Go look at the the FBI website. Osama Bin Laden is not wanted by the FBI for the attacks of 9/11.
I love this... OK, so you're suggesting that the Bush Administration has lied about OBL's involvement in the 9/11 attacks......but they couldn't get the FBI onboard?
Fat Osama only fooled easily lead sheep who are also fooled by other blatantly ridiculous shit...
First, this is nothing new. Bin Laden has always denied involvement.
Holy bullshit. He's taken responsibility for the attack more often than he has denied responsibility.
The only time he acknowledged being responsible, was in some supposed sham video that was "found" in Afghanistan, and claimed by the CIA as some sort of smoking gun proving he did it.
You are agreeing to a license not to abuse the name and logo of Firefox, not anything to do with the actual code.
I'm sorry, but isn't this something that Canonical alone should be agreeing to if they're the one's whose right to use Firefox's name and logo is at risk?
I don't see the point in forcing users to agree to this, just so some company that said users have no official relationship with can retain the right to use Firefox's name and logo.
It could also be that anyone who has ever watched a Discovery Channel documentary on professional demolition of large buildings has been led to believe that safely and completely collapsing such a building requires weeks of planning and absolutely precise placement and detonation of lots of explosives.
Or you could just thow some kerosene on it.
I never understood this weak attempt at a sarcastic rebuttal from you "truthers". It's like you just can't wrap your minds around the fact that one of the goals of a controlled demolition is to not cause billions of dollars in damage to surrounding buildings...
That still doesn't explain why the owner of the building himself said that they blew it up.
He didn't say that. The word "pull" is only used in demolitions to mean, literally, pull the structure down using cables. The 9/11 "truthers" gave it the meaning of "explosive demolition".
There's really no point in furthering this discussion until we get past the mental deficiency that allows you to believe that all of the steel in the entire building had to have melted (or even just been touched by fire) in order for the entire structure to collapse.
1) If WTC7 fell due fire, then NIST will release a report saying that it fell due to fire. 2) NIST releases a report saying WTC7 fell due to fire. 3) Therefore, WTC7 fell due to fire.
1) If WTC7 was brought down as part of some sort of conspiracy, then NIST will release a report saying that it wasn't a conspiracy. 2) NIST releases a report saying it wasn't a conspiracy. 3) Therefore, WTC7 was brought down as part of some sort of conspiracy.
My money says that someone on the ground mistakenly said that WTC7 had already gone down, and the editor on a snap decision decided to break it before anyone else. Turns out he was wrong.
It was also known for a few hours before the actual collapse that WTC7 was in danger of collapsing. My personal belief is that this information was filtered down to the reporter and was, somewhere along the line, misunderstood.
Yeah, we've been so lucky to find Mohammed Atta's passport in pristine condition several blocks from Ground Zero one day after that hell-like firestorm brought down 1.2 million ton of material.
For starters, the Madrid Tower is far shorter than the WTC buildings and is much more prone to a complete collapse, which is what we're talking about here.
What reason is there to believe this is true?
Collapses in taller buildings will tend to leave at least something intact because of pancaking.
Do you have examples of this? Keep in mind, they should be as similar to the Twin Towers as possible. Personally, I think you're going to have some serious problems finding comparable data points. Good luck...
Secondly, look at the huge intensity of that fire relative to the size of the building itself. It encompassed the entire building:
Right. The Windsor building had a much smaller floor area than the Twin Towers. No surprises here.
That didn't happen in the WTC collapses.
Why do you think it had to?
You can't melt all the steel in a very large building to induce a complete collapse [...]
Ah-ha! I have a question: why did you lie to me about not being a conspiracy theorist?
Only conspiracy theorists parrot this asinine claim that "all the steel" had to melt before the building could collapse. I mean, that statement of yours is ignorant on levels no man should ever reach.
After being methiodically stripped of all insulation before the fire and after burning for dozens hour hours.
Unlike this building, which had its insulation intact and which burned for only a few hours before collapsing.
Details, details.
I can't tell which building you're referring to, because neither the Windsor building nor WTC7 were "methiodically [sic] stripped of all insulation before the fire".
But I think your last paragraph may be referring to WTC7, in which case "a few hours" is quite wrong. The fires in WTC7 burned, unfought, for roughly 7 hours.
Fireproofing isn't the Holy Grail. It's only there to fend off the heat long enough to let whatever emergency response takes place do its thing before Really Bad Things happen.
If the WTC 7 did come down because of a government conspiracy (and I'm not saying that it did or didn't!) then it would stand to reason that a federal agency like NIST would draw a conclusion of structural failure rather than deliberate demolition. No big surprises here.
That's called affirming the consequent. It's not insightful, informative, or valuable in any way; it's a fallacy.
In particular, why would it happen at nearly free-fall speed, as if every column in the structure failed simultaneously? That's the thing that gets me. I would expect a much slower, more incremental collapse. Guess I have to go read TFR.
Actually, NIST puts the collapse time at 40% slower than free-fall. The reason it seemed so sudden and quick is because we've only ever had video of one side of the building when it finally fell.
If YOU have doubts about his statements, then you must not know how the English language works.
Funny, that... Are you aware that the "they" in his statement refers to the FDNY? Are you accusing the FDNY of demolishing WTC7 and then remaining quiet about it for 7 years while "the government" claims it collapsed on its own?
All this after they lost over 300 of their brothers?
Also, the hijackers weren't using assumed names, they appeared on the flight manifests, and they were known. It doesn't take very long to add 2 and 2...
It's in how the government knew exactly who was responsible, the minute it happened, and flew them the hell out of the country. WE KNOW THIS. Why doesn't anyone focus on it??
Total nonsense. The rest of bin Laden family had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks.
Also, the hijackers weren't using assumed names, they appeared on the flight manifests, and they were known. It doesn't take very long to add 2 and 2...
Also, bin Laden's relatives were allowed to leave the country after the national ground stop was lifted and not without being questioned. http://911myths.com/html/family_flights.html
Not long after this shit, there was a building in Europe, where the fire was so intense, it burned everything off. The steel structure was still standing [...]
I'm pretty sure you're talking about the Windsor building in Madrid.
I've got news for you, buddy: It actually works against you.
First, the Windsor building had a concrete core and two concrete technical floors. A very different design from that of the Twin Towers.
Second, the steel portions of the building exposed to the fire did in fact get all melty and collapsey. The only reason the building is still standing is because of the features I mentioned above.
[...] was he a sorority-obsessed homicidal madman in the middle of a psychiatric breakdown or a meticulous criminal mastermind leaving no detail to chance?
Not saying that happened, but it's telling that it was the first thing that went through my mind when I heard this.
Telling of what? It says less about the government and more about your state of mind (note: I'm not implying insanity here).
I'm not sure why people use the phrase "it's telling" just before giving their opinion, as if they're some kind universal metric and that opinion is a factual representation of the situation or individual.
This is after expressly asking users to submit bugs when they encounter them. I've given up, and I'm sure I'm not alone on this.
I've only ever submitted a few bug reports. My first was actually a report and fix for a pretty minor bug in phpBB. The second was simply a bug report for Miranda IM. The third was a bug report for OpenOffice.org...
It was assigned and marked as P3 priority ("P3 marks non-trivial problems which probably affect a noticeable number of users. Issues with this priority must be fixed before the target release."). The awesome part is that they never assigned a target release for this bugfix, so the whole P3 classification is utterly meaningless as a motivator.
Honestly, I probably could have fixed this particular bug myself by now.
Anyway, I haven't filed a bug report since. I just don't care. I appreciate and respect that most developers of OSS are doing this in their spare time, but... I just don't care.
I probably wouldn't be as upset with OOo if they at least gave my bug a P4 priority. Leaving it at P3 and not assigning a target release just seems incredibly lazy.
I've seen marriages so sick and dysfunctional I almost wish one of the parties would kill the other. Everyone's life would get better if one of them just did it.
You're a fool.
There's a little concept called divorce. It's actually quite popular here in the States and it's a much better solution to the problem than murder ever will be.
(Also, the little I've read from the trial indicates that all the abuse flowed from Hans to Nina.)
I've been using the RC releases, and while I do like the new browser, the memory footprint is still a monster. Currently, it's using over 175MB of ram for the windows I have open (21 different pages) - and that seems excessive to me. I've had Opera 9.5 up over 200MB just by viewing a number of umm... image-intensive websites...
Slashdot Mirror
Another words [...]
The phrase is "in other words"...
I love this... OK, so you're suggesting that the Bush Administration has lied about OBL's involvement in the 9/11 attacks... ...but they couldn't get the FBI onboard?
Actually, "Fat Osama" isn't as blatantly ridiculous as you'd like to believe: http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Confession_video
Holy bullshit. He's taken responsibility for the attack more often than he has denied responsibility.
Again, bullshit.
Catch up a bit: http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Responsibility
I'm sorry, but isn't this something that Canonical alone should be agreeing to if they're the one's whose right to use Firefox's name and logo is at risk?
I don't see the point in forcing users to agree to this, just so some company that said users have no official relationship with can retain the right to use Firefox's name and logo.
As a Firefox user, I think this is idiotic.
It could also be that anyone who has ever watched a Discovery Channel documentary on professional demolition of large buildings has been led to believe that safely and completely collapsing such a building requires weeks of planning and absolutely precise placement and detonation of lots of explosives.
Or you could just thow some kerosene on it.
I never understood this weak attempt at a sarcastic rebuttal from you "truthers". It's like you just can't wrap your minds around the fact that one of the goals of a controlled demolition is to not cause billions of dollars in damage to surrounding buildings...
That still doesn't explain why the owner of the building himself said that they blew it up.
He didn't say that. The word "pull" is only used in demolitions to mean, literally, pull the structure down using cables. The 9/11 "truthers" gave it the meaning of "explosive demolition".
There's really no point in furthering this discussion until we get past the mental deficiency that allows you to believe that all of the steel in the entire building had to have melted (or even just been touched by fire) in order for the entire structure to collapse.
Why do you believe this must be true?
No, it's correct. It actually works both ways.
1) If WTC7 fell due fire, then NIST will release a report saying that it fell due to fire.
2) NIST releases a report saying WTC7 fell due to fire.
3) Therefore, WTC7 fell due to fire.
1) If WTC7 was brought down as part of some sort of conspiracy, then NIST will release a report saying that it wasn't a conspiracy.
2) NIST releases a report saying it wasn't a conspiracy.
3) Therefore, WTC7 was brought down as part of some sort of conspiracy.
This is exactly why it's a worthless argument.
My money says that someone on the ground mistakenly said that WTC7 had already gone down, and the editor on a snap decision decided to break it before anyone else. Turns out he was wrong.
It was also known for a few hours before the actual collapse that WTC7 was in danger of collapsing. My personal belief is that this information was filtered down to the reporter and was, somewhere along the line, misunderstood.
Yeah, we've been so lucky to find Mohammed Atta's passport in pristine condition several blocks from Ground Zero one day after [...]
Also, this is just wrong. His passport was found on the street below; after the impact, but before the collapses.
Yeah, we've been so lucky to find Mohammed Atta's passport in pristine condition several blocks from Ground Zero one day after that hell-like firestorm brought down 1.2 million ton of material.
This... survived this...
For starters, the Madrid Tower is far shorter than the WTC buildings and is much more prone to a complete collapse, which is what we're talking about here.
What reason is there to believe this is true?
Collapses in taller buildings will tend to leave at least something intact because of pancaking.
Do you have examples of this? Keep in mind, they should be as similar to the Twin Towers as possible. Personally, I think you're going to have some serious problems finding comparable data points. Good luck...
Secondly, look at the huge intensity of that fire relative to the size of the building itself. It encompassed the entire building:
Right. The Windsor building had a much smaller floor area than the Twin Towers. No surprises here.
That didn't happen in the WTC collapses.
Why do you think it had to?
You can't melt all the steel in a very large building to induce a complete collapse [...]
Ah-ha! I have a question: why did you lie to me about not being a conspiracy theorist?
Only conspiracy theorists parrot this asinine claim that "all the steel" had to melt before the building could collapse. I mean, that statement of yours is ignorant on levels no man should ever reach.
Do you understand why?
After being methiodically stripped of all insulation before the fire and after burning for dozens hour hours.
Unlike this building, which had its insulation intact and which burned for only a few hours before collapsing.
Details, details.
I can't tell which building you're referring to, because neither the Windsor building nor WTC7 were "methiodically [sic] stripped of all insulation before the fire".
But I think your last paragraph may be referring to WTC7, in which case "a few hours" is quite wrong. The fires in WTC7 burned, unfought, for roughly 7 hours.
Fireproofing isn't the Holy Grail. It's only there to fend off the heat long enough to let whatever emergency response takes place do its thing before Really Bad Things happen.
If the WTC 7 did come down because of a government conspiracy (and I'm not saying that it did or didn't!) then it would stand to reason that a federal agency like NIST would draw a conclusion of structural failure rather than deliberate demolition. No big surprises here.
That's called affirming the consequent. It's not insightful, informative, or valuable in any way; it's a fallacy.
In particular, why would it happen at nearly free-fall speed, as if every column in the structure failed simultaneously? That's the thing that gets me. I would expect a much slower, more incremental collapse. Guess I have to go read TFR.
Actually, NIST puts the collapse time at 40% slower than free-fall. The reason it seemed so sudden and quick is because we've only ever had video of one side of the building when it finally fell.
Check out the videos on this page: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_videos/wtc_videos.html
If YOU have doubts about his statements, then you must not know how the English language works.
Funny, that... Are you aware that the "they" in his statement refers to the FDNY? Are you accusing the FDNY of demolishing WTC7 and then remaining quiet about it for 7 years while "the government" claims it collapsed on its own?
All this after they lost over 300 of their brothers?
Also, the hijackers weren't using assumed names, they appeared on the flight manifests, and they were known. It doesn't take very long to add 2 and 2...
I just wanted to add this: http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Identifying_the_Hijackers
Also, a much more informative link from the same site about the bin Laden family flight: http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Bin_Laden_family_flight
It's in how the government knew exactly who was responsible, the minute it happened, and flew them the hell out of the country. WE KNOW THIS. Why doesn't anyone focus on it??
Total nonsense. The rest of bin Laden family had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks.
Also, the hijackers weren't using assumed names, they appeared on the flight manifests, and they were known. It doesn't take very long to add 2 and 2...
Also, bin Laden's relatives were allowed to leave the country after the national ground stop was lifted and not without being questioned. http://911myths.com/html/family_flights.html
Not long after this shit, there was a building in Europe, where the fire was so intense, it burned everything off. The steel structure was still standing [...]
I'm pretty sure you're talking about the Windsor building in Madrid.
I've got news for you, buddy: It actually works against you.
First, the Windsor building had a concrete core and two concrete technical floors. A very different design from that of the Twin Towers.
Second, the steel portions of the building exposed to the fire did in fact get all melty and collapsey. The only reason the building is still standing is because of the features I mentioned above.
http://www.911myths.com/html/madrid_windsor_tower.html
http://www.debunking911.com/madrid.htm
[...] was he a sorority-obsessed homicidal madman in the middle of a psychiatric breakdown or a meticulous criminal mastermind leaving no detail to chance?
Those aren't really mutually exclusive...
Listen to the song Crazy Bitch, it's really quite funny [...]
Not after the hundredth time on the radio. That song is just annoying...
Not saying that happened, but it's telling that it was the first thing that went through my mind when I heard this.
Telling of what? It says less about the government and more about your state of mind (note: I'm not implying insanity here).
I'm not sure why people use the phrase "it's telling" just before giving their opinion, as if they're some kind universal metric and that opinion is a factual representation of the situation or individual.
This is after expressly asking users to submit bugs when they encounter them. I've given up, and I'm sure I'm not alone on this.
I've only ever submitted a few bug reports. My first was actually a report and fix for a pretty minor bug in phpBB. The second was simply a bug report for Miranda IM. The third was a bug report for OpenOffice.org...
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=66871
Almost exactly two years ago...
It was assigned and marked as P3 priority ("P3 marks non-trivial problems which probably affect a noticeable number of users. Issues with this priority must be fixed before the target release."). The awesome part is that they never assigned a target release for this bugfix, so the whole P3 classification is utterly meaningless as a motivator.
Honestly, I probably could have fixed this particular bug myself by now.
Anyway, I haven't filed a bug report since. I just don't care. I appreciate and respect that most developers of OSS are doing this in their spare time, but... I just don't care.
I probably wouldn't be as upset with OOo if they at least gave my bug a P4 priority. Leaving it at P3 and not assigning a target release just seems incredibly lazy.
I've seen marriages so sick and dysfunctional I almost wish one of the parties would kill the other. Everyone's life would get better if one of them just did it.
You're a fool.
There's a little concept called divorce. It's actually quite popular here in the States and it's a much better solution to the problem than murder ever will be.
(Also, the little I've read from the trial indicates that all the abuse flowed from Hans to Nina.)