We design radiant heating systems for a living, and while I am not technically an engineer (my partner is), the work I do IN MY NICHE, to toot my own horn, exceeds that which I see from engineers doing similar work.
I also program all of our (now quite extensive) databases, though I do it in filemaker so I in no way claim to be a "software engineer", even if the systems are (again tooting my own) fairly complex and heavily automated. I script and set up structures, that's all.
that said, I think the two are quite similar. In both cases you are using particular sets of tools to solve technical or logical problems. The only difference is the toolset (your knowledge of fluid dynamics vs. your knowledge of C++, arrays, whatever) and the nature of the problems (physical vs purely logical).
You are engineering. You just aren't doing it in the physical world, to physical objects. If I set up a primary/second fluid piping arrangement to hydraulically separate one circuit from another, why is that any different than deciding to set up separate data into more discreet tables with more robust relationships to make it too "flow" better?
I'm open to other arguements, but I have to say, it sure feels similar to me. Just the rules in the software world were made by man and the ones out in the real world were just discovered by us;)
9 times out of 10 in life, if something sucks, there is something you could have done or could be doing to make it suck less or not at all.
That is, that bad things don't usually happen in a vacuum, and that usually there is some shared culpability in most situations. Like the middle east; there is no reasonable arguement that we (the west) have not continued to exacerbate the situation there for quite some time now.
Pointing out that perhaps we should work on what we have direct control over, our OWN actions, first and foremost is then perceived as "blame", mainly by people who cannot deal with "shades of grey" for which everything must be black and white and right and wrong. ANY criticism of our own actions abroad is seen as traitorous, guilt ridden, spineless... pick your poison. Some of it is blame.. I think it's justifiable for us, america, to take some responsibility for the fact that we supported Saddam for a long time. We trained bin laden. we play all these games and when it bites us, we get mad. That doesn't make us noble or right, however.
Why don't we focus on our own behaviour before throwing stones at others? If we remove our own meddling from the equation, then whatever is left is justifiably worthy of our anger. As it stands now, we simply point fingers and assign blame to situations we, to some degree, have helped to create ourselves.
It's easier, and I would wager much more effective, to work on ourselves first and foremost. In fact, many very wise people have indicated that really, long term, that is all you CAN do.
That's a pure poison situation macdaddy. I hope writing it down helps you get some perspective and clarity on the matter, but let me just point out that you can't kill yourself to keep other things in order. How much do you see your family now? How important is the area really if all you are doing is working and sleeping?
I'd say, have a conversation with the people you are loyal to, who have earned your loyalty, and be absolutely frank. Professional, but honest. You know you can't keep this up. You want them to succeed and you want to succeed with them. If it's not happening, cut to the chase and lay it on the line.
Either something will improve, or you'll leave. If that's not possible, it doesn't sound like you can psychologically or physically continue in your current position, so your only real choices are where to go and what to do when this is done, and start making it happen.
There are always tradeoffs to consider but ultimately, if you do not enjoy where you are spending even 8 hour days, never mind 10, 12, 14 hour days, then you are quite simply wasting your time and your life unless you are doing it short-term for a particular payoff. I'm personally away from home working 60-80 hours a week, with a new wife at home... and it's ok, though it sucks, because I know it's temporary. Come next fall, one way or another I am no longer doing this like I am now. Period. My job until then is to figure out the best way to make that reality come true and implement it.
And if I don't, I know I will burn out for sure. I love what I do, and I'm a boss, my partner and I get along great, my employees are fun to work with, lots of positive reinforcement for what we do... but, I have no social life, my personal connections are neglected, I'm exhausted all the time and EVEN IN THIS GREAT SITUATION moving into year three... it's enough. I can't live like this forever even without the psychological crushing crap you are dealing with. I don't want to wake up one day and realize I forgot to stop and live life outside of my work. I've put it aside for a specific goal.. to build something new and great (IMHO).. for a specific amount of time. And that's all I can do if I want to stay human.
Best of luck man. Do what you know is right for you.. and you know what it is, even if it's not everything you could possibly want right now.
The point is, with a concentrated effort GREAT gains can be made. With a diffuse effort, small, longer term gains could be made.
Think of money as energy. Low-level energy isn't all that useful. Concentrated bursts of energy are much more useful.
I'm not saying this plan is right or wrong, but there is definitely a debate to be had. I never questioned the wisdom of perpetual interest being the best route before, but I can see the point here; it's about more than money. You can reap dividends in human terms, by focusing on something and stomping on it hard now.
To illustrate the point, what if Bill took his money and split it among a very large number of poor people? If he invested, and divided up the interest, it would be nearly a nearly useless gesture. But the raw cash could give bigger checks that could actually be of use to the poor people, who could use that money to "leg up" out of poverty. Again, just to illustrate the point, not that he should actually go out and do that.
well heck, a hundred years ago you wouldn't have even had movies, so the whole thing is a moot point!
That is the dumbest arguement I've ever heard. You have this very useful tool for being instantly contacted at any time, and it has some great uses, such as being ABLE TO BE REACHED IN AN EMERGENCY.
Make people turn off ringers in theatres, great, no problem; as has been pointed out, if it's a problem, the owner of the theatre can easily enforce a no-talk policy in his or her establishment. But drop the luddite rhetoric and realize that while you may not want to be instantly contactable, some people do, and have some good reasons for it. Who the fuck are you to decide how they should live?
Let the signal through, let them get up, answer the call and leave to talk. And come join us here in the modern day, while you're at it.
I was thinking more along the lines of things like wal mart and others lobbying to water down the "organic" label and things like that... things that in no way serve the people, destroy small businesses actually operating with spirit and integrity, and allow large business to profit with disingenuous marketing.
Your points may or may not be valid.. I am not educated on those topics.. and I am a believer in some regulations. Not all of them are bad. But, no doubt legislative influence is a major strategy of big business, and not just in a "defensive" way. And the major parties play ball, quite obviously, whether because they believe that was is good for business is good for people, or because they are bought and paid for, I don't know.. but they play ball too much, that much is for sure.
You're right. I am angry, and I make angry statements sometimes, getting frustrated at people who continue to hold W's coattails and act like because we are rich and powerful we can do whatever we want, however we want, never lose, and it's our god given right to do so because we're america dammit and we're the good guys!
I think it's stupid at best, and evil at worst. Sometimes that makes me less than diplomatic. But you're right.. it's not effective communication.
Right, because the government certainly isn't known for huge pork barrel spending projects or preferential treatment to large businesses. Certainly not!
Guy.. it's small business they shit on. Big Business has an awful lot of say up there on capitol hill.
As others have said, the military conflict with Iraq's army was never questioned.
However, you might remember the largest protests in history were against starting this war, worldwide, including america. We were not in solidarity for doing this in the first place, for a whole lot of reasons, one of which was not believing we could make Iraq a "Beacon of democracy", others being NO solid justification for invasion, period.
So you can pretend that we've all been cheering this on from the get go, but really, it was only congress, the white house, and their brainwashed chest thumping red blooded followers.
I'm an apple fanboy.. fairly extreme one, in fact.. the newest iTunes update has apparently made it so that if I rip a CD and put it on my iTunes, upload to my iPod, I CAN NOT pull those songs off the iPod onto another computer... EVEN IF THAT COMPUTER IS AUTHORIZED for my iTunes account!
You can pull off iTunes PURCHASES, but not CDs you have ripped on your own on another computer. So if you have a work computer and home computer, you now have to rip the CD individually to both computers to use them in iTunes unless you want to keep the iPod plugged in. Of course, you can't add it to the library on iTunes so you have choose which one to use for your playlists, etc...
Sweet, huh? They did ok for awhile, but this is a slippery slope and the slip has started, IMHO. I am not bailing on this yet, as I can understand the reasoning and you CAN just leave the iPod plugged in while you are there.. fine.. but it's one step closer to my bail out point for sure.
However, we have these public airwaves we let companies lease. Isn't that nice of us? How about we ban political advertising on them completely. Then, we earmark a set percentage of airtime for public informational/campaign access viewing. Say X percent during regular seasons and Y percent during election seasons.
Access to this airtime: split equally among qualifying candidates for the elections of a particular type perhaps only for races large enough to reach a significant percentage of the viewing area (so not dog catcher, but yes to U.S. senator, etc). Qualifying candidate means, on the ballot.
For general issue-driven ads, they get access by petition signing and small donations (max $5, like we do here in maine for clean elections funds qualifying) to support a particular ad topic, which gets to run for a certain amount of time. When you pass muster, you get in line for available airtime.
That's a rough idea, in progress. any thoughts from the peanut gallery?
I am not an energy expert... but it cannot possibly be true that the efficiency benefit you get from this outweighs the what.. 50% ? 30%?.. transmission losses of a centralized system? And don't even factor in maintenance costs for the transmission system itself.
I believe we have a centralized system because when all this got going, no individuals could possibly afford, nor would they want to own, personal electrical generation. Now you can have a nearly silent, odorless method of generating electricity for your home, but we already have an infrastructure you can just hook into in most cases for less initial expense.
I agree. And the ACTION I'd like to see is holding people running rampant over the consitution, lying to the american people, and engaging in thinly veiled profiteering HELD ACCOUNTABLE.
Screw impeachment. We should be seeing charges of Treason.
There are lines I would not cross, of course, and that would cause me to be a revolutionary if force tried to make me cross them. I believe most people have these lines.
However, the power of democracy is that in many respects we can avoid crossing those final lines WITHOUT having to resort to violence.
So there are limits, for sure. But for the most part, I am comfortable doing my best to be heard, to have my input, and to allow my fellow people to have their own say. I feel "ethically correct" about it because NO system is perfect, and no person is perfect, and to live in fear of your own imperfection would be pretty stupid. I do my best to be informed and to see things from as many angles as I can. That is all I can do.
That's a pretty broad brush you're stroking with right there.
I, for one, am not so absolutely sure of my stances that I think everyone should agree with me. In fact, I'm pretty sure if everything were the way I thought it should be, it would be a horrendous disaster. Because I'm human, and I'm fallible.
Therefor, I very much welcome opposing points of views.
Getting the most people actively engaged in our governance is in all of our best interests (unless you are a megalomaniac). Because a whole lot of people not voting are "independants" who are not toeing party lines and instead have some real thoughts on real issues.. some right, some wrong, but certainly enough to have impacts beyond the bullshit "blue state red state" dichotomy we're getting stuck with in the meantime.
Get educated a little, go vote, go ahead and disagree with me. That's fine. At least then when really big problems come up, you guys are used to going out and voting, and talking to representatives, and PARTICIPATING IN POWER so when we DO agree, some stuff can really happen!
Opting out just leaves the power in the hands of the few.. something that was decided a long time ago to be a bad idea, and something that is definitely still not a good idea today.
The only people who would ever change the voting strategy are "third parties" and independants. It's not just a way to effect the change, it's the ONLY way we'll EVER effect the change needed.
all well and good.. just need one other example of hand-holdable chunks being all that is left of a major airline crash, and my mind will rest easy.
Just to be clear, I have no attachment to this being true or not true. I don't like conspiracy theories and I resist them on a regular basis. I just don't see any evidence that backs up what I'm being told here. I have not seen sheared off wings completely confetti themselves so you can pick up by hand all the chunks that remain of them, and I have not seen any other shots of crash sites in which a plane has been so absolutely obliterated.. and lots of shots that indicate that such a crash site is not only far from typical, but pretty much unheard of. Yet it supposedly happened twice in the same day? Seems unlikely.
I'm not an expert nor a full time researcher on these matters. Just interested in knowing what's up. So if you want to offer counter evidence, please do, but stop attributing motives or behaviour patterns to me when you know exactly jack and shit about who I am.
That's interesting, cause every single image I can find or have ever seen of a crash site has big hunks of plane in it. So you let me know when you find any documentation whatsoever that supports your theory. I'll keep looking.
Do you see a plane there? I don't see anything resembling a plane. Whereas if you look at other pictures of other plane crashes, there is ALWAYS big, obvious chunks of plane wreckage.
This is a glaring oddity. Especially since it happened not once, but twice in the same day, something that to the best of my knowledge has never happened before.
Go ahead, I'll wait; find another picture of a plane crash site that doesn't have any big chunks of wing, engines, or what have you.
Again, I don't know what's up or why. But I'm pretty damn sure the picture you linked is not the crash site of a large commercial airliner at this time. All it would take is a plausible explanation of how it is possible no large chunks of plane made it through.
I have no idea who alex jones is, but as far as something other than what we were told being a part of 9/11, I just have a simple question; where did the planes GO that crashed in PA and the Pentagon?
If they vaporized due to impact and explosion, can you find ONE SINGLE example of that EVER happening before, and yet it happened twice on the same day? Honestly, if you can, let me know, because I do not like conspiracy theories, yet I cannot find a single example of a known crash site that doesn't have big obvious chunks of plane left over afterwards.
Well, other than those two. So I don't know why, or how, but I'm pretty freaking sure at this point that what I'm told happened that day did not in fact happen in the way I was told. If I'm wrong I would very gladly have that proven so I can stop thinking about it.
Slashdot Mirror
We design radiant heating systems for a living, and while I am not technically an engineer (my partner is), the work I do IN MY NICHE, to toot my own horn, exceeds that which I see from engineers doing similar work.
;)
I also program all of our (now quite extensive) databases, though I do it in filemaker so I in no way claim to be a "software engineer", even if the systems are (again tooting my own) fairly complex and heavily automated. I script and set up structures, that's all.
that said, I think the two are quite similar. In both cases you are using particular sets of tools to solve technical or logical problems. The only difference is the toolset (your knowledge of fluid dynamics vs. your knowledge of C++, arrays, whatever) and the nature of the problems (physical vs purely logical).
You are engineering. You just aren't doing it in the physical world, to physical objects. If I set up a primary/second fluid piping arrangement to hydraulically separate one circuit from another, why is that any different than deciding to set up separate data into more discreet tables with more robust relationships to make it too "flow" better?
I'm open to other arguements, but I have to say, it sure feels similar to me. Just the rules in the software world were made by man and the ones out in the real world were just discovered by us
you know the funny thing?
9 times out of 10 in life, if something sucks, there is something you could have done or could be doing to make it suck less or not at all.
That is, that bad things don't usually happen in a vacuum, and that usually there is some shared culpability in most situations. Like the middle east; there is no reasonable arguement that we (the west) have not continued to exacerbate the situation there for quite some time now.
Pointing out that perhaps we should work on what we have direct control over, our OWN actions, first and foremost is then perceived as "blame", mainly by people who cannot deal with "shades of grey" for which everything must be black and white and right and wrong. ANY criticism of our own actions abroad is seen as traitorous, guilt ridden, spineless... pick your poison. Some of it is blame.. I think it's justifiable for us, america, to take some responsibility for the fact that we supported Saddam for a long time. We trained bin laden. we play all these games and when it bites us, we get mad. That doesn't make us noble or right, however.
Why don't we focus on our own behaviour before throwing stones at others? If we remove our own meddling from the equation, then whatever is left is justifiably worthy of our anger. As it stands now, we simply point fingers and assign blame to situations we, to some degree, have helped to create ourselves.
It's easier, and I would wager much more effective, to work on ourselves first and foremost. In fact, many very wise people have indicated that really, long term, that is all you CAN do.
That's a pure poison situation macdaddy. I hope writing it down helps you get some perspective and clarity on the matter, but let me just point out that you can't kill yourself to keep other things in order. How much do you see your family now? How important is the area really if all you are doing is working and sleeping?
I'd say, have a conversation with the people you are loyal to, who have earned your loyalty, and be absolutely frank. Professional, but honest. You know you can't keep this up. You want them to succeed and you want to succeed with them. If it's not happening, cut to the chase and lay it on the line.
Either something will improve, or you'll leave. If that's not possible, it doesn't sound like you can psychologically or physically continue in your current position, so your only real choices are where to go and what to do when this is done, and start making it happen.
There are always tradeoffs to consider but ultimately, if you do not enjoy where you are spending even 8 hour days, never mind 10, 12, 14 hour days, then you are quite simply wasting your time and your life unless you are doing it short-term for a particular payoff. I'm personally away from home working 60-80 hours a week, with a new wife at home... and it's ok, though it sucks, because I know it's temporary. Come next fall, one way or another I am no longer doing this like I am now. Period. My job until then is to figure out the best way to make that reality come true and implement it.
And if I don't, I know I will burn out for sure. I love what I do, and I'm a boss, my partner and I get along great, my employees are fun to work with, lots of positive reinforcement for what we do... but, I have no social life, my personal connections are neglected, I'm exhausted all the time and EVEN IN THIS GREAT SITUATION moving into year three... it's enough. I can't live like this forever even without the psychological crushing crap you are dealing with. I don't want to wake up one day and realize I forgot to stop and live life outside of my work. I've put it aside for a specific goal.. to build something new and great (IMHO).. for a specific amount of time. And that's all I can do if I want to stay human.
Best of luck man. Do what you know is right for you.. and you know what it is, even if it's not everything you could possibly want right now.
Way to take it literally.
The point is, with a concentrated effort GREAT gains can be made. With a diffuse effort, small, longer term gains could be made.
Think of money as energy. Low-level energy isn't all that useful. Concentrated bursts of energy are much more useful.
I'm not saying this plan is right or wrong, but there is definitely a debate to be had. I never questioned the wisdom of perpetual interest being the best route before, but I can see the point here; it's about more than money. You can reap dividends in human terms, by focusing on something and stomping on it hard now.
To illustrate the point, what if Bill took his money and split it among a very large number of poor people? If he invested, and divided up the interest, it would be nearly a nearly useless gesture. But the raw cash could give bigger checks that could actually be of use to the poor people, who could use that money to "leg up" out of poverty. Again, just to illustrate the point, not that he should actually go out and do that.
well heck, a hundred years ago you wouldn't have even had movies, so the whole thing is a moot point!
That is the dumbest arguement I've ever heard. You have this very useful tool for being instantly contacted at any time, and it has some great uses, such as being ABLE TO BE REACHED IN AN EMERGENCY.
Make people turn off ringers in theatres, great, no problem; as has been pointed out, if it's a problem, the owner of the theatre can easily enforce a no-talk policy in his or her establishment. But drop the luddite rhetoric and realize that while you may not want to be instantly contactable, some people do, and have some good reasons for it. Who the fuck are you to decide how they should live?
Let the signal through, let them get up, answer the call and leave to talk. And come join us here in the modern day, while you're at it.
I was thinking more along the lines of things like wal mart and others lobbying to water down the "organic" label and things like that... things that in no way serve the people, destroy small businesses actually operating with spirit and integrity, and allow large business to profit with disingenuous marketing.
Your points may or may not be valid.. I am not educated on those topics.. and I am a believer in some regulations. Not all of them are bad. But, no doubt legislative influence is a major strategy of big business, and not just in a "defensive" way. And the major parties play ball, quite obviously, whether because they believe that was is good for business is good for people, or because they are bought and paid for, I don't know.. but they play ball too much, that much is for sure.
You're right. I am angry, and I make angry statements sometimes, getting frustrated at people who continue to hold W's coattails and act like because we are rich and powerful we can do whatever we want, however we want, never lose, and it's our god given right to do so because we're america dammit and we're the good guys!
I think it's stupid at best, and evil at worst. Sometimes that makes me less than diplomatic. But you're right.. it's not effective communication.
Right, because the government certainly isn't known for huge pork barrel spending projects or preferential treatment to large businesses. Certainly not!
Guy.. it's small business they shit on. Big Business has an awful lot of say up there on capitol hill.
As others have said, the military conflict with Iraq's army was never questioned.
However, you might remember the largest protests in history were against starting this war, worldwide, including america. We were not in solidarity for doing this in the first place, for a whole lot of reasons, one of which was not believing we could make Iraq a "Beacon of democracy", others being NO solid justification for invasion, period.
So you can pretend that we've all been cheering this on from the get go, but really, it was only congress, the white house, and their brainwashed chest thumping red blooded followers.
tried the newest release?
I'm an apple fanboy.. fairly extreme one, in fact.. the newest iTunes update has apparently made it so that if I rip a CD and put it on my iTunes, upload to my iPod, I CAN NOT pull those songs off the iPod onto another computer... EVEN IF THAT COMPUTER IS AUTHORIZED for my iTunes account!
You can pull off iTunes PURCHASES, but not CDs you have ripped on your own on another computer. So if you have a work computer and home computer, you now have to rip the CD individually to both computers to use them in iTunes unless you want to keep the iPod plugged in. Of course, you can't add it to the library on iTunes so you have choose which one to use for your playlists, etc...
Sweet, huh? They did ok for awhile, but this is a slippery slope and the slip has started, IMHO. I am not bailing on this yet, as I can understand the reasoning and you CAN just leave the iPod plugged in while you are there.. fine.. but it's one step closer to my bail out point for sure.
My idea is this (and I like yours, by the way).
Private media; do what you want.
However, we have these public airwaves we let companies lease. Isn't that nice of us? How about we ban political advertising on them completely. Then, we earmark a set percentage of airtime for public informational/campaign access viewing. Say X percent during regular seasons and Y percent during election seasons.
Access to this airtime: split equally among qualifying candidates for the elections of a particular type perhaps only for races large enough to reach a significant percentage of the viewing area (so not dog catcher, but yes to U.S. senator, etc). Qualifying candidate means, on the ballot.
For general issue-driven ads, they get access by petition signing and small donations (max $5, like we do here in maine for clean elections funds qualifying) to support a particular ad topic, which gets to run for a certain amount of time. When you pass muster, you get in line for available airtime.
That's a rough idea, in progress. any thoughts from the peanut gallery?
I'm stunned that transmission losses are so low. Thanks for the info!
I am not an energy expert... but it cannot possibly be true that the efficiency benefit you get from this outweighs the what.. 50% ? 30%?.. transmission losses of a centralized system? And don't even factor in maintenance costs for the transmission system itself.
I believe we have a centralized system because when all this got going, no individuals could possibly afford, nor would they want to own, personal electrical generation. Now you can have a nearly silent, odorless method of generating electricity for your home, but we already have an infrastructure you can just hook into in most cases for less initial expense.
Well, I would focus more on treason that kills lots and lots of people, but now that you mention it.. what WAS the downside to that again? ;)
I agree. And the ACTION I'd like to see is holding people running rampant over the consitution, lying to the american people, and engaging in thinly veiled profiteering HELD ACCOUNTABLE.
Screw impeachment. We should be seeing charges of Treason.
There are lines I would not cross, of course, and that would cause me to be a revolutionary if force tried to make me cross them. I believe most people have these lines.
However, the power of democracy is that in many respects we can avoid crossing those final lines WITHOUT having to resort to violence.
So there are limits, for sure. But for the most part, I am comfortable doing my best to be heard, to have my input, and to allow my fellow people to have their own say. I feel "ethically correct" about it because NO system is perfect, and no person is perfect, and to live in fear of your own imperfection would be pretty stupid. I do my best to be informed and to see things from as many angles as I can. That is all I can do.
That's a pretty broad brush you're stroking with right there.
I, for one, am not so absolutely sure of my stances that I think everyone should agree with me. In fact, I'm pretty sure if everything were the way I thought it should be, it would be a horrendous disaster. Because I'm human, and I'm fallible.
Therefor, I very much welcome opposing points of views.
Getting the most people actively engaged in our governance is in all of our best interests (unless you are a megalomaniac). Because a whole lot of people not voting are "independants" who are not toeing party lines and instead have some real thoughts on real issues.. some right, some wrong, but certainly enough to have impacts beyond the bullshit "blue state red state" dichotomy we're getting stuck with in the meantime.
Get educated a little, go vote, go ahead and disagree with me. That's fine. At least then when really big problems come up, you guys are used to going out and voting, and talking to representatives, and PARTICIPATING IN POWER so when we DO agree, some stuff can really happen!
Opting out just leaves the power in the hands of the few.. something that was decided a long time ago to be a bad idea, and something that is definitely still not a good idea today.
The only people who would ever change the voting strategy are "third parties" and independants. It's not just a way to effect the change, it's the ONLY way we'll EVER effect the change needed.
all well and good.. just need one other example of hand-holdable chunks being all that is left of a major airline crash, and my mind will rest easy.
Just to be clear, I have no attachment to this being true or not true. I don't like conspiracy theories and I resist them on a regular basis. I just don't see any evidence that backs up what I'm being told here. I have not seen sheared off wings completely confetti themselves so you can pick up by hand all the chunks that remain of them, and I have not seen any other shots of crash sites in which a plane has been so absolutely obliterated.. and lots of shots that indicate that such a crash site is not only far from typical, but pretty much unheard of. Yet it supposedly happened twice in the same day? Seems unlikely.
I'm not an expert nor a full time researcher on these matters. Just interested in knowing what's up. So if you want to offer counter evidence, please do, but stop attributing motives or behaviour patterns to me when you know exactly jack and shit about who I am.
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/ind ex.php?s=1eb8428abab176acaf3c35bc21931864&showtopi c=2275
Have some examples. OMG I LOOKED!
I just need one good example to the contrary. SURELY if this is so feasible there is a photo of it SOMEWHERE?
That's interesting, cause every single image I can find or have ever seen of a crash site has big hunks of plane in it. So you let me know when you find any documentation whatsoever that supports your theory. I'll keep looking.
Do you see a plane there? I don't see anything resembling a plane. Whereas if you look at other pictures of other plane crashes, there is ALWAYS big, obvious chunks of plane wreckage.
This is a glaring oddity. Especially since it happened not once, but twice in the same day, something that to the best of my knowledge has never happened before.
Go ahead, I'll wait; find another picture of a plane crash site that doesn't have any big chunks of wing, engines, or what have you.
Again, I don't know what's up or why. But I'm pretty damn sure the picture you linked is not the crash site of a large commercial airliner at this time. All it would take is a plausible explanation of how it is possible no large chunks of plane made it through.
I have no idea who alex jones is, but as far as something other than what we were told being a part of 9/11, I just have a simple question; where did the planes GO that crashed in PA and the Pentagon?
If they vaporized due to impact and explosion, can you find ONE SINGLE example of that EVER happening before, and yet it happened twice on the same day? Honestly, if you can, let me know, because I do not like conspiracy theories, yet I cannot find a single example of a known crash site that doesn't have big obvious chunks of plane left over afterwards.
Well, other than those two. So I don't know why, or how, but I'm pretty freaking sure at this point that what I'm told happened that day did not in fact happen in the way I was told. If I'm wrong I would very gladly have that proven so I can stop thinking about it.
First, the US was not the only player in most of those cases. In all of them, we were responding to overt aggression and had the backing of others.
Going it alone can never work, when you are a country that has a poor track record and no credibility in a region.
and what, exactly, would you propose we do to free them? Move in, unilaterally, and overthrow the government?
Yeah. That works REALLY WELL, doesn't it? What could possibly go wrong?