Slashdot Mirror
Top 25 Censored Stories of 2007
Vexorian writes "Is there direct or indirect censorship in the media towards delicate but important topics? Project censored lists 25 stories that did not seem to get the attention they deserved. Whether intentionally or not, for the most part the media skipped over these important topics. From the article: 'Throughout 2005 and 2006, a large underground debate raged regarding the future of the Internet. More recently referred to as network neutrality, the issue has become a tug of war with cable companies on the one hand and consumers and Internet service providers on the other. Yet despite important legislative proposals and Supreme Court decisions throughout 2005, the issue was almost completely ignored in the headlines until 2006.1 And, except for occasional coverage on CNBC's Kudlow & Kramer, mainstream television remains hands-off to this day'."
Sounds like a zealot extremist. While I believe some, I'm more than sure someone *heard* something and is trying to get their name in lights.
Move along, nothing to see here.
#1 Future of Internet Debate Ignored by Media
#2 Halliburton Charged with Selling Nuclear Technologies to Iran
#3 Oceans of the World in Extreme Danger
#4 Hunger and Homelessness Increasing in the US
#5 High-Tech Genocide in Congo
#6 Federal Whistleblower Protection in Jeopardy
#7 US Operatives Torture Detainees to Death in Afghanistan and Iraq
#8 Pentagon Exempt from Freedom of Information Act
#9 The World Bank Funds Israel-Palestine Wall
#10 Expanded Air War in Iraq Kills More Civilians
#11 Dangers of Genetically Modified Food Confirmed
#12 Pentagon Plans to Build New Landmines
#13 New Evidence Establishes Dangers of Roundup
#14 Homeland Security Contracts KBR to Build Detention Centers in the US
#15 Chemical Industry is EPA's Primary Research Partner
#16 Ecuador and Mexico Defy US on International Criminal Court
#17 Iraq Invasion Promotes OPEC Agenda
#18 Physicist Challenges Official 9-11 Story
#19 Destruction of Rainforests Worst Ever
#20 Bottled Water: A Global Environmental Problem
#21 Gold Mining Threatens Ancient Andean Glaciers
#22 $Billions in Homeland Security Spending Undisclosed
#23 US Oil Targets Kyoto in Europe
#24 Cheney's Halliburton Stock Rose Over 3000 Percent Last Year
#25 US Military in Paraguay Threatens Region
Wouldn't you know it; the most important story wasn't even listed!
It all started back when +++ATHSHHSY&#^^# NO CARRIER
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
No, because its based on pseudo-science and conspiracy theories. It is to such a ridiculous level that aMaddox even covered it. You can find numerous refutations if you take 3 seconds to search.
"When nobody else is worried about your obsessions."
668: Neighbour of the Beast
With respect to jet fuel, I'll quote you directly from the NIST page:
That is exactly when I stopped reading. You beat me to the post. Those theories have been debunked thoroughly.
Where is the Undo button for my life? Not to mention the Esc key.
I was ready to hear real censorship, but this is a laundry list of the most incredible bias I've seen in a long time, complete with a good dose of tin foil hat.
It's even internally inconsistent, exposing the bias. For example, #12 criticizes Bush for doing an "about-face" on land mines after Clinton's statements to get rid of them, but they say that research on the new breed of land mine started in 1999 -- under Clinton and before Bush.
In its effort to portray the United States as a renegade land mine loving country, it fails to mention that while we didn't sign the Ottawa treaty, we are a signatory to the land mine portion of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.
Every media outlet Fox, CNN, CBS, MSNBC, etc. Has its own agenda. To believe otherwise is just foolhardy. The only problem was that the Right felt misrepresented in the media and so Fox News became a bastion for them. Same as the CNN is a bastion for the left. Personally I can't stand either though the blunt spoken O'Reilly is hilarious to listen to every once in a while. That is the problem with creating a vacuum, something fills it. If the media had done their job properly and represented both sides instead of trying to control public opinion we wouldn't be in the mess we are now. And personally I blame Political Correctness for the fact that a lot of issues weren't represented in the media properly. Celebrities have always been easy, not to mention safe, targets.
Indeed, they were jews in 'palestine' (which was never a country, but a Trans-Jordanian region) before the State of Israel. There was no jewish independence, jewish majority. No war of '67 or '74 nor any 'wall'. In the '20s and '30s, countless massacres occured on the jewish population of Jaffa, Hebron and Safed in which man, women and children were slaughtered, raped and killed. These were not ordinary civil disorders, but were truly massacres. See here and here. So yes, there were jews there, but they didn't live very well. Let us not forget that the Mufti Al-Hussaini, grand-Mufti of Jerusalem was a personal friend of Adolf Hitler. See here. Now, this was long before any israeli 'occupation', 'apartheid' or so-called 'terrorism'. But still, the hatred was already present. Before 1967, when the Arab states after seeing their defeat started to sponsor guerilla-terrorism against Israel, there was no talk about a 'Land of Palestine'. It never existed. Palestine is the name of a region, formerly a part of Trans-Jordania. Palestinians (name originates from the ancient Philistines) have never had a national entity. They have no common history, no valuta and no culture. They actually do, but these are all respectively Syrian, Lebanese, Egyptian or Jordanian. The hate against 'the jew' did not breed from Israel's presence, it was there long before. Yes, jews owned businesses in Arab countries, but they lived there as dhymmies, second-rate citizens (as were Christians). They had to pay extra taxes and were obliged to bow when a muslem passed them in the street. Please, try to update your own knowledge of history before accusing others. See here. Instead of accusing Israel of all troubles. Israel, which is the first one at each peace talk, which tries in every way to hold to its democratic values (find one country which held itself so democratic when suffering so much terror). Israel, which actually respects all of humanity. Everyone from every religion is welcome (try to enter Mecca as a Christian). All gay people are welcome (should we look how they are treated in Israel's 35 neighbouring Muslem countries?). I could go on. The fact that the 'wall' would cover much of Palestinian land is simply not true. I have been there and have taken an organized tour of the security fence. The fence was not built to separate Palestinians, but merely for security purposes. The video on YouTube is full of factual errors. First of all, comparison with the Berlin Wall is out of the question. The Berlin Wall was built to separate people, in this case it was built to not let terrorists in. But while we are complaining about walls, let's observe another wall. The wall the United Stated has built on the border with Mexico (a country of which it does not suffer terror from), five times the size of the West Bank barrier. This is apparently totally acceptable. See here. And to be exact, we shouldn't even call this barrier a 'Wall'. The actual critical parts which consist of a concrete wall are a mere 10% of the entire length. And the fact that the World Bank financed this barrier, well, they should be proud of it. They have probably saved many lives with that gesture. Since this barrier was built in 2002, there have only been few suicide terror attacks, compared to attacks on a daily base before.
Actually, it mostly does lean left.
Fox news was created because a Murdoch decided that reality wasn't his cup of tea and wanted someplace where his brand of crackpot pseudo-fascism would be taken as gospel.CNN only appears left-wing because anything short of state media from the mouth of a fascist police state looks liberal by comparison to that steaming pile of feces masquerading as a news source.
Jeez, guy. Tell us how you really feel. (and then count to ten and take some deep breaths...) (and then put on your tinfoil hat!)
IANAP, but I have some training and hands on experience with structural integrity under adverse conditions. First, metal doesn't have to melt to be weakened. Blacksmiths do not reduce iron to a liquid, they ruin the structural integrity with heat, then use pressure to deform it. Steel columns could easily buckle under the given stresses.
Actually, no, they couldn't. That's the problem.
I am a physicist, and have worked with people who have worked with Steve Jones, who describe him as "a very careful guy."
The thing that distinguishes physicists from other people is that we believe, with Lord Kelvin, "when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely in your thoughts advanced to the state of science, whatever the matter may be."
Jones is making some legitimate numerical points. It is a little unfortunate that he is mixing an alternative hypothesis in with his critique of the NIST analysis, because the two have nothing to do with each other. But the NIST analysis is clearly badly flawed. If you run the numbers, you find that fire alone is insufficient to raise the temperature of the structural members of any of the three towers to the levels required to cause collapse.
You also find that molten aluminum, even when contaminated with hydrocarbons, does not look like the streams of falling material that were seen.
You also find that the presence of cooled liquid metal, and metal that is still glowing yellow-hot in the debris some weeks later, is inexplicable given the energies available from the burning jet fuel or office materials.
These are all facts. They do not prove anything by themselves, except that we do not understand what happened to the Twin Towers or two WTC Building 7, which suffered a nearly symmetrical collapse after being heavily damaged on one side and burning for seven hours after the planes hit the adjacent towers.
So even though you can wave your hands and say, "It seems plausible that the steel might be weakened due to fire..." the undisputed fact is that when you behave as a scientist you find that the numbers don't add up. This is what we do, and this is what all the technology you use depends on. Remember, your GPS wouldn't work if 19th century astronomers had shrugged and said, "Well, it's true that the orbit or Mercury precesses at a higher-than-expected rate, but it's probably just due to some funny mass distribution in the sun. Ok, let's go for a beer."
Scientists do not quit until the numbers add up. There is no doubt that with regard to the collapse of the Twin Towers and WTC 7 on 9/11 the numbers do not add up.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.