS papers about the native american DNA testing. There are quite a few of them. As you may or may not know, many of these articles are written by pretty credible scientists -- the article entitled "Addressing Questions Surrounding The Book of Mormon and DNA Research," for instance, is by a Mormon named John Butler, who has a doctorate in chemistry and has written lots of research papers on human DNA.

I didn't see anywhere in the article that stated the information came from a press conference or a press release. I was unable to search the abstracts on the www.retroconference.org/2006 database (the link is either broken or for conference attendees only) but either of the professors quoted in the article may simply have been submitting there. Bob Mims is a well-known senior journalist for the Salt Lake Tribune.

Paul Savage is a well-published and notable researcher. http://people.chem.byu.edu/pbsavage/publications.h tml

Derya Unutmaz is no different.
https://medschool.mc.vanderbilt.edu/facultydata/ph p_files/show_faculty.php?id3=915

Your accusations of "PR Bullshit" and the lack of "real scientists" are baseless supposition given the dearth of information currently available.

There are a few things to ponder...

First, the article says that, the compound invented by Paul D. Savage of Brigham Young University appears to hunt down and kill HIV.

Now, doing an actual search on Brigham Young's website turns up 0 hits for "Paul D. Savage". It does, however, turn up quite a few hits for just Paul Savage. In fact, it turns up this dude, a "Paul B. Savage". He seems pretty smart (MS Word document link). Plus, he's gotten recognition for research in T-Cells, important information that could really help figure out how to stop T-Cell destruction by the AIDS virus.

I guess either the press release is really trying to piggy-back on some smart dude, and hide their tracks by swapping a middle initial, or the Salt Lake Tribune just can't get their middle initials straight. Maybe this "Ceragenins" is something new and undiscovered as well, just like "Paul D. Savage". They both return zero hits when you try to search for them.

There are a few things to ponder...

First, the article says that, the compound invented by Paul D. Savage of Brigham Young University appears to hunt down and kill HIV.

Now, doing an actual search on Brigham Young's website turns up 0 hits for "Paul D. Savage". It does, however, turn up quite a few hits for just Paul Savage. In fact, it turns up this dude, a "Paul B. Savage". He seems pretty smart (MS Word document link). Plus, he's gotten recognition for research in T-Cells, important information that could really help figure out how to stop T-Cell destruction by the AIDS virus.

I guess either the press release is really trying to piggy-back on some smart dude, and hide their tracks by swapping a middle initial, or the Salt Lake Tribune just can't get their middle initials straight. Maybe this "Ceragenins" is something new and undiscovered as well, just like "Paul D. Savage". They both return zero hits when you try to search for them.

There are a few things to ponder...

First, the article says that, the compound invented by Paul D. Savage of Brigham Young University appears to hunt down and kill HIV.

Now, doing an actual search on Brigham Young's website turns up 0 hits for "Paul D. Savage". It does, however, turn up quite a few hits for just Paul Savage. In fact, it turns up this dude, a "Paul B. Savage". He seems pretty smart (MS Word document link). Plus, he's gotten recognition for research in T-Cells, important information that could really help figure out how to stop T-Cell destruction by the AIDS virus.

I guess either the press release is really trying to piggy-back on some smart dude, and hide their tracks by swapping a middle initial, or the Salt Lake Tribune just can't get their middle initials straight. Maybe this "Ceragenins" is something new and undiscovered as well, just like "Paul D. Savage". They both return zero hits when you try to search for them.

This Paul B. Savage guy (the scientist mentioned in the article) seems legit. Check out his page at BYU:

http://people.chem.byu.edu/pbsavage

He went to a decent school for his PhD (UW-Madison), and his publication list is pretty good (a few Nature papers, etc --> FYI: Nature is a good scientific journal). Publication list:

http://people.chem.byu.edu/pbsavage/publications.h tml

This Paul B. Savage guy (the scientist mentioned in the article) seems legit. Check out his page at BYU:

http://people.chem.byu.edu/pbsavage

He went to a decent school for his PhD (UW-Madison), and his publication list is pretty good (a few Nature papers, etc --> FYI: Nature is a good scientific journal). Publication list:

http://people.chem.byu.edu/pbsavage/publications.h tml

You're so right. Try to talk to someone about this sometime:
.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.ht ml

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reynolds/reynolds12.htm l

Very strong evidence of controlled demolition of all 3 towers on 9/11, and nobody wants to talk about it. I'm being ostracized by my family right now. My wife even refuses to entertain the idea.

But like the other guy said, evil can flourish when good men do nothing, so I continue to invite ridicule and worse by raising the discussion.

No charity will ever equal what good old productivity can produce. It funds more schools, feeds more families, and shelters more people than all the charities in the world could *ever* hope to do. This is why humanitarian charities are facing pressure to establish economic self-reliance in their clients as much as possible.

That's not to say that charity is wrong or wasteful. Just the opposite, wise and circumspect charity can open huge doors to productivity. See microcredit as a great example. (Of course microcredit has its problems as well, but it is a strong move in the right direction.)

People who work hard, and give what they can, are easily as noble as Bill Gates or Bono. I think there are millions of people who, given the same opportunities and resources, would be doing the same things.

The truth... Too crazy to be believed.

I'll say. Look here: http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.ht ml

There are plenty of people who argue that Churchill (at least) and possibly FDR knew perfectly well about the impending attack and did nothing, in order to draw America into the war. If you believe this theory, then this is a great method to manipulate others by selectively handing out information for political gain.

And that's not all. History repeats itself on 911.
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.ht ml

Here's a report of some research that negates some of your post. http://byunews.byu.edu/release.aspx?story=archive0 3/Sep/bacteria

You could be right, but no - the temperatures needed are never reached at all that way.

A more serious paper about the WTC collapses

I'm pretty much there with you.

There is no way that President Bush would ask, say, the NSA to do anything illegal is there?

And, although there may be a few renegades, there isn't much of official Washington that would use secrets for political gain.

But then there is the press which has recently developed some badly misplaced priorities, actively supporting and publicizing leaks of sensitive ongoing intelligence and military operations against the enemy over and over again. You would think it would be easy to understand that this harms our national security, yet much of the mainstream media passes over the issue in silence. On the other hand, they have endless energy and interest in a kerfuffle involving no crime.

Maybe the media will start taking the war more seriously if Al Qaeda makes significant progress in their announced goal of killing four million Americans. Or maybe not. If there are more successful large scale terrorist attacks in the United States, aided by the media's disclosure of on-going military and intelligence operations, I expect that the majority of the media won't engage in self-examination, but will rather most likely start banging the drums from the fever swamp. The fever swamp runs deep, and support for the President among the media is thin.

Well, if the other party gains power, maybe things will change... or maybe not.

Thank goodness we are a country where you can still engage in dissent against the mainstream.

And this is just the latest of Dubya and Company's shocking assaults against their own nation...

You're on the right track. Here's something that we should be shouting for all to hear, speaking of "shocking assaults against their own nation":
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.ht ml

In fact, at BYU, professors carry on scholarly dialogue with atheists; for instance, one said in a recent article:

Nor am I claiming that Price is a bad person because he is an atheist; he may well be a wonderful father and ethical human being. I am not even claiming that his position is wrong because he is an atheist. But the masking of his atheism in his Dialogue article does make a monumental difference in trying to understand what he is really saying.

Better then the .xxx domain, or this silly port/channel idea would be to phase out any root TLD that is not a country TLD. That means phasing out .com, .net, .org etc. Just stop registering new domain names for those TLD's, if a business wants a .com address, they can have .com.us, a non-profit? .org.us. This can also be done for any other country, a Canadian business? .com.ca UK? .com.co.uk and so on.

This is already done with other countries, google.ca is for Canada, google.co.uk is for the UK, google.de is for Germany and so on. Besides with search engines the way they are now, lengthy domain names are beginning to not matter as much as they once did.

If you do it this way, the US could enforce what ever the hell type of restrictions on .us, so those that want a 'clean' internet can set their browser to only query the .us TLD and no other. P0rn could even be completely blocked on the .us domain. As long as there is an opt-out for those who want the p0rn, then this would be fine. Though you would still have plan IP addresses to deal with, that is easy to handle with geo-location (whatever the technically word is, I do know that all IP addresses are at least associated with a country). Of course I do not know if IPv6 has a similar method, though with the current rate of adoption of IPv6 with in America, that won't be a problem for a long time.

Note that the article said that the ridiculous port/channel approach was supposed to be an opt-in thing, where you opt-in to block all the p0rn ports/channels.

Similarly, back in March, when Utah passed another anti-porn bill, it was for opting in for a filter that ISP's where being forced to run. The filter would only be turned on if requested.

This is the key, and an understanding of the Mormon concept of Free Agency is helpful to see why Utah is creating these laws that are for opting in and not outright banning p0rn all together.

Unlike what most Mormon missionaries (DISCLAIMER: I was one) would like you to believe that are a vast number of theological differences between Mormonism and Christianity. I would contend that Mormonism is NOT Christianity, and that Christianity today does not follow the true teachings of the man Jesus of Nazareth. Many of these differences are obvious, and despite the Churches recent attempts to white wash it's history, they are still present in an abundance of literature, most of it online. Polygamy is is most famous, with Blood Atonement, and Adam-God running close second and third. These former teachings are not actively taught in Mormon circles and are even condemned as heresy.

Something that is commonly taught is the doctrine of Free Agency. With in Mormonism, forcing someone to do something is not 'Christ like', in fact, Lucifer, when presenting his plan on how he would bring about the salvation of man said that he would make sure everyone would be saved, taking all the honor away from the Father. This would be done by taking away mans free agency. Jesus stepped up and said he would preserved the agency of man, giving the Honor to the Father, and not taking it himself, even if not all men where 'saved'. Jesus' plan was chosen, and as a result, Lucifer rebelled, began the 'War in Heaven' and was cast out (down).

This is why the Mormons in Utah will never out right ban p0rn where the Southern Baptist and other "Christians" will. Mormons are pro-life, and anti-homosexual marriage, however, to many "Christians", on the abortion issue, Mormons have it wrong. With in the Mormon Church, abortion is allowable in the cases of rape, incest, or if the health of the mother is in jeopardy. To "Christians" who believe life

Moon landing hoax
http://www.moonmovie.com/moonmovie/

There is plenty of oil
http://www.gasresources.net/toc_StatMech.htm

http://home.earthlink.net/~root.man/sci.html

http://www.prisonplanet.com/archives/peak_oil/inde x.htm

911 Was a psyop
http://www.prisonplanet.com/911/index.htm

http://www.reopen911.org/Core.htm

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.ht ml

http://www.letsroll911.org/

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2005/ 121105newterror.htm

http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/versa/versa1.html

Looks like I was pretty much right, Look at artical 10 and then the list of signatory nations near the end.

We were obligated to defend poland.

And back on topic, I do think we need better incentive for sci/tech students here.

C.

Wow ... just ... wow. How to put this:

I'm LDS/Mormon. I live in Provo, Utah. My dad works at BYU. I've lived here most of my life. So I have an idea of what I'm talking about.

Let's start with Brigham Young University: BYU has an extensive study abroad program. I have heard that BYU has, at any one time, over 1,300 students studying abroad; this number is more than any other university in the United States, both as an absolute figure and as a percentage. There are volunteer or study programs in Japan, Spain, England, Austria, Jordan, Namibia, South Africa, Ghana (my grandmother just got back from Ghana), Bolivia, Romania, Australia, Russia, Ukraine, New Zealand, and a few others. Most of the U.S. has heard of "Israel/Palestine," but I'd hazard that more Mormons have actually *been there*. Heck, I've had a Palestinian over to my house before. We talked about the conflict a little, but mostly he wanted to rant about his speeding ticket (turns out that Palestinians are people too). The BYU Jerusalem Center is currently shut down because of the recent violence, but when operating it had a 170-student capacity and was always full. Getting in was quite competitive.

Another good indicator is just to look at the languages taught at BYU. Actually listing them off would add a painful amount to this post, but you might want to poke here, here, here, or here.

Next to BYU is the LDS missionary training center, where a lot of those Mormon missionaries you love to hate get trained. They teach about 50 languages (the number fluctuates a little based on need) and send those missionaries off to about 120 different countries (the number fluctuates a little based on politics). At any given time, there are about 60,000 missionaries out, and most of those are outside of the United States. The center houses anywhere from 1,500 to 4,000 missionaries year-round.

That's what I know in general; I can also speak a little from personal experience. Personally, I have been to Bulgaria, France, Austria, England, and South Africa. I've been told that "Tijuana" doesn't count as Mexico, so you can leave that off ;-). I speak Bulgarian fluently, French passably, and conversational Japanese (planning to go next year). Last year, all three of my roommates visited mainland China, all for different reasons and all with different people. I missed out, but did go to visit family in South Africa instead. My roommates could speak Korean, Russian, Spanish, and German between them. We also speak English, believe it or not (yes, I'm glaring at you, Mr. British Person).

If we switch to my workplace, a tiny tech startup with all LDS employees (5 of them), you'll find a Tagalog speaker, a Norwegian speaker (who married a Norwegian), another German speaker, an Afrikaans speaker, and I can speak to my boss in Bulgarian. All have been to the respective countries.

That's probably enough. It was a fun rant, and it's not likely to get read, since I took too long writing it, and we all know that only those comments posted in the first five minutes get read. Still, here I am, posting anyway. I hope *someone* enjoys it.

Wow ... just ... wow. How to put this:

I'm LDS/Mormon. I live in Provo, Utah. My dad works at BYU. I've lived here most of my life. So I have an idea of what I'm talking about.

Let's start with Brigham Young University: BYU has an extensive study abroad program. I have heard that BYU has, at any one time, over 1,300 students studying abroad; this number is more than any other university in the United States, both as an absolute figure and as a percentage. There are volunteer or study programs in Japan, Spain, England, Austria, Jordan, Namibia, South Africa, Ghana (my grandmother just got back from Ghana), Bolivia, Romania, Australia, Russia, Ukraine, New Zealand, and a few others. Most of the U.S. has heard of "Israel/Palestine," but I'd hazard that more Mormons have actually *been there*. Heck, I've had a Palestinian over to my house before. We talked about the conflict a little, but mostly he wanted to rant about his speeding ticket (turns out that Palestinians are people too). The BYU Jerusalem Center is currently shut down because of the recent violence, but when operating it had a 170-student capacity and was always full. Getting in was quite competitive.

Another good indicator is just to look at the languages taught at BYU. Actually listing them off would add a painful amount to this post, but you might want to poke here, here, here, or here.

Next to BYU is the LDS missionary training center, where a lot of those Mormon missionaries you love to hate get trained. They teach about 50 languages (the number fluctuates a little based on need) and send those missionaries off to about 120 different countries (the number fluctuates a little based on politics). At any given time, there are about 60,000 missionaries out, and most of those are outside of the United States. The center houses anywhere from 1,500 to 4,000 missionaries year-round.

That's what I know in general; I can also speak a little from personal experience. Personally, I have been to Bulgaria, France, Austria, England, and South Africa. I've been told that "Tijuana" doesn't count as Mexico, so you can leave that off ;-). I speak Bulgarian fluently, French passably, and conversational Japanese (planning to go next year). Last year, all three of my roommates visited mainland China, all for different reasons and all with different people. I missed out, but did go to visit family in South Africa instead. My roommates could speak Korean, Russian, Spanish, and German between them. We also speak English, believe it or not (yes, I'm glaring at you, Mr. British Person).

If we switch to my workplace, a tiny tech startup with all LDS employees (5 of them), you'll find a Tagalog speaker, a Norwegian speaker (who married a Norwegian), another German speaker, an Afrikaans speaker, and I can speak to my boss in Bulgarian. All have been to the respective countries.

That's probably enough. It was a fun rant, and it's not likely to get read, since I took too long writing it, and we all know that only those comments posted in the first five minutes get read. Still, here I am, posting anyway. I hope *someone* enjoys it.

Wow ... just ... wow. How to put this:

I'm LDS/Mormon. I live in Provo, Utah. My dad works at BYU. I've lived here most of my life. So I have an idea of what I'm talking about.

Let's start with Brigham Young University: BYU has an extensive study abroad program. I have heard that BYU has, at any one time, over 1,300 students studying abroad; this number is more than any other university in the United States, both as an absolute figure and as a percentage. There are volunteer or study programs in Japan, Spain, England, Austria, Jordan, Namibia, South Africa, Ghana (my grandmother just got back from Ghana), Bolivia, Romania, Australia, Russia, Ukraine, New Zealand, and a few others. Most of the U.S. has heard of "Israel/Palestine," but I'd hazard that more Mormons have actually *been there*. Heck, I've had a Palestinian over to my house before. We talked about the conflict a little, but mostly he wanted to rant about his speeding ticket (turns out that Palestinians are people too). The BYU Jerusalem Center is currently shut down because of the recent violence, but when operating it had a 170-student capacity and was always full. Getting in was quite competitive.

Another good indicator is just to look at the languages taught at BYU. Actually listing them off would add a painful amount to this post, but you might want to poke here, here, here, or here.

Next to BYU is the LDS missionary training center, where a lot of those Mormon missionaries you love to hate get trained. They teach about 50 languages (the number fluctuates a little based on need) and send those missionaries off to about 120 different countries (the number fluctuates a little based on politics). At any given time, there are about 60,000 missionaries out, and most of those are outside of the United States. The center houses anywhere from 1,500 to 4,000 missionaries year-round.

That's what I know in general; I can also speak a little from personal experience. Personally, I have been to Bulgaria, France, Austria, England, and South Africa. I've been told that "Tijuana" doesn't count as Mexico, so you can leave that off ;-). I speak Bulgarian fluently, French passably, and conversational Japanese (planning to go next year). Last year, all three of my roommates visited mainland China, all for different reasons and all with different people. I missed out, but did go to visit family in South Africa instead. My roommates could speak Korean, Russian, Spanish, and German between them. We also speak English, believe it or not (yes, I'm glaring at you, Mr. British Person).

If we switch to my workplace, a tiny tech startup with all LDS employees (5 of them), you'll find a Tagalog speaker, a Norwegian speaker (who married a Norwegian), another German speaker, an Afrikaans speaker, and I can speak to my boss in Bulgarian. All have been to the respective countries.

That's probably enough. It was a fun rant, and it's not likely to get read, since I took too long writing it, and we all know that only those comments posted in the first five minutes get read. Still, here I am, posting anyway. I hope *someone* enjoys it.

Wow ... just ... wow. How to put this:

I'm LDS/Mormon. I live in Provo, Utah. My dad works at BYU. I've lived here most of my life. So I have an idea of what I'm talking about.

Let's start with Brigham Young University: BYU has an extensive study abroad program. I have heard that BYU has, at any one time, over 1,300 students studying abroad; this number is more than any other university in the United States, both as an absolute figure and as a percentage. There are volunteer or study programs in Japan, Spain, England, Austria, Jordan, Namibia, South Africa, Ghana (my grandmother just got back from Ghana), Bolivia, Romania, Australia, Russia, Ukraine, New Zealand, and a few others. Most of the U.S. has heard of "Israel/Palestine," but I'd hazard that more Mormons have actually *been there*. Heck, I've had a Palestinian over to my house before. We talked about the conflict a little, but mostly he wanted to rant about his speeding ticket (turns out that Palestinians are people too). The BYU Jerusalem Center is currently shut down because of the recent violence, but when operating it had a 170-student capacity and was always full. Getting in was quite competitive.

Another good indicator is just to look at the languages taught at BYU. Actually listing them off would add a painful amount to this post, but you might want to poke here, here, here, or here.

Next to BYU is the LDS missionary training center, where a lot of those Mormon missionaries you love to hate get trained. They teach about 50 languages (the number fluctuates a little based on need) and send those missionaries off to about 120 different countries (the number fluctuates a little based on politics). At any given time, there are about 60,000 missionaries out, and most of those are outside of the United States. The center houses anywhere from 1,500 to 4,000 missionaries year-round.

That's what I know in general; I can also speak a little from personal experience. Personally, I have been to Bulgaria, France, Austria, England, and South Africa. I've been told that "Tijuana" doesn't count as Mexico, so you can leave that off ;-). I speak Bulgarian fluently, French passably, and conversational Japanese (planning to go next year). Last year, all three of my roommates visited mainland China, all for different reasons and all with different people. I missed out, but did go to visit family in South Africa instead. My roommates could speak Korean, Russian, Spanish, and German between them. We also speak English, believe it or not (yes, I'm glaring at you, Mr. British Person).

If we switch to my workplace, a tiny tech startup with all LDS employees (5 of them), you'll find a Tagalog speaker, a Norwegian speaker (who married a Norwegian), another German speaker, an Afrikaans speaker, and I can speak to my boss in Bulgarian. All have been to the respective countries.

That's probably enough. It was a fun rant, and it's not likely to get read, since I took too long writing it, and we all know that only those comments posted in the first five minutes get read. Still, here I am, posting anyway. I hope *someone* enjoys it.

Wow ... just ... wow. How to put this:

I'm LDS/Mormon. I live in Provo, Utah. My dad works at BYU. I've lived here most of my life. So I have an idea of what I'm talking about.

Let's start with Brigham Young University: BYU has an extensive study abroad program. I have heard that BYU has, at any one time, over 1,300 students studying abroad; this number is more than any other university in the United States, both as an absolute figure and as a percentage. There are volunteer or study programs in Japan, Spain, England, Austria, Jordan, Namibia, South Africa, Ghana (my grandmother just got back from Ghana), Bolivia, Romania, Australia, Russia, Ukraine, New Zealand, and a few others. Most of the U.S. has heard of "Israel/Palestine," but I'd hazard that more Mormons have actually *been there*. Heck, I've had a Palestinian over to my house before. We talked about the conflict a little, but mostly he wanted to rant about his speeding ticket (turns out that Palestinians are people too). The BYU Jerusalem Center is currently shut down because of the recent violence, but when operating it had a 170-student capacity and was always full. Getting in was quite competitive.

Another good indicator is just to look at the languages taught at BYU. Actually listing them off would add a painful amount to this post, but you might want to poke here, here, here, or here.

Next to BYU is the LDS missionary training center, where a lot of those Mormon missionaries you love to hate get trained. They teach about 50 languages (the number fluctuates a little based on need) and send those missionaries off to about 120 different countries (the number fluctuates a little based on politics). At any given time, there are about 60,000 missionaries out, and most of those are outside of the United States. The center houses anywhere from 1,500 to 4,000 missionaries year-round.

That's what I know in general; I can also speak a little from personal experience. Personally, I have been to Bulgaria, France, Austria, England, and South Africa. I've been told that "Tijuana" doesn't count as Mexico, so you can leave that off ;-). I speak Bulgarian fluently, French passably, and conversational Japanese (planning to go next year). Last year, all three of my roommates visited mainland China, all for different reasons and all with different people. I missed out, but did go to visit family in South Africa instead. My roommates could speak Korean, Russian, Spanish, and German between them. We also speak English, believe it or not (yes, I'm glaring at you, Mr. British Person).

If we switch to my workplace, a tiny tech startup with all LDS employees (5 of them), you'll find a Tagalog speaker, a Norwegian speaker (who married a Norwegian), another German speaker, an Afrikaans speaker, and I can speak to my boss in Bulgarian. All have been to the respective countries.

That's probably enough. It was a fun rant, and it's not likely to get read, since I took too long writing it, and we all know that only those comments posted in the first five minutes get read. Still, here I am, posting anyway. I hope *someone* enjoys it.

The more exposure to germs you get as a child, the stronger your immune system becomes.

That's true to a point, but too much exposure is really bad, just like too much exposure to stress is bad for your health (some stress is good of course).

Don't be worried about anti-bacterial soap creating "supergerms" though. According to this news report of research (click here for a more original article about the research). I know you didn't mention anti-bacterial soap, but all the anti-baterial stuff we use may not be the cause of people not having immunities to diseases.

I do agree kids should play outside more (coming from me, who's spent a lot of life in front of a computer screen).